The Forbidden Fruit Theory
The forbidden fruit theory is a psychology-based one that refers to the frequency, amount used, or the actual use and/or abuse of a substance merely, because it is illegal and/or whilst it has been mandated, or by use of coercion, to not use. Basically the question is in the title. Is there a higher affinity to even try something because it is banned? Is there more allure to it? Would it be more affective on the greater health of people to end prohibition? Would harm reduction, regulation and taxation be a more effective approach?
One example is the Prime Minister of Holland saying they have officially taken the fun out marijuana. The use of marijuana amongst younger people is less in Holland then it is here. Is this because there is higher transparency in a society where it is allowed. Due to international affairs, primarily the U.S., technically it is illegal in Holland. Yet it is allowed. Off subject, one cafe owner who had been in business for over thirty years where grass, mushrooms, alcohol and cafe were sold, said he had never had to throw out any clients in that timeframe. Is there more accountability for youngfolk due to transparency? Is it not such a big fuss?
It is important to understand the fact that people are more apt to be honest without the thought of being incriminated or jailed as a result. This would naturally skew responses and the data regarding the appearance of increase of use when substances do become legal. That increase in honest should be factored in. Is transparency and honesty better than black markets and secrecy? I think studies and data will be key to our findings. Common sense will lead us to these studies which will point us to policies that work.
