attempt to constrain the abusers, so the intrinsic injustice of blanket prohibitions may.
prompt perverse reactions. Finally, when scarce police and court resources are diverted.
toward the prevention of the nonabusive forms of behavior, fewer resources remain to.
be used in preventing the abusive behavior.
There is ample evidence that arresting, convicting, and punishing wrongdoers.
who harm others reduces such harmful behavior. However, as I will show, prohibiting.
all related behavior in an attempt to reduce the harmful portion is far more problem-.
atic, and often is counterproductive. If prohibitory laws have the opposite of the in-.
tended effect, that outcome has profound ramifications for policy makers. Let us consider.
some cases.
Prohibiting Teen Smoking.
There has been a long history of attempts to prohibit cigarette smoking. All such.
attempts have failed.
Washington, North Dakota, Iowa, and Tennessee banned the sale of cigarettes in.
the 1890s, but the laws were generally ignored (Dillow 1981, 94-107). Although.
good data apparently do not exist, some evidence indicates that cigarette use declined.
between 1896 and 1901 but then increased continuously until the prohibitions were.
repealed between 1911 and 1922 (104). Cigarette sales continued to climb in the.
United States until 1965 (Statistical Abstract 1971, 701; 1996, 700). Thus, if the.
limited available data are correct, the prohibited activity increased during the period of.
prohibition and continued to increase after prohibition was repealed.
After World War II, cigarettes were in extremely short supply in Germany be-.
cause of rationing and the generally disordered economic conditions. That de facto.
prohibition of smoking gave the Germans a sense of how de jure cigarette prohibition.
would operate. The episode was recalled during a debate on cigarette prohibition in.
the German Parliament in 1974, where the conclusion was:.
To outlaw production and trade would not turn smokers into non-smokers.
