No

[captain_slinky]

Trying to figure out if, historically, have "bans" on anything ever been accepted and/or embraced on an American National level (other than stuff based on The Top 10 Commandments, which were made-up before we got here)? No Irish, No Jews, No Coloreds, No Gays, No Guns, No Drinking - all things that were tried and failed. Things that have *kind of* stuck or at least a little bit - No Drunk Driving, No Drugs - are *there*, but it seems that everyone just ignores them.

I think that the louder you say NO, the more it makes people think about what you're shouting NO about and realizing, hey, it doesn't really make a difference.



Furthermore, it kind of works against you... making a certain section of the population say "Ooooh, that's forbidden now? I have to check that out!"

Comments

[aurora77]

There will always be people who enjoy the thrill of taking the risk of doing something forbidden.

There's a lot more to it than just becoming more curious about something forbidden. How people react depends on the combination of perceived benefits and risks of the situation. Prohibition didn't work because alcohol is easy to produce, is fairly socialized into the majority of the world, and in moderation not risky to drink (if you don't have an addictive personality). A lot of people didn't see significant health or social risks. Many public officials didn't see it as something to be strictly enforced and just did enough to look like they were enforcing the law. Others even took the opportunity to make some money on the side by accepting bribes to look the other way. Society as a whole really didn't take Prohibition seriously. Sure, many found it exciting to visit speakeasies and to buy bootleg alcohol. That was definitely one aspect of the situation. It ended up feeding criminal organizations and led to a lack of quality control (dangerously so, at times). The risks and problems associated with it outweighed any benefits they thought they might see.

Marijuana is a similar situation. Its ban is feeding criminal organizations and promoting crime. The risks of using it are no longer perceived as high (pun not intended). If used responsibly (not driving or working under the influence), it would seem it has fewer negative effects than alcohol. The interest in it continued despite the ban. People are looking at the benefits of legalization and thinking that it could increase tax revenue, implement quality control, lower the revenue to criminals, decriminalize usage and let police focus on more pressing issues, and reduce the illegal farming operations that are destroying habitats and animals.

I think people should look into why they're being told to do or not do something. People need to be able to make informed decisions. Blanket bans on things rarely work unless people understand them and believe that it's better than the alternatives.