Time: Tue Nov 12 20:35:59 1996
To: tjeffoc@sirius.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Ironclad Law of Prohibition
Cc:
Bcc: liberty lists
This is the Ironclad Law of Prohibition:
When you prohibit any substance,
the price of that substance skyrockets.
The government benefits from such
a prohibition, particularly when the
government runs a monopoly for the
substance. So, at the base of the
drug war is raw economics (read "greed").
Got it?
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 07:04 PM 11/12/96 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sat, 9 Nov 1996 20:03:12 -0500
>>Peter Webster posted:
>>At 16:41 30/10/96 -0500, David F. Duncan wrote:
>>> I have been doing literature search for the past several months for
>>>a projected paper tentatively titled, "Why do the prohibitionists cling
>>>to their beliefs." One big part of the answer appears to be that when
>>>people's opinions are attacked, they do not consider the arguments
>>>against their belief; instead they organize counterarguments.
>>
>>A bit late in reply,
>That's ok, Peter-there's no time limit on a good discussion.
> >but Ive been busy with old friends for awhile.
>>I think that old classic of the philosophy of science, Kuhn's *The Structure
>>of Scientific Revolutions* goes further than anything since, and may well be
>>the definitive viewpoint for understanding how an "old guard" whether
>>scientific or in any other position of authority, can resist a new
>>fundamental viewpoint, or paradigm, until their death. And why they simply
>>construct counter-arguments, etc.
>
>This is an unfortunate characteristic of human nature. I think we should be
>able to consider ideas purely on their *merit* rather than the manner in
>which they are presented. A new idea which challenges the accepted "truth"
>is heresy, Heretics have never been popular.
>
>>
>>A former student of Kuhn, Howard Margolis, has also written of the reasons
>>(*Paradigms and Barriers*) why flat-earthers remain flat-earthers....(snip)
>>To avoid continuing a long story, the point: The barrier in the case of the
>>whole drug war/problem/prohibition, is the unshakeable conviction, never
>>examined, discussed, or even recognized by some of the principal
>>protagonists, that, in accordance with many other ideas that have come down
>>to us via Puritans, Calvinists, and Christian and other religious
>>fundamentalists, that the desire and act of changing one's state of
>>consciousness is itself somehow bad, sinful, disreputable, leading to moral
>>degradation, against God, in the words of William Bennett ....(Snip)..
>
>Certainly I agree that prohibitionists' only real success is to
>implant/exploit the conviction in the minds of many that certain drugs are
>too "bad" to ever "legalize." The primitive belief Weil refers to, if real
>would help explain the attraction of that false premise.
>
>>To continue with impeccable references, (although a few background snorts of
>>derision will be heard), Andrew Weil's *The Natural Mind,* still in print
>>for three decades, puts the lie to the
>>barrier......(snip)..................... >To reject such a fundamental
>>drive would [alteration of consciousness]
>>be tantamount to denyng that one had sexual drives. Imagine discussing such
>>ideas in a public forum today in stale-paradigm-wracked western
>>civilization. They are valuable ideas, probably of much greater inherent
>>truth than the fundamentalist inheritance, yet whether they are screamed,
>>gently suggested, or whatever, they will be shouted down, most assuredly,
>>even buy those (covertly) attracted to them. (Perhaps, as Koestler
>>maintains, ESPECIALLY by those unsure of their position).
>>
>>Thus it matters little whether the old guard is viciously attacked, politely
>>goaded, or ignored completely. The two sides ALWAYS argue pst each other,
>
>I couldn't be more in agreement. The problem is how to overcome the dissonance.
>
>>even when we should all know better as a result of, for one thing, Kuhn's
>>excellent treatise. The old-guard will die with their convictions, as always
>>happens. What may change, is that they will lose power and influence as
>>younger, more versatile thinkers persuade the uncommitted, an achievement
>>that is often long and difficult, but may actually be succeeding in
>>California and Arizona!
>>
>>
>>>Thus,
>>>strident approaches, like Tom's, tend to strengthen the opposition's
>>>commitment to their view instead of raising ANY doubt about it.
>>
>>It is under consideration here, in light of Kuhn and Margolis, that NO
>>approach can raise those doubts under circumstances of required paradigm
>>shifts. Yet stridency may, in the spirit of Sun Tzu, encourage them to make
>>fabulous blunders, (Lungren, Wilson, Lee Brown, et al.) so that the mass of
>>uncommitted may more readily see them for the intellectual fossils they are.
>>If one is excessively annoyed by stridency, the odds are that one is with
>>the old-guard, and doomed, rather than an assistant to revolution.
>>
>Whatever works, however it works. Peter's observation about forced errors
>is, I believe, very applicable to the present situation. The prohibition
>lobby is under great pressure to both explain and react to the votes in
>California & Arizona. Whatever their response, it is almost certain to
>combine error with wishful thinking and deceit. We need to respond in a way
>which exploits their great weakness; the implausibility of prohibition as
>reasonable policy and the egregious excesses of the present program. We
>also need to be mindful that our opponents have easy access to the media;
>whereas ours comes only because of issues in the news. We now have a golden
>opportunity to attack the validity of prohibition. We should not waste it.
>
>We need to disabuse ourselves, as a movement, of the need to answer our
>opponents challenge to construct a model of drug regulation which will
>achieve consensus. This will not be possible and is not the challenge,
>which is to reject prohibition. As weak and ineffectual as we have been
>standing in opposition to the prohibition colossus, we represent the only
>force which can overthrow the prohibition paradigm. If we accept *their*
>assignment to solve the drug abuse problem, we will dither on the sidelines
>while prohibition continues to expand its legions of beneficiaries.
>
>True drug policy reform is above all rational. Prohibition is irrational.
>Reform in a setting of prohibition is illusory.
>Tom O'Connell
>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail