Yesterday, the travel writer was on John Carlson's show, plugging the latest effort to legalize marijuana in Washington state. (For almost all practical purposes, it is legal in Seattle.)
During their conversation, Steves appeared to be surprised by Carlson's claim that Prohibition had reduced alcohol consumption in the United States. But Carlson was right, as many historians have concluded.
Here's a summary of the evidence from the Wikipedia article.
The consumption of alcohol overall went down by half in the 1920s; and it remained below pre-Prohibition levels until the 1940s.[3]
The best evidence for that decline that I've seen is the decrease in cirrhosis.
Of particular importance was the discovery of a relationship between cirrhosis mortality rates and per capita levels of alcohol consumption in the population. This relationship has proved to be remarkably strong and has been consistently observed across time periods and in various regions of the world (Bruun et al. 1975; Ramstedt 2001; Smart and Mann 1991).
. . .
Cirrhosis mortality rates in the United States have changed substantially over time. Early in the 20th century, these rates were at their highest point. As shown in figure 2, overall cirrhosis mortality rates declined precipitously with the introduction of Prohibition. When Prohibition ended, alcohol consumption and cirrhosis mortality rates increased until the late 1960s and early 1970s, when these rates began to approach levels seen in the first decade of the century.
(Cirrhosis rates fell from about 22 per 100,000 to about 11 per 100,000.)
What interests me about that exchange on the Carlson show is that Steves doesn't know that Prohibition did, in fact, reduce alcohol consumption. Steves has been advocating legalization of marijuana for years, and you would think he would have encountered these facts about Prohibition.
Perhaps he has encountered this evidence and simply rejected it, since it isn't convenient for his legalization argument. Almost everyone makes this kind of mistake from time to time, even those who know about this trap, and try hard to avoid it. (There are other, less pleasant, explanations for the gap, which I won't get into, since I don't know enough about Steves' thinking. And I won't make the obvious joke about the effects of marijuana on IQ.)
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(One can recognize that legalizing marijuana will increase its use, and its bad health effects, including lung cancer — and still favor legalization, for many reasons. But I do think that those who favor legalization should be honest about the costs, as well as the benefits.
Steves denies that legalizing marijuana will increase its use, but was inconsistent on whether he favors increased use. I think he probably does, especially if it replaces alcohol.)
Posted by Jim Miller at October 19, 2012 06:40 AM | Email ThisWe in Washington have the opportunity to assert our rights as a separate state when it comes to acknowledging a failed, 70-year-old federal policy when it comes to cannabis. I fully support I-502 as a step in the right dierction in bolstering individual liberty. Vot "YES" on I-502!!
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on October 19, 2012 09:32 AMI also have to throw my hat with the 'yes' party on this issue.
While it will be mainly symbolic due to the federal laws, it is still a start. While you are praising Prohibition for the decline in medical issues, you are ignoring the crime issues. Yeah, maybe cirrhosis went down, but lead poisoning went WAY up. If marijuana became legal, it would be one less thing the Mexican drug cartels would cause problems over. Just my observation.
(Full disclosure: I am not a pot smoker and I rarely drink.)
Posted by: Left Behind by the New Democrat Party on October 19, 2012 11:04 AMYou really should 'drink' often you know...water is very good for you. ;)
Posted by: Duffman on October 19, 2012 11:17 AMThe Federal government cannot challenge the decriminalization/legalization aspect that basically wipes out all state and municipal laws in Washington against adult possession. The other parts can be challenged like the tax collection.
The Feds cannot penalize or countermand a state for simply removing laws from their own books. The Feds also cannot compel local, county, or state police to enforce Federal law.
State's rights, bro.
Posted by: Are you opposed to state's rights, Hinton? on October 19, 2012 01:16 PMAs far as knowing the facts, this is the pot calling the kettle black. Using marijuana has no serious health consequences, either physically or mentally. Your claim that it causes lung cancer is totally off the wall. The largest study of marijuana users ever done (Dr. Donald Tashkin, UCLA) shows that people who smoke marijuana have fewer occurrences of lung cancer than people who don't smoke anything. Marijuana smokers who also smoke tobacco have fewer occurrences of lung cancer than those who smoke only tobacco
Posted by: Buzzby on October 19, 2012 01:55 PMThe problem is that federal law supersedes state law. Constitution 101 and that pesky 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
federally, dope is illegal. This initiative does not delegate a federal power to the states. The 10th Amendment will keep it illegal.
Passage of this initiative will not make it any less illegal at the federal level. Passage of, for example, medical pot laws has not stopped the DEA and others from raiding suppliers. This initiative won't stop them from raiding these, either. Further, as I said, the first federal court this gets into will ever keep it from seeing the light of day.
And you really should look into what the fed can, or cannot do, before you shoot off your mouth on the subject.
Take this to federal court and it gets blown to pieces.
Since you asked.
Posted by: hinton on October 19, 2012 04:06 PMSo if you drink alcohol you're either an alcoholic or a teetotaler? Makes as much sense. Tons of people smoke marijuana in moderation. This is about individual responsibility and liberty.
Posted by: Palouse on October 19, 2012 09:23 PMPowers *NOT* delegated to the [Federal Government] by the Constitution, nor [powers] prohibited by [the Constitution] to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The default position: The Federal Government has no power. The States (and individuals) hold all power except that is explicitly delegated to the Federal Government via the Constitution.
Your statement that "federally, dope is illegal" may be true but that doesn't make it Constitutional, and your quoted sentence in fact demonstrates the opposite. The Constitution does NOT delegate to the Federal Government the power to decide what substance an individual citizen may choose to ingest.
Posted by: RookieRick on October 19, 2012 10:21 PMThere are other ways to achieve better health results than prohibition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observations
The drug policy of Portugal was put in place in 2000, to be legally effective from July 2001. The new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. However, the offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than ten days' supply of that substance.
There are, however, statistical indicators that suggest the following correlations between the drug strategy and the following developments, from July 2001 up to 2007:
- Increased uptake of treatment.
- Reduction in HIV diagnoses amongst drug users by 17%
- Reduction in drug related deaths, although this reduction has decreased in later years, and the number of drug related deaths is now almost on the same level as before the Drug strategy was implemented. However, this may be accounted for by improvement in measurement practices, which includes a doubling of toxicological autopsies now being performed, meaning that more drugs related deaths are likely to be recorded.
- Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1%. It has been proposed that this effect may have been related to the candor of interviewees, who may have been inclined to answer more truthfully due to a reduction in the stigma associated with drug use. However, during the same period, the use of heroin and cannabis also increased in Spain and Italy, where drugs for personal use was decriminalised many years earlier than in Portugal while the use of Cannabis and heroin decreased in the rest of Western Europe.
- Drug use among adolescents (13-15 yrs) and "problematic" users declined.
- Drug-related criminal justice workloads decreased
- Decreased street value of most illicit drugs, some significantly.
To my mind the approach Portugal has taken has shown much better cost/benefit results than an endless war on drugs and personal liberty.
This is a bit off topic, but a few years ago there were articles here about Rick Steves' video on Iran. The writer said that it seems that that Rick Steves' had a minder from the Iranian government. In his book, Travel as a Political Act, Steves acknowledges this. He also was subject to a long screening by the Iranian government before it approved his trip.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis
Yes, you're correct. Portugal's approach makes much more sense.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on October 20, 2012 09:26 AMPeople growing or selling marijuana will be legally vulnerable even if it is perfectly legal and people are warned of any adverse health effects. Ask the tobacco industry.
Posted by: LesLein on October 20, 2012 02:32 PMIt is not clear if Prohibition did reduce per-capita consumption of alcohol.
However, cirrhosis mortality in the United States, Canada, and some other regions began to decline in the mid-1970s, before per capita consumption rates began to go down (also see figure 2). This is the opposite of what would be expected based on the hypothesized lagged relationship between per capita consumption and cirrhosis mortality rates.
Note that the rate of alcohol consumption in the United States has declined over the past few decades, despite all of the money spent on advertising for alcoholic drinks, and the economic success of the very active craft brewing movement.
Perhaps he has encountered this evidence and simply rejected it, since it isn't convenient for his ... argument.
You'd know all about that, wouldn't you, Jim?
Posted by: tensor on October 21, 2012 01:51 PMYour argument in #13 is the strangest one I've seen in a long time.
The 10th Amendment has absolutely no bearing on the constitutionality of Federal drug law. Quite the contrary; it says that unless there is a specific grant of authority to the federal government somewhere in the constition, that authority does not belong to the feds but instead remains with the states, or the people. Our predecessors, though misguided (imo) in enacting Prohibition, were at least honest enough to admit that they couldn't do it without a constitional amendment!
Please point to me where in the constitution the feds are authorized to prohibit drugs? Also explain why we amended the constitution to prohibit Alcohol?
Posted by: Lysander on October 24, 2012 08:23 AMThank Pudge.
Posted by: Lysander on October 25, 2012 09:51 AM