11 ms·

How the war on drugs creates violence

138 points by flannery 11y ago

awjr 11y ago
I've pretty much come down on the side of prohibition is bad. Yes hard drugs destroy lives, but many many many more are destroyed by socially acceptable drugs like alcohol and nicotine. We live within societies where the way we control substances creates a huge social and financial cost. We'd be better off legalising every drug and creating a social framework within which these drugs can be taxed, consumed safely, and users supported. Case in point is the legalisation of cannabis which I hope is a stepping stone to legalisation of all recreational drugs.
- shocks 11y ago
  > users supported This is the biggest thing, IMO. Legalising drugs isn't about getting control of distrubution and profits, it's more about changing societies view on drugs. We need to stop treating these people as addicts that need to be swept under the rug. We need to treat them as they are - human beings with a disease/illness for which they need help. How can they turn to us for help if we chuck them in prison for their problem and don't help them? edit; wasn't suggesting that you didn't think this - I think the majority of people in my country (UK) don't think of addiction as an illness/disease that we need to help with. They just want to turn a blind eye...
  - awjr 11y ago
    This is a very valid point. I don't see the UK government however changing their approach. Treating addiction as a disease just enables the government to vilify users. Many low-level heroin/cocaine users just lead normal lives. As do many low-level wine users. The only way I see this changing is when it financially makes sense. Taking Colorado as a model, the UK could get in the region of £400million a year in tax benefits from the legalisation of cannabis alone. Drug related crime is estimated to cost the country £14 billion annually.
    - shocks 11y ago
      Thanks. Do you know where I can find some numbers on this? It's something I've always wondered. We're told by the media that 90% of heroin addicts are on the street stealing to maintain their habit - but I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of heroin addicts appear to have these "normal" lives.
      - user_0001 11y ago
        Depends how you define "addict". As any heroin user? Someone whose whole life is based around the drug? Something else?
      - DanBC 11y ago
        There are two sources of information in UK. Office for national statistics are nice. They're robust about what does or doesn't count, and how they count, and where you need to be cautious with the numbers. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ http://www.ons.gov.uk/ The other place might be Public Health Outcomes: http://www.phoutcomes.info/ http://www.phoutcomes.info/ EG http://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile-group/mental-health http://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile-group/mental-health And finally NICE tend to have excellent referencing. Noodle around here to find the NICE guidance. http://pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/drug-misuse http://pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/drug-misuse
    - bluedino 11y ago
      >> Many low-level heroin/cocaine users just lead normal lives. As do many low-level wine users. This is a pretty ridiculous comparison
      - code_sterling 11y ago
        Hardly, just because alcohol is socially accepted doesn't mean it's not a drug. Alcohol and heroine are considered the most harmful drugs out there. It's an apt comparison.
      - ex_ex_nihilo 11y ago
        It's only ridiculous if you don't think about it.
  - reddytowns 11y ago
    Why is it that having certain problems gives you a license to demand that everyone else help you with them? We've all got problems, but for some reason whenever I mess up on my taxes or something, I'm to blame, but if someone else robs a liquor store when being addicted to heroin, "the needle made me do it, mumble ... mumble ..." is an acceptable excuse.
    - lm______ 11y ago
      No one said that robbers should be punished less harshly if they have an addiction.
    - snsr 11y ago
      > is an acceptable excuse No, it's not. Going with your flawed example: having an addiction to heroin should be a socially acceptable problem, or at least one that doesn't land an addict in prison in and of itself. Helping those amongst us who are addicted helps to prevent desperate crimes.
      - soylentcola 11y ago
        Exactly. To put it in terms of currently legal drugs, it's not illegal to be an alcoholic. You won't be imprisoned for the compulsive use of alcohol, regardless of the framework used to describe it (poor impulse control, chemical imbalance, whatever). But if you go beat someone up or crash your car while drunk, you're charged with those crimes, whether committed due to your addiction or not. But outside of actual crimes committed against others in society, just being in possession of alcohol or being an addict isn't illegal. Additionally, there are resources for people who want to improve their dealings with alcohol or work out the issues that are causing their problems with it. They can make use of these resources without fear of being arrested because mere possession and use isn't a crime. I don't claim that habitual use of opiates or amphetamines or whatever is a positive thing but putting someone at risk of criminal penalties and prison because of something that is (at worst) very unhealthy is sort of preposterous when you think about it that way. That doesn't mean we ought to turn a blind eye to crimes committed under the influence or in search of one's dose but at a minimum, possession and use ought not to be criminal offenses.
  - inDigiNeous 11y ago
    Exactly. Many of the medicine that we label illegal, is from the nature, like cannabis. For that purpose also, we should regulate them, so that people would have better and more controlled access, and not have to figure out healing themselves and caught addicted because they have no legal way to get help. Reality is there are many people who do not trust the medical companies and their "medicine", and are looking for alternative, natural remedies. Misuse is also a big problem, because when there is no legal source, there is no way to assure what you are getting is good, aside from experimenting and finding people who know their shit on this subject, and it can be difficult to look beyond the stigma of society. This is very much a problem in countries where cannabis is illegal. People buy too much, use too much, because they have no idea or control when they are going to access more. Been through that process. Nobody is denying cannabis is not addictive, it is, very. But putting it in the hands of people who know what it does, how it does and in what amounts you should use it, this will help people who have no idea to control their medicinal use better. Of course there is recreational use, abusive use, but this is also partly because we have no real discussion going on in the public about this. Why? Because it's illegal to discuss even, and can immediately label you as a "drug user". Same goes for different medicine from the nature also, mushrooms, ayahuasca, iboga and so on. If these were understood, studied and regulated, we would have real medicine to heal people with, not just things created by humans which are produced just to keep people addicted and hooked on the bill of medical cost. Many medical companies know exactly this, and this why I feel many laws are kept in place to prevent natural use, it's just to protect the immoral practice of selling sickness to people. Just make everything legal already, and have people who have experience working with these medicines act as healers in the process. This is already happening also, but it is not discussed on a public level, as it is illegal and can cause stigma and fear, but I hope more and more people will do it so we can have a real alternative to the current system again in place.
    - durzagott 11y ago
      "Nobody is denying cannabis is not addictive, it is, very" Can I get a source on that? It flies in the face of conventional wisdom.
      - 11y ago
  - pjc50 11y ago
    I'd argue that, especially given the social history of how the prohibitions came to be, that it's the other way round: condemning 'vice' starts out as a pretext for social exclusion and blaming the poor for their condition. We don't want to help so we set up a situation where we don't have to. Nobody suggests testing the financial services industry for performance-enhancing drugs, for example.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Yvain's classic on disease/failure of personality is worth bringing up[0]. Also, his more recent take on (US) attitude towards treating heroin addicts[1]. The ending paragraph of [1] works as a great TL;DR: "Society is fixed, biology is mutable. People have tried everything to fix drug abuse. Being harsh and sending drug users to jail. Being nice and sending them to nice treatment centers that focus on rehabilitation. Old timey religion where fire-and-brimstone preachers talk about how Jesus wants them to stay off drugs. Flaky New Age religion where counselors tell you about how drug abuse is keeping you from your true self. Government programs. University programs. Private programs. Giving people money. Fining people money. Being unusually nice. Being unusually mean. More social support. Less social support. This school of therapy. That school of therapy. What works is just giving people a chemical to saturate the brain receptor directly. We know it works. The studies show it works. And we’re still collectively beating our heads against the wall of finding a social solution." [0] - http://lesswrong.com/lw/2as/diseased_thinking_dissolving_questions_about/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/2as/diseased_thinking_dissolving_que... [1] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/02/practically-a-book-review-dying-to-be-free/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/02/practically-a-book-revi...
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      "Experiments have shown rats to forgo food to the point of starvation in order to work for brain stimulation or intravenous cocaine when both food and stimulation are offered concurrently for a limited time each day." From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_stimulation_reward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_stimulation_reward
      - omurphyevans 11y ago
        When given positive other life experiences, rats do not prefer cocaine to food. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        The quote I cited was about heroin in particular; I don't know the state of anti-cocaine methods and the article doesn't go into it. It only states that apparently we have a perfectly good method of curing heroin addiction that's not being used for pretty stupid reasons.
- cm2187 11y ago
  On that topic I strongly recommend the TV show "Narcos". If that degree of violence is the price for prohibition then prohibition has to go. It is pointless to vote laws that are unenforceable.
- demallien 11y ago
  Maybe I'm being obtuse, but wouldn't that be an argument for prohibition? As in, drugs that aren't prohibited cause much more harm than those that are?
suneilp 11y ago
Is it creating violence or exacerbating violence? I'm more inclined to choose the latter. The reason why I distinguish the two is that I see the continuation and increase in drug use as something symptomatic of other issues in the big picture. Economic issues, politics, racism.... oppression on various fronts from the system down to the family to the self. Drugs (and alcohol) are an escape. Normal activities also provide an escape when people get obsessed with them. TV, video games, food (my escape), exercise for some addicts, sex, etc. Just legalize cannabis and decriminalize other drugs already.
- icanhackit 11y ago
  > Is it creating violence or exacerbating violence? Depends on the substance, depends on the market, depends on the reason for using. I haven't seen too many people on MDMA become violent or impoverished through addiction, though their incessant hugs and platitudes can lead to a violent response if they don't have enough to go around. It's complex, but not that complex. We have the power of observation - where we can plot what is safe to use recreationally, what can be considered substance abuse, which substances often lead to abusive behaviour, which socio-economic factors lead to use in the first place, factors in the marketplace that lead to violence and crime, how we can monetarily/socially/legislatively abate the negative factors...and yet here we are with our proverbial junk in our hand wondering what to do. Start being objective, use methodologies that we've used for years for other problems that aren't taboo. We've travelled to the fucking moon. My non-objective opinion: Drugs are interesting. Drugs take the edge off of a less-than-stellar life. Drugs help the mind momentarily escape the trap set by forces who care little for your happiness and wellbeing. You can fix the latter, which is unlikely in our lifetime, or reduce the burden of being a drug user in the interim.
  - idonthaveaname 11y ago
    > We have the power of observation - where we can plot what is safe to use recreationally... Wikipedia says this better than I can: In 2007 [Dr David] Nutt published a controversial study on the harms of drug use in The Lancet.[12] Eventually, this led to his sacking from his position in the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD); see government positions below. Subsequently, Nutt and a number of his colleagues who had subsequently resigned from the ACMD founded the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs.[13] Here are the citations: [12] Nutt, D.; King, L. A.; Saulsbury, W.; Blakemore, C. (2007). "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse". The Lancet 369 (9566): 1047–1053. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4. PMID 17382831. [13] Nutt, D. (2010). "Nutt damage – Author's reply". The Lancet 375 (9716): 724–724. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60302-9. Roughly, the story as I recall it was that the head of the government's own advisory body on the health effects of drugs published a report through established scientific channels which claimed a significant mis-match between the harm caused by many popular drugs and the legislation around them. These were respected scientsists originally picked for their qualifications & integrity. Their opinion was unpopular with the existing power-structures and so their leader felt he had to resign, and several of his peers followed voluntarily. Up to this point, most governments have exhibited intent to ignore the suggestions and testable claims of researchers in this area, and to ignore the will of the people they represent. I doubt an article in the WP will do anything to change that, no matter how much I wish it would.
DanielBMarkham 11y ago
I'm a libertarian, so I'm already sold on legalization. Count me in. As such, hopefully I can quibble with the text a bit. "Ceasing this hypocritical practice by releasing nonviolent offenders is morally urgent." Yeah, not so much. Yes, there is a severe moral problem here, but please do not make moral arguments! It's folks with moral arguments riding around on high horses that got us into this mess. Instead, argue from the standpoint of practicality (which she does). One of the practicality arguments she does not make, which deserves mentioning, is that because the drug war is unwinnable, there are too many laws. This makes folks with the power of selective enforcement lords over the rest of us. Have a traffic stop? Cops ask to search your car? You have a right to say "no". But if you do, be prepared to wait around until the drug dog shows up. He'll sniff around your car and "alert" the cops, even if there's no drugs present. Then, guess what? They get to tear apart your car while you watch. All because of the war on drugs. Let's say you are a drug user. You have a joint in the ashtray. In this case, it gets even better. Then -- if I'm not mistaken -- they get to take your car! A few dollars worth of illegal pot, which might not even be yours, and you could lose tens of thousands of dollars worth of car. It's not that this is morally outrageous. It certainly is. It's that a system of justice cannot maintain the consent of the governed when it turns LE officers into something approaching highway bandits. Selective enforcement of drug laws -- both by cops and prosecutors -- distorts the legal system so much as to make it unworkable. Sure, it's bad, but the bigger point is that it cannot continue working in this fashion. Something's gotta give. I liked the article. It's good to see public discourse slowly become much more reasonable about drug addiction and its consequences. One caution, though: in my opinion what we need to do is still stay tough on violent, hardened criminals while being more pragmatic about drug crimes. Otherwise we'll end up being slandered as soft-headed and irrational.
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  I generally agree with your major thesis which is that the laws need to be consistent and fair. Clearly the majority of Americans see no harm in an occasional toke, and the majority indeed have tried MJ. That in itself argues MJ should be made legal. The one argument that the police might make against legalization is that it deprives them of a useful tool -- an immoral tool, but nonetheless vital -- for getting scumbags off the street. Example: The cops stop a guy who they basically know committed a murder or a rape or some other violent crime, but they don't have the evidence to hold him. He'd call his lawyer, the lawyer would come in and make sure he's held for no more than the maximum number of hours, then he'd be freed and nothing gained by anyone. But if they can nail him on possession, they at least can get him off the streets for some days, weeks, or months, while they gather the evidence to really put him away. Not really the spirit of the law, but it works. That said, I'd rather we focus more resources on the few sociopaths and violent types out there, and clear out the over-crowded prisons.
kawa 11y ago
There's only so much profit in the drug business because of the illegality of many drugs. Changing that would kill the profits of many very rich and powerful criminals and cartels. So it's very understandable that those people do everything they can to prevent their business model from collapsing. The usual way of doing it is simply lots of lobbying: Paying "well meaning" people, journalists and politicians to stay on the track of keeping most drugs illegal, so that the drug lords and cartels can continue to earn money. So does really anybody wonder why the (obviously totally pointless) "war on drugs" is still waged and will probably waged for quite a while?
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  It's interesting that we actually have a potential big opponent for the drug cartels - drug companies. Legalizing drugs will drive cartels out of business because they'd be competing with clean drugs sold in pharmacies, prepared in well-funded laboratories of entities used to cooperating with safety regulations. So why the Big Pharma isn't lobbying for ending the war on drugs? I wonder if it isn't the social view that's blocking them - the first pharmaceutical company to step up and vote for legalization could face a serious PR shitstorm centered about morality of "legitimizing addiction".
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Many illegal drugs are actually dangerous, so you need legalization and some mechanism to shield them from liability. They also already sell many analogues to illegal drugs under prescription, so you have to look at whether a legalized market would be a better business than the one they currently have.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      You're right. As long as there are limits to access to drugs, there will be some market for getting them illicitly - even if for convenience reasons (say, getting prescription drugs without a prescription). The question is, whether that market will be big enough to support organized crime the way the war on drugs does.
aidos 11y ago
The other day Richard Branson posted a leaked report from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime that agrees with the notion of drug use as a health issue, not a criminal one. Of course, they've turned around and said that's not their official stance. Sigh. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/19/un-call-decriminalisation-drugs-richard-branson http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/19/un-call-decri... http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/finally-a-change-in-course-on-drug-policy http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/finally-a-change-in-co...
upofadown 11y ago
If you have a business disagreement you can't go to drug court to resolve it. Sometimes attempts to resolve differences go wrong. At some level the violence in the drug black market is simply because it is a black market.
peterwwillis 11y ago
Violent crime in America rose dramatically as a result of worsening racial ties after the death of Martin Luther King, a lack of employment and investment in local communities, and an increase in use of heroin and (later) easier to produce drugs like crack. Increase in the number of robbery and petty crime identically track both the increase in use of and violence associated with drug use. But the war on drugs' main influence on this violence has been to keep the pressure on the drug dealers, increasing risk to sell the product and making it less available, thus driving up prices, increasing competition, and therefore promoting violence between drug dealers, and by drug users in order to afford what they're addicted to. And all of this leads to increased incarceration, not just from drug charges, but from the increased violence associated with the drug trade, gang warfare, and an unlawful under-society where people do whatever they can to get by. A flow chart would make it a bit easier to grok, but basically the drug war throws fuel on a fire that was only simmering before.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
cubano 11y ago
I just don't think many people realize just how much legal corporate and government "business" is created by the insane war on drugs, and I am convinced this is the reason why it continues. Like I mentioned before, I just spent 6 months in the deep bowels of the criminal justice system for drug possession here in Florida, and those observations have shaped this view. The cops, the judges, the lawyers on both sides (who eventually become the politicians that make the laws), the clerks, the guards (do they hate being called that!), the jail/prison administrators...they ALL are making pretty awesome livings from the war on drugs, and have zero repeat ZERO incentive to change anything. The problem is not a legal one, it's economic. The public is fed the propaganda of wrecked lives and violence to keep the status quo...until the population somehow wakes up and sees how the CJS is totally broken as perhaps even more corrupt then the drug game, I doubt anything can change.
- planfaster 11y ago
  This is so true. We have two very recent examples of this, first the US presence in Afghanistan and second the DEA having just left Bolivia. But the media dare not touch this level of analysis.
- alsetmusic 11y ago
  I watched someone get out of jury duty by articulating his view of the prison system as a for-profit enterprise a couple years ago. He spoke brilliantly and was immediately dismissed.
- pizza234 11y ago
  This is the thesis of the documentary "The House I Live In", which is a suggested watch for anybody who has an interest in the subject[s].
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  You are absolutely right, and perhaps the most under reported effect of the war on any vice is that vice enforcement becomes just as lucrative. It's easier to bust someone for possession than reckless driving, assault, you know, things that have to be verified at the time of offense. It's not that the police, prosecutors, prison owners or lawmakers are bad people, they just deal with corrosive incentives. Just like drugs, drug crime enforcement is a cheap high that gets you to places you wouldn't likely be if you played by the boring rules.
sixQuarks 11y ago
Besides all of the stated reasons to legalize/decriminalize, I think just as important is personal liberty. I should be free to experiment with my own consciousness (so long as it does not impede on the rights of others) - how much more personal can you get? For the government to impede on this is unconscionable (pun intended).
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  This is not happening in a vacuum. There's already problems with experimentation causing considerable public expense, exposure to danger and needless suffering. Anybody can give you an anecdote - I will resist posting mine since they are a dime a dozen.
  - alsetmusic 11y ago
    > Anybody can give you an anecdote - I will resist posting mine since they are a dime a dozen. Links to reputable studies backing this up would be welcome.
  - sixQuarks 11y ago
    You can say that about anything. Should the government stop people from eating junk food? from participating in dangerous sports activities? Why are drugs different?
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Because, car accidents, child neglect, spouse abuse, healthcare, time lost to work... Some of those other things are regulated as well. E.g. You can't rappel in many state parks, because idiots kept getting hurt and costing the state $$$ in rescue attempts to remote locations. Its not all cruel government heedlessly restricting rights. That's an immature viewpoint. Count the cost and see that nothing is free.
      - sixQuarks 11y ago
        So that means you ARE for prohibition of alcohol. Read your last sentence: count the cost and see that nothing is free. Do you think prohibition of alcohol had no costs? Same thing with drugs - which the article pointed out. The cost of keeping it illegal far outweighs the potential costs resulting from irresponsible users (which we still pay for even when it is illegal)
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
I'm not too keen on Silver's analysis/conclusion that drug offenses account for such a low fraction of inmates' crimes. Drug possession renders a lot of otherwise non criminal behavior into a "violent felony", and prosecutors love tacking these extra charges on when they can.
segmondy 11y ago
Yup, ineffective law enforcement and judicial system turns the survival street mantra to "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

138 points by flannery 11y ago

awjr 11y ago

I've pretty much come down on the side of prohibition is bad. Yes hard drugs destroy lives, but many many many more are destroyed by socially acceptable drugs like alcohol and nicotine. We live within societies where the way we control substances creates a huge social and financial cost. We'd be better off legalising every drug and creating a social framework within which these drugs can be taxed, consumed safely, and users supported. Case in point is the legalisation of cannabis which I hope is a stepping stone to legalisation of all recreational drugs.

shocks 11y ago
> users supported This is the biggest thing, IMO. Legalising drugs isn't about getting control of distrubution and profits, it's more about changing societies view on drugs. We need to stop treating these people as addicts that need to be swept under the rug. We need to treat them as they are - human beings with a disease/illness for which they need help. How can they turn to us for help if we chuck them in prison for their problem and don't help them? edit; wasn't suggesting that you didn't think this - I think the majority of people in my country (UK) don't think of addiction as an illness/disease that we need to help with. They just want to turn a blind eye...
- awjr 11y ago
  This is a very valid point. I don't see the UK government however changing their approach. Treating addiction as a disease just enables the government to vilify users. Many low-level heroin/cocaine users just lead normal lives. As do many low-level wine users. The only way I see this changing is when it financially makes sense. Taking Colorado as a model, the UK could get in the region of £400million a year in tax benefits from the legalisation of cannabis alone. Drug related crime is estimated to cost the country £14 billion annually.
  - shocks 11y ago
    Thanks. Do you know where I can find some numbers on this? It's something I've always wondered. We're told by the media that 90% of heroin addicts are on the street stealing to maintain their habit - but I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of heroin addicts appear to have these "normal" lives.
    - user_0001 11y ago
      Depends how you define "addict". As any heroin user? Someone whose whole life is based around the drug? Something else?
    - DanBC 11y ago
      There are two sources of information in UK. Office for national statistics are nice. They're robust about what does or doesn't count, and how they count, and where you need to be cautious with the numbers. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ http://www.ons.gov.uk/ The other place might be Public Health Outcomes: http://www.phoutcomes.info/ http://www.phoutcomes.info/ EG http://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile-group/mental-health http://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile-group/mental-health And finally NICE tend to have excellent referencing. Noodle around here to find the NICE guidance. http://pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/drug-misuse http://pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/drug-misuse
  - bluedino 11y ago
    >> Many low-level heroin/cocaine users just lead normal lives. As do many low-level wine users. This is a pretty ridiculous comparison
    - code_sterling 11y ago
      Hardly, just because alcohol is socially accepted doesn't mean it's not a drug. Alcohol and heroine are considered the most harmful drugs out there. It's an apt comparison.
    - ex_ex_nihilo 11y ago
      It's only ridiculous if you don't think about it.
- reddytowns 11y ago
  Why is it that having certain problems gives you a license to demand that everyone else help you with them? We've all got problems, but for some reason whenever I mess up on my taxes or something, I'm to blame, but if someone else robs a liquor store when being addicted to heroin, "the needle made me do it, mumble ... mumble ..." is an acceptable excuse.
  - lm______ 11y ago
    No one said that robbers should be punished less harshly if they have an addiction.
  - snsr 11y ago
    > is an acceptable excuse No, it's not. Going with your flawed example: having an addiction to heroin should be a socially acceptable problem, or at least one that doesn't land an addict in prison in and of itself. Helping those amongst us who are addicted helps to prevent desperate crimes.
    - soylentcola 11y ago
      Exactly. To put it in terms of currently legal drugs, it's not illegal to be an alcoholic. You won't be imprisoned for the compulsive use of alcohol, regardless of the framework used to describe it (poor impulse control, chemical imbalance, whatever). But if you go beat someone up or crash your car while drunk, you're charged with those crimes, whether committed due to your addiction or not. But outside of actual crimes committed against others in society, just being in possession of alcohol or being an addict isn't illegal. Additionally, there are resources for people who want to improve their dealings with alcohol or work out the issues that are causing their problems with it. They can make use of these resources without fear of being arrested because mere possession and use isn't a crime. I don't claim that habitual use of opiates or amphetamines or whatever is a positive thing but putting someone at risk of criminal penalties and prison because of something that is (at worst) very unhealthy is sort of preposterous when you think about it that way. That doesn't mean we ought to turn a blind eye to crimes committed under the influence or in search of one's dose but at a minimum, possession and use ought not to be criminal offenses.
- inDigiNeous 11y ago
  Exactly. Many of the medicine that we label illegal, is from the nature, like cannabis. For that purpose also, we should regulate them, so that people would have better and more controlled access, and not have to figure out healing themselves and caught addicted because they have no legal way to get help. Reality is there are many people who do not trust the medical companies and their "medicine", and are looking for alternative, natural remedies. Misuse is also a big problem, because when there is no legal source, there is no way to assure what you are getting is good, aside from experimenting and finding people who know their shit on this subject, and it can be difficult to look beyond the stigma of society. This is very much a problem in countries where cannabis is illegal. People buy too much, use too much, because they have no idea or control when they are going to access more. Been through that process. Nobody is denying cannabis is not addictive, it is, very. But putting it in the hands of people who know what it does, how it does and in what amounts you should use it, this will help people who have no idea to control their medicinal use better. Of course there is recreational use, abusive use, but this is also partly because we have no real discussion going on in the public about this. Why? Because it's illegal to discuss even, and can immediately label you as a "drug user". Same goes for different medicine from the nature also, mushrooms, ayahuasca, iboga and so on. If these were understood, studied and regulated, we would have real medicine to heal people with, not just things created by humans which are produced just to keep people addicted and hooked on the bill of medical cost. Many medical companies know exactly this, and this why I feel many laws are kept in place to prevent natural use, it's just to protect the immoral practice of selling sickness to people. Just make everything legal already, and have people who have experience working with these medicines act as healers in the process. This is already happening also, but it is not discussed on a public level, as it is illegal and can cause stigma and fear, but I hope more and more people will do it so we can have a real alternative to the current system again in place.
  - durzagott 11y ago
    "Nobody is denying cannabis is not addictive, it is, very" Can I get a source on that? It flies in the face of conventional wisdom.
    - 11y ago
- pjc50 11y ago
  I'd argue that, especially given the social history of how the prohibitions came to be, that it's the other way round: condemning 'vice' starts out as a pretext for social exclusion and blaming the poor for their condition. We don't want to help so we set up a situation where we don't have to. Nobody suggests testing the financial services industry for performance-enhancing drugs, for example.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Yvain's classic on disease/failure of personality is worth bringing up[0]. Also, his more recent take on (US) attitude towards treating heroin addicts[1]. The ending paragraph of [1] works as a great TL;DR: "Society is fixed, biology is mutable. People have tried everything to fix drug abuse. Being harsh and sending drug users to jail. Being nice and sending them to nice treatment centers that focus on rehabilitation. Old timey religion where fire-and-brimstone preachers talk about how Jesus wants them to stay off drugs. Flaky New Age religion where counselors tell you about how drug abuse is keeping you from your true self. Government programs. University programs. Private programs. Giving people money. Fining people money. Being unusually nice. Being unusually mean. More social support. Less social support. This school of therapy. That school of therapy. What works is just giving people a chemical to saturate the brain receptor directly. We know it works. The studies show it works. And we’re still collectively beating our heads against the wall of finding a social solution." [0] - http://lesswrong.com/lw/2as/diseased_thinking_dissolving_questions_about/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/2as/diseased_thinking_dissolving_que... [1] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/02/practically-a-book-review-dying-to-be-free/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/02/practically-a-book-revi...
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    "Experiments have shown rats to forgo food to the point of starvation in order to work for brain stimulation or intravenous cocaine when both food and stimulation are offered concurrently for a limited time each day." From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_stimulation_reward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_stimulation_reward
    - omurphyevans 11y ago
      When given positive other life experiences, rats do not prefer cocaine to food. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      The quote I cited was about heroin in particular; I don't know the state of anti-cocaine methods and the article doesn't go into it. It only states that apparently we have a perfectly good method of curing heroin addiction that's not being used for pretty stupid reasons.
cm2187 11y ago
On that topic I strongly recommend the TV show "Narcos". If that degree of violence is the price for prohibition then prohibition has to go. It is pointless to vote laws that are unenforceable.
demallien 11y ago
Maybe I'm being obtuse, but wouldn't that be an argument for prohibition? As in, drugs that aren't prohibited cause much more harm than those that are?

suneilp 11y ago

Is it creating violence or exacerbating violence? I'm more inclined to choose the latter. The reason why I distinguish the two is that I see the continuation and increase in drug use as something symptomatic of other issues in the big picture. Economic issues, politics, racism.... oppression on various fronts from the system down to the family to the self. Drugs (and alcohol) are an escape. Normal activities also provide an escape when people get obsessed with them. TV, video games, food (my escape), exercise for some addicts, sex, etc. Just legalize cannabis and decriminalize other drugs already.

icanhackit 11y ago
> Is it creating violence or exacerbating violence? Depends on the substance, depends on the market, depends on the reason for using. I haven't seen too many people on MDMA become violent or impoverished through addiction, though their incessant hugs and platitudes can lead to a violent response if they don't have enough to go around. It's complex, but not that complex. We have the power of observation - where we can plot what is safe to use recreationally, what can be considered substance abuse, which substances often lead to abusive behaviour, which socio-economic factors lead to use in the first place, factors in the marketplace that lead to violence and crime, how we can monetarily/socially/legislatively abate the negative factors...and yet here we are with our proverbial junk in our hand wondering what to do. Start being objective, use methodologies that we've used for years for other problems that aren't taboo. We've travelled to the fucking moon. My non-objective opinion: Drugs are interesting. Drugs take the edge off of a less-than-stellar life. Drugs help the mind momentarily escape the trap set by forces who care little for your happiness and wellbeing. You can fix the latter, which is unlikely in our lifetime, or reduce the burden of being a drug user in the interim.
- idonthaveaname 11y ago
  > We have the power of observation - where we can plot what is safe to use recreationally... Wikipedia says this better than I can: In 2007 [Dr David] Nutt published a controversial study on the harms of drug use in The Lancet.[12] Eventually, this led to his sacking from his position in the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD); see government positions below. Subsequently, Nutt and a number of his colleagues who had subsequently resigned from the ACMD founded the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs.[13] Here are the citations: [12] Nutt, D.; King, L. A.; Saulsbury, W.; Blakemore, C. (2007). "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse". The Lancet 369 (9566): 1047–1053. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4. PMID 17382831. [13] Nutt, D. (2010). "Nutt damage – Author's reply". The Lancet 375 (9716): 724–724. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60302-9. Roughly, the story as I recall it was that the head of the government's own advisory body on the health effects of drugs published a report through established scientific channels which claimed a significant mis-match between the harm caused by many popular drugs and the legislation around them. These were respected scientsists originally picked for their qualifications & integrity. Their opinion was unpopular with the existing power-structures and so their leader felt he had to resign, and several of his peers followed voluntarily. Up to this point, most governments have exhibited intent to ignore the suggestions and testable claims of researchers in this area, and to ignore the will of the people they represent. I doubt an article in the WP will do anything to change that, no matter how much I wish it would.

DanielBMarkham 11y ago

I'm a libertarian, so I'm already sold on legalization. Count me in. As such, hopefully I can quibble with the text a bit. "Ceasing this hypocritical practice by releasing nonviolent offenders is morally urgent." Yeah, not so much. Yes, there is a severe moral problem here, but please do not make moral arguments! It's folks with moral arguments riding around on high horses that got us into this mess. Instead, argue from the standpoint of practicality (which she does). One of the practicality arguments she does not make, which deserves mentioning, is that because the drug war is unwinnable, there are too many laws. This makes folks with the power of selective enforcement lords over the rest of us. Have a traffic stop? Cops ask to search your car? You have a right to say "no". But if you do, be prepared to wait around until the drug dog shows up. He'll sniff around your car and "alert" the cops, even if there's no drugs present. Then, guess what? They get to tear apart your car while you watch. All because of the war on drugs. Let's say you are a drug user. You have a joint in the ashtray. In this case, it gets even better. Then -- if I'm not mistaken -- they get to take your car! A few dollars worth of illegal pot, which might not even be yours, and you could lose tens of thousands of dollars worth of car. It's not that this is morally outrageous. It certainly is. It's that a system of justice cannot maintain the consent of the governed when it turns LE officers into something approaching highway bandits. Selective enforcement of drug laws -- both by cops and prosecutors -- distorts the legal system so much as to make it unworkable. Sure, it's bad, but the bigger point is that it cannot continue working in this fashion. Something's gotta give. I liked the article. It's good to see public discourse slowly become much more reasonable about drug addiction and its consequences. One caution, though: in my opinion what we need to do is still stay tough on violent, hardened criminals while being more pragmatic about drug crimes. Otherwise we'll end up being slandered as soft-headed and irrational.

blisterpeanuts 11y ago
I generally agree with your major thesis which is that the laws need to be consistent and fair. Clearly the majority of Americans see no harm in an occasional toke, and the majority indeed have tried MJ. That in itself argues MJ should be made legal. The one argument that the police might make against legalization is that it deprives them of a useful tool -- an immoral tool, but nonetheless vital -- for getting scumbags off the street. Example: The cops stop a guy who they basically know committed a murder or a rape or some other violent crime, but they don't have the evidence to hold him. He'd call his lawyer, the lawyer would come in and make sure he's held for no more than the maximum number of hours, then he'd be freed and nothing gained by anyone. But if they can nail him on possession, they at least can get him off the streets for some days, weeks, or months, while they gather the evidence to really put him away. Not really the spirit of the law, but it works. That said, I'd rather we focus more resources on the few sociopaths and violent types out there, and clear out the over-crowded prisons.

kawa 11y ago

There's only so much profit in the drug business because of the illegality of many drugs. Changing that would kill the profits of many very rich and powerful criminals and cartels. So it's very understandable that those people do everything they can to prevent their business model from collapsing. The usual way of doing it is simply lots of lobbying: Paying "well meaning" people, journalists and politicians to stay on the track of keeping most drugs illegal, so that the drug lords and cartels can continue to earn money. So does really anybody wonder why the (obviously totally pointless) "war on drugs" is still waged and will probably waged for quite a while?

TeMPOraL 11y ago
It's interesting that we actually have a potential big opponent for the drug cartels - drug companies. Legalizing drugs will drive cartels out of business because they'd be competing with clean drugs sold in pharmacies, prepared in well-funded laboratories of entities used to cooperating with safety regulations. So why the Big Pharma isn't lobbying for ending the war on drugs? I wonder if it isn't the social view that's blocking them - the first pharmaceutical company to step up and vote for legalization could face a serious PR shitstorm centered about morality of "legitimizing addiction".
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Many illegal drugs are actually dangerous, so you need legalization and some mechanism to shield them from liability. They also already sell many analogues to illegal drugs under prescription, so you have to look at whether a legalized market would be a better business than the one they currently have.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    You're right. As long as there are limits to access to drugs, there will be some market for getting them illicitly - even if for convenience reasons (say, getting prescription drugs without a prescription). The question is, whether that market will be big enough to support organized crime the way the war on drugs does.

aidos 11y ago

The other day Richard Branson posted a leaked report from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime that agrees with the notion of drug use as a health issue, not a criminal one. Of course, they've turned around and said that's not their official stance. Sigh. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/19/un-call-decriminalisation-drugs-richard-branson http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/19/un-call-decri... http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/finally-a-change-in-course-on-drug-policy http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/finally-a-change-in-co...

upofadown 11y ago

If you have a business disagreement you can't go to drug court to resolve it. Sometimes attempts to resolve differences go wrong. At some level the violence in the drug black market is simply because it is a black market.

peterwwillis 11y ago

Violent crime in America rose dramatically as a result of worsening racial ties after the death of Martin Luther King, a lack of employment and investment in local communities, and an increase in use of heroin and (later) easier to produce drugs like crack. Increase in the number of robbery and petty crime identically track both the increase in use of and violence associated with drug use. But the war on drugs' main influence on this violence has been to keep the pressure on the drug dealers, increasing risk to sell the product and making it less available, thus driving up prices, increasing competition, and therefore promoting violence between drug dealers, and by drug users in order to afford what they're addicted to. And all of this leads to increased incarceration, not just from drug charges, but from the increased violence associated with the drug trade, gang warfare, and an unlawful under-society where people do whatever they can to get by. A flow chart would make it a bit easier to grok, but basically the drug war throws fuel on a fire that was only simmering before.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

cubano 11y ago

I just don't think many people realize just how much legal corporate and government "business" is created by the insane war on drugs, and I am convinced this is the reason why it continues. Like I mentioned before, I just spent 6 months in the deep bowels of the criminal justice system for drug possession here in Florida, and those observations have shaped this view. The cops, the judges, the lawyers on both sides (who eventually become the politicians that make the laws), the clerks, the guards (do they hate being called that!), the jail/prison administrators...they ALL are making pretty awesome livings from the war on drugs, and have zero repeat ZERO incentive to change anything. The problem is not a legal one, it's economic. The public is fed the propaganda of wrecked lives and violence to keep the status quo...until the population somehow wakes up and sees how the CJS is totally broken as perhaps even more corrupt then the drug game, I doubt anything can change.

planfaster 11y ago
This is so true. We have two very recent examples of this, first the US presence in Afghanistan and second the DEA having just left Bolivia. But the media dare not touch this level of analysis.
alsetmusic 11y ago
I watched someone get out of jury duty by articulating his view of the prison system as a for-profit enterprise a couple years ago. He spoke brilliantly and was immediately dismissed.
pizza234 11y ago
This is the thesis of the documentary "The House I Live In", which is a suggested watch for anybody who has an interest in the subject[s].
rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
You are absolutely right, and perhaps the most under reported effect of the war on any vice is that vice enforcement becomes just as lucrative. It's easier to bust someone for possession than reckless driving, assault, you know, things that have to be verified at the time of offense. It's not that the police, prosecutors, prison owners or lawmakers are bad people, they just deal with corrosive incentives. Just like drugs, drug crime enforcement is a cheap high that gets you to places you wouldn't likely be if you played by the boring rules.

sixQuarks 11y ago

Besides all of the stated reasons to legalize/decriminalize, I think just as important is personal liberty. I should be free to experiment with my own consciousness (so long as it does not impede on the rights of others) - how much more personal can you get? For the government to impede on this is unconscionable (pun intended).

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
This is not happening in a vacuum. There's already problems with experimentation causing considerable public expense, exposure to danger and needless suffering. Anybody can give you an anecdote - I will resist posting mine since they are a dime a dozen.
- alsetmusic 11y ago
  > Anybody can give you an anecdote - I will resist posting mine since they are a dime a dozen. Links to reputable studies backing this up would be welcome.
- sixQuarks 11y ago
  You can say that about anything. Should the government stop people from eating junk food? from participating in dangerous sports activities? Why are drugs different?
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Because, car accidents, child neglect, spouse abuse, healthcare, time lost to work... Some of those other things are regulated as well. E.g. You can't rappel in many state parks, because idiots kept getting hurt and costing the state $$$ in rescue attempts to remote locations. Its not all cruel government heedlessly restricting rights. That's an immature viewpoint. Count the cost and see that nothing is free.
    - sixQuarks 11y ago
      So that means you ARE for prohibition of alcohol. Read your last sentence: count the cost and see that nothing is free. Do you think prohibition of alcohol had no costs? Same thing with drugs - which the article pointed out. The cost of keeping it illegal far outweighs the potential costs resulting from irresponsible users (which we still pay for even when it is illegal)

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

I'm not too keen on Silver's analysis/conclusion that drug offenses account for such a low fraction of inmates' crimes. Drug possession renders a lot of otherwise non criminal behavior into a "violent felony", and prosecutors love tacking these extra charges on when they can.

segmondy 11y ago

Yup, ineffective law enforcement and judicial system turns the survival street mantra to "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."