Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I didn't say it was good policy. Nor did I say it didn't have unintended consequences. Nor did I say I favored it.

But it is a myth that "it doesn't work". Prohibition works in that it reduces consumption of or participation in the prohibited thing.

It's a popular historical myth that prohibition of alcohol didn't work in the U.S. It did. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675...

The War On Drugs is a terrible example because it went way beyond prohibition. The War On Drugs was politically entangled in immigration, US interests in foreign regimes, human trafficking, and on. You don't have to quasi-invade other countries to prohibit drugs at home. That's a policy choice influenced by many other prejudices and distortions.

Prohibition works. It's another question entirely whether it is just, whether it can be conducted while respecting human rights and whether it is worth the unintended consequences.




A ban is supposed to do more than "reduce" it's supposed to eliminate. So no, it doesn't work.


That's why I started this entire exchange with

> This depends on your definition of the term "works".

I think for a lot of governments and policy makers the goal is to significantly reduce.

By your definition, literally every human intervention in history, prohibitory or otherwise has not "worked".


>By your definition, literally every human intervention in history, prohibitory or otherwise has not "worked".

Correct.


Even in scenarios where the specifically stated goal of a policy is a specific decline in some measure?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: