The costs of prohibition
The prohibition of alcohol in the early 1900s brought unexpected outcomes which the Congress never intended. The initial expectation was that the sale of alcohol would go down significantly and sales of items such as household goods will skyrocket. More real estate activities were expected among other things. However, this notion did not go as planned. Many restaurants failed as it was difficult to make a profit without the legal alcohol. The prohibition led to the loss of thousands of jobs including waiters, trucker’s barrel makers among other related jobs. Correspondently, the government revenue in taxes dived. There was an increase in government spending on enforcement of up to $300 million (Adinoff, 2016). A cat and mouse game developed. There were gaps in the law that led to the development of cartels and other illegal businesses which dealt entirely with liquor trafficking and sale. The crime was on the rise for most of the states. Surprisingly there was an increase in the number of churches and synagogues which were used as a smuggling route for the alcohol. In general, little advantages were leaped out of the approach.
This notion can also be extended to the negative impact of illegalization of bhang and the need to legalize it. Notably, although marijuana is illegal in many states, people continue to sell it as well as smoke it on the black market. On the other hand, the government spends a lot of time and revenue to prohibit bhang. If the use and sale of bhang were legal, the government and the police would have less petty things to worry about and in turn concentrate on worse crimes and drugs which are harmful and destructive to the society such as cocaine. The more surprising thing is that bhang is less addictive and detrimental to the body compared to cigarette yet it is legal to smoke cigarettes.
References
Adinoff, B. (2016). The costs of prohibition. The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse, 42(6), 621-623.