20 ms·

Legalize It All

527 points by apo 11y ago

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
krylon 11y ago
We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did. That sums it up pretty well. It never was about fighting drug use or preventing the harm it can do. Can we now, please, get that behind us and move on? If we only spent 10% of what we now spent on prosecuting drug use on prevention and rehabilitation, that would be a much greater service to society than fourty years of "war" have been. Not to mention the benefits for privacy, the decrease in violence and so on...
- fweespee_ch 11y ago
  > The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? > That sums it up pretty well. It never was about fighting drug use or preventing the harm it can do. Can we now, please, get that behind us and move on? If we only spent 10% of what we now spent on prosecuting drug use on prevention and rehabilitation, that would be a much greater service to society than fourty years of "war" have been. Not to mention the benefits for privacy, the decrease in violence and so on... I think the disturbing part is people, even now, deny this is the reason Nixon pushed for it. I just can't understand it. :/ Nixon basically shat on the results of his own commissions by members of his own party when he didn't like the results. History is littered with evidence this man had an agenda yet people act like the "Drug War" wasn't created as a political tool. http://www.drugpolicy.org/new-solutions-drug-policy/brief-history-drug-war http://www.drugpolicy.org/new-solutions-drug-policy/brief-hi... > In June 1971, President Nixon declared a “war on drugs.” He dramatically increased the size and presence of federal drug control agencies, and pushed through measures such as mandatory sentencing and no-knock warrants. Nixon temporarily placed marijuana in Schedule One, the most restrictive category of drugs, pending review by a commission he appointed led by Republican Pennsylvania Governor Raymond Shafer. In 1972, the commission unanimously recommended decriminalizing the possession and distribution of marijuana for personal use. Nixon ignored the report and rejected its recommendations. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/the-war-on-drugs-how-president-nixon-tied-addiction-to-crime/254319/ http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/the-war-on... > On December 5, 1969, President Richard Nixon appointed Stephen Hess to the position of National Chairman of the White House Conference for Children and Youth. Hess's task was to "listen well to the voices of young Americans -- in the universities, on the farms, the assembly lines, the street corners," in the hopes of uncovering their opinions on America's domestic and international affairs. After two years of intensive planning, Hess and 1,486 delegates from across the country met in Estes Park, Colorado, and, from April 18 to 22, 1971, discussed ten areas that most concerned the youth of America. These issues included, not surprisingly, the draft and the war in Vietnam, the economy and employment, education, the environment, poverty, and, most notably for Points readers, drugs. > The task force on drugs, composed of eight youths and four adults, forcefully argued for addressing the root causes of drug abuse, advocating therapy for addicts rather than incarceration or punishment. > ... even if the Nixon administration distorted the numbers that tied drug addiction to instances of crime. ...
  - ska 11y ago
    I think focusing on Nixon on at this point is actively problematic. Literally every administration since then has been complicit in this, and made it worse.
    - fweespee_ch 11y ago
      Sure, future administrations are complicit, but people didn't really "believe" the way Nixon believed until he brought the full power of the Federal government and an extensive political organization to spread fear in the general populace. Up until that point, enough people didn't believe in his course of action that his own people wouldn't give him the answers he wanted.
      - ska 11y ago
        By all means history should remember his failings here and elsewhere. I just mean the responsibility for the state of things today, and for improving it, lies solidly on other shoulders today. And that is where the focus should be. There should be no support for a narrative of "oh, but those were the bad old days, things are better now". They are not.
        fweespee_ch 11y ago
        > By all means history should remember his failings here and elsewhere. The original post was discussing the history: > I think the disturbing part is people, even now, deny this is the reason Nixon pushed for it. I just can't understand it. :/ > Nixon basically shat on the results of his own commissions by members of his own party when he didn't like the results. History is littered with evidence this man had an agenda yet people act like the "Drug War" wasn't created as a political tool. ---- > I just mean the responsibility for the state of things today, and for improving it, lies solidly on other shoulders today. And that is where the focus should be. There should be no support for a narrative of "oh, but those were the bad old days, things are better now". They are not. That has nothing to do with what I was saying. Literally the entire content of my post [beyond quotes] was discussing past history concerning a single president. Stop tilting at windmills. ---- Edit since I'm rate limited and don't care that much: Look, the historical context of stuff like this interests me. If you find it boring...shrugs
- patrickburke 11y ago
  According to a recent Frontline, maybe we are moving on: "A searing, two-hour investigation places America’s heroin crisis in a fresh and provocative light -- telling the stories of individual addicts, but also illuminating the epidemic's years-in-the-making social context, deeply examining shifts in U.S. drug policy, and exploring what happens when addiction is treated like a public health issue, not a crime." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/chasing-heroin/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/chasing-heroin/
- Delmania 11y ago
  > Can we now, please, get that behind us and move on? What, and disrupt the massively profitable prison industry?
  - hjhgjtyhgdfi 11y ago
    The largest private for-profit prison (CCA) has $1.7 billion in revenue. Apple makes $233 billion in revenue. Exxon has $268 billion in revenue. Walmart makes $482 billion in revenue.
    - knodi123 11y ago
      So it makes as much money as Uber instead of Walmart? Just because it's not the biggest doesn't mean it's not big.
      - hjhgjtyhgdfi 11y ago
        Uber is a a high-growth startup as you may be aware, and will far eclipse its 2015 revenue this year. Even so, comparing the revenues of the "massively profitable" prison company that's been around since 1983 with a single Silicon Valley startup that just got off the ground a few years ago is quite a stretch and a false equivalence.
        ivanca 11y ago
        ....And burger king exists since 1953 and "only" makes $1.06B of revenue per year, so what? 3 billion dollars is more than many small countries make in an entire year (nominal GDP)
    - dangerlibrary 11y ago
      https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000021940 https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D00002194... https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000021754&cycle=2014 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000021754&c... Their revenue is less than 1% of Apple's, but their lobbying budget is 25%-75% of Apple's year to year.
- narrator 11y ago
  The thing I find interesting (INTERESTING, not necessarily moral or otherwise) about China is that when they want to do something controversial they are open and straight forward about it. They openly attack and arrest groups that they find disruptive to the social order. In America, the leadership has to invent all sorts of crafty subterfuge to accomplish their goals of persecuting and imprisoning groups that they consider to be disruptive. It's getting to be that the crafty deceptions have become so deeply layered that the official ideology that's supposed to justify policy has become hopelessly confused and contradictory.
  - shmerl 11y ago
    Why is that interesting that dictatorship doesn't hesitate to openly attack dissent? That's actually expected from it.
    - narrator 11y ago
      Stalin was by all accounts a dictator, but he operated differently. When the NKVD secret police would arrest someone who had made a political joke that somebody heard and reported, they weren't sent to freeze to death in a gulag in Siberia for the joke. No, they were forced to confess under torture to all sorts of laundry lists of ridiculous accusations of sabotaging production and acting as a spy for foreign governments and being the ringleaders of vast insurgent organizations, etc. Meanwhile, in the constitution of the Soviet Union there are all kinds of rights and legal protections and such. Kind of funny statistic, but the U.S has more people incarcerated as a percentage of the population than the Soviet Union ever did. North Korea is a Stalinist state. They have elections and refer to themselves as a democratic people's republic. China does not have elections or refer to themselves as democratic. Also, China is much more straightforward in prosecuting descent. They just say that someone belongs to an illegal non-harmonious organization like Falun-Gong or whatever and that's illegal. Send them to prison. No fancy trumped up charges or subterfuge needed.
      - 13of40 11y ago
        > in the constitution of the Soviet Union there are all kinds of rights and legal protections and such > They just say that someone belongs to an illegal non-harmonious organization like Falun-Gong or whatever and that's illegal. It seems like governments are somewhat uniform in the laws they pass, but fundamentally fickle about which laws they choose to enforce. In my state, for example, it's a felony to be a member of a subversive organization... http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.81.030 http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.81.030 ...e.g., the Communist Party... http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.81.083 http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.81.083 ...but it would be unthinkable for them to actually prosecute anyone for it.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  So... what are the modern day equivalents? I do think drugs still apply, but not as much. But for things like encryption and private communications, there are others. And like with drugs, the thing they target aren't innocent. Many drugs are bad, some are downright horrendous. Part of the genius of their plan is that they do stick to things that aren't innocent and just make them even more guilty than they already are.
- exprI 11y ago
  I don't even care what it was about: people should, in any case, own their own bodies. Most countries are past criminalising suicide, and self-harm is acceptable (as long as you are considered mentally able). Why is there a difference in risking one's health in every single way but by using psychoactive substances? Especially considering that clearly the war on drugs was never limited to, or expanded to all substances capable of generating physical dependence.
- mtgx 11y ago
  Another "problem" with legalization is that then the government will have to accept that it has to treat those people who become addicts instead of just imprisoning them. But it's not willing to cover them under a Medicare-like healthcare system. Do you think the addicts will afford or could be covered under ACA?
  - tremon 11y ago
    Do you think the addicts will afford or could be covered under ACA In a true, first-class, first-world country, that should be a non-issue. People first and all that. Besides, what do you think the repression of drugs has cost the last few decades?
  - chishaku 11y ago
    > it has to treat those people who become addicts instead of just imprisoning them. I'm not sure if you're implying that the rate of addiction would increase due to legalization but regarding that claim, the Netherlands and Portugal provide interesting data points. In Portugal, the rate of addiction decreased after they decriminalized all drugs. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/05/why-hardly-anyone-dies-from-a-drug-overdose-in-portugal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/05/why-h... In the Netherlands: "In 1985, nearly 100 percent of methadone patients were aged below 40. In 2014, almost all of them were older than 40." https://news.vice.com/article/only-in-the-netherlands-do-addicts-complain-about-free-government-heroin https://news.vice.com/article/only-in-the-netherlands-do-add... Also, diversion to treatment programs could lead to significant cost savings. Those savings could be invested in treatment programs that are more effective than whatever is available today. "Research conducted in part by Temple University and published in the online journal “Crime & Delinquency” found that only ten percent of state prisoners who abuse drugs or are drug-dependent receive medically based treatment while incarcerated. If that ten percent had received treatment in community-based programs instead of serving jail time, the prison system would save $4.8 billion - nearly the amount paid out to the Bureau of Prisons. Those savings would nearly triple if just 40 percent of eligible offenders received the same sort of treatment." https://www.thefix.com/content/treatment-instead-time-look-prison-reform-drug-charges https://www.thefix.com/content/treatment-instead-time-look-p... "Maryland, for example, saw average costs for offenders decrease from approximately $20,000 to $4,000. The same report on JusticePolicy.org mentioned that the costs for treatment generally range from $1,800 to $6,800, far less than the cost of incarceration. California’s Proposition 36 mandated that those entering the justice system on drug-related offenses be given substance abuse treatment rather than a prison sentence. The state initially spent millions on the first few years of the program but estimated that, at a long-term glance, the program could save the state up to $150 million annually." http://www.dualdiagnosis.org/co-occurring-disorders-treatment/alternative-to-prison/ http://www.dualdiagnosis.org/co-occurring-disorders-treatmen...
- jules 11y ago
  As it is there is a huge financial incentive for the criminals to get people hooked on drugs. Hard drugs should be freely provided by the government to take that incentive away. This also gives it the opportunity to help addicts who want to kick their addiction. It also dismantles the criminal organisations behind it, reducing crime that way, and it means that drug addicts can somewhat participate in normal society instead of having to steal to pay for their addiction.
  - redblacktree 11y ago
    Did you say free drugs?
- itsgreene 11y ago
  I want to disagree a little on this. I won't disagree that the 'war on drugs' is out of control, largely mismanaged, and likely unnecessary. What I do want to say is I think it's a bit unfair to say "It never was about fighting drug use or preventing the harm it can do." I think it's fair to say the funding and huge catalyst for the war on drugs started in Miami in the 80's. During this time where was a ridiculous amount of violence. Violence that occurred in broad daylight, that had no regard for the public, with weapons police didn't have access too. CENTAC was started and gave law enforcement a more level playing field, and had a huge impact on the violence related to the drug trade in south Florida. It effectively removed lots of violent criminals from the streets. Just look at the crime stats before and after the initiative, it's pretty clear there was a public benefit. While I agree there are very unfortunate unintended consequences of the war on drugs, I think we also have to give credit where is credit is due. Lets learn from it and do something better moving forward.
  - sremani 11y ago
    I am confused here, the massive arming by the drug pushers happened only in a prohibited world. Yes, the DEA was perhaps not ready or was expecting Mr.Machine Gun to show up, but if 18th amendment and Al Capone were any lesson, they should know better.
  - pstuart 11y ago
    The violence wasn't from drug users, it was from gangs fighting over profits from illegal trade. The war created that violence in the first place. As another commenter noted, the parallel would be the rise of organized crime during alcohol prohibition.
  - unprepare 11y ago
    >During this time where was a ridiculous amount of violence. Was this violence not already illegal? Surely brandishing a gun and firing on a public street in daylight is a crime with or without drug prohibition
- ams6110 11y ago
  The only problem with that version of history is that both drugs were illegal from the 1930s or earlier, and the controlled substances act of 1970 was introduced and passed by Democrat controlled house and senate.
  - soundwave106 11y ago
    Attitudes towards blacks and Mexicans certainly played a large role in the illegalization of cannabis in the 1930s. Attitudes towards the Chinese likewise played a role with the illegalization of opiates before then. I don't think you can attribute the entirety of drug policy to identity politics (especially with opiates, where people were indeed getting hooked on various "quackery medicine" type formulas peddled back in the late 1800s - early 1900s). I think you can attribute some of the draconian, moralizing, punitive approaches of our current drug policy to identity politics, though.
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  ...and the rest of the world just got it for nothing, since USA had enough momentum to inflict policies on the whole world. Well, at least now we know who is guilty. Now we should make sure that this crime is resolved with punishment.
- md224 11y ago
  Does anyone else get almost irrationally angry about this? I HATE that the freedom to modulate our own minds was taken away from us by these awful politicians for such terrible reasons. Not only has the War on Drugs ruined countless lives through incarceration and overdosing, but so many potentially helpful chemicals have been hidden away from society. It isn't just about getting "high"... it's about unleashing our full pharmacological potential in a safe and productive manner. The War on Drugs is so fucking stupid and so many people are paying the price. I don't know if anything makes me as angry as this.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    The ability to "modulate [your] . . . mind" is why so many people (80-90% when it comes to drugs besides marijuana), oppose drug legalization. Human society has barely learned to cope with the range of neurological behavior naturally present in the population. It's not unreasonable to be afraid of what might happen when you throw new chemicals into the mix. It's important to remember that most people think the opposite way as those on HN. They do not assume that new things will automatically make society better. They have a strong "don't fix what isn't broken" tendency. And as long as we live in a democracy, they're entitled to structure their society as they see fit.
    - BatFastard 11y ago
      That's because most people just consume the mass media with out applying much thought to the process. Not only is the the people unjustly put in prison. But their families, central America and Mexico, the lives ruined and lost there.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        Lots of people who oppose the drug war nonetheless believe that people should not be "modulating their minds" with drugs.
    - duncan_bayne 11y ago
      No they don't. Their - or anyone's - ability to restructure society is (or at least ought to be) constrained by the requirement to respect the rights of those in that society.
- WalterBright 11y ago
  Laying it all on Nixon does not explain "Reefer Madness" (1936) nor every other country that criminalizes drugs with zeal.
  - mdpopescu 11y ago
    Every other country (make that government) uses what the US does as an excuse. I remember when the Romanian government banned spontaneous protests by saying, on TV, "even the US requires them to get permits".
  - dcposch 11y ago
    Nor does it explain the original Prohibition, a single paragraph of law that created an explosion of organized crime, reclassified a tremendous percentage of American adults as lawbreakers, and filled prisons. Prohibition is a timeless, recurring issue. I think it comes from something even more timeless: moral authoritarianism. The urge felt by many people to force their neighbor to do things the Right Way. The puritan dream that the world could be clean and harmonious and good if only Those People could be brought to heel.
    - debacle 11y ago
      > The urge felt by many people to force their neighbor to do things the Right Way. This is an innate aspect of society. See: murder, sexual assault, etc. Morality is a human construct. The real question is where to draw the line, and the answer isn't immediately clear, even in a court of law. I do agree with you though that moral conservatism needs to move on from the 1950s.
      - dcposch 11y ago
        > This is an innate aspect of society. See: murder, sexual assault, etc No, those rules are about protecting me from my neighbor. They're perfectly reasonable, both as timeless moral norms and as law. The problems begin when I want to control my neighbor's behavior in ways that have nothing to do with protection. If I feel the need, for example, to prohibit him from having a gay relationship because it's against my religion. Or telling him that smoking one plant is fine, but if he smokes a different kind of plant I'll call men with guns over to his house to stop him. That is what I mean by moral authoriarianism.
- alanwatts 11y ago
  Gary Webb, Oliver North, "Freeway" Rick Ross, Oscar Danilo Blandón. Don't read into these names unless you've got your tin foil at the ready.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
AmandaShebang 11y ago
The link seems to be broken for me, ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED.
- r721 11y ago
  Archived: http://archive.is/Fr9kP http://archive.is/Fr9kP
- jessaustin 11y ago
  As a paywalled site, perhaps Harper's rarely gets much traffic? Regardless, if they're going to expose such great content for free, they're going to have to get on the level of an HN front page mention.
x5n1 11y ago
Legalize it all and replace the DEA with a for-profit drug distribution business.
- zzz157 11y ago
  The Drug Enjoyment Administration
- jamesdwilson 11y ago
  well since they are already running drugs... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_trafficking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_traffi...
joantune 11y ago
I'm not sure about legalizing it all, but me and the world is pretty sure about decriminalizing it, just watch what happened here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbWpXYOg4OQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbWpXYOg4OQ TL;DR: Highly successful strategy of not marginalizing (both socially and legally) and actually helping addicts: cuts costs, cuts problems, decreases addicts.
- seizethecheese 11y ago
  The problem with decriminalization without legalization is that it addresses demand but not supply. Black market supply is where a lot of the harm from prohibition materializes.
  - ericlee4 11y ago
    I agree, and in fact the author - Dan Baum - made the same point in an interview on NPR a few days ago. http://www.wnyc.org/story/legalization-best-way-win-war-drugs/ http://www.wnyc.org/story/legalization-best-way-win-war-drug...
  - aminorex 11y ago
    It also prevents effective control through licensure.
  - joantune 11y ago
    All i'm saying is that it's better than the policies currently being applied in the U.S. And we (Portugal) are a case study that proves that. I'm worried that legalization could pass the message that it's ok, while it's not, because real damage comes from the abuse of those illegal drugs.
miguelrochefort 11y ago
Oh the hypocrisy. Drugs legalization being trendy, you play the libertarian card. Yet, when it comes to guns or privacy, the same arguments don't hold true anymore. Cherry picking at its best. Gotta love the HN crowd.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  HN is not a monolith. I'm sure someone here wants to take my guns but not my 'shrooms (and vice versa), but for the most part those issues are not intrinsically connected. You'll see more of a crossover at other sites, but that just reflects the two longstanding modes of acceptable USA political discourse.
- dang 11y ago
  > Gotta love the HN crowd. Please don't do this here. The "crowd" includes you, and such generalizations are mostly bias.
  - miguelrochefort 11y ago
    Am I wrong to assume that most people here: - Want to legalize drugs. - Want to ban guns. - Want a right to privacy.
    - dang 11y ago
      You may be right, but yes you're wrong to assume it. People assume all kinds of things about HN, and there's a huge amount of bias involved. But my point is that it's in bad taste to diss a community you belong to, while participating in it, as a rhetorical status move. People do this all the time, but we've noticed that it's reliably a marker of low-quality comments, so we're going to start asking them not to.
    - jjuhl 11y ago
      Sounds good to me. But go ahead and flame/downvote/hate on my oppinion as a member of the HN community. After all I'm just one person with an opinion.
    - 11y ago
dools 11y ago
Further reading http://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Scream-First-Last-Drugs/dp/1620408902 http://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Scream-First-Last-Drugs/dp/162...
miguelrochefort 11y ago
Legalize all drugs and weapons! Release all patents and copyrights! Freedom!
jessaustin 11y ago
After telling the BBC in December that “if you fight a war for forty years and don’t win, you have to sit down and think about other things to do that might be more effective,” Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos legalized medical marijuana by decree. In November, the Mexican Supreme Court elevated the debate to a new plane by ruling that the prohibition of marijuana consumption violated the Mexican Constitution by interfering with “the personal sphere,” the “right to dignity,” and the right to “personal autonomy.” This is great news. Only the sort of political situation that existed in Latin America over these past decades could have permitted us in USA to export all this violence and suffering. The corruption in their state was a mirror of that in ours. We were happy to destroy their societies for profit, and unfortunately their rulers were too. The Drug War is a big reason I'm an anarchist. People living their own lives, in their own communities, can get up to some awful shit, now and then. No way in hell can they come up with the durable, sustained, all-consuming all-perverting horror that is the Drug War, or any of the other travesties the State produces without breaking a sweat.
- charonn0 11y ago
  As a counterpoint, compulsory free education for all children is a public good that couldn't be accomplished or sustained for decades without the state intruding upon the personal autonomy of the child and the parent (and childless taxpayers.)
  - cooper12 11y ago
    Is it really as much of a necessity? In my opinion most people learn the bare minimum required for exams, and then regurgitate it. I only remember tidbits of history and a little Shakespeare from my school days. Even in college most of my professors just read off powerpoints and I was forced to learn anything useful at all for my career on my own time. Schools force people to learn things they aren't interested in like STEM over useful life skills like personal finance or cooking. I think homeschooling or self-directed education [0] could be much more effective at stimulating learners and equipping them with necessary knowledge. In my opinion the only benefit of school was the social aspect, but thats to be expected since thats where everyone else is, not to mention the drawbacks such as bullying. Education really isn't as much of a virtue as people think; do I really need a degree to talk to people, to appreciate literature or art, to vote? (And even with the prevalence of education, people still end up misinformed or lead by personal bias) Most people are capable of learning what they need, especially when all the resources are out there and not just in schools. All the different levels of education that are established just serve as poor markers for employers to differentiate people and time-and-time again I've read about educations being ill-suited in preparing people for careers. Like the parent commenter, I think people are quite capable of organizing and preparing themselves just as well without a state, and many communities and generations have been doing this for centuries. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling (just one interesting example)
tomphoolery 11y ago
This doesn't work for me...Cache link: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-tEQXRbBQvUJ:https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-tEQXR...
jonalmeida 11y ago
Surprised no one has yet posted the Kurzgesagt video on the failed war on drugs: https://youtu.be/wJUXLqNHCaI https://youtu.be/wJUXLqNHCaI
- ijhnv 11y ago
  Yeah, and also their excellent video on addiction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg
merpnderp 11y ago
I'm completely against the war on drugs for most of the reasons stated in this article, but I find it's blaming of Nixon and racial/ideological politics as the worst most unproductive form of cynicism. As if there are no well meaning, well founded reasons to outlaw drugs. People often forget that poor, minority neighborhoods were often instrumental in getting tough drug laws passed. Because they often faced the brunt of the criminal effect of large numbers of drug users. When a working class mom gets her kid's bike stolen by a junkie, she's not too interested in contemplating rehabilitation, she's just mad and wants her bike back and the asshole punished.
- smadge 11y ago
  Do you have sources for this? My gut reaction is that your claim that tough drug laws that targeted poor and minority communities wouldn't have passed without the support of those communities seems false. These communities have little political power, and the laws would not have passed without the support of the economic and political elite.
- laughinghan 11y ago
  People often forget that poor, minority neighborhoods were often instrumental in getting tough drug laws passed. Because they often faced the brunt of the criminal effect of large numbers of drug users. When a working class mom gets her kid's bike stolen by a junkie, she's not too interested in contemplating rehabilitation, she's just mad and wants her bike back and the asshole punished. This completely contradicts my understanding of how civics works in the real world. Poor, minority, working-class moms do not trust the government, police, or laws to work in their best interests, and do not push to get "tough drug laws passed". They believe such laws would be used as weapons against their families and communities. Even if you debate the accuracy of this belief, the impact that #BlackLivesMatter is having on the current election means there is no debating the widespread nature of this belief. However, politically influential interest groups using "working class mom gets her kid's bike stolen by a junkie" as justification for tough drug laws—that sure is consistent with my understanding. So is duping us into thinking the poor minority neighborhoods are in favor of such laws.
- metaphorm 11y ago
arca_vorago 11y ago
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." While I enjoy the recent surge in popularity of such a movement, my primary issue with drug policy is that it is unconstitutional, or at leasty arguably so. I fail to see a properly explained distinction between drug X and $ANYOBJECT Y when it comes to any governments ability to restrict a person from it. Whats the difference between caffiene and mj and alcohol? What about mj and harder drugs? What about harder drugs and two cans of coke a day? A person can be addicted to anything, (not to ignore the chemical/biological addictive properties) so what is to prevent any object from becoming a danger to the person or those around theme? To me this seems to be the core foundation upon which anti-drug persons base their argument. ie. "Once a person is addicted, they are likely to become a criminal and violate other peoples rights, so it's the governments duty to prevent that!". To me though, it's not the governments duty to essentially engage in pre-crime criminalization. We all know about the private prison industry, but what gets me the most is that people in prison for non-violent drug charges are almost there, not because the drug itself was a crime, but because the underlying, implied logic is that they were about to become criminals anyway. All of this flies in the face of the constitution, for once it is admitted that it's the duty of government to protect a person against their own actions, very few serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. In essence the drug war is a huge slippery slope which only opens up our system for further degradation of fundamental rights. Also, I would to point out, beyond and before what is proposed as a mostly racist basis for the drug laws, that the larger purpose for the original drug wars (Opium Wars I and II, misc smaller conflicts), were largely about two other factors that are far too often overlooked: 1. Black-markets = free flowing, unaccountable money. Even in the modern times, this is a favorite of the three letters, to get black budget money thats outside the oversight of congress. If there isn't a blackmarket, you simply create one by buying off the politicians to make something illegal. 2. Similar to the racists vein, but more as a tool of control of the masses. while I have no problem constitutionally with legalization, the national security implications of "opiating the masses" are not to be ignored. The state of the Chinese population after introduction of mass quantities of opium as a good example of this done as a deliberate strategy. As an aside, at one time I bought into the Dupont/Hemp conspiracy, but have since been able to find very little to no evidence to support this claim, so just a word of warning to any others who have fallen for it, that you should try to find some sources (and don't forget to share them if you do!)
md224 11y ago
This seems like a good time to mention that I own the domain name TheTruthAboutPot.com and have no idea what to do with it. Suggestions / buyers welcome!
sreya 11y ago
This is unrelated but it would be nice if this site offered the ability to minimize sub-threads. I was genuinely curious about people's opinions as to how best legalize drugs in a responsible fashion. Instead I have to scroll through an obnoxious amount of comments bemoaning the short falls of the government long enough to lose interest.
- omegaham 11y ago
  HN Utility Suite for Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/hn-utility-suite/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/hn-utility-su... HN Enhancement for Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hacker-news-enhancement-s/bappiabcodbpphnojdiaddhnilfnjmpm?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hacker-news-enhanc...
- therealdrag0 11y ago
  I like "hckr news" plugin. The "Collapse Whole Thread" option is great after I've read a few comments in one root.
fiatjaf 11y ago
Legalize free trade!
omegaham 11y ago
I think that one of the biggest things that policymakers should keep in mind is that frequently, there is no good solution. There are only less bad solutions. Take payday loans as an example. The entire industry is extremely exploitative and preys on uneducated poor people who are desperate due to bad circumstances and / or poor financial planning. Well-meaning activists have campaigned to "reform" the business and make it less scummy. The result? Legitimate payday loan companies go out of business, as it's no longer economical to invest money in loaning to poor people, and the mob fills the void. Instead of getting a loan from Usury Inc, whose backers have pulled out and invested in something else, you're getting a loan from Cousin Vinnie. Now, the poor get exploited even more nastily by organized crime, which has absolutely no compunctions about getting its money back by any means possible, including threatening families, breaking kneecaps, killing people to get the rest of the debtors in line, etc. The only answer is an optimization - you curb the worst of the abuses, and then accept the fact that the exploitation is a side effect of underlying causes and impossible to remove without making things worse. It's as good as we're going to get. Same exact thing with the drug trade. Drugs destroy lives. It's a fact - heroin and other opiates are a scourge on poor communities, and it's not just due to the fact that they're illegal. After all, people overdose on prescription medication all the time, too[1]. But a lot of the enforcement that has been done makes things even worse - we still have addicts, and then we get all of the violence that comes from the enormous markup that's inherent in the black market. There is no good solution that makes everything better, but it's very easy to make things worse. More nastily, it breeds what I like to call "contempt of the law" - if everyone in a community is breaking the law somehow, (smoking weed, buying black-market cigarettes, buying prescription painkillers, etc) then even worse crimes don't get prosecuted because everyone is preoccupied with the fact that the police are going after the people they perceive to be average Joes. As soon as people perceive the police as an occupying force that arbitrarily goes after average citizens for gits and shiggles, the people will stop seeing the police as guardians against the truly evil and dangerous people among them. I think that the biggest issue that blocks action on this is that people are confusing legalization with approval. You can make something legal and still think it's horrible. It's legal to cheat on your spouse, even though most people consider it immoral, but the cost on society that would come from making adultery illegal (and enforcing it) would be far greater than keeping the government out of it. Similarly, you can make prostitution legal and still consider it horrible. You can make casino gambling illegal and still consider it exploitative of people who suck at math. And you can make drugs legal and still consider it exploitative of human weakness. The only criteria that we should be using is "Would government intervention actually make the situation better? If not, keep the government out of it." And at this point, I'm pretty doubtful that dispatching thousands of officers to go after heroin dealers will keep people from using heroin. I'm pretty confident that doing so will increase the money that's in heroin, increase violence, and breed contempt of the law. <asshole> Oh. Also, if we make drugs legal, I'm investing like a motherfucker in Soma, Inc. Drugs sell themselves, and I'm sure that corporations will make a bundle if they can sell them to The Public. My retirement fund will thank the wonderful residents of Appalachia for their generous contributions. Whichever company is the first to make an oxycodone version of Joe Camel is the one I'm investing in.</asshole> [1]http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/overdose.html http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/overdose.html
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mbubb 11y ago
Why stop with drugs? I would include pointless war on sex workers.
- kagamine 11y ago
  The key difference is that drugs are something one does to oneself, whereas prostitution includes at least one other person. How to ensure that person is willingly participating and profiting is the question. Although I suppose legalization and licensing would help with that too.
- neverknowsbest 11y ago
  Exactly. If somebody wants to sell their physical sexual skills, it should be just as easy to find a place of employment as somebody wanting to sell their mental deductive skills.
obfk 11y ago
Anyone looking for an additional read should check Chasing the Scream by Johann Hari.
- bennesvig 11y ago
  A very powerful book that changed my opinion.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
stegosaurus 11y ago
The idea that the Western world (at least, my country, the UK) uses laws to criminalize groups of people seems about as old as time itself to me. We don't punish drug use because we care about people taking drugs. We punish drug use because we want to eliminate the influence of 'junkies' on society. We don't punish radical views because we disagree with them. We punish radical views because we want to eliminate their influence on society. Let's talk about child abuse. A terrible crime. As a UK resident - it feels to me, that people don't actually care about the actual act of child abuse as much as they care about the... 'othering' of the perpetrator. It's the idea of a child abuser as being an animal, a strange alien, a completely non-understandable beast, that really riles us up. That's why 'think of the children' works. We're not thinking about the children, really. We're thinking about the threat from human actors who don't have world-views that quite fit - we can't grok them, they can't be trusted. That's what I think these sorts of laws are fundamentally about. They are about trying to remove 'scary' individuals. I don't care about terrorism because I think it's vanishingly unlikely to occur. But people, as a mass, fear the unknown - they fear the humans who don't have the same limits that they do. The humans that can, and will, do anything. 'Terrorist' is just the new 'criminal', because 'criminal' doesn't hold the same cachet when everyone is a criminal.
- rorykoehler 11y ago
  >We punish drug use because we want to eliminate the influence of 'junkies' on society. & >They are about trying to remove 'scary' individuals. It's not so clear cut. It's more about having the ability to selectively remove them if and when they become a nuisance. Consider GW Bush for example. Coke fiend but establishment, ends up becoming US president. Is he not a junkie? Did he not have a huge influence on society including societies beyond his immediate society? The law is about power not morality. Morality is the thin veil used to present the tool of coercion that is the legal system to the masses.
- kagamine 11y ago
  > that people don't actually care about the actual act of child abuse as much as they care about the... 'othering' of the perpetrator. It's the idea of a child abuser as being an animal, a strange alien, a completely non-understandable beast, that really riles us up. I disagree, that is how the media sells papers and gets page clicks, but is that what the man-in-the-street thinks? I'm also from the UK, and to me the vilest part of it is that children have little understanding of these adult things; sex, relationships, normality, an inability to protect themselves from adults. They have a right to be a child during childhood (it is a humanitarian right in many countries 1). It isn't about demonizing a person, it is about being saddened by the loss of a child (within a child's body) and the loss of faith in humanity within myself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_th...
mwsherman 11y ago
It will be a very interesting study for future generations, should we substantially legalize recreational drugs, on all of the follow-on effects. For example, many categories of police activity (raids, traffic stops) will become harder to justify; the dollar cost of drugs going down by an order of magnitude; immigration enforcement.
stillsut 11y ago
The stalemate of the current horrid system seems only to be held in place by the (perhaps misguided) sense that being high enough middle class has a better chance to insulate your family against the ravages of drug addiction more than the total legalization ever could. And so every police crackdown in your neighborhood makes sense for protection, but it results in a tragedy of the commons type situation that everyone becomes more policed without truly cutting down drug abuse.
Ericson2314 11y ago
I'm curious what HN thinks about the author's point that drug-distribution is state-controlled. I agree---capitalism only works in arenas where the actors act (decently) rationally, and would-be markets where a significant portion of consumption is by addicts doesn't meet that test. I'm also curious if anyone thinks such a end-game is politically possible in the US. Or is the profit motive + mistrust of government the only coalition capable of out-hustling our puritan tendencies politically?
samstave 11y ago
I'm literally convinced you're a paid government shill. Edit: this is with at least three years of input from user rayiner, there is literally no fucking way that you cannot read this comment history from the time the account was created to now and not see that this is a shill for the narrative that the government wants you to hear.
- dang 11y ago
  > I'm literally convinced you're a paid government shill. Sam! You can't do this here! Please don't do it here anymore! All: Insinuations of astroturfing or shillage without evidence are not ok on HN. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11333552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11333552 and marked it off-topic.
  - samstave 11y ago
    How would you prefer that I make my opinion known of Rayiner and the narrative that person has maintained over the years we have both been on HN? I've literally been in discussions with Rayiner for years and at odds with their position, why am I not free to disagree with the message she puts forth?
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      HN is really picky about accusing even other HN users in general of being astroturfy. (Ask me how I know!) Accusing a specific user, as you've done in this case, is right out. You'll have better luck referring to other, non-HN sources or even humanity in general as e.g. "not disinterested". Besides it's not really important that we know your opinion of 'rayiner. You've been around awhile; we have some idea. 'rayiner has been around longer, and through copious posting we know exactly what 'rayiner will say about any favorite topic. (One reason I always have "showdead" on is that occasionally someone will write an entertaining spot-on parody of a top contributor that gets instantly downvoted to oblivion.) 'rayiner is not shy about being a lawyer, so any suspicions about that can be harbored without mention. We can disagree with 'rayiner in many different ways without specifically violating the fairly lax norms of HN.
known 11y ago
"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." --Reagan
GreaterFool 11y ago
The problem with law is that it is easy to write, hard to get rid of. We refactor old code all the time (hopefully!) but law, once written, lingers on for hundreds of years...
gdubs 11y ago
After reading The Rise and Fall of American Growth -- a brilliant work that most here on HN would find relevant -- I came away more convinced than ever before that legalizing drugs would reduce a great deal of drag on our long term economic growth.
mirimir 11y ago
> The risks are tremendous. Deaths from heroin overdose in the United States rose 500 percent from 2001 to 2014, a staggering increase, and deaths from prescription drugs — which are already legal and regulated — shot up almost 300 percent, proving that where opioids are concerned, we seem to be inept not only when we prohibit but also when we regulate. For heroin, the major risk is variation in potency. Heroin is highly cut at consumer level, for the most part. But occasionally, some relatively pure shit hits the street. And then there's the risk of boosting by Fentanyl and other high-potency opiates. Also, it's pretty clear that the increasing popularity of heroin has been driven by decreasing availability of prescription opiates. New heroin users tend to be clueless about risk management. So they tend to overdose. I'm curious about increasing deaths from prescription drugs. I wonder how much of that is driven by acetaminophen toxicity, as oxycodone etc have become harder to get than mixtures of acetaminophen with codeine and hydrocodone. I'm also wondering whether these figures include deaths for prescription drugs obtained informally.
- neverknowsbest 11y ago
  A lot of overdoses also stem from folks who were forced or coerced into rehab before being fully prepared, then relapse, taking their old dose without realizing that their tolerance has already gone down during treatment. Hopefully those cases would decrease with legalization and the removal of the "hard drug" stigma. Regarding the increase in RX deaths, I'd like to see those stats too-- though it's probably too hairy to really break down, I'd also like to see that expanded which prescription opiate, as well as circumstance (fully recreational/no clear injury, minor injury, during hospitalization, or continuing/long term care).
tryitnow 11y ago
What I like most about this article is that it's most definitely not a libertarian take on the issue. The author describes several benefits of a government involvement in legal drug commerce. A non-libertarian perspective on drug legalization is important because everyone knows libertarians want to legalize everything. And most informed people know the libertarian arguments as well. And they've been known for many decades now. Clearly, the libertarian approach isn't swaying a whole lot of people. However, when people who are not ideologically committed to small government start supporting drug legalization it becomes a more serious possibility because it means a broader coalition can be built to support legalization. tldr: libertarians alone will never make legalization a reality, but libertarians united with progressives can be a force for change.
stretchwithme 11y ago
We should be deciding such questions at the neighborhood level. There are always going to be those who don't want to be arounds drugs and those who do. We should be making it possible to have either kind of community and access either without having to travel to another city or state. And penalties should be civil not criminal.
justlsice 11y ago
Legalize it and let natural selection do its job. Junkies will just kill themselves.

527 points by apo 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did. That sums it up pretty well. It never was about fighting drug use or preventing the harm it can do. Can we now, please, get that behind us and move on? If we only spent 10% of what we now spent on prosecuting drug use on prevention and rehabilitation, that would be a much greater service to society than fourty years of "war" have been. Not to mention the benefits for privacy, the decrease in violence and so on...

fweespee_ch 11y ago
> The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? > That sums it up pretty well. It never was about fighting drug use or preventing the harm it can do. Can we now, please, get that behind us and move on? If we only spent 10% of what we now spent on prosecuting drug use on prevention and rehabilitation, that would be a much greater service to society than fourty years of "war" have been. Not to mention the benefits for privacy, the decrease in violence and so on... I think the disturbing part is people, even now, deny this is the reason Nixon pushed for it. I just can't understand it. :/ Nixon basically shat on the results of his own commissions by members of his own party when he didn't like the results. History is littered with evidence this man had an agenda yet people act like the "Drug War" wasn't created as a political tool. http://www.drugpolicy.org/new-solutions-drug-policy/brief-history-drug-war http://www.drugpolicy.org/new-solutions-drug-policy/brief-hi... > In June 1971, President Nixon declared a “war on drugs.” He dramatically increased the size and presence of federal drug control agencies, and pushed through measures such as mandatory sentencing and no-knock warrants. Nixon temporarily placed marijuana in Schedule One, the most restrictive category of drugs, pending review by a commission he appointed led by Republican Pennsylvania Governor Raymond Shafer. In 1972, the commission unanimously recommended decriminalizing the possession and distribution of marijuana for personal use. Nixon ignored the report and rejected its recommendations. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/the-war-on-drugs-how-president-nixon-tied-addiction-to-crime/254319/ http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/the-war-on... > On December 5, 1969, President Richard Nixon appointed Stephen Hess to the position of National Chairman of the White House Conference for Children and Youth. Hess's task was to "listen well to the voices of young Americans -- in the universities, on the farms, the assembly lines, the street corners," in the hopes of uncovering their opinions on America's domestic and international affairs. After two years of intensive planning, Hess and 1,486 delegates from across the country met in Estes Park, Colorado, and, from April 18 to 22, 1971, discussed ten areas that most concerned the youth of America. These issues included, not surprisingly, the draft and the war in Vietnam, the economy and employment, education, the environment, poverty, and, most notably for Points readers, drugs. > The task force on drugs, composed of eight youths and four adults, forcefully argued for addressing the root causes of drug abuse, advocating therapy for addicts rather than incarceration or punishment. > ... even if the Nixon administration distorted the numbers that tied drug addiction to instances of crime. ...
- ska 11y ago
  I think focusing on Nixon on at this point is actively problematic. Literally every administration since then has been complicit in this, and made it worse.
  - fweespee_ch 11y ago
    Sure, future administrations are complicit, but people didn't really "believe" the way Nixon believed until he brought the full power of the Federal government and an extensive political organization to spread fear in the general populace. Up until that point, enough people didn't believe in his course of action that his own people wouldn't give him the answers he wanted.
    - ska 11y ago
      By all means history should remember his failings here and elsewhere. I just mean the responsibility for the state of things today, and for improving it, lies solidly on other shoulders today. And that is where the focus should be. There should be no support for a narrative of "oh, but those were the bad old days, things are better now". They are not.
      - fweespee_ch 11y ago
        > By all means history should remember his failings here and elsewhere. The original post was discussing the history: > I think the disturbing part is people, even now, deny this is the reason Nixon pushed for it. I just can't understand it. :/ > Nixon basically shat on the results of his own commissions by members of his own party when he didn't like the results. History is littered with evidence this man had an agenda yet people act like the "Drug War" wasn't created as a political tool. ---- > I just mean the responsibility for the state of things today, and for improving it, lies solidly on other shoulders today. And that is where the focus should be. There should be no support for a narrative of "oh, but those were the bad old days, things are better now". They are not. That has nothing to do with what I was saying. Literally the entire content of my post [beyond quotes] was discussing past history concerning a single president. Stop tilting at windmills. ---- Edit since I'm rate limited and don't care that much: Look, the historical context of stuff like this interests me. If you find it boring...shrugs
patrickburke 11y ago
According to a recent Frontline, maybe we are moving on: "A searing, two-hour investigation places America’s heroin crisis in a fresh and provocative light -- telling the stories of individual addicts, but also illuminating the epidemic's years-in-the-making social context, deeply examining shifts in U.S. drug policy, and exploring what happens when addiction is treated like a public health issue, not a crime." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/chasing-heroin/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/chasing-heroin/
Delmania 11y ago
> Can we now, please, get that behind us and move on? What, and disrupt the massively profitable prison industry?
- hjhgjtyhgdfi 11y ago
  The largest private for-profit prison (CCA) has $1.7 billion in revenue. Apple makes $233 billion in revenue. Exxon has $268 billion in revenue. Walmart makes $482 billion in revenue.
  - knodi123 11y ago
    So it makes as much money as Uber instead of Walmart? Just because it's not the biggest doesn't mean it's not big.
    - hjhgjtyhgdfi 11y ago
      Uber is a a high-growth startup as you may be aware, and will far eclipse its 2015 revenue this year. Even so, comparing the revenues of the "massively profitable" prison company that's been around since 1983 with a single Silicon Valley startup that just got off the ground a few years ago is quite a stretch and a false equivalence.
      - ivanca 11y ago
        ....And burger king exists since 1953 and "only" makes $1.06B of revenue per year, so what? 3 billion dollars is more than many small countries make in an entire year (nominal GDP)
  - dangerlibrary 11y ago
    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000021940 https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D00002194... https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000021754&cycle=2014 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000021754&c... Their revenue is less than 1% of Apple's, but their lobbying budget is 25%-75% of Apple's year to year.
narrator 11y ago
The thing I find interesting (INTERESTING, not necessarily moral or otherwise) about China is that when they want to do something controversial they are open and straight forward about it. They openly attack and arrest groups that they find disruptive to the social order. In America, the leadership has to invent all sorts of crafty subterfuge to accomplish their goals of persecuting and imprisoning groups that they consider to be disruptive. It's getting to be that the crafty deceptions have become so deeply layered that the official ideology that's supposed to justify policy has become hopelessly confused and contradictory.
- shmerl 11y ago
  Why is that interesting that dictatorship doesn't hesitate to openly attack dissent? That's actually expected from it.
  - narrator 11y ago
    Stalin was by all accounts a dictator, but he operated differently. When the NKVD secret police would arrest someone who had made a political joke that somebody heard and reported, they weren't sent to freeze to death in a gulag in Siberia for the joke. No, they were forced to confess under torture to all sorts of laundry lists of ridiculous accusations of sabotaging production and acting as a spy for foreign governments and being the ringleaders of vast insurgent organizations, etc. Meanwhile, in the constitution of the Soviet Union there are all kinds of rights and legal protections and such. Kind of funny statistic, but the U.S has more people incarcerated as a percentage of the population than the Soviet Union ever did. North Korea is a Stalinist state. They have elections and refer to themselves as a democratic people's republic. China does not have elections or refer to themselves as democratic. Also, China is much more straightforward in prosecuting descent. They just say that someone belongs to an illegal non-harmonious organization like Falun-Gong or whatever and that's illegal. Send them to prison. No fancy trumped up charges or subterfuge needed.
    - 13of40 11y ago
      > in the constitution of the Soviet Union there are all kinds of rights and legal protections and such > They just say that someone belongs to an illegal non-harmonious organization like Falun-Gong or whatever and that's illegal. It seems like governments are somewhat uniform in the laws they pass, but fundamentally fickle about which laws they choose to enforce. In my state, for example, it's a felony to be a member of a subversive organization... http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.81.030 http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.81.030 ...e.g., the Communist Party... http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.81.083 http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.81.083 ...but it would be unthinkable for them to actually prosecute anyone for it.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
So... what are the modern day equivalents? I do think drugs still apply, but not as much. But for things like encryption and private communications, there are others. And like with drugs, the thing they target aren't innocent. Many drugs are bad, some are downright horrendous. Part of the genius of their plan is that they do stick to things that aren't innocent and just make them even more guilty than they already are.
exprI 11y ago
I don't even care what it was about: people should, in any case, own their own bodies. Most countries are past criminalising suicide, and self-harm is acceptable (as long as you are considered mentally able). Why is there a difference in risking one's health in every single way but by using psychoactive substances? Especially considering that clearly the war on drugs was never limited to, or expanded to all substances capable of generating physical dependence.
mtgx 11y ago
Another "problem" with legalization is that then the government will have to accept that it has to treat those people who become addicts instead of just imprisoning them. But it's not willing to cover them under a Medicare-like healthcare system. Do you think the addicts will afford or could be covered under ACA?
- tremon 11y ago
  Do you think the addicts will afford or could be covered under ACA In a true, first-class, first-world country, that should be a non-issue. People first and all that. Besides, what do you think the repression of drugs has cost the last few decades?
- chishaku 11y ago
  > it has to treat those people who become addicts instead of just imprisoning them. I'm not sure if you're implying that the rate of addiction would increase due to legalization but regarding that claim, the Netherlands and Portugal provide interesting data points. In Portugal, the rate of addiction decreased after they decriminalized all drugs. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/05/why-hardly-anyone-dies-from-a-drug-overdose-in-portugal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/05/why-h... In the Netherlands: "In 1985, nearly 100 percent of methadone patients were aged below 40. In 2014, almost all of them were older than 40." https://news.vice.com/article/only-in-the-netherlands-do-addicts-complain-about-free-government-heroin https://news.vice.com/article/only-in-the-netherlands-do-add... Also, diversion to treatment programs could lead to significant cost savings. Those savings could be invested in treatment programs that are more effective than whatever is available today. "Research conducted in part by Temple University and published in the online journal “Crime & Delinquency” found that only ten percent of state prisoners who abuse drugs or are drug-dependent receive medically based treatment while incarcerated. If that ten percent had received treatment in community-based programs instead of serving jail time, the prison system would save $4.8 billion - nearly the amount paid out to the Bureau of Prisons. Those savings would nearly triple if just 40 percent of eligible offenders received the same sort of treatment." https://www.thefix.com/content/treatment-instead-time-look-prison-reform-drug-charges https://www.thefix.com/content/treatment-instead-time-look-p... "Maryland, for example, saw average costs for offenders decrease from approximately $20,000 to $4,000. The same report on JusticePolicy.org mentioned that the costs for treatment generally range from $1,800 to $6,800, far less than the cost of incarceration. California’s Proposition 36 mandated that those entering the justice system on drug-related offenses be given substance abuse treatment rather than a prison sentence. The state initially spent millions on the first few years of the program but estimated that, at a long-term glance, the program could save the state up to $150 million annually." http://www.dualdiagnosis.org/co-occurring-disorders-treatment/alternative-to-prison/ http://www.dualdiagnosis.org/co-occurring-disorders-treatmen...
jules 11y ago
As it is there is a huge financial incentive for the criminals to get people hooked on drugs. Hard drugs should be freely provided by the government to take that incentive away. This also gives it the opportunity to help addicts who want to kick their addiction. It also dismantles the criminal organisations behind it, reducing crime that way, and it means that drug addicts can somewhat participate in normal society instead of having to steal to pay for their addiction.
- redblacktree 11y ago
  Did you say free drugs?
itsgreene 11y ago
I want to disagree a little on this. I won't disagree that the 'war on drugs' is out of control, largely mismanaged, and likely unnecessary. What I do want to say is I think it's a bit unfair to say "It never was about fighting drug use or preventing the harm it can do." I think it's fair to say the funding and huge catalyst for the war on drugs started in Miami in the 80's. During this time where was a ridiculous amount of violence. Violence that occurred in broad daylight, that had no regard for the public, with weapons police didn't have access too. CENTAC was started and gave law enforcement a more level playing field, and had a huge impact on the violence related to the drug trade in south Florida. It effectively removed lots of violent criminals from the streets. Just look at the crime stats before and after the initiative, it's pretty clear there was a public benefit. While I agree there are very unfortunate unintended consequences of the war on drugs, I think we also have to give credit where is credit is due. Lets learn from it and do something better moving forward.
- sremani 11y ago
  I am confused here, the massive arming by the drug pushers happened only in a prohibited world. Yes, the DEA was perhaps not ready or was expecting Mr.Machine Gun to show up, but if 18th amendment and Al Capone were any lesson, they should know better.
- pstuart 11y ago
  The violence wasn't from drug users, it was from gangs fighting over profits from illegal trade. The war created that violence in the first place. As another commenter noted, the parallel would be the rise of organized crime during alcohol prohibition.
- unprepare 11y ago
  >During this time where was a ridiculous amount of violence. Was this violence not already illegal? Surely brandishing a gun and firing on a public street in daylight is a crime with or without drug prohibition
ams6110 11y ago
The only problem with that version of history is that both drugs were illegal from the 1930s or earlier, and the controlled substances act of 1970 was introduced and passed by Democrat controlled house and senate.
- soundwave106 11y ago
  Attitudes towards blacks and Mexicans certainly played a large role in the illegalization of cannabis in the 1930s. Attitudes towards the Chinese likewise played a role with the illegalization of opiates before then. I don't think you can attribute the entirety of drug policy to identity politics (especially with opiates, where people were indeed getting hooked on various "quackery medicine" type formulas peddled back in the late 1800s - early 1900s). I think you can attribute some of the draconian, moralizing, punitive approaches of our current drug policy to identity politics, though.
guard-of-terra 11y ago
...and the rest of the world just got it for nothing, since USA had enough momentum to inflict policies on the whole world. Well, at least now we know who is guilty. Now we should make sure that this crime is resolved with punishment.
md224 11y ago
Does anyone else get almost irrationally angry about this? I HATE that the freedom to modulate our own minds was taken away from us by these awful politicians for such terrible reasons. Not only has the War on Drugs ruined countless lives through incarceration and overdosing, but so many potentially helpful chemicals have been hidden away from society. It isn't just about getting "high"... it's about unleashing our full pharmacological potential in a safe and productive manner. The War on Drugs is so fucking stupid and so many people are paying the price. I don't know if anything makes me as angry as this.
- rayiner 11y ago
  The ability to "modulate [your] . . . mind" is why so many people (80-90% when it comes to drugs besides marijuana), oppose drug legalization. Human society has barely learned to cope with the range of neurological behavior naturally present in the population. It's not unreasonable to be afraid of what might happen when you throw new chemicals into the mix. It's important to remember that most people think the opposite way as those on HN. They do not assume that new things will automatically make society better. They have a strong "don't fix what isn't broken" tendency. And as long as we live in a democracy, they're entitled to structure their society as they see fit.
  - BatFastard 11y ago
    That's because most people just consume the mass media with out applying much thought to the process. Not only is the the people unjustly put in prison. But their families, central America and Mexico, the lives ruined and lost there.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      Lots of people who oppose the drug war nonetheless believe that people should not be "modulating their minds" with drugs.
  - duncan_bayne 11y ago
    No they don't. Their - or anyone's - ability to restructure society is (or at least ought to be) constrained by the requirement to respect the rights of those in that society.
WalterBright 11y ago
Laying it all on Nixon does not explain "Reefer Madness" (1936) nor every other country that criminalizes drugs with zeal.
- mdpopescu 11y ago
  Every other country (make that government) uses what the US does as an excuse. I remember when the Romanian government banned spontaneous protests by saying, on TV, "even the US requires them to get permits".
- dcposch 11y ago
  Nor does it explain the original Prohibition, a single paragraph of law that created an explosion of organized crime, reclassified a tremendous percentage of American adults as lawbreakers, and filled prisons. Prohibition is a timeless, recurring issue. I think it comes from something even more timeless: moral authoritarianism. The urge felt by many people to force their neighbor to do things the Right Way. The puritan dream that the world could be clean and harmonious and good if only Those People could be brought to heel.
  - debacle 11y ago
    > The urge felt by many people to force their neighbor to do things the Right Way. This is an innate aspect of society. See: murder, sexual assault, etc. Morality is a human construct. The real question is where to draw the line, and the answer isn't immediately clear, even in a court of law. I do agree with you though that moral conservatism needs to move on from the 1950s.
    - dcposch 11y ago
      > This is an innate aspect of society. See: murder, sexual assault, etc No, those rules are about protecting me from my neighbor. They're perfectly reasonable, both as timeless moral norms and as law. The problems begin when I want to control my neighbor's behavior in ways that have nothing to do with protection. If I feel the need, for example, to prohibit him from having a gay relationship because it's against my religion. Or telling him that smoking one plant is fine, but if he smokes a different kind of plant I'll call men with guns over to his house to stop him. That is what I mean by moral authoriarianism.
alanwatts 11y ago
Gary Webb, Oliver North, "Freeway" Rick Ross, Oscar Danilo Blandón. Don't read into these names unless you've got your tin foil at the ready.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

AmandaShebang 11y ago

The link seems to be broken for me, ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED.

r721 11y ago
Archived: http://archive.is/Fr9kP http://archive.is/Fr9kP
jessaustin 11y ago
As a paywalled site, perhaps Harper's rarely gets much traffic? Regardless, if they're going to expose such great content for free, they're going to have to get on the level of an HN front page mention.

x5n1 11y ago

Legalize it all and replace the DEA with a for-profit drug distribution business.

zzz157 11y ago
The Drug Enjoyment Administration
jamesdwilson 11y ago
well since they are already running drugs... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_trafficking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_traffi...

joantune 11y ago

I'm not sure about legalizing it all, but me and the world is pretty sure about decriminalizing it, just watch what happened here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbWpXYOg4OQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbWpXYOg4OQ TL;DR: Highly successful strategy of not marginalizing (both socially and legally) and actually helping addicts: cuts costs, cuts problems, decreases addicts.

seizethecheese 11y ago
The problem with decriminalization without legalization is that it addresses demand but not supply. Black market supply is where a lot of the harm from prohibition materializes.
- ericlee4 11y ago
  I agree, and in fact the author - Dan Baum - made the same point in an interview on NPR a few days ago. http://www.wnyc.org/story/legalization-best-way-win-war-drugs/ http://www.wnyc.org/story/legalization-best-way-win-war-drug...
- aminorex 11y ago
  It also prevents effective control through licensure.
- joantune 11y ago
  All i'm saying is that it's better than the policies currently being applied in the U.S. And we (Portugal) are a case study that proves that. I'm worried that legalization could pass the message that it's ok, while it's not, because real damage comes from the abuse of those illegal drugs.

miguelrochefort 11y ago

Oh the hypocrisy. Drugs legalization being trendy, you play the libertarian card. Yet, when it comes to guns or privacy, the same arguments don't hold true anymore. Cherry picking at its best. Gotta love the HN crowd.

jessaustin 11y ago
HN is not a monolith. I'm sure someone here wants to take my guns but not my 'shrooms (and vice versa), but for the most part those issues are not intrinsically connected. You'll see more of a crossover at other sites, but that just reflects the two longstanding modes of acceptable USA political discourse.
dang 11y ago
> Gotta love the HN crowd. Please don't do this here. The "crowd" includes you, and such generalizations are mostly bias.
- miguelrochefort 11y ago
  Am I wrong to assume that most people here: - Want to legalize drugs. - Want to ban guns. - Want a right to privacy.
  - dang 11y ago
    You may be right, but yes you're wrong to assume it. People assume all kinds of things about HN, and there's a huge amount of bias involved. But my point is that it's in bad taste to diss a community you belong to, while participating in it, as a rhetorical status move. People do this all the time, but we've noticed that it's reliably a marker of low-quality comments, so we're going to start asking them not to.
  - jjuhl 11y ago
    Sounds good to me. But go ahead and flame/downvote/hate on my oppinion as a member of the HN community. After all I'm just one person with an opinion.
  - 11y ago

dools 11y ago

Further reading http://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Scream-First-Last-Drugs/dp/1620408902 http://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Scream-First-Last-Drugs/dp/162...

miguelrochefort 11y ago

Legalize all drugs and weapons! Release all patents and copyrights! Freedom!

jessaustin 11y ago

After telling the BBC in December that “if you fight a war for forty years and don’t win, you have to sit down and think about other things to do that might be more effective,” Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos legalized medical marijuana by decree. In November, the Mexican Supreme Court elevated the debate to a new plane by ruling that the prohibition of marijuana consumption violated the Mexican Constitution by interfering with “the personal sphere,” the “right to dignity,” and the right to “personal autonomy.” This is great news. Only the sort of political situation that existed in Latin America over these past decades could have permitted us in USA to export all this violence and suffering. The corruption in their state was a mirror of that in ours. We were happy to destroy their societies for profit, and unfortunately their rulers were too. The Drug War is a big reason I'm an anarchist. People living their own lives, in their own communities, can get up to some awful shit, now and then. No way in hell can they come up with the durable, sustained, all-consuming all-perverting horror that is the Drug War, or any of the other travesties the State produces without breaking a sweat.

charonn0 11y ago
As a counterpoint, compulsory free education for all children is a public good that couldn't be accomplished or sustained for decades without the state intruding upon the personal autonomy of the child and the parent (and childless taxpayers.)
- cooper12 11y ago
  Is it really as much of a necessity? In my opinion most people learn the bare minimum required for exams, and then regurgitate it. I only remember tidbits of history and a little Shakespeare from my school days. Even in college most of my professors just read off powerpoints and I was forced to learn anything useful at all for my career on my own time. Schools force people to learn things they aren't interested in like STEM over useful life skills like personal finance or cooking. I think homeschooling or self-directed education [0] could be much more effective at stimulating learners and equipping them with necessary knowledge. In my opinion the only benefit of school was the social aspect, but thats to be expected since thats where everyone else is, not to mention the drawbacks such as bullying. Education really isn't as much of a virtue as people think; do I really need a degree to talk to people, to appreciate literature or art, to vote? (And even with the prevalence of education, people still end up misinformed or lead by personal bias) Most people are capable of learning what they need, especially when all the resources are out there and not just in schools. All the different levels of education that are established just serve as poor markers for employers to differentiate people and time-and-time again I've read about educations being ill-suited in preparing people for careers. Like the parent commenter, I think people are quite capable of organizing and preparing themselves just as well without a state, and many communities and generations have been doing this for centuries. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling (just one interesting example)

tomphoolery 11y ago

This doesn't work for me...Cache link: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-tEQXRbBQvUJ:https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-tEQXR...

jonalmeida 11y ago

Surprised no one has yet posted the Kurzgesagt video on the failed war on drugs: https://youtu.be/wJUXLqNHCaI https://youtu.be/wJUXLqNHCaI

ijhnv 11y ago
Yeah, and also their excellent video on addiction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg

merpnderp 11y ago

I'm completely against the war on drugs for most of the reasons stated in this article, but I find it's blaming of Nixon and racial/ideological politics as the worst most unproductive form of cynicism. As if there are no well meaning, well founded reasons to outlaw drugs. People often forget that poor, minority neighborhoods were often instrumental in getting tough drug laws passed. Because they often faced the brunt of the criminal effect of large numbers of drug users. When a working class mom gets her kid's bike stolen by a junkie, she's not too interested in contemplating rehabilitation, she's just mad and wants her bike back and the asshole punished.

smadge 11y ago
Do you have sources for this? My gut reaction is that your claim that tough drug laws that targeted poor and minority communities wouldn't have passed without the support of those communities seems false. These communities have little political power, and the laws would not have passed without the support of the economic and political elite.
laughinghan 11y ago
People often forget that poor, minority neighborhoods were often instrumental in getting tough drug laws passed. Because they often faced the brunt of the criminal effect of large numbers of drug users. When a working class mom gets her kid's bike stolen by a junkie, she's not too interested in contemplating rehabilitation, she's just mad and wants her bike back and the asshole punished. This completely contradicts my understanding of how civics works in the real world. Poor, minority, working-class moms do not trust the government, police, or laws to work in their best interests, and do not push to get "tough drug laws passed". They believe such laws would be used as weapons against their families and communities. Even if you debate the accuracy of this belief, the impact that #BlackLivesMatter is having on the current election means there is no debating the widespread nature of this belief. However, politically influential interest groups using "working class mom gets her kid's bike stolen by a junkie" as justification for tough drug laws—that sure is consistent with my understanding. So is duping us into thinking the poor minority neighborhoods are in favor of such laws.
metaphorm 11y ago

arca_vorago 11y ago

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." While I enjoy the recent surge in popularity of such a movement, my primary issue with drug policy is that it is unconstitutional, or at leasty arguably so. I fail to see a properly explained distinction between drug X and $ANYOBJECT Y when it comes to any governments ability to restrict a person from it. Whats the difference between caffiene and mj and alcohol? What about mj and harder drugs? What about harder drugs and two cans of coke a day? A person can be addicted to anything, (not to ignore the chemical/biological addictive properties) so what is to prevent any object from becoming a danger to the person or those around theme? To me this seems to be the core foundation upon which anti-drug persons base their argument. ie. "Once a person is addicted, they are likely to become a criminal and violate other peoples rights, so it's the governments duty to prevent that!". To me though, it's not the governments duty to essentially engage in pre-crime criminalization. We all know about the private prison industry, but what gets me the most is that people in prison for non-violent drug charges are almost there, not because the drug itself was a crime, but because the underlying, implied logic is that they were about to become criminals anyway. All of this flies in the face of the constitution, for once it is admitted that it's the duty of government to protect a person against their own actions, very few serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. In essence the drug war is a huge slippery slope which only opens up our system for further degradation of fundamental rights. Also, I would to point out, beyond and before what is proposed as a mostly racist basis for the drug laws, that the larger purpose for the original drug wars (Opium Wars I and II, misc smaller conflicts), were largely about two other factors that are far too often overlooked: 1. Black-markets = free flowing, unaccountable money. Even in the modern times, this is a favorite of the three letters, to get black budget money thats outside the oversight of congress. If there isn't a blackmarket, you simply create one by buying off the politicians to make something illegal. 2. Similar to the racists vein, but more as a tool of control of the masses. while I have no problem constitutionally with legalization, the national security implications of "opiating the masses" are not to be ignored. The state of the Chinese population after introduction of mass quantities of opium as a good example of this done as a deliberate strategy. As an aside, at one time I bought into the Dupont/Hemp conspiracy, but have since been able to find very little to no evidence to support this claim, so just a word of warning to any others who have fallen for it, that you should try to find some sources (and don't forget to share them if you do!)

md224 11y ago

This seems like a good time to mention that I own the domain name TheTruthAboutPot.com and have no idea what to do with it. Suggestions / buyers welcome!

sreya 11y ago

This is unrelated but it would be nice if this site offered the ability to minimize sub-threads. I was genuinely curious about people's opinions as to how best legalize drugs in a responsible fashion. Instead I have to scroll through an obnoxious amount of comments bemoaning the short falls of the government long enough to lose interest.

omegaham 11y ago
HN Utility Suite for Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/hn-utility-suite/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/hn-utility-su... HN Enhancement for Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hacker-news-enhancement-s/bappiabcodbpphnojdiaddhnilfnjmpm?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hacker-news-enhanc...
therealdrag0 11y ago
I like "hckr news" plugin. The "Collapse Whole Thread" option is great after I've read a few comments in one root.

fiatjaf 11y ago

Legalize free trade!

omegaham 11y ago

I think that one of the biggest things that policymakers should keep in mind is that frequently, there is no good solution. There are only less bad solutions. Take payday loans as an example. The entire industry is extremely exploitative and preys on uneducated poor people who are desperate due to bad circumstances and / or poor financial planning. Well-meaning activists have campaigned to "reform" the business and make it less scummy. The result? Legitimate payday loan companies go out of business, as it's no longer economical to invest money in loaning to poor people, and the mob fills the void. Instead of getting a loan from Usury Inc, whose backers have pulled out and invested in something else, you're getting a loan from Cousin Vinnie. Now, the poor get exploited even more nastily by organized crime, which has absolutely no compunctions about getting its money back by any means possible, including threatening families, breaking kneecaps, killing people to get the rest of the debtors in line, etc. The only answer is an optimization - you curb the worst of the abuses, and then accept the fact that the exploitation is a side effect of underlying causes and impossible to remove without making things worse. It's as good as we're going to get. Same exact thing with the drug trade. Drugs destroy lives. It's a fact - heroin and other opiates are a scourge on poor communities, and it's not just due to the fact that they're illegal. After all, people overdose on prescription medication all the time, too[1]. But a lot of the enforcement that has been done makes things even worse - we still have addicts, and then we get all of the violence that comes from the enormous markup that's inherent in the black market. There is no good solution that makes everything better, but it's very easy to make things worse. More nastily, it breeds what I like to call "contempt of the law" - if everyone in a community is breaking the law somehow, (smoking weed, buying black-market cigarettes, buying prescription painkillers, etc) then even worse crimes don't get prosecuted because everyone is preoccupied with the fact that the police are going after the people they perceive to be average Joes. As soon as people perceive the police as an occupying force that arbitrarily goes after average citizens for gits and shiggles, the people will stop seeing the police as guardians against the truly evil and dangerous people among them. I think that the biggest issue that blocks action on this is that people are confusing legalization with approval. You can make something legal and still think it's horrible. It's legal to cheat on your spouse, even though most people consider it immoral, but the cost on society that would come from making adultery illegal (and enforcing it) would be far greater than keeping the government out of it. Similarly, you can make prostitution legal and still consider it horrible. You can make casino gambling illegal and still consider it exploitative of people who suck at math. And you can make drugs legal and still consider it exploitative of human weakness. The only criteria that we should be using is "Would government intervention actually make the situation better? If not, keep the government out of it." And at this point, I'm pretty doubtful that dispatching thousands of officers to go after heroin dealers will keep people from using heroin. I'm pretty confident that doing so will increase the money that's in heroin, increase violence, and breed contempt of the law. <asshole> Oh. Also, if we make drugs legal, I'm investing like a motherfucker in Soma, Inc. Drugs sell themselves, and I'm sure that corporations will make a bundle if they can sell them to The Public. My retirement fund will thank the wonderful residents of Appalachia for their generous contributions. Whichever company is the first to make an oxycodone version of Joe Camel is the one I'm investing in.</asshole> [1]http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/overdose.html http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/overdose.html

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

mbubb 11y ago

Why stop with drugs? I would include pointless war on sex workers.

kagamine 11y ago
The key difference is that drugs are something one does to oneself, whereas prostitution includes at least one other person. How to ensure that person is willingly participating and profiting is the question. Although I suppose legalization and licensing would help with that too.
neverknowsbest 11y ago
Exactly. If somebody wants to sell their physical sexual skills, it should be just as easy to find a place of employment as somebody wanting to sell their mental deductive skills.

obfk 11y ago

Anyone looking for an additional read should check Chasing the Scream by Johann Hari.

bennesvig 11y ago
A very powerful book that changed my opinion.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

stegosaurus 11y ago

The idea that the Western world (at least, my country, the UK) uses laws to criminalize groups of people seems about as old as time itself to me. We don't punish drug use because we care about people taking drugs. We punish drug use because we want to eliminate the influence of 'junkies' on society. We don't punish radical views because we disagree with them. We punish radical views because we want to eliminate their influence on society. Let's talk about child abuse. A terrible crime. As a UK resident - it feels to me, that people don't actually care about the actual act of child abuse as much as they care about the... 'othering' of the perpetrator. It's the idea of a child abuser as being an animal, a strange alien, a completely non-understandable beast, that really riles us up. That's why 'think of the children' works. We're not thinking about the children, really. We're thinking about the threat from human actors who don't have world-views that quite fit - we can't grok them, they can't be trusted. That's what I think these sorts of laws are fundamentally about. They are about trying to remove 'scary' individuals. I don't care about terrorism because I think it's vanishingly unlikely to occur. But people, as a mass, fear the unknown - they fear the humans who don't have the same limits that they do. The humans that can, and will, do anything. 'Terrorist' is just the new 'criminal', because 'criminal' doesn't hold the same cachet when everyone is a criminal.

rorykoehler 11y ago
>We punish drug use because we want to eliminate the influence of 'junkies' on society. & >They are about trying to remove 'scary' individuals. It's not so clear cut. It's more about having the ability to selectively remove them if and when they become a nuisance. Consider GW Bush for example. Coke fiend but establishment, ends up becoming US president. Is he not a junkie? Did he not have a huge influence on society including societies beyond his immediate society? The law is about power not morality. Morality is the thin veil used to present the tool of coercion that is the legal system to the masses.
kagamine 11y ago
> that people don't actually care about the actual act of child abuse as much as they care about the... 'othering' of the perpetrator. It's the idea of a child abuser as being an animal, a strange alien, a completely non-understandable beast, that really riles us up. I disagree, that is how the media sells papers and gets page clicks, but is that what the man-in-the-street thinks? I'm also from the UK, and to me the vilest part of it is that children have little understanding of these adult things; sex, relationships, normality, an inability to protect themselves from adults. They have a right to be a child during childhood (it is a humanitarian right in many countries 1). It isn't about demonizing a person, it is about being saddened by the loss of a child (within a child's body) and the loss of faith in humanity within myself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_th...

mwsherman 11y ago

It will be a very interesting study for future generations, should we substantially legalize recreational drugs, on all of the follow-on effects. For example, many categories of police activity (raids, traffic stops) will become harder to justify; the dollar cost of drugs going down by an order of magnitude; immigration enforcement.

stillsut 11y ago

The stalemate of the current horrid system seems only to be held in place by the (perhaps misguided) sense that being high enough middle class has a better chance to insulate your family against the ravages of drug addiction more than the total legalization ever could. And so every police crackdown in your neighborhood makes sense for protection, but it results in a tragedy of the commons type situation that everyone becomes more policed without truly cutting down drug abuse.

Ericson2314 11y ago

I'm curious what HN thinks about the author's point that drug-distribution is state-controlled. I agree---capitalism only works in arenas where the actors act (decently) rationally, and would-be markets where a significant portion of consumption is by addicts doesn't meet that test. I'm also curious if anyone thinks such a end-game is politically possible in the US. Or is the profit motive + mistrust of government the only coalition capable of out-hustling our puritan tendencies politically?

samstave 11y ago

I'm literally convinced you're a paid government shill. Edit: this is with at least three years of input from user rayiner, there is literally no fucking way that you cannot read this comment history from the time the account was created to now and not see that this is a shill for the narrative that the government wants you to hear.

dang 11y ago
> I'm literally convinced you're a paid government shill. Sam! You can't do this here! Please don't do it here anymore! All: Insinuations of astroturfing or shillage without evidence are not ok on HN. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11333552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11333552 and marked it off-topic.
- samstave 11y ago
  How would you prefer that I make my opinion known of Rayiner and the narrative that person has maintained over the years we have both been on HN? I've literally been in discussions with Rayiner for years and at odds with their position, why am I not free to disagree with the message she puts forth?
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    HN is really picky about accusing even other HN users in general of being astroturfy. (Ask me how I know!) Accusing a specific user, as you've done in this case, is right out. You'll have better luck referring to other, non-HN sources or even humanity in general as e.g. "not disinterested". Besides it's not really important that we know your opinion of 'rayiner. You've been around awhile; we have some idea. 'rayiner has been around longer, and through copious posting we know exactly what 'rayiner will say about any favorite topic. (One reason I always have "showdead" on is that occasionally someone will write an entertaining spot-on parody of a top contributor that gets instantly downvoted to oblivion.) 'rayiner is not shy about being a lawyer, so any suspicions about that can be harbored without mention. We can disagree with 'rayiner in many different ways without specifically violating the fairly lax norms of HN.

known 11y ago

"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." --Reagan

GreaterFool 11y ago

The problem with law is that it is easy to write, hard to get rid of. We refactor old code all the time (hopefully!) but law, once written, lingers on for hundreds of years...

gdubs 11y ago

After reading The Rise and Fall of American Growth -- a brilliant work that most here on HN would find relevant -- I came away more convinced than ever before that legalizing drugs would reduce a great deal of drag on our long term economic growth.

mirimir 11y ago

> The risks are tremendous. Deaths from heroin overdose in the United States rose 500 percent from 2001 to 2014, a staggering increase, and deaths from prescription drugs — which are already legal and regulated — shot up almost 300 percent, proving that where opioids are concerned, we seem to be inept not only when we prohibit but also when we regulate. For heroin, the major risk is variation in potency. Heroin is highly cut at consumer level, for the most part. But occasionally, some relatively pure shit hits the street. And then there's the risk of boosting by Fentanyl and other high-potency opiates. Also, it's pretty clear that the increasing popularity of heroin has been driven by decreasing availability of prescription opiates. New heroin users tend to be clueless about risk management. So they tend to overdose. I'm curious about increasing deaths from prescription drugs. I wonder how much of that is driven by acetaminophen toxicity, as oxycodone etc have become harder to get than mixtures of acetaminophen with codeine and hydrocodone. I'm also wondering whether these figures include deaths for prescription drugs obtained informally.

neverknowsbest 11y ago
A lot of overdoses also stem from folks who were forced or coerced into rehab before being fully prepared, then relapse, taking their old dose without realizing that their tolerance has already gone down during treatment. Hopefully those cases would decrease with legalization and the removal of the "hard drug" stigma. Regarding the increase in RX deaths, I'd like to see those stats too-- though it's probably too hairy to really break down, I'd also like to see that expanded which prescription opiate, as well as circumstance (fully recreational/no clear injury, minor injury, during hospitalization, or continuing/long term care).

tryitnow 11y ago

What I like most about this article is that it's most definitely not a libertarian take on the issue. The author describes several benefits of a government involvement in legal drug commerce. A non-libertarian perspective on drug legalization is important because everyone knows libertarians want to legalize everything. And most informed people know the libertarian arguments as well. And they've been known for many decades now. Clearly, the libertarian approach isn't swaying a whole lot of people. However, when people who are not ideologically committed to small government start supporting drug legalization it becomes a more serious possibility because it means a broader coalition can be built to support legalization. tldr: libertarians alone will never make legalization a reality, but libertarians united with progressives can be a force for change.

stretchwithme 11y ago

We should be deciding such questions at the neighborhood level. There are always going to be those who don't want to be arounds drugs and those who do. We should be making it possible to have either kind of community and access either without having to travel to another city or state. And penalties should be civil not criminal.

justlsice 11y ago

Legalize it and let natural selection do its job. Junkies will just kill themselves.