7 ms·

Is it true that > The government persists with the drug war because Americans have a moral opposition to drug use: or > Americans have a moral opposition to d

by gohrt 11y ago

Is it true that > The government persists with the drug war because Americans have a moral opposition to drug use: or > Americans have a moral opposition to drug use, because the government persists with the drug war ? Impressionable children are indoctrinated against drug use, by US law enforcement, in US public schools. > 70-80% of polled adults wanted to make even marijuana illegal. That's impossible, because marijuana already was illegal. If that number is correct, is measures keeping marijuana illegal (maintaining status quo), not making marijuana illegal. You can't extrapolate that to a choice people would make when not constrained by history, and when not constrained by the persuasive force of current law.

rayiner 11y ago
> Impressionable children are indoctrinated against drug use, by US law enforcement, in US public schools. That's one theory, but it does not jive with the data. Millennials grew up with teachers shrieking "just say no!" at school assemblies. They were the most heavily propagandized generation with regards to the drug war. Much more so than their baby boomer teachers who grew up in the 1960's. Yet they're the ones leading the way on legalization of marijuana. So how can you say that moral opposition to drug use exists because of propaganda, when the more heavily propagandized generation is also the one with the least opposition to drugs? I have a different theory. Moral opposition to drug usage is based on the need to establish social norms that discourage escapism and dependency. In an industrial society with booming demand for labor, that's an important social norm to instill in people. But in a post-industrial, automated society, with a robust safety net, that becomes much less important. It's not like teenagers sitting in their basement smoking pot today would otherwise be going off to work at busy factories building a solid future for their families.
- wfo 11y ago
  The propaganda was not particularly effective while aimed at children since its primary vehicle was tying opposition of drug use as a way to signal and support racism which was a particular societal trait the children had not yet learned. Opposition of drug use was a way to express racism without actually expressing it once it became taboo following the civil rights era. The racism strategy was a much more powerful and effective tool for the older generation. There has been an attempt to continue to artificially associate drugs with other 'bad things' (terrorism, for example) now that associating something with black people isn't a guaranteed way to make people hate it, but success has been limited.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    The illegality of drugs means that criminal organisations use the manufacture and supply of drugs as one way to make money. Terrorist organisations need to smuggle things into and out of their target country (weapons, money, people) and so they have expertise that they can use to smuggle drugs. This link between terrorist groups and drugs is not new. Even groups who are strongly anti-drugs end up having connections to drug dealing groups. The Provisional IRA was anti-drug, the Real IRA is so anti-drug that it's joined up with anti drug vigilantes, but there are links as far back as 1990 between pIRA and FARC and Columbian drug money. To try to deny the links between terrorist groups and drug smuggling is weird in the face of so much evidence. Drugs were used as payment for the Madrid bombings.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - EdHominem 11y ago
      There's no intentional link usually. It's just the best illegal source of income. If it dried up they'd be smuggling blood diamonds, etc. Terrorism is a gateway crime. :D
    - ufmace 11y ago
      This reminds me of an article I read where somebody recommended abolishing the $100 note, as it was too associated with crime, and it would inconvenience criminals to have to carry bigger bundles of $20s. I wonder if/how often criminal organizations use drugs as a substitute for money for being easier to transport, verify, etc. I wonder how much that would increase if they did abolish the $100.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        It might help, but drug dealers are pretty resourceful. England has seen people using Fixed Odds Betting machines to launder money. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/08/gambling-machines-drug-money-laundering-bookies http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/08/gambling-mach... > James, 24, looks like just another lost soul in the high street, shuttling between the six betting shops in an east coast seaside town. It's a weekday morning and if you catch up with him inside a bookmaker, you'll find him peering intently into the green glowing screen of an electronic gambling machine – feeding in £200, "a score at a time". > But this is not a young gambler blowing his meagre wages. James is a drug dealer and his interest in the bookmakers – and the fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) in each shop – is all about laundering money. "That's what turns dirty money clean," he says. Dealers feed their drug money through the machines, losing a little and then cashing out with the vast majority of their stake, James says. They can then collect a printed ticket showing they have gambled that day – meaning that if stopped by police, they can answer questions about why an apparently unemployed young man carries hundreds of pounds in rolled-up cash. > Earlier this month the Gambling Commission, the industry regulator, fined Coral bookmakers £90,000 in profits it made from one drug dealer who had laundered almost £1m in its shops. I don't think the gamblers care. It's unlikely he was feeding £50 notes into the machines, but £20s and £10s.
- EdHominem 11y ago
  > So how can you say that moral opposition to drug use exists because of propaganda, Because most of the opponents of legalization use the same talking points that the DARE and other school drug-abstinence programs use. Gateway drugs, etc. All the things we now know are nonsense. That's what makes it propaganda instead of information. If these people didn't come to these opinions because of propaganda they'd use different terminology and different arguments. > Moral opposition to drug usage is based on the need to establish social norms that discourage escapism and dependency. No, because TV(, etc) is acceptable. Drugs are a problem because of our puritanical background. The issue isn't that you aren't being productive, it's that you're enjoying it.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Impressionable children are indoctrinated against drug use, by US law enforcement, in US public schools. If you mean things like DARE, its worth noting that studies of DARE have shown that (despite its name and how it is sold to parents, etc.) it has no effect on participant's attitudes toward (or propensity for) drug use, but does make their attitudes toward law enforcement more positive.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  >t has no effect on participant's attitudes toward (or propensity for) drug use Which is really crazy, if you think about it. Multiple years of training and indoctrination have no effect. In some ways, that gives me hope for America.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    The cynical view is that DARE is pro-law-enforcement training and indoctrination, where the anti-drug focus is simply window-dressing to sell the program to parents and the public.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      Even if it doesn't trick kids into thinking police are cool (which, honestly, I don't believe it does), running a DARE course is easier than most other police work, and pulls in federal subsidies too. So it benefits police even if it doesn't convince anyone of anything.
- mrep 11y ago
  > it has no effect on participant's attitudes toward (or propensity for) drug use, but does make their attitudes toward law enforcement more positive. I would say that's kind of true. I first believed what DARE said and never wanted to use any drugs. I eventually did try 1 and had a totally different experience that what they said and therefore took everything they said to be lieful propaganda.

by gohrt 11y ago

rayiner 11y ago

> Impressionable children are indoctrinated against drug use, by US law enforcement, in US public schools. That's one theory, but it does not jive with the data. Millennials grew up with teachers shrieking "just say no!" at school assemblies. They were the most heavily propagandized generation with regards to the drug war. Much more so than their baby boomer teachers who grew up in the 1960's. Yet they're the ones leading the way on legalization of marijuana. So how can you say that moral opposition to drug use exists because of propaganda, when the more heavily propagandized generation is also the one with the least opposition to drugs? I have a different theory. Moral opposition to drug usage is based on the need to establish social norms that discourage escapism and dependency. In an industrial society with booming demand for labor, that's an important social norm to instill in people. But in a post-industrial, automated society, with a robust safety net, that becomes much less important. It's not like teenagers sitting in their basement smoking pot today would otherwise be going off to work at busy factories building a solid future for their families.

wfo 11y ago
The propaganda was not particularly effective while aimed at children since its primary vehicle was tying opposition of drug use as a way to signal and support racism which was a particular societal trait the children had not yet learned. Opposition of drug use was a way to express racism without actually expressing it once it became taboo following the civil rights era. The racism strategy was a much more powerful and effective tool for the older generation. There has been an attempt to continue to artificially associate drugs with other 'bad things' (terrorism, for example) now that associating something with black people isn't a guaranteed way to make people hate it, but success has been limited.
- DanBC 11y ago
  The illegality of drugs means that criminal organisations use the manufacture and supply of drugs as one way to make money. Terrorist organisations need to smuggle things into and out of their target country (weapons, money, people) and so they have expertise that they can use to smuggle drugs. This link between terrorist groups and drugs is not new. Even groups who are strongly anti-drugs end up having connections to drug dealing groups. The Provisional IRA was anti-drug, the Real IRA is so anti-drug that it's joined up with anti drug vigilantes, but there are links as far back as 1990 between pIRA and FARC and Columbian drug money. To try to deny the links between terrorist groups and drug smuggling is weird in the face of so much evidence. Drugs were used as payment for the Madrid bombings.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - EdHominem 11y ago
    There's no intentional link usually. It's just the best illegal source of income. If it dried up they'd be smuggling blood diamonds, etc. Terrorism is a gateway crime. :D
  - ufmace 11y ago
    This reminds me of an article I read where somebody recommended abolishing the $100 note, as it was too associated with crime, and it would inconvenience criminals to have to carry bigger bundles of $20s. I wonder if/how often criminal organizations use drugs as a substitute for money for being easier to transport, verify, etc. I wonder how much that would increase if they did abolish the $100.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      It might help, but drug dealers are pretty resourceful. England has seen people using Fixed Odds Betting machines to launder money. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/08/gambling-machines-drug-money-laundering-bookies http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/08/gambling-mach... > James, 24, looks like just another lost soul in the high street, shuttling between the six betting shops in an east coast seaside town. It's a weekday morning and if you catch up with him inside a bookmaker, you'll find him peering intently into the green glowing screen of an electronic gambling machine – feeding in £200, "a score at a time". > But this is not a young gambler blowing his meagre wages. James is a drug dealer and his interest in the bookmakers – and the fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) in each shop – is all about laundering money. "That's what turns dirty money clean," he says. Dealers feed their drug money through the machines, losing a little and then cashing out with the vast majority of their stake, James says. They can then collect a printed ticket showing they have gambled that day – meaning that if stopped by police, they can answer questions about why an apparently unemployed young man carries hundreds of pounds in rolled-up cash. > Earlier this month the Gambling Commission, the industry regulator, fined Coral bookmakers £90,000 in profits it made from one drug dealer who had laundered almost £1m in its shops. I don't think the gamblers care. It's unlikely he was feeding £50 notes into the machines, but £20s and £10s.
EdHominem 11y ago
> So how can you say that moral opposition to drug use exists because of propaganda, Because most of the opponents of legalization use the same talking points that the DARE and other school drug-abstinence programs use. Gateway drugs, etc. All the things we now know are nonsense. That's what makes it propaganda instead of information. If these people didn't come to these opinions because of propaganda they'd use different terminology and different arguments. > Moral opposition to drug usage is based on the need to establish social norms that discourage escapism and dependency. No, because TV(, etc) is acceptable. Drugs are a problem because of our puritanical background. The issue isn't that you aren't being productive, it's that you're enjoying it.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Impressionable children are indoctrinated against drug use, by US law enforcement, in US public schools. If you mean things like DARE, its worth noting that studies of DARE have shown that (despite its name and how it is sold to parents, etc.) it has no effect on participant's attitudes toward (or propensity for) drug use, but does make their attitudes toward law enforcement more positive.

ktRolster 11y ago
>t has no effect on participant's attitudes toward (or propensity for) drug use Which is really crazy, if you think about it. Multiple years of training and indoctrination have no effect. In some ways, that gives me hope for America.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  The cynical view is that DARE is pro-law-enforcement training and indoctrination, where the anti-drug focus is simply window-dressing to sell the program to parents and the public.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    Even if it doesn't trick kids into thinking police are cool (which, honestly, I don't believe it does), running a DARE course is easier than most other police work, and pulls in federal subsidies too. So it benefits police even if it doesn't convince anyone of anything.
mrep 11y ago
> it has no effect on participant's attitudes toward (or propensity for) drug use, but does make their attitudes toward law enforcement more positive. I would say that's kind of true. I first believed what DARE said and never wanted to use any drugs. I eventually did try 1 and had a totally different experience that what they said and therefore took everything they said to be lieful propaganda.