37 ms·

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 her

by 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.

by krylon 11y ago

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.