Alcohol and legality
I am wondering, why is alcohol legal and most other drugs illegal in almost any country in the world? In fact when people say "drugs" most people don't include alcohol in that, which is ridiculous, it is a very powerful drug.
Please note, I am not interested in whether it should be illegal. It is clear that legality of a drug has very little impact on how widespread its use is.
It is beyond debate that alcohol is very, very harmful. It kills hundreds of thousands every year, it is extremely addictive, and it has a huge part in stimulating violent and anti-social behavior.
In other words it is clear that the reason it is legal is not that it is less harmful than other drugs in general. So why is it?
Is it simply that a "critical mass" of the population find it impossible to stay off alcohol and for that reason a ban simply does not work? The failed prohibition of the nineteen-twenties in the USA is evidence for that. If not, I don't know. There must be some psychological reason, or at least a social one.
----------
Featured comments:
It's not so much a question of why alcohol is legal (with the exception of a few years, it has always been that), but rather why produces such as hashish and heroin are not.
The idea of forbidding the use of hashish and heroin came from the U.S. Other countries gradually followed suit. For the full story, read Harry Browne's excellent article Free from the Nightmare of Prohibition.
Alcohol is actually a pretty safe substance, as far as drugs go. Furthermore, a lot of beverages which include alcohol are actually good for you. One can consume amounts of alcohol small enough not to cause the ills (liver disease or just drunkenness) while still getting the benefits.
Cannabis, on the other hand, does cause harm without causing any benefits. Unless you call a clouded brain a benefit. Same with most of the other illegal drugs, they usually do a lot more harm than good, even in small doses.
But that's not what you're asking, of course. The "why" is really quite simple, too. If it hadn't been for good old brewers and distillers, the human race probably wouldn't have survived the dark ages. Water was often disease-ridden, especially in cities, and so beer and wine were safer alternatives. Not to mention that beer is actually quite nutritious.
After thousands of years of use, it would be very hard to get rid of it. Maybe even impossible. Widespread use of other drugs, such as cannabis and large quantities of nicotine, are a much more recent phenomenon.
Addendum: I'm not commenting on the medicinal use of any drug. Heroine, cocaine, cannabis, morphine and whatnot DO benefit certain people in a medicinal way. Just not the general population. At least I hope that most of us don't need any of that stuff.
"One can consume amounts of alcohol small enough not to cause the ills (liver disease or just drunkenness) while still getting the benefits."
Perfectly correct, medically speaking. The real problem with alcohol is that, in case of abuse, it can become as addictive and harmful as heroin itself, an official hard drug. Far worse that hash.
Marijuana also has medical uses and benefits in small moderate amounts. (Sorry to contradict you Anon, but it's a fact. I know my job.) But it bears the stigma of "drugs". Ironically, not only did some well-known poisons become medical substances (under the right dosage and indication), but narcotic drugs too:
-Morphin for pain relief. No comment. Its addictive power is still a problem and warrants mandatory precautions, but it's still irreplaceable.
-Opium was simply the first means for general anesthesia.
-Cocaine. It is known for its local complications on the nasal septum. These are due to an intense effect of local vaso-constriction. Basically, if you sniff coke too much, your nose tissues will get deprived from blood and die out. But for local surgery, and once again rationally employed, it's hugely useful.
End of the scientific lecture already, class dismissed. Let's move on.
It's always a matter of how you use it, and how reasonably. Not that one could try everything and anything out of course (some nasty stuff is all risk anyway), but pleasure is an intrinsic part of life. Even guilty pleasure. Strict rigorists are emotional amputees, and usually endure the heavy consequences on their psyche.
I'm currently working on reducing my "addiction" to chocolate, before I start getting fat or having dental problems. After all, I have inocuous substitutes available. Like the love and laughter of small children. "Consume without moderation"! :-)))
Interesting historical perspective on alcohol use, thanks for posting it.
"Unless you call a clouded brain a benefit."
(hehe) It's all a matter of point of view. Living in Lebanon, I reach the same result regarding the national and political situation, through natural means like meditation. Mondo relaxing, dude. ;-)
Some other "drugs" are of widespread use in some parts of the world. Experience proves that in such cases, imposing its eradication by law is utopic until the mentalities change. Too many people chew coca in Bolivia, or suck on the qat around the Red Sea (Yemen, Somalia...). One might as well put out a law against masturbation, daydreaming, or eyeing passing beauties.
I fully agree with Terry. The TOBAL attitude (There Oughtta Be A Law) is simply idiotic. You can (and should) forbid unconsented second-hand smoking in public places. But you can't just make the stuff illegal nationwide, "even in the privacy of your own home and when when no children are present", like some anti-sodomy laws in the USA. A bad response to a bad habit. I see France, where smoking is steadily receding. It's by an all-out effort on changing the MENTALITIES. First, they increase the taxes a little, every year. Anybody who was considering quitting gets a higher incentive, the others just pay more and don't complain very much. (All prices increase anyway, just moreso for smokes.) Second, everything is done to ensure that one isn't forcibly exposed to a rude smoker. I a more polite era, they were considerate, and asked themselves (and others) whether it would be a bother. Today, the loss of such etiquette made a law necessary. [Don't visit Lebanon if you're allergic to common daily rudeness, trust me.] And finally, anybody who's trying to quit receives all the medical support avilable, and social security take a good part of the expenses in charge. After all, it would have to pay for the secondary illnesses anyway, which is far more costly, socially as well as financially.
I foresee (and hope for) a time where smoking becomes seriously marginal. But I do not expect to see this behavior eradicated. And to be honest, as much as I heartily hate smoking, I don't think I WANT to see it eradicated. A reasonable amount of unreasonableness is a necessary ingredient to the best possible world.
I'm more worried about the future of alcohol consumption. Drinking and driving is already very difficult to fight, even with maximal legal intimidation. (Now THAT's necessary there.) But anything's possible, if we "give Time some time".
Finally, I find great interest in the approach of Holland: they chose not to outlaw narcotic drugs, but to control its use in a legal frame. I fully approve. First instant benefit: like with the ending of Prohibition, the mafias lose their (very) juicy monopole, and can be pursued with the tranquil collaboration of the product users. The quality of the substance is protected as well, thanks to regulations. Moonshine was as much of a calamity as clandestine abortions (relatively speaking).
The same should be done about similar cases like prostitution. Its worst evil by far is the consequent human slavery.
A world with absolutely zero evil would probably be one of the greatest evils imaginable.
Just ask the Soviet paradise... :-P