Love the sarcasm. Comparing tobacco use to illegal drugs...During World War II, cigarettes were included in American soldier's C-rations since many tobacco companies sent the soldiers cigarettes for free. Cigarette sales reached an all time high at this point, as cigarette companies were not only able to get soldiers addicted to nicotine, but specific brands also found a new loyal group of customers as soldiers who smoked their cigarettes returned from the war.[46]
After World War II, cigarette companies advertised frequently on television programs. To combat this move by the cigarette companies, the Federal Communications Commission required television stations to air anti-smoking advertisements at no cost to the organizations providing such advertisements. In 1970, Congress took their anti-smoking initiative one step further and passed the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act, banning the advertising of cigarettes on television and radio starting on January 2, 1971.
Stubby wrote:Love the sarcasm. Comparing tobacco use to illegal drugs...During World War II, cigarettes were included in American soldier's C-rations since many tobacco companies sent the soldiers cigarettes for free. Cigarette sales reached an all time high at this point, as cigarette companies were not only able to get soldiers addicted to nicotine, but specific brands also found a new loyal group of customers as soldiers who smoked their cigarettes returned from the war.[46]
After World War II, cigarette companies advertised frequently on television programs. To combat this move by the cigarette companies, the Federal Communications Commission required television stations to air anti-smoking advertisements at no cost to the organizations providing such advertisements. In 1970, Congress took their anti-smoking initiative one step further and passed the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act, banning the advertising of cigarettes on television and radio starting on January 2, 1971.
Your implied premise that since the rise of tobacco use is not due to prohibition, therefore prohibition does not increase consumption in other drugs is funny. Unless you have proof that the usages of other drugs follows a similar pattern?
Then, in 1906, the incredible happened. After over a hundred years of steady demoralization, with half her population opium addicts, or worse still, making enormous profits out of the trade, China determined to give up opium.
Stubby wrote:
The fastest rate of consumption increase occurred during WWII when your service people where provided a free addictive drug with no apparent negative side effects except coughing which disappeared over time. Its use increased in the 50s and 60s through the power of advertising as well as through second hand smoking in smokers homes.
Stubby wrote: The ban on advertising resulted in the beginning of the decline of use. I personally enjoy the ban in public buildings and aircraft as I am no longer forced to smoke against my will. I wonder how many people that this measure has saved from addiction?
From my perspective, the relationship is self evident, and hardly needing of any proof.Stubby wrote: I have not seen where you have proved that the evolution of tobacco use is in anyway related to uses of other drugs?
You really haven't met any pushers have you? I have a friend who was a former pimp/pusher (now a successfully employed man with a house, a truck, a Wife, and a New Child, which I somewhat credit to my influence upon him.) who used to roam up and down the streets looking for young girls to snag. He talks them into hitting some weed, then he gets them to try crack. In a week he has them felating strangers to feed their habit.Stubby wrote: No other drugs were handed out free or lobbied as hard or advertised as hard as tobacco.
Stubby wrote:
Now if tobacco ever gets truly banned, then we will see if the theory is true. However I do not see this ever happening and nor should it.
Looks to me that you have it all backwards.The first anti-opium edict was issued in 1729 enacting severe penalties on the sale of opium and the opening of opium-smoking divans. Similar laws were enacted in 1796 and 1800, the importation, however, continued to increase. British merchants brought opium from the British East India Company's factories in Patna and Benares,[3] in the Bengal Presidency of British India, to the coast of China, where they sold for a good profit.
With the drain of silver and the growing number of the people became victims of the drug, the Daoguang Emperor demanded action. Officials at the court, who advocated legalization of the trade in order to tax it were defeated by those who advocated suppression. In 1838, the Emperor sent Lin Zexu to Guangzhou where he quickly arrested Chinese opium dealers and summarily demanded that foreign firms turn over their stocks. When they refused, Lin stopped trade altogether and placed the foreign residents under virtual siege, eventually forcing the merchants to surrender their opium to be destroyed. In response, the British government sent expeditionary forces from India which ravaged the Chinese coast and dictated the terms of settlement. The Treaty of Nanking not only opened the way for further opium trade, but ceded territory including Hong Kong, unilaterally fixed Chinese tariffs at a low rate, granted extraterritorial rights to foreigners in China which were not offered to Chinese abroad, a most favored nation clause, as well as diplomatic representation. When the court still refused to accept foreign ambassadors and obstructed the trade clauses of the treaties, disputes over the treatment of British merchants in Chinese ports and on the seas led to the Second Opium War and the Treaty of Tientsin.[4]
These treaties, soon followed by similar arrangements with the United States and France, later became known as the Unequal Treaties and the Opium Wars as the start of China's "Century of humiliation".
ScottL wrote:
I wouldn't go so far as to say its no longer used, but usage has definitely dropped in the last 2 decades due to laws preventing the targetting of children and programs like the Truth.org Most college campuses and many cities have general public smoking bans now and that number is increasing. This is the real trick to lower and/or preventing usage, legalize it, stigmatize it, ban it publically, and watch it mostly disappear. Has been working pretty well so far.
Stubby wrote:Looks to me that you have it all backwards.The first anti-opium edict was issued in 1729 enacting severe penalties on the sale of opium and the opening of opium-smoking divans. Similar laws were enacted in 1796 and 1800, the importation, however, continued to increase. British merchants brought opium from the British East India Company's factories in Patna and Benares,[3] in the Bengal Presidency of British India, to the coast of China, where they sold for a good profit.
With the drain of silver and the growing number of the people became victims of the drug, the Daoguang Emperor demanded action. Officials at the court, who advocated legalization of the trade in order to tax it were defeated by those who advocated suppression. In 1838, the Emperor sent Lin Zexu to Guangzhou where he quickly arrested Chinese opium dealers and summarily demanded that foreign firms turn over their stocks. When they refused, Lin stopped trade altogether and placed the foreign residents under virtual siege, eventually forcing the merchants to surrender their opium to be destroyed. In response, the British government sent expeditionary forces from India which ravaged the Chinese coast and dictated the terms of settlement. The Treaty of Nanking not only opened the way for further opium trade, but ceded territory including Hong Kong, unilaterally fixed Chinese tariffs at a low rate, granted extraterritorial rights to foreigners in China which were not offered to Chinese abroad, a most favored nation clause, as well as diplomatic representation. When the court still refused to accept foreign ambassadors and obstructed the trade clauses of the treaties, disputes over the treatment of British merchants in Chinese ports and on the seas led to the Second Opium War and the Treaty of Tientsin.[4]
These treaties, soon followed by similar arrangements with the United States and France, later became known as the Unequal Treaties and the Opium Wars as the start of China's "Century of humiliation".
Prohibition started in 1729. If you replace 'British' with 'cocaine cartels', 'French' with 'bikers' and 'Americans' with 'pimps' , you get exactly what is happening with the 'Drug War' now. Do you really want a Century of Humiliation?
MSimon wrote:Legalization caused drug use to DECLINE by half in Portugal.
Prohibition is a vector for the spread of drug use.
Source: ^ "Opium timeline". The Golden Triangle. Archived from the original on June 26, 2008. Retrieved September 13, 2009.Opium prohibition began in 1729, when Emperor Yongzheng of the Qing Dynasty, disturbed by madak smoking at court and carrying out the government's role of upholding Confucian virtue, officially prohibited the sale of opium, except for a small amount for medicinal purposes. The ban punished sellers and opium den keepers, but not users of the drug.[17] Opium was banned completely in 1799, and this prohibition continued until 1860
Stubby wrote:The first anti-opium edict dated from 1729. (Start of prohibition)
In 1838 a war a opium was declared in 1838. (Start of the drug wars)
In 1858 China lost the drug wars because the 'gangs' (i.e. GB, FR, USA etc.) they were fighting had almost unlimited resources and superior weapons.
If anti-opium laws existed for the entire period of your graphs, then to say opium was 'legal' during that period is false.
Source: ^ "Opium timeline". The Golden Triangle. Archived from the original on June 26, 2008. Retrieved September 13, 2009.Opium prohibition began in 1729, when Emperor Yongzheng of the Qing Dynasty, disturbed by madak smoking at court and carrying out the government's role of upholding Confucian virtue, officially prohibited the sale of opium, except for a small amount for medicinal purposes. The ban punished sellers and opium den keepers, but not users of the drug.[17] Opium was banned completely in 1799, and this prohibition continued until 1860
You have to legalize first to remove the taboo, then stigmatize it, otherwise it simply will not work. A war on an illegal substance just adds to the taboo.Diogenes wrote:ScottL wrote:
I wouldn't go so far as to say its no longer used, but usage has definitely dropped in the last 2 decades due to laws preventing the targetting of children and programs like the Truth.org Most college campuses and many cities have general public smoking bans now and that number is increasing. This is the real trick to lower and/or preventing usage, legalize it, stigmatize it, ban it publically, and watch it mostly disappear. Has been working pretty well so far.
The sarcasm presented in my topic post is intended to point out that Simon's theory is wrong. Legal tobacco usage has resulted in massive addiction, and it wasn't until a "war" was declared on tobacco usage that we started seeing the rates decline.
It is an effort to demonstrate how the lessons of tobacco should be applied to other drugs.
I do not understand why supposedly intelligent people cannot follow the evidence of logarithmic drug progression in China to it's obvious conclusion. Logarithmic increases in addiction is what NORMALLY happens when drugs are legal.ScottL wrote:You have to legalize first to remove the taboo, then stigmatize it, otherwise it simply will not work. A war on an illegal substance just adds to the taboo.Diogenes wrote:ScottL wrote:
I wouldn't go so far as to say its no longer used, but usage has definitely dropped in the last 2 decades due to laws preventing the targetting of children and programs like the Truth.org Most college campuses and many cities have general public smoking bans now and that number is increasing. This is the real trick to lower and/or preventing usage, legalize it, stigmatize it, ban it publically, and watch it mostly disappear. Has been working pretty well so far.
The sarcasm presented in my topic post is intended to point out that Simon's theory is wrong. Legal tobacco usage has resulted in massive addiction, and it wasn't until a "war" was declared on tobacco usage that we started seeing the rates decline.
It is an effort to demonstrate how the lessons of tobacco should be applied to other drugs.
If you call that prohibition it's no wonder you have problems getting your ideas across.Diogenes wrote:Simon's argument that "prohibition" is futile is contrary to the evidence demonstrated by tobacco's slow decline.