Prohibition and the War on Drugs

During the Reagan Administration, the slogan advanced by First Lady Nancy Reagan--just say no--entered the popular lexicon.  The First Lady urged youngsters to utter a resounding NO! when tempted by others to try drugs.  While that advice seems simple enough to follow, the war on drugs has never been won.  Perhaps governmental official and policymakers ought to review what happened during Prohibition, in an effort to understand why the war on drugs is doomed to failure.Prohibition, of course, refers to the period in U.S. history (in the 1920s and 1930s) when it was illegal to manufacture, sell, and/or consume alcoholic beverages in the United States.  One of the first things to note is that just because the government had declared the consumption of alcohol illegal, consumers' demand for alcohol didn't simply disappear over night.   Quite the contrary!  If anything, demand seemed to get stronger.In a market economy, where there is a demand for a product or service, some enterprising individual(s) will find a way to satisfy that demand.  And, in doing so, earn a profit.  That's a fundamental element of a capitalist economy--the profit incentive to entrepreneurs.  During Prohibition enterpreneurs did indeed enter the market, supplying bootleg liquor to anyone willing to pay for it.  Unfortunately, most of those entrepreneurs were tied to organized crime.  Chicago was notorious for being a city filled with gangsters producing and selling bootleg liquor to cash customers during those years.After apprxoimately a dozen years, Prohibition was repealed.  It became legal once again to  manufacture, sell, and drink alcohol in the United States.  One result has been the creation and growth of giant corporations which make and sell alcohol to consumers in the United States (and worldwide).  Such companies as Coors, Anheuser-Busch, Mondavi, Gallo, just to name a few, are legal entities and  subject to U.S. income taxes.  In short, they are part of an important sector of the U.S. economy.  What's more, they have to meet health and safety standards set by governmental agencies, as they produce their products.  Legislating against vices is a no-win situation for the government.   People have appetites for alcohol, tobacco, sex, and drugs.  Decreeing that they can no longer have them legally will in no way stop the desire for them.  What happens is that the buying and selling of vice-related products simply goes underground.  Put another away, it serves to increase crime rates, put the safety and health of consumers at greaters risk, and deprive the government of much needed tax revenues.The war on drugs is effectively  hopeless.  For a variety of reasons, people want to use marijuana, cocaine, heroin, meth, and other illegal substances.  And all the sales now being made by suppliers are not being taxed by the government.  Further, legitimate businesspeople find themselves put into compromising positions as they work with suppliers, laundering their money, for example.Business is business and where there's a profit to be made, suppliers are going to meet demand, even if what they're doing is illegal.  Perhaps governmental officials and policymakers should take their cues from the Prohibition case.  Clearly, there's a need to explore ways to provide goods in an open, legal market which is regulated by the government itself.  Such an approach would prove to be more practical and beneficial to society than what's taking place now throgh an unwinnable war on drugs.