5 ms·

Almost every post about drugs on HN has the obligatory bit about Nixon starting the war on drugs. It's like a Shibboleth or something. Nixon probably tried to

Almost every post about drugs on HN has the obligatory bit about Nixon starting the war on drugs. It's like a Shibboleth or something. Nixon probably tried to make political hay out of it sure, but the war against intoxicants has been going on probably since people started using intoxicants. No shortage of earlier historical examples. At most Nixon is a chapter in the ongoing saga. So please, for all that is holy, stop with this repetitive "Nixon started" thing. Just because people might think Nixon is a bad guy doesn't give the point about drugs any more validity.

addHocker 9y ago
Its the war of mom & dads state sponsored sock-puppets waged against chemical induced self-destruction. It would be really interesting to have a panel where both sides could express there interests, trying to find a compromise.
kobeya 9y ago
> Shibboleth I don't know what that is. Should I?
- tome 9y ago
  Very clever joke?
  - kobeya 9y ago
    Just irony it seems.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jwilk 9y ago
  From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shibboleth https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shibboleth : 1. A word, especially seen as a test, to distinguish someone as belonging to a particular nation, class, profession etc. 2. A common or longstanding belief, custom, or catchphrase associated with a particular group, especially one with little current meaning or truth.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - kobeya 9y ago
    Thanks!
throwaway613834 9y ago
My understanding is that there's the war on drugs and then there's the War on Drugs, and the latter is what is (correctly?) attributed to Nixon, even when it is not bothered to be capitalized.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  Another context for the same words: Vietnam could be considered the war on drugs. If what I've read is correct, US soldiers were given amphetamine pills "like candy".
  - vidarh 9y ago
    A huge proportion of US soldiers (20% according to some sources) also used heroin while in Vietnam, giving rise to one of the more interesting studies of addiction related to heroin [1] that also taught us a great deal about how to kick addictions and change behaviors (the short of it being that a change of environment makes breaking habits far easier) [1] http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/01/02/144431794/what-vietnam-taught-us-about-breaking-bad-habits http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/01/02/14443179...
    - jandrese 9y ago
      It really shouldn't be a surprise that if someone's life is so shitty that they feel they need to do Heroin to escape it, then putting them through a grueling recovery process and then sending them back to their shitty life with no prospects is tremendously counterproductive.
      - vidarh 9y ago
        And yet it apparently amazingly is still surprising to a lot of people.
  - smallnamespace 9y ago
    They were just following the tradition set by the Germans in WW2: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/pilots-salt-the-third-reich-kept-its-soldiers-alert-with-meth/276429/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/pilot...
TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
In support of this I'll point out that Prohibition predates Nixon's presidency by 50 years. The righteous have been lording it over the morally condemned since time immemorial.
fsloth 9y ago
The bit about Nixon is obligatory for a good reason. It sidesteps a lot of historical nuances but is factually correct and underpins the key issue which emerges when people discuss drugs: people imagine that drugs are criminalized for good reasons while in fact the heavy handed judicial approach hurts taxpayers and it hurts the people needing help by stigmatizing them. The criminal process does not help public health outcomes. There is this fallacy among even smart people that if a thing has legislation controlling it must be well thought out and they can stop analyzing it. The Nixon bit is a strong reminder that sometimes things are like they are for some obscure political reason rather than common sense. Daylights saving time used in many countries is a similar weird political vestige. There is a strong moral sentiment about drugs in some segments of population. There are good reasons to fear substance abuse. But, churches also have good political reasons to fear them. If people can get raptured sitting at home with a group of friends what purpose would a conregation serve then? Therefore, from churches perspective it's politically expedient to stigmatize drug use as morally corrupt. Confusing drugs as morally corrupt adds to the odd ball mix of criminalization. Addiction is never good, mmkay. People need help to fight it. Social networks are among the most important bits of this help. That's why shaming and stigmatization of addicts is one of the cruelest and counter productive things a society can do. My mother perished of alcohol abuse recently. While I don't blame anyone, the stigmatization of society did not help.

addHocker 9y ago

Its the war of mom & dads state sponsored sock-puppets waged against chemical induced self-destruction. It would be really interesting to have a panel where both sides could express there interests, trying to find a compromise.

kobeya 9y ago

> Shibboleth I don't know what that is. Should I?

tome 9y ago
Very clever joke?
- kobeya 9y ago
  Just irony it seems.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jwilk 9y ago
From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shibboleth https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shibboleth : 1. A word, especially seen as a test, to distinguish someone as belonging to a particular nation, class, profession etc. 2. A common or longstanding belief, custom, or catchphrase associated with a particular group, especially one with little current meaning or truth.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- kobeya 9y ago
  Thanks!

throwaway613834 9y ago

My understanding is that there's the war on drugs and then there's the War on Drugs, and the latter is what is (correctly?) attributed to Nixon, even when it is not bothered to be capitalized.

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
Another context for the same words: Vietnam could be considered the war on drugs. If what I've read is correct, US soldiers were given amphetamine pills "like candy".
- vidarh 9y ago
  A huge proportion of US soldiers (20% according to some sources) also used heroin while in Vietnam, giving rise to one of the more interesting studies of addiction related to heroin [1] that also taught us a great deal about how to kick addictions and change behaviors (the short of it being that a change of environment makes breaking habits far easier) [1] http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/01/02/144431794/what-vietnam-taught-us-about-breaking-bad-habits http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/01/02/14443179...
  - jandrese 9y ago
    It really shouldn't be a surprise that if someone's life is so shitty that they feel they need to do Heroin to escape it, then putting them through a grueling recovery process and then sending them back to their shitty life with no prospects is tremendously counterproductive.
    - vidarh 9y ago
      And yet it apparently amazingly is still surprising to a lot of people.
- smallnamespace 9y ago
  They were just following the tradition set by the Germans in WW2: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/pilots-salt-the-third-reich-kept-its-soldiers-alert-with-meth/276429/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/pilot...

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago

In support of this I'll point out that Prohibition predates Nixon's presidency by 50 years. The righteous have been lording it over the morally condemned since time immemorial.

fsloth 9y ago

The bit about Nixon is obligatory for a good reason. It sidesteps a lot of historical nuances but is factually correct and underpins the key issue which emerges when people discuss drugs: people imagine that drugs are criminalized for good reasons while in fact the heavy handed judicial approach hurts taxpayers and it hurts the people needing help by stigmatizing them. The criminal process does not help public health outcomes. There is this fallacy among even smart people that if a thing has legislation controlling it must be well thought out and they can stop analyzing it. The Nixon bit is a strong reminder that sometimes things are like they are for some obscure political reason rather than common sense. Daylights saving time used in many countries is a similar weird political vestige. There is a strong moral sentiment about drugs in some segments of population. There are good reasons to fear substance abuse. But, churches also have good political reasons to fear them. If people can get raptured sitting at home with a group of friends what purpose would a conregation serve then? Therefore, from churches perspective it's politically expedient to stigmatize drug use as morally corrupt. Confusing drugs as morally corrupt adds to the odd ball mix of criminalization. Addiction is never good, mmkay. People need help to fight it. Social networks are among the most important bits of this help. That's why shaming and stigmatization of addicts is one of the cruelest and counter productive things a society can do. My mother perished of alcohol abuse recently. While I don't blame anyone, the stigmatization of society did not help.