4 ms·

The "war" on drugs has been abismal, and created horrendous conditions in Central America. Liberalization of drugs is a funny way to put it. It's realism. We a

The "war" on drugs has been abismal, and created horrendous conditions in Central America. Liberalization of drugs is a funny way to put it. It's realism. We are spending ridiculous amounts of money on the war on drugs, that we could instead be spending on education and rehab. We incarcerate far too many people at far too high a cost to society due to drugs. Incarceration is both a tax on society in the sense that it destroys families, and the cost on taxpayers to fund prisons, as well as the ridiculous for profit prisons that have no reason to rehabilitate the people in them. We in the US have a serious problem that we keep ignoring, it's not a liberal vs conservative issue, this is a societal problem that needs to be addressed. Drug abuse is rampant and our ignorance of how to deal with it is even crazier. We have basically allowed those with money to get legal corporate drugs, while we've made natural drugs illegal and has far more negative consequences legally for poorer communities. The legalization of marijuana is one step to start correcting these issues, but it's not far enough in properly appropriating money in better ways to make our people and society stronger.

ekianjo 10y ago
> We are spending ridiculous amounts of money on the war on drugs As a society yes, but there are clearly some actors of the "war on drugs" that benefit from it, such as the police with asset forfeiture laws. Since they have a huge influence on politicians it's very unlikely the rhetoric ever changes. On top of that local police have also gone against state laws legalizing some specific drugs so the resistance goes far beyond just law-making.
- taxicabjesus 10y ago
  > As a society yes, but there are clearly some actors of the "war on drugs" that benefit from it, such as the police with asset forfeiture laws. Some people hate the police (or fear them) because of that time they got arrested for not hurting anyone. The "War on Plants" is the mistake that transforms the police forces from Public Servants into political operatives. One night I chatted with our team's night driver, just before turning the cab over to him. He commented about smelling some "really good" marijuana on one of his recent South-Phoenix passengers. I said, "But [Xxxx], you used to fight in the War on Plants..." I knew he'd gotten an early retirement from a police force a few states away. He responded, "yeah, but they told me it was a gateway drug, and I believed them. Now it seems that plant actually has medical benefits." Police are just as much the victims of the drug war as everyone else.
  - jfududj 10y ago
    Oh yeah, for sure, police are total victims cause they also sit in jail for decades for smoking a plant, and they also get their cash seized without recourse. Except that's complete shit, none of that happens to cops. Ignorance isn't an excuse, and just following orders isn't an excuse either. Cops support an illegitimate system with violence and are rewarded for it. Fuck cops.
    - withdavidli 10y ago
      You know the drug busts, and shootouts, and car chases from the drug war. Yea, cops are there too. They have to be the enforcers for the crap laws that get passed too. It's the same thing for soldiers, they fight wars other people declare. If you pay taxes you support this system financially. Don't live in the US? Does your country trade with the US? Someone somewhere is almost somehow contributing to some problem. You also neglect the good cops do, doing the job means you do all of the job. From being first responders to drug enforcement.
      - pessimizer 10y ago
        > They have to be the enforcers for the crap laws that get passed too. No, they don't. You probably somehow managed not to be. I've never been tempted.
      - filoeleven 10y ago
        > [Cops] have to be the enforcers for the crap laws that get passed too This is something I've heard from friends in law enforcement, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I've seen countless moving violations take place in front of police--most often speeding and failure to signal--without the violator getting pulled over. And usually while the cop is driving down the left lane of the highway while not passing, which is itself illegal in my state. I've heard plenty of stories of other situations where the threat of arrest for violating some law is real, meaning that the officer had every right under the law to make the arrest already, but is used to get someone to chill out and de-escalate the situation instead of being followed through. Discretion, the ability to selectively enforce the law, is a huge part of their everyday job. So I don't buy it when people say "they have to enforce the law" because they do not do so universally. I don't buy it when police say "I don't agree with it but I have to enforce it" since basically everyone agrees that you ought to signal lame changes but that is only rarely enforced. Clearly there's more to it than that--there are greater incentives for police to continue making arrests for marijuana and there are greater penalties for them if they decide to stop making those arrests on moral grounds. But until this false statemeant about "having to enforce the law" is dropped, we can't talk intelligently about what really factors into the decision (personal and institutional) to continue drug enforcement.
Hondor 10y ago
It's sad how few people worried about this back when it was most extreme. Now people are already in prison, already dead, or already have criminal records for life, and the incarceration rate is falling. It seems like too little too late to start being concerned now. Didn't people notice Bill Clinton's toughness on crime [1] when voting for Obama, from the same party? [1] https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/billfs.txt https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/billfs.txt "Mandatory life imprisonment without possibility of parole for Federal offenders with three or more convictions for [...] drug trafficking crimes."
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

ekianjo 10y ago

> We are spending ridiculous amounts of money on the war on drugs As a society yes, but there are clearly some actors of the "war on drugs" that benefit from it, such as the police with asset forfeiture laws. Since they have a huge influence on politicians it's very unlikely the rhetoric ever changes. On top of that local police have also gone against state laws legalizing some specific drugs so the resistance goes far beyond just law-making.

taxicabjesus 10y ago
> As a society yes, but there are clearly some actors of the "war on drugs" that benefit from it, such as the police with asset forfeiture laws. Some people hate the police (or fear them) because of that time they got arrested for not hurting anyone. The "War on Plants" is the mistake that transforms the police forces from Public Servants into political operatives. One night I chatted with our team's night driver, just before turning the cab over to him. He commented about smelling some "really good" marijuana on one of his recent South-Phoenix passengers. I said, "But [Xxxx], you used to fight in the War on Plants..." I knew he'd gotten an early retirement from a police force a few states away. He responded, "yeah, but they told me it was a gateway drug, and I believed them. Now it seems that plant actually has medical benefits." Police are just as much the victims of the drug war as everyone else.
- jfududj 10y ago
  Oh yeah, for sure, police are total victims cause they also sit in jail for decades for smoking a plant, and they also get their cash seized without recourse. Except that's complete shit, none of that happens to cops. Ignorance isn't an excuse, and just following orders isn't an excuse either. Cops support an illegitimate system with violence and are rewarded for it. Fuck cops.
  - withdavidli 10y ago
    You know the drug busts, and shootouts, and car chases from the drug war. Yea, cops are there too. They have to be the enforcers for the crap laws that get passed too. It's the same thing for soldiers, they fight wars other people declare. If you pay taxes you support this system financially. Don't live in the US? Does your country trade with the US? Someone somewhere is almost somehow contributing to some problem. You also neglect the good cops do, doing the job means you do all of the job. From being first responders to drug enforcement.
    - pessimizer 10y ago
      > They have to be the enforcers for the crap laws that get passed too. No, they don't. You probably somehow managed not to be. I've never been tempted.
    - filoeleven 10y ago
      > [Cops] have to be the enforcers for the crap laws that get passed too This is something I've heard from friends in law enforcement, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I've seen countless moving violations take place in front of police--most often speeding and failure to signal--without the violator getting pulled over. And usually while the cop is driving down the left lane of the highway while not passing, which is itself illegal in my state. I've heard plenty of stories of other situations where the threat of arrest for violating some law is real, meaning that the officer had every right under the law to make the arrest already, but is used to get someone to chill out and de-escalate the situation instead of being followed through. Discretion, the ability to selectively enforce the law, is a huge part of their everyday job. So I don't buy it when people say "they have to enforce the law" because they do not do so universally. I don't buy it when police say "I don't agree with it but I have to enforce it" since basically everyone agrees that you ought to signal lame changes but that is only rarely enforced. Clearly there's more to it than that--there are greater incentives for police to continue making arrests for marijuana and there are greater penalties for them if they decide to stop making those arrests on moral grounds. But until this false statemeant about "having to enforce the law" is dropped, we can't talk intelligently about what really factors into the decision (personal and institutional) to continue drug enforcement.

Hondor 10y ago

It's sad how few people worried about this back when it was most extreme. Now people are already in prison, already dead, or already have criminal records for life, and the incarceration rate is falling. It seems like too little too late to start being concerned now. Didn't people notice Bill Clinton's toughness on crime [1] when voting for Obama, from the same party? [1] https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/billfs.txt https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/billfs.txt "Mandatory life imprisonment without possibility of parole for Federal offenders with three or more convictions for [...] drug trafficking crimes."

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]