6 ms·

The purpose of drug laws is not to punish intoxication. It never was. Drug laws exist to punish subcultures. They're grounded in racism and cultural bias, and

by beat 10y ago

The purpose of drug laws is not to punish intoxication. It never was. Drug laws exist to punish subcultures. They're grounded in racism and cultural bias, and they're enforced that way as well. It's not about the addicts. It's about the blacks and the Mexicans and the hippies and the punks. The undesirables. Drug laws are an excuse for police to harass anyone who doesn't look "right". If we can't accept this basic fact, if we have to lie to others (and ourselves) about it, we can't have an honest conversation about drugs.

gozur88 10y ago
That's not a fact at all. It's not even true. Drugs are illegal or heavily restricted in every country in the world, including countries that are nearly homogeneous. Drugs are illegal because drug addicts cause problems for the people around them. It's really that simple.
- jahnu 10y ago
  The truth is a a mixture of all that really. Sometimes drugs are prohibited for health reasons, sometimes for cultural reasons, sometimes for commercial reasons, and so on and in all countries some drugs are not prohibited at all. Enforcement is similarly varied.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  It's really that simple. No, it's not. For a whole host of ideological reasons, certain problem-causing agents (like alcohol and tobacco) are tolerated, despite their deadly and very costly impact on society, while others are not. I didn't like the comment above yours either, BTW. Both are untenable oversimplifications.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    In the US they tried to make alcohol illegal for the same reason heroin and cocaine are illegal. Tobacco and caffeine don't cause the same sorts of problem. Nobody is going to break into your house while you're at work because they can't afford smokes. Smokers and coffee drinkers can hold down jobs and they don't OD at age 22, leaving behind kids the community has to take care of.
    - beat 10y ago
      No one has ever overdosed on marijuana.
    - mountaineer22 10y ago
      In the US, alcohol was illegal. Also, cocaine and heroin were legal and have accepted medical uses. Cigarette smoking causes cancer. Drinking more than three cups of coffee a day increases one's risk of pancreatic cancer.
      - gozur88 10y ago
        >In the US, alcohol was illegal. Yes. That was why I brought it up.
      - lol768 10y ago
        > Drinking more than three cups of coffee a day increases one's risk of pancreatic cancer. I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree with this statement. Take a look at this meta-analysis: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3063915/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3063915/ which suggests, if anything, an inverse relationship between drinking coffee and pancreatic cancer. See also http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2011509/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2011509/ which establishes no relationship between drinking coffee and the risk of developing pancreatic cancer. Can you provide any sources that suggest the opposite and have not been rebutted by future publications?
        mountaineer22 10y ago
        2011 and 1983? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26402414 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26402414 This is more recent (2015), you are right (I upvoted you). I am wrong.
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      Nobody is going to break into your house while you're at work because they can't afford smokes. You might be surprised at what conclusions were reached when researchers conducted a side-by-side analysis of the relative addictiveness of tobacco and heroin: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-to-kickthan-heroin.html http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-t... The fact that the total criminalization of the heroin market leads to wildly inflated prices might have something to do with the rate of criminality among heroin addicts. Which BTW isn't that high. Smokers and coffee drinkers can hold down jobs and they don't OD at age 22, leaving behind kids the community has to take care of. The vast majority of heroin users hold down regular jobs; and the risk of OD'ing is generally understood to be wildly inflated as a direct result of the unregulated street market. Heroin users aren't stupid, or even intrinsically self-destructive; when they know what they're getting (and how much), overdoses are quite rare in fact. Anyway, rather go back and forth over anecdotal side points like this, I'd (kindly and sincerely) suggest you do some general reading on the topic, taking care to look at the social costs holistically (rather than pivoting on this or that side aspect). In particular, there's a lot to be learned from how other countries (particularly in Europe) have approached the issue of heroin (and other) addictions over the years, and the lessons they have learned.
- swayvil 10y ago
  The #1 drug-addict population is alcoholics. I don't think we go after them like we do, say, the potheads or the hallucinogen enthusiasts. I don't think that "troublesome addicts" is the reason for drug laws. I think that /u/beat has it right, except it ain't the hippies, blacks, etc. It's everybody. The drug war is a universal justification for spying, search and seizure. That's its purpose.
  - beat 10y ago
    I'm not sure it's universal, though. It's strongly targeted. It's universal on paper, but not in practice. I got pulled over last night, for a broken headlight. I got a warning. A couple of months ago, someone was shot by the police in my community after getting pulled over for a broken taillight. Uneven enforcement, for sure.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    >The #1 drug-addict population is alcoholics. I don't think we go after them like we do, say, the potheads or the hallucinogen enthusiasts. We did try alcohol prohibition. Don't kid yourself - if they'd been able to make it stick politically SWAT teams would be busting down doors looking for bathtub gin.
- beat 10y ago
  How familiar are you with the history of the drug laws, and how the original laws got passed? If you look at the history, you'll see racism and cultural bias. If you look at the present, you'll see racism and cultural bias.
  - thesmallestcat 10y ago
    Rather than repeating your first comment, can you address parent by citing historical examples of drug law developing this way in places with strict drug laws like South Korea, Thailand, Singapore, etc.?
    - beat 10y ago
      Every country has "undesirables", and a need to harass and abuse them. That's human nature. Drug laws are awesome for that, as there's a pretty strong mapping between membership in undesirable social classes, and use of illegal drugs. It's not "We don't want drugs". It's "We don't want the kind of people who use socially unacceptable drugs." This is an important distinction. Obviously, it's not about health hazards and social risk, or alcohol would be prohibited everywhere and marijuana would be legal.
      - thesmallestcat 10y ago
        Sorry, I misunderstood, when you asked parent if they knew the history of the passage of drug laws, I assumed this meant that you did.
        beat 10y ago
        I know the history in the US, which is mired in anti-Chinese, anti-Mexican, and anti-black racism. Other countries, I don't know offhand. I'd love to see how many depended on having American-style drug laws for international aid or other diplomatic considerations.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- aminorex 10y ago
  More specifically, the Nixon administration wanted to put down the Yippies and the Black Panthers. It worked. If your reason was controlling, then only addictive drugs would be illegal. The U.S. influence over the U.N., and aid and trade leverage, along with China's historic political issues with opium, allowed them to induce ignorant governments around the world to wage war on their own people and create a vast criminal network. It was subsequently used to fund black ops by unaccountable intelligence agencies, and build the prison-industrial complex which has destroyed a generation of Black Americans.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    >More specifically, the Nixon administration wanted to put down the Yippies and the Black Panthers. It worked. Is there any actual evidence this is true? A memo, or even a documented conversation? In any event drug prohibition laws in the US started the year after Nixon was born, so even if Nixon sought to use them for his own nefarious purposes that doesn't address the actual prohibition. >The U.S. influence over the U.N., and aid and trade leverage, along with China's historic political issues with opium... Yes, and what were China's "historical political issues" with opium? That Chinese society was damaged by carrying the dead weight of so many opium addicts, and they couldn't make it illegal because the British wouldn't let them? Tell me again how this supports the argument Western countries forced drug prohibition on China when the reality was exactly the opposite? >It was subsequently used to fund black ops by unaccountable intelligence agencies, and build the prison-industrial complex which has destroyed a generation of Black Americans. That's quite a stretch. Yes, the US supported some groups in Central America that paid the bills with drugs. Just like every group of revolutionaries in Central America. The fact that you support a group with money, information, or advice doesn't mean you own it. This from California: "At midyear 2013, 90% of inmates had a current or prior violent or serious felony conviction, and 16% were registered sex offenders." http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=702 http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=702 That "generation of [b]lack Americans" is in prison because of violence, not drugs. The idea there's some big conspiracy wherein The System Keeps The Black Man Down with drug laws just isn't borne out by the numbers.
    - 10y ago
- mmariani 10y ago
  """Drugs are illegal because drug addicts cause problems for the people around them. It's really that simple. """ You should read this [0] and you'll understand that you've been somewhat mislead. [0] http://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ http://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/
  - gozur88 10y ago
    It doesn't address the point. US drug prohibition started in 1914, when Nixon was learning how to walk.
- erpellan 10y ago
  They're illegal because they're bad. Or wait, are they bad because they're illegal?
- ferentchak 10y ago
  Alcohol addicts cause problems for people around them and most westerners think that Saudi Arabia is overly restrictive for not allowing it.

by beat 10y ago

gozur88 10y ago

That's not a fact at all. It's not even true. Drugs are illegal or heavily restricted in every country in the world, including countries that are nearly homogeneous. Drugs are illegal because drug addicts cause problems for the people around them. It's really that simple.

jahnu 10y ago
The truth is a a mixture of all that really. Sometimes drugs are prohibited for health reasons, sometimes for cultural reasons, sometimes for commercial reasons, and so on and in all countries some drugs are not prohibited at all. Enforcement is similarly varied.
kafkaesq 10y ago
It's really that simple. No, it's not. For a whole host of ideological reasons, certain problem-causing agents (like alcohol and tobacco) are tolerated, despite their deadly and very costly impact on society, while others are not. I didn't like the comment above yours either, BTW. Both are untenable oversimplifications.
- gozur88 10y ago
  In the US they tried to make alcohol illegal for the same reason heroin and cocaine are illegal. Tobacco and caffeine don't cause the same sorts of problem. Nobody is going to break into your house while you're at work because they can't afford smokes. Smokers and coffee drinkers can hold down jobs and they don't OD at age 22, leaving behind kids the community has to take care of.
  - beat 10y ago
    No one has ever overdosed on marijuana.
  - mountaineer22 10y ago
    In the US, alcohol was illegal. Also, cocaine and heroin were legal and have accepted medical uses. Cigarette smoking causes cancer. Drinking more than three cups of coffee a day increases one's risk of pancreatic cancer.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      >In the US, alcohol was illegal. Yes. That was why I brought it up.
    - lol768 10y ago
      > Drinking more than three cups of coffee a day increases one's risk of pancreatic cancer. I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree with this statement. Take a look at this meta-analysis: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3063915/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3063915/ which suggests, if anything, an inverse relationship between drinking coffee and pancreatic cancer. See also http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2011509/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2011509/ which establishes no relationship between drinking coffee and the risk of developing pancreatic cancer. Can you provide any sources that suggest the opposite and have not been rebutted by future publications?
      - mountaineer22 10y ago
        2011 and 1983? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26402414 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26402414 This is more recent (2015), you are right (I upvoted you). I am wrong.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    Nobody is going to break into your house while you're at work because they can't afford smokes. You might be surprised at what conclusions were reached when researchers conducted a side-by-side analysis of the relative addictiveness of tobacco and heroin: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-to-kickthan-heroin.html http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-t... The fact that the total criminalization of the heroin market leads to wildly inflated prices might have something to do with the rate of criminality among heroin addicts. Which BTW isn't that high. Smokers and coffee drinkers can hold down jobs and they don't OD at age 22, leaving behind kids the community has to take care of. The vast majority of heroin users hold down regular jobs; and the risk of OD'ing is generally understood to be wildly inflated as a direct result of the unregulated street market. Heroin users aren't stupid, or even intrinsically self-destructive; when they know what they're getting (and how much), overdoses are quite rare in fact. Anyway, rather go back and forth over anecdotal side points like this, I'd (kindly and sincerely) suggest you do some general reading on the topic, taking care to look at the social costs holistically (rather than pivoting on this or that side aspect). In particular, there's a lot to be learned from how other countries (particularly in Europe) have approached the issue of heroin (and other) addictions over the years, and the lessons they have learned.
swayvil 10y ago
The #1 drug-addict population is alcoholics. I don't think we go after them like we do, say, the potheads or the hallucinogen enthusiasts. I don't think that "troublesome addicts" is the reason for drug laws. I think that /u/beat has it right, except it ain't the hippies, blacks, etc. It's everybody. The drug war is a universal justification for spying, search and seizure. That's its purpose.
- beat 10y ago
  I'm not sure it's universal, though. It's strongly targeted. It's universal on paper, but not in practice. I got pulled over last night, for a broken headlight. I got a warning. A couple of months ago, someone was shot by the police in my community after getting pulled over for a broken taillight. Uneven enforcement, for sure.
- gozur88 10y ago
  >The #1 drug-addict population is alcoholics. I don't think we go after them like we do, say, the potheads or the hallucinogen enthusiasts. We did try alcohol prohibition. Don't kid yourself - if they'd been able to make it stick politically SWAT teams would be busting down doors looking for bathtub gin.
beat 10y ago
How familiar are you with the history of the drug laws, and how the original laws got passed? If you look at the history, you'll see racism and cultural bias. If you look at the present, you'll see racism and cultural bias.
- thesmallestcat 10y ago
  Rather than repeating your first comment, can you address parent by citing historical examples of drug law developing this way in places with strict drug laws like South Korea, Thailand, Singapore, etc.?
  - beat 10y ago
    Every country has "undesirables", and a need to harass and abuse them. That's human nature. Drug laws are awesome for that, as there's a pretty strong mapping between membership in undesirable social classes, and use of illegal drugs. It's not "We don't want drugs". It's "We don't want the kind of people who use socially unacceptable drugs." This is an important distinction. Obviously, it's not about health hazards and social risk, or alcohol would be prohibited everywhere and marijuana would be legal.
    - thesmallestcat 10y ago
      Sorry, I misunderstood, when you asked parent if they knew the history of the passage of drug laws, I assumed this meant that you did.
      - beat 10y ago
        I know the history in the US, which is mired in anti-Chinese, anti-Mexican, and anti-black racism. Other countries, I don't know offhand. I'd love to see how many depended on having American-style drug laws for international aid or other diplomatic considerations.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
aminorex 10y ago
More specifically, the Nixon administration wanted to put down the Yippies and the Black Panthers. It worked. If your reason was controlling, then only addictive drugs would be illegal. The U.S. influence over the U.N., and aid and trade leverage, along with China's historic political issues with opium, allowed them to induce ignorant governments around the world to wage war on their own people and create a vast criminal network. It was subsequently used to fund black ops by unaccountable intelligence agencies, and build the prison-industrial complex which has destroyed a generation of Black Americans.
- gozur88 10y ago
  >More specifically, the Nixon administration wanted to put down the Yippies and the Black Panthers. It worked. Is there any actual evidence this is true? A memo, or even a documented conversation? In any event drug prohibition laws in the US started the year after Nixon was born, so even if Nixon sought to use them for his own nefarious purposes that doesn't address the actual prohibition. >The U.S. influence over the U.N., and aid and trade leverage, along with China's historic political issues with opium... Yes, and what were China's "historical political issues" with opium? That Chinese society was damaged by carrying the dead weight of so many opium addicts, and they couldn't make it illegal because the British wouldn't let them? Tell me again how this supports the argument Western countries forced drug prohibition on China when the reality was exactly the opposite? >It was subsequently used to fund black ops by unaccountable intelligence agencies, and build the prison-industrial complex which has destroyed a generation of Black Americans. That's quite a stretch. Yes, the US supported some groups in Central America that paid the bills with drugs. Just like every group of revolutionaries in Central America. The fact that you support a group with money, information, or advice doesn't mean you own it. This from California: "At midyear 2013, 90% of inmates had a current or prior violent or serious felony conviction, and 16% were registered sex offenders." http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=702 http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=702 That "generation of [b]lack Americans" is in prison because of violence, not drugs. The idea there's some big conspiracy wherein The System Keeps The Black Man Down with drug laws just isn't borne out by the numbers.
  - 10y ago
mmariani 10y ago
"""Drugs are illegal because drug addicts cause problems for the people around them. It's really that simple. """ You should read this [0] and you'll understand that you've been somewhat mislead. [0] http://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ http://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/
- gozur88 10y ago
  It doesn't address the point. US drug prohibition started in 1914, when Nixon was learning how to walk.
erpellan 10y ago
They're illegal because they're bad. Or wait, are they bad because they're illegal?
ferentchak 10y ago
Alcohol addicts cause problems for people around them and most westerners think that Saudi Arabia is overly restrictive for not allowing it.