3 ms·

All drug raids are outrageous. The stupid war on drugs is tearing society apart, criminalising citizens, filling jails, ripping apart families, wasting police

by hoodoof 11y ago

All drug raids are outrageous. The stupid war on drugs is tearing society apart, criminalising citizens, filling jails, ripping apart families, wasting police and court resources, throwing away tax on enforcement, missing out on tax revenue and funnelling billions to organised crime. All because people want to get high, which is (for most drugs) a personal choice health issue.

stoffie 11y ago
Exactly! Even if there was actually marijuana, how can you justify a no-knock raid for a victimless crime like smoking weed? I bet those police guys would shit themselves and call it a day if they were to raid an actual criminal organization, with automatic weapons and grenades
Vexs 11y ago
I think there's a difference between crimanal drug usage and illegal drug usage. I mean, if it's a warehouse with massive ammounts of drugs in-out, then yes, a raid makes sense. There are criminals doing illegal things in there. However, a drug raid with the same tools preformed on an apartment is insane, it's going to be a group of people doing illegal things. I will confess an error in my thinking, in that it's really hard to legally define what I describe, if not impossible. But, as the bible says (paraphrased, and this is probably the first time I've ever quoted it..) "I would not destroy the city if there is a single innocent inside of it." If you can't make the law work, than maybe it shouldn't be there.
- deciplex 11y ago
  > I mean, if it's a warehouse with massive ammounts of drugs in-out, then yes, a raid makes sense. There are criminals doing illegal things in there. Let's rephrase this a bit: > I mean, if it's a warehouse with criminals doing illegal things in there, then yes, a raid makes sense. Currently much of the drug trade is managed by criminals, and once you're breaking drug laws you might as well go ahead and break other laws e.g. human trafficking, extortion, etc. But that need not be the case, and it's not hard to imagine a warehouse with "massive ammounts [sic] of drugs in-out", where a raid would be totally unjustified and illegal.
flatline 11y ago
Drugs are capable of ripping apart families without any help from the drug war, thank you very much. Alcohol is certainly high on this list and there are a slew of prescription drugs up there with it, but we shouldn't pretend that there is not a public health crisis from rampant amphetamine, opioid, and alcohol misuse, whether obtained by illegal means or not. Of course, the issue is continuing to receive increased awareness as a public health crisis and not a criminal one as both usage and law enforcement encroach more heavily into middle and upper class, predominately white society. Law enforcement's role in the drug trade is never going to go away completely, nor is organized crime's. I do think, however, that we as a society are finally starting to see some movement in the direction of reducing their influences. The question in my mind - and I think in many people's minds who are for decriminalization - is, will we put anything in their place to help people and families in need?
- api 11y ago
  Addiction is a symptom of other underlying psychological or neurological problems, not a cause. Healthy people do not become addicts any more than healthy people run high fevers or vomit uncontrollably. The underlying causes of addiction are medical, psychological, and social, and fixing those is the solution. Criminal drug prohibition harms everyone. It harms non-addict drug users in an obvious way: by punishing them for a completely voluntary non-crime. It harms addicts by punishing them for having a psychological health problem that should be treated, and the follow-on effects of criminal prosecution further damage their lives (e.g. having a felony) which in turn causes them to be more likely to suffer from further addiction. Finally, it harms society by creating a massive off-the-books profit center for criminals that in turn increases crime and promotes corruption. (I call it the "federal subsidy for organized crime.") It also wastes police resources that could otherwise be available for pursuing more pressing problems. If drugs are legal, why would organized crime continue to be involved?
  - misja111 11y ago
    I agree with your point that legalizing drugs is a good way to attack organized crime and to be able to focus on treating addicts instead of criminalizing them. I strongly disagree however with your first point, 'Addiction is a symptom of other underlying psychological or neurological problems, not a cause'. You are implying that all addictions start with a psychological or neurological problem. Let's take smoking addiction as an example. In the 60's, almost 50% of the adult population in the USA was smoking. Even today almost 20% is. Not all of those people started because of some underlying mental problem. Other factors such as group pressure, role models or just plain boredom are much more important, whether it is for nicotine, alcohol or any other addiction. Furthermore, addiction can definitely be a cause to both psychological and neurological problems. The first one, psychological problems because of an addiction, is obvious. But recent discoveries have shown that certain drug addictions (e.g cocaine) also modify your brain structure.
jobu 11y ago
It is ridiculous, as is a heavily armed tactical squad being called on a quiet suburban family of four. Unfortunately it's the sort of bullshit that the public seems to allow when it's framed as a "War". One possible way to flip the debate might be to re-frame it as police "War on the Constitution". I'm not sure if it will work, or if there's better wording, but the author tries to do it in the article: "The Fourth Amendment was a response to the invasive, sometimes violent searches of colonists’ homes by British soldiers armed with general warrants to look for untaxed goods."

by hoodoof 11y ago

stoffie 11y ago

Exactly! Even if there was actually marijuana, how can you justify a no-knock raid for a victimless crime like smoking weed? I bet those police guys would shit themselves and call it a day if they were to raid an actual criminal organization, with automatic weapons and grenades

Vexs 11y ago

I think there's a difference between crimanal drug usage and illegal drug usage. I mean, if it's a warehouse with massive ammounts of drugs in-out, then yes, a raid makes sense. There are criminals doing illegal things in there. However, a drug raid with the same tools preformed on an apartment is insane, it's going to be a group of people doing illegal things. I will confess an error in my thinking, in that it's really hard to legally define what I describe, if not impossible. But, as the bible says (paraphrased, and this is probably the first time I've ever quoted it..) "I would not destroy the city if there is a single innocent inside of it." If you can't make the law work, than maybe it shouldn't be there.

deciplex 11y ago
> I mean, if it's a warehouse with massive ammounts of drugs in-out, then yes, a raid makes sense. There are criminals doing illegal things in there. Let's rephrase this a bit: > I mean, if it's a warehouse with criminals doing illegal things in there, then yes, a raid makes sense. Currently much of the drug trade is managed by criminals, and once you're breaking drug laws you might as well go ahead and break other laws e.g. human trafficking, extortion, etc. But that need not be the case, and it's not hard to imagine a warehouse with "massive ammounts [sic] of drugs in-out", where a raid would be totally unjustified and illegal.

flatline 11y ago

Drugs are capable of ripping apart families without any help from the drug war, thank you very much. Alcohol is certainly high on this list and there are a slew of prescription drugs up there with it, but we shouldn't pretend that there is not a public health crisis from rampant amphetamine, opioid, and alcohol misuse, whether obtained by illegal means or not. Of course, the issue is continuing to receive increased awareness as a public health crisis and not a criminal one as both usage and law enforcement encroach more heavily into middle and upper class, predominately white society. Law enforcement's role in the drug trade is never going to go away completely, nor is organized crime's. I do think, however, that we as a society are finally starting to see some movement in the direction of reducing their influences. The question in my mind - and I think in many people's minds who are for decriminalization - is, will we put anything in their place to help people and families in need?

api 11y ago
Addiction is a symptom of other underlying psychological or neurological problems, not a cause. Healthy people do not become addicts any more than healthy people run high fevers or vomit uncontrollably. The underlying causes of addiction are medical, psychological, and social, and fixing those is the solution. Criminal drug prohibition harms everyone. It harms non-addict drug users in an obvious way: by punishing them for a completely voluntary non-crime. It harms addicts by punishing them for having a psychological health problem that should be treated, and the follow-on effects of criminal prosecution further damage their lives (e.g. having a felony) which in turn causes them to be more likely to suffer from further addiction. Finally, it harms society by creating a massive off-the-books profit center for criminals that in turn increases crime and promotes corruption. (I call it the "federal subsidy for organized crime.") It also wastes police resources that could otherwise be available for pursuing more pressing problems. If drugs are legal, why would organized crime continue to be involved?
- misja111 11y ago
  I agree with your point that legalizing drugs is a good way to attack organized crime and to be able to focus on treating addicts instead of criminalizing them. I strongly disagree however with your first point, 'Addiction is a symptom of other underlying psychological or neurological problems, not a cause'. You are implying that all addictions start with a psychological or neurological problem. Let's take smoking addiction as an example. In the 60's, almost 50% of the adult population in the USA was smoking. Even today almost 20% is. Not all of those people started because of some underlying mental problem. Other factors such as group pressure, role models or just plain boredom are much more important, whether it is for nicotine, alcohol or any other addiction. Furthermore, addiction can definitely be a cause to both psychological and neurological problems. The first one, psychological problems because of an addiction, is obvious. But recent discoveries have shown that certain drug addictions (e.g cocaine) also modify your brain structure.

jobu 11y ago

It is ridiculous, as is a heavily armed tactical squad being called on a quiet suburban family of four. Unfortunately it's the sort of bullshit that the public seems to allow when it's framed as a "War". One possible way to flip the debate might be to re-frame it as police "War on the Constitution". I'm not sure if it will work, or if there's better wording, but the author tries to do it in the article: "The Fourth Amendment was a response to the invasive, sometimes violent searches of colonists’ homes by British soldiers armed with general warrants to look for untaxed goods."