5 ms·

I know the War on Drugs is unpopular in HN, and it should be clear from my comment I'm against it myself. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who wouldn't

by gozur88 10y ago

I know the War on Drugs is unpopular in HN, and it should be clear from my comment I'm against it myself. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who wouldn't drive to a seedy neighborhood and risk arrest to secure drugs, but who would take drugs if buying them were cheap and safe. Some number of those people will end up hooked, and some number of those people will be breaking into houses (or worse) looking for stuff to sell so they can get their next hit. Like I said, I don't think the putting a stop to that is worth what we're paying in terms of money and lost freedoms, but let's not pretend these substances were made illegal out of groundless malice. If and when we end the drug war there will be more junkies, more crack whores, more people who sit around staring at the wall instead of working and raising families, more people in the ERs from overdoses and drug-fueled mental breakdowns. It's a price I think we should pay, but it still a price.

chillingeffect 10y ago
like much of the Drug War storytelling, this perspective is based on fantasy. In this episode, drugs only exist in seedy neighborhoods. No charming, friendly people ever import them, make them available over craigslist, on college campuses, in white-collar workplaces. As for groundless malice...you're half-right. It wasn't groundless, it was and still is racist in origin.
- gozur88 10y ago
  Really? Then why are drugs illegal in, say, Norway? Or Japan? Racism?
  - loqi 10y ago
    Early 1800s: "Then why is slavery still legal in England et al?" Right now: "Then why is gay marriage illegal in Japan et al?" Etc. Your point has nothing to do with the drug war itself, it's broad enough to apply to any early-stage progressive proposal.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      You didn't understand the point, apparently. Countries that were nearly 100% racially homogeneous when they banned drugs couldn't have been doing it because of racism.
  - chillingeffect 10y ago
    That's actually a great question. I don't know about Norway, but in Japan, a good deal of it is due to US influence. We have exported our War on Drugs. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States#War_on_Drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_S...
wmeredith 10y ago
> If and when we end the drug war there will be more junkies, more crack whores, more people who sit around staring at the wall instead of working and raising families, more people in the ERs from overdoses and drug-fueled mental breakdowns. You're dead wrong. And unless you intend malice you need to stop spreading this BS. Portugal legalized ALL drugs and a decade later they saw abuse fall by 50%. Source: http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/drug-decriminalization-portugal-lessons-creating-fair-successful-drug-policies http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/drug-decriminal...
- dcacaac 10y ago
  I agree with you, but just to be clear, Portugal decriminalized all drugs.
- rayiner 10y ago
  You're spreading BS too. Portugal did not legalize all drugs. They decriminalized personal use. But trafficking drugs is still illegal. But almost all U.S. DEA prosecution is over trafficking, not possession. So decriminalization wouldn't get rid of it.
- gozur88 10y ago
  No, I'm not wrong, and you can stop spreading this sort of nonsense any time. Do you honestly think Drugs are illegal in every country in the world because people other than you are stupid?
  - llamataboot 10y ago
    Please provide your sources.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      Please provide yours.
  - teslabox 10y ago
    Johann Hari wrote an excellent book [1] about how the bad plants came to be demonized and persecuted. Yes, Cocaine and heroin cause problems for people, but does that justify turning addicts' supply chains over to organized crime? Would it not be better to make sure that people who've decided to use the bad plants at least get what they're paying for? [1] http://www.chasingthescream.com/ http://www.chasingthescream.com/
Zigurd 10y ago
> Unfortunately there are a lot of people who wouldn't drive to a seedy neighborhood and risk arrest to secure drugs, but who would take drugs if buying them were cheap and safe. The evidence is, based on heroin use among white people, that nobody needs to drive to a "seedy" <cough>black</cough> neighborhood to get heroin. And never mind driving! These people are using a needle drug which entails risk of hepatitis C, AIDS, etc. Is a lw goinf to deter them? Yes the Drug War was created with malice. Just not "groundless." The grounds were to continue Jim Crow by other means. The Drug Warrors are an expensive evil.
- gozur88 10y ago
  It's weird you can't imagine a seedy neighborhood that isn't black. Good to know.
oldmanjay 10y ago
If you are going to predict the future based on nothing but belief, it's fair to preface those predictions with a disclaimer.
Clubber 10y ago
It's hard to say. Were there fewer alcoholics during prohibition? Were there more after it was repealed? Was it statistically significant? I'm not sure, but it would be a pretty damn good case study. The problem I have is that the US is so hard headed, they double down whenever something doesn't work rather than reevaluate. The US has been doubling down on the drug war every administration since the 1970s. The solution has been significantly more harmful than the problem since the 80s, and yet they keep doubling down. Sounds like we just doubled down again with painkillers. It's madness.
- drumdance 10y ago
  Alcoholism did go down during prohibition. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibiti...
  - Clubber 10y ago
    I don't want to drown in minutiae, but at the end of that article, the author is supporting the drug war, so he is using statistics supporting his case. I did a little research and there are of course conflicting views on the effectiveness of Prohibition. "John D. Rockefeller, a teetotaler, observed in 1932, 'drinking has generally increased, the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has been recruited and financed on a colossal scale.'" To avoid a long drawn out argument about which statistics are more likely to be accurate, I'm willing to admit that both conclusions are possible and the actual answer lies somewhere in-between. The first guy estimated 30%, Rockefeller surmised that it increased, so lets go with 15% decrease in drug use because of the drug war. That's even hard to say because the drug war has lasted a lot longer than prohibition. Unfortunately I couldn't quickly find any information about the repeal of prohibition which is more relevant to the topic since we are currently in a prohibition. Anyway, I guess the country needs to decide if 15% increase in drug use is worth the cost of the drug war, so for every 20 current drug users, we'd get 3 more. In exchange, we'd get a lot of money in the treasury, respect for the law, return of our freedoms (maybe), much smaller incarceration rate, greatly weakened gangs and cartels, much less justification for surveillance, and an overall less hellishly scary police state. Unfortunately, the US doesn't debate it rationally in those terms.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
With your disclaimer about the war on drugs in mind, rebuttal to a few things: > Some number of those will end up hooked, and some number of those people will be breaking into houses (or worse) looking for stuff to sell so they can get their next hit. But most folks won't do this stuff. Most folks won't even get addicted. It isn't like the US has affordable facilities to help folks, staffed with medical doctors and psychologists to help folks along. They do have AA and NA. A few are helped, many others aren't. Some of the key with Portugal's decriminalization was they offered help to those addicted. Affordable help. Right now, you have people getting pills for surgery, etc. and some of them wind up addicted. Instead of the doctor being able to have an honest conversation with the person about warnings signs, etc, and offering free(!) help to those that wind up addicted, we choose to treat them like criminals. >... let's not pretend these substances were made illegal out of groundless malice. Only that isn't really true either. Some of the campaigns to make them illegal were based in racism. Misinformation was spread, both before and after. My grandmother thought pot would make people insane, for example. And research shows that most of these would have less effect on society than alcohol. There are drugs that I think are bad for folks that take them and their families, but we could actually help folks and their families instead. Punish for actual crimes instead of "a few of these folks could commit a crime".
- gozur88 10y ago
  >But most folks won't do this stuff. Most folks won't even get addicted. That is absolutely true. I didn't say civilization will collapse or anything like that. I'm just saying there will be a price. There's certainly room for disagreement over how high the price will be. But I think it's pretty ridiculous to pretend ending drug prohibition will be free. >Only that isn't really true either. Some of the campaigns to make them illegal were based in racism. I don't find this compelling. Yes, there was a feeling of "Don't smoke pot - only jazz musicians smoke pot." But if you really thought only jazz musicians smoked pot there wouldn't be any reason to make it illegal. And if there were 88% of the country wouldn't tolerate prohibition just to oppress the other 12%. >Misinformation was spread, both before and after. My grandmother thought pot would make people insane, for example. Yes, that's true, though I think there's a big difference between marijuana and, say, opiods, amphetamines, or barbiturates. >There are drugs that I think are bad for folks that take them and their families, but we could actually help folks and their families instead. If you read up a bit you'll see I'm in basic agreement with you on the right way to move forward. I just think it's naive to believe people won't take more drugs in the margin, and we won't be dealing with some problems as a result. The hope (and my belief) is the new problems will be fewer than the old problems we're getting rid of by getting rid of drug laws.

by gozur88 10y ago

chillingeffect 10y ago

like much of the Drug War storytelling, this perspective is based on fantasy. In this episode, drugs only exist in seedy neighborhoods. No charming, friendly people ever import them, make them available over craigslist, on college campuses, in white-collar workplaces. As for groundless malice...you're half-right. It wasn't groundless, it was and still is racist in origin.

gozur88 10y ago
Really? Then why are drugs illegal in, say, Norway? Or Japan? Racism?
- loqi 10y ago
  Early 1800s: "Then why is slavery still legal in England et al?" Right now: "Then why is gay marriage illegal in Japan et al?" Etc. Your point has nothing to do with the drug war itself, it's broad enough to apply to any early-stage progressive proposal.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    You didn't understand the point, apparently. Countries that were nearly 100% racially homogeneous when they banned drugs couldn't have been doing it because of racism.
- chillingeffect 10y ago
  That's actually a great question. I don't know about Norway, but in Japan, a good deal of it is due to US influence. We have exported our War on Drugs. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States#War_on_Drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_S...

wmeredith 10y ago

> If and when we end the drug war there will be more junkies, more crack whores, more people who sit around staring at the wall instead of working and raising families, more people in the ERs from overdoses and drug-fueled mental breakdowns. You're dead wrong. And unless you intend malice you need to stop spreading this BS. Portugal legalized ALL drugs and a decade later they saw abuse fall by 50%. Source: http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/drug-decriminalization-portugal-lessons-creating-fair-successful-drug-policies http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/drug-decriminal...

dcacaac 10y ago
I agree with you, but just to be clear, Portugal decriminalized all drugs.
rayiner 10y ago
You're spreading BS too. Portugal did not legalize all drugs. They decriminalized personal use. But trafficking drugs is still illegal. But almost all U.S. DEA prosecution is over trafficking, not possession. So decriminalization wouldn't get rid of it.
gozur88 10y ago
No, I'm not wrong, and you can stop spreading this sort of nonsense any time. Do you honestly think Drugs are illegal in every country in the world because people other than you are stupid?
- llamataboot 10y ago
  Please provide your sources.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    Please provide yours.
- teslabox 10y ago
  Johann Hari wrote an excellent book [1] about how the bad plants came to be demonized and persecuted. Yes, Cocaine and heroin cause problems for people, but does that justify turning addicts' supply chains over to organized crime? Would it not be better to make sure that people who've decided to use the bad plants at least get what they're paying for? [1] http://www.chasingthescream.com/ http://www.chasingthescream.com/

Zigurd 10y ago

> Unfortunately there are a lot of people who wouldn't drive to a seedy neighborhood and risk arrest to secure drugs, but who would take drugs if buying them were cheap and safe. The evidence is, based on heroin use among white people, that nobody needs to drive to a "seedy" <cough>black</cough> neighborhood to get heroin. And never mind driving! These people are using a needle drug which entails risk of hepatitis C, AIDS, etc. Is a lw goinf to deter them? Yes the Drug War was created with malice. Just not "groundless." The grounds were to continue Jim Crow by other means. The Drug Warrors are an expensive evil.

gozur88 10y ago
It's weird you can't imagine a seedy neighborhood that isn't black. Good to know.

oldmanjay 10y ago

If you are going to predict the future based on nothing but belief, it's fair to preface those predictions with a disclaimer.

Clubber 10y ago

It's hard to say. Were there fewer alcoholics during prohibition? Were there more after it was repealed? Was it statistically significant? I'm not sure, but it would be a pretty damn good case study. The problem I have is that the US is so hard headed, they double down whenever something doesn't work rather than reevaluate. The US has been doubling down on the drug war every administration since the 1970s. The solution has been significantly more harmful than the problem since the 80s, and yet they keep doubling down. Sounds like we just doubled down again with painkillers. It's madness.

drumdance 10y ago
Alcoholism did go down during prohibition. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibiti...
- Clubber 10y ago
  I don't want to drown in minutiae, but at the end of that article, the author is supporting the drug war, so he is using statistics supporting his case. I did a little research and there are of course conflicting views on the effectiveness of Prohibition. "John D. Rockefeller, a teetotaler, observed in 1932, 'drinking has generally increased, the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has been recruited and financed on a colossal scale.'" To avoid a long drawn out argument about which statistics are more likely to be accurate, I'm willing to admit that both conclusions are possible and the actual answer lies somewhere in-between. The first guy estimated 30%, Rockefeller surmised that it increased, so lets go with 15% decrease in drug use because of the drug war. That's even hard to say because the drug war has lasted a lot longer than prohibition. Unfortunately I couldn't quickly find any information about the repeal of prohibition which is more relevant to the topic since we are currently in a prohibition. Anyway, I guess the country needs to decide if 15% increase in drug use is worth the cost of the drug war, so for every 20 current drug users, we'd get 3 more. In exchange, we'd get a lot of money in the treasury, respect for the law, return of our freedoms (maybe), much smaller incarceration rate, greatly weakened gangs and cartels, much less justification for surveillance, and an overall less hellishly scary police state. Unfortunately, the US doesn't debate it rationally in those terms.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

With your disclaimer about the war on drugs in mind, rebuttal to a few things: > Some number of those will end up hooked, and some number of those people will be breaking into houses (or worse) looking for stuff to sell so they can get their next hit. But most folks won't do this stuff. Most folks won't even get addicted. It isn't like the US has affordable facilities to help folks, staffed with medical doctors and psychologists to help folks along. They do have AA and NA. A few are helped, many others aren't. Some of the key with Portugal's decriminalization was they offered help to those addicted. Affordable help. Right now, you have people getting pills for surgery, etc. and some of them wind up addicted. Instead of the doctor being able to have an honest conversation with the person about warnings signs, etc, and offering free(!) help to those that wind up addicted, we choose to treat them like criminals. >... let's not pretend these substances were made illegal out of groundless malice. Only that isn't really true either. Some of the campaigns to make them illegal were based in racism. Misinformation was spread, both before and after. My grandmother thought pot would make people insane, for example. And research shows that most of these would have less effect on society than alcohol. There are drugs that I think are bad for folks that take them and their families, but we could actually help folks and their families instead. Punish for actual crimes instead of "a few of these folks could commit a crime".

gozur88 10y ago
>But most folks won't do this stuff. Most folks won't even get addicted. That is absolutely true. I didn't say civilization will collapse or anything like that. I'm just saying there will be a price. There's certainly room for disagreement over how high the price will be. But I think it's pretty ridiculous to pretend ending drug prohibition will be free. >Only that isn't really true either. Some of the campaigns to make them illegal were based in racism. I don't find this compelling. Yes, there was a feeling of "Don't smoke pot - only jazz musicians smoke pot." But if you really thought only jazz musicians smoked pot there wouldn't be any reason to make it illegal. And if there were 88% of the country wouldn't tolerate prohibition just to oppress the other 12%. >Misinformation was spread, both before and after. My grandmother thought pot would make people insane, for example. Yes, that's true, though I think there's a big difference between marijuana and, say, opiods, amphetamines, or barbiturates. >There are drugs that I think are bad for folks that take them and their families, but we could actually help folks and their families instead. If you read up a bit you'll see I'm in basic agreement with you on the right way to move forward. I just think it's naive to believe people won't take more drugs in the margin, and we won't be dealing with some problems as a result. The hope (and my belief) is the new problems will be fewer than the old problems we're getting rid of by getting rid of drug laws.