• supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    132
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    In a U.S. context, it is actually really simple. Racism and the age old practice of othering types of people by associating them with a drug (cocaine = rich and white, crack = poor, black and dangerous). That’s it, the full answer is of course a lot more complicated but in the end it is exactly still this dumb and cruel.

    politicians across the political divide spent much of the 20th century using marijuana as a means of dividing America. By painting the drug as a scourge from south of the border to a “jazz drug” to the corruptive intoxicant of choice for beatniks and hippies, marijuana as a drug and the laws that sought to control it played on some of America’s worst tendencies around race, ethnicity, civil disobedience, and otherness.

    https://www.brookings.edu/articles/marijuanas-racist-history-shows-the-need-for-comprehensive-drug-reform/

    I actually think examining the rise of crack in the US and how it was used as a political wedge and xenophobic tool of fear mongering helps explain why marijuana is illegal in the US the easiest, because the forces and structures are the same for crack being highly illegal as they are for marijuana, just much less thinly veiled and dialed up to 11.

    • bartolomeo@suppo.fi
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      Right, because alcohol is the white man’s drug. Plain and simple.

      They made alcohol illegal for a while but it turned out to be too onerous for the white people so it was legalized again. Marijuana laws have caused massive damage to minority communities, so they remain in place.

    • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      People from Nixon’s cabinet have straight up said that they made both illegal and started the “War on Drugs” as justification so that they could lock up opposition leaders in both the black and hippie communities.

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Read the book Sythentic Panics.

      Talks all about this with wave after wave of synthetic drug scares. LSD, ecstasy, GHB, etc. All follow basically an identical pattern starting with a moral panic by mainly religious shitheels and corporate media.

      • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Why be legislators and make progressive policies (ewww hard and so boringggg) when you can just tell stories about who is worthy of empathy and who isn’t?

      • threeganzi@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I don’t know too much about GHB, but from the little I’ve heard it sounds like it has a risk of deadly overdose, which I don’t think is the case for the first two examples you mentioned. You probably know more than me so perhaps you can enlighten me if they deserve to be grouped together?

  • _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    They tried to make it illegal and the results were disastrous, one could argue the same for marijuana but the campaign to keep it illegal was much more successful.

    • MisterD@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      That’s because cannabis was more popular with black people in the 70s. The racists used the cannabis laws against blacks because it gave them a bonner

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    7 months ago

    Well, there was this one time when we tried out the whole “making alcohol illegal” thing and it worked out about as well as the current “war on drugs.” Just like drugs are winning, alcohol won.

    The first anti-drug laws weren’t really on the books until Nixon, who definitely used them as a way to pin down and criminalize parts of society he deemed unworthy.

    July 1971 was when Drug Prohibition started. Before that, technically everything was legal.

  • Scrof@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    7 months ago

    Tradition, mainly. It’s so ingrained in the majority of cultures that you can’t simply uproot it with a law. Although it should be a more controlled substance, no doubt about that. It’s addictive, debilitating, incredibly harmful and it simply destroys more lives than literally any drug known to man.

    • medgremlin@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’s also one of the most dangerous drugs to try to quit. Going cold turkey on alcohol can very well be lethal.

      • InformalTrifle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        It can, if you’re drinking seriously large amounts, but one of the most dangerous drugs in this regard? I have no scientific background in this but I’m skeptical there aren’t worse drugs in that regard

          • Starb3an@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            As an alcoholic 11 years sober, the only substance I know of that can kill you when quitting is alcohol. When AA started, they would keep alcohol in their house when helping others get sober so they wouldn’t die from DTs.

    • orphiebaby@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I came here to say this. This is really the real response. “Prohibition didn’t work” isn’t the reason, it’s the results of a response.

      • set_secret@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        lol at the 5 misogynists downvotes.

        Using gendered language, such as “known to man,” is outdated and overlooks the contributions of individuals who don’t identify as men. It’s not just about being politically correct; it’s about being accurate and inclusive. Language shapes our perception of reality, and by using more inclusive language, we acknowledge and respect the diversity of contributions across all genders. Calling this out isn’t about policing language for the sake of it; it’s about moving towards a society that values everyone’s contributions equally. Let’s push for language that includes everyone, reflecting the true diversity of human achievement.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    7 months ago

    Part of it also is that it’s entrenched in virtually all human societies and history. There’s even archeological evidence to support the theory that humans only started settling down to slow them to make more and better beer, count the beer, protect the beer, and tax the beer. They even made bread for the explicit purpose of making beer out of it.

  • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    They tried prohibition, didn’t work.

    The way I see it: Alcohol is an older drug, it was engrained in society. But the new drug marijuana could be cracked down on. Also because it was hippies that smoked marijuana, but everyone drank alcohol.

    *Lock Stock had a scene. “Want a tug on that? [joint]”. Reply: “No I don’t want any of that horrible shit. Can we go get drunk now?”

      • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        sure they had something to do with it, there’s no example of US fuckery that doesn’t involve industrial protection of some kind.

        I’d wager also that tobacco and alcohol fought marijuana as hard if not harder than the GOV’s position a lone.

        • toynbee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Fair enough. My history books always blamed the cotton industry, but it does make sense that others would be involved. Thanks for taking the time to answer!

  • hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Unlike marijuana, alcohol has been an important part of (the western) society for thousands of years. And the last time we tried banning it, it didn’t go too well.

    • zik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      And politicians drink alcohol so they’re not exactly lining up to ban it.

  • LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    7 months ago

    Because so many people are addicted to it, even the lawmakers are addicted to it. And as other commenters have said, we tried prohibition in the past and it did not work. Society lost their collective minds.

  • cley_faye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’d say for two reasons. First, laws are written by a bunch of old people (at least in the head) that love the stuff. Second, full prohibition does not work anyway.

  • gencha@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    A bit of perspective: During the prohibition in the USA, both cocaine and heroin were sold legally over the counter.

    Most illegal drugs today are perfectly legal when a pharmaceutical company produces it and you are purchasing it through channels where the elite gets paid.

    • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Or rather, one makes you act without thinking, the other makes you think without action.

        • Fuck spez@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          A friend gave his 70-something mother her first edible (first weed in any form, actually) and her only response was, “I feel lazy.”

    • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      7 months ago

      They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you’re high, you can do everything you normally do just as well—you just realize that it’s not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference.

      - Bill Hicks

      • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        you just realize that it’s not worth the fucking effort

        Unless it’s a big arse sandwich. Including everything that you find in the fridge. Even the stuff that belongs to your roommate, like the slice of ham he was keeping for his breakfast.

        Source: I was that roommate.

    • ghostrider2112@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

      One has also had studies that shows it causes the user to have more empathy while under its influence. The other is more common in domestic violence.

        • ghostrider2112@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yep! Glad my state at least finally voted to make me legal lol. I’ll take these homegrown, homemade Aldi fruit loop bars over the domestic violence sauce