English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

3 answers

I think the world would grind to a sudden halt. Many would die, many would be unable to function. Modern science and it's drugs do a great deal of good for a great many people, and it's people that run the economies. You destroy their ability to function by removing certain essential drugs and you return the world to the stone age.

if you meant illicit drugs, wish you would say so.

2007-10-26 06:47:09 · answer #1 · answered by essentiallysolo 7 · 0 0

I think "bad" drug use is on the order of magnitude of alcohol use in the US - at least among the number of people who use ro have used.

In order to implement what the asker suggested, we would have to be living in a very strict totalitarian state indeed.

After all , there is know how and means and motive for even individuals to produce.

Same goes for others outside the country.

In order to make sure no one ever touched anything, we would all have to be subjected to immense daily surveillance, and that simply is not possible.

To even try would mean devoting most of our national wealth to the prohibition, and we already saw how a smaller version of that didn't work for alcohol in the 1920s.

I doubt anyone today thinks Prohibition was a failure because we didn't try heard enough to eradicate alcohol, so no way we ever have the will to try again and subject ourself to all that was bad and orders of magnitude more.

No one would be free and everyone would be an explicit law enforcement arm, or an informer. Beyond subsistence food generation, that would be pretty much about all that would exist in such an economy.

The only comparable place I can think of is North Korea, and heir population is 98% starving and 2% elite, more or less.

2007-10-27 01:25:35 · answer #2 · answered by Barry C 6 · 0 0

I think she means the bad drugs.

Only a small percent of the population use drugs, so nothing really.

If your talking alcohol, that is a bit of a different story. Many people's lives on the road would be saved. People would be more productive, and I think people would be happier once they learned that you can be happy without drinking.

Although many people could seek employment opportunities elsewhere, inner city youth gangs will no longer have as much incentive to control territory, hence will recruit less numbers, and there will less drive bys and gang shootings. However, many inner city youth gangs will have to look elsewhere for income.

2007-10-26 13:53:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers