6 ms·

I'm not so sure if that's the only thing people voted for when they wanted to be hard on drugs. As you can see in this comment thread (on an extremely left-lean

I'm not so sure if that's the only thing people voted for when they wanted to be hard on drugs. As you can see in this comment thread (on an extremely left-leaning site) we have some people who think drug use is immoral. One of the sister comments says "I believe it's wrong". Definitely some section of the population wanted to use this as a way to bully minorities but another section of the population was convinced "drugs are bad". Either way if "hard on drugs" was a dog whistle to signal "hard on minorities" then politicians may realize saying "hard on drugs" will actually hurt their voter base far more than they realized. Maybe that will put an end to this kind of signalling/abuse.

rayiner 6y ago
I think drug use is immoral, especially in a society with a welfare system. (That’s the basis for anti-drug attitudes in places like Sweden.) I’m against harsh drug laws because I think they’re create a lot of problems in criminal justice and are abused against Black communities.
- kmonsen 6y ago
  I’m curious why you think that is so, and why is for example alcohol and cigarettes (or even sugar) included as drugs? Certainly many medical drugs should be included. There is a reason people use all of these and for example marijuana is not really more dangerous.
- gravypod 6y ago
  What is your opinion of Alcohol, lower grade stimulates (Caffeine), and pre-processed unnatural addictive substances (pure sugar)? If you are on welfare should you be prohibited from drinking alcohol? What about eating low nutritional value fast foods? Obesity and alcoholism is far more rampant than most drugs used in the war on drugs. In America ~40% of our population was obese in 2016 [0], ~25% of people drank >5 drinks in 1 day over the past year [1], >50% of America drinks coffee daily and of that group 50% report "severe head aches" that last 2 to 5 days when attempting to stop. Meanwhile cannabis usage is around ~12% of the population [3] and I've not been able to find unrefuted studies of it's negative effects while for obesity, alcoholism, and caffeine there's some compelling work out there linking these to interesting population statics. It's medicine so it's not actually science or iron clad but from a risk & pervasiveness perspective do you think introducing legislation on these substances is warranted? [0] - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2018/021.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2018/021.pdf [1] - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm [2] - https://healthresearchfunding.org/shocking-caffeine-addiction-statistics/ https://healthresearchfunding.org/shocking-caffeine-addictio... [3] - https://news.gallup.com/poll/284135/percentage-americans-smoke-marijuana.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/284135/percentage-americans-smo...
  - bosie 6y ago
    Not OP but how do you normalise this statement: > Obesity and alcoholism is far more rampant than most drugs used in the war on drugs. since ... of course alcoholism is more rampant when i can just buy it legally in the supermarket. that is a nobrainer conclusion. same for nicotine. caffeine has so little impact in a drug-related conversation that i won't even bother going there. i dont think you do yourself any favour dragging it into this discussion. problem with 'low nutritional value fast foods' is that eating is a necessity. you need your X calories a day. drugs (nicotine, alcohol, heroine, prescription drugs,...) on the other hand are purely optional (genuine medical reasons aside). so the process of consuming food can't be dropped similar to how you could just not drink alcohol. that leads to a complicated question as you need to substitute the low nutritional value fast foods with something more substantive. this leads you to evaluate the entire process of food consumption, from agriculture to purchasing decisions to prep work to marketing to food labelling etc. > If you are on welfare should you be prohibited from drinking alcohol? What about eating low nutritional value fast foods? because of the above i don't think those two things are comparable at all.
    - thatcat 6y ago
      Drugs are already highly available. The availability of legal drugs would result in reduced medical complications due to increased regulation on supply side. Caffeine, etc has some small statistical probability of triggering a heart issues which is the most common cause of death - from a nationalized health cost perspective this is not negligible. If you consider quality of life as the metric rather than death then low nutrition food is probably worse than caffeine, etc.
      - bosie 6y ago
        > Drugs are already highly available. not sure i follow, what is your definition of highly available? if cocaine is highly available, how do you classify nicotine and/or alcohol? > some small statistical probability of triggering a heart issues which is the most common cause of death - from a nationalized health cost perspective this is not negligible. do you have a link to a writeup of sorts showing the damage on the national cost perspective (don't even care if it is health or any other associated cost). it just seems 'some small statistical probability' and 'not negligible' is borderline orthogonal. would be interesting if that is already non-negligible how much worse the real offenders are.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  > I think drug use is immoral, especially in a society with a welfare system. I mean, park systems could be immoral in a society with a welfare system. People might end up spending time they could use being productive at a job instead having picnics in the park, and they could spend more of their money on entrance and parking fees, and on unhealthy things like hot dogs, soda and funnel cakes. Same thing with fields and stadiums. People could end up spending all their time and money on tickets, hot dogs, beer and gambling. > That’s the basis for anti-drug attitudes in places like Sweden. Sweden also has a notoriously abstinence-based and zero-tolerance drug policy that encourages the denial of real addiction problems and epidemics, and causes harm reduction efforts to be ineffectual[1]. [1] https://transformdrugs.org/drug-policy-in-sweden-a-repressive-approach-that-increases-harm/ https://transformdrugs.org/drug-policy-in-sweden-a-repressiv...
ggggtez 6y ago
The war on drugs was tied specifically to anti-communist and anti-hippie movements. You can argue that black community was only one type of minority being policed. Still, marijuana was given such disproportionate higher punishments largely because of it's adoption in black communities. No one thinks of alcohol as a narcotic or drug. The same was true before. But by lumping MJ in with heroin, they were able to convince people to think about them similarly. I recommend the propaganda film "Reefer Madness" for an example taken to the extreme, where science was discarded in favor of learning on people's existing moral apprehensions in order to get the desired ban.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  This. The fact that the public was able to eventually push some of this idiocy aside ( there are still vestiges of really strong resistance ) is more of an indication of that somewhat hopeful message that will of the people eventually wills out. Granted, it took white teenagers doing what all teenagers do ( try everything ) to make it happen, but it happened. I don't have a firm grasp on the history of prohibition, but my understanding is that at least there, at the time there was a real, clear drinking problem among the US population.
_jal 6y ago
> we have some people who think drug use is immoral Sure. But that's a big aspect of the argument, at least for me - lots of things are immoral, many of which are legal. It is entirely possible to concede the point and still, for either public health or cost reasons, want to stop doing destructive, expensive things that don't actually reduce drug use, decrease property crime or violence, or dampen business for the cartels. (My views are different, just saying these are logical views people hold.)
cgriswald 6y ago
Politicians will never have this 'realization'. Either a pro-drug-war politician is already using this as a dog whistle and does not want it exposed (else why not be open about your stance on minorities), or he isn't using it as a dog whistle but still does not want this connection made. Voters are the ones who need to make the connection. The politicians will follow. Many on the left, particularly on social media, are quick to claim that supporting a particular policy is racist if the policy itself is racist, regardless of the reason an individual supports the policy. My own personal view is that the intent of this definition and behavior is not to 'solve racism' but to stifle discussion and influence voters. The fact that this definition is seldom, if ever, applied to the war on drugs is confirmation of my view. What I see instead, and is present in some of these threads, are offers of solutions that are ill-defined, untried, and even if effective do not have clear timelines for actually helping people; and very clearly will do nothing to help in the short term. In contrast, solutions that have worked in other places, have immediate effects, and are generally accepted as good ideas are vilified as harmful to minorities with no evidence provided.

rayiner 6y ago

I think drug use is immoral, especially in a society with a welfare system. (That’s the basis for anti-drug attitudes in places like Sweden.) I’m against harsh drug laws because I think they’re create a lot of problems in criminal justice and are abused against Black communities.

kmonsen 6y ago
I’m curious why you think that is so, and why is for example alcohol and cigarettes (or even sugar) included as drugs? Certainly many medical drugs should be included. There is a reason people use all of these and for example marijuana is not really more dangerous.
gravypod 6y ago
What is your opinion of Alcohol, lower grade stimulates (Caffeine), and pre-processed unnatural addictive substances (pure sugar)? If you are on welfare should you be prohibited from drinking alcohol? What about eating low nutritional value fast foods? Obesity and alcoholism is far more rampant than most drugs used in the war on drugs. In America ~40% of our population was obese in 2016 [0], ~25% of people drank >5 drinks in 1 day over the past year [1], >50% of America drinks coffee daily and of that group 50% report "severe head aches" that last 2 to 5 days when attempting to stop. Meanwhile cannabis usage is around ~12% of the population [3] and I've not been able to find unrefuted studies of it's negative effects while for obesity, alcoholism, and caffeine there's some compelling work out there linking these to interesting population statics. It's medicine so it's not actually science or iron clad but from a risk & pervasiveness perspective do you think introducing legislation on these substances is warranted? [0] - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2018/021.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2018/021.pdf [1] - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm [2] - https://healthresearchfunding.org/shocking-caffeine-addiction-statistics/ https://healthresearchfunding.org/shocking-caffeine-addictio... [3] - https://news.gallup.com/poll/284135/percentage-americans-smoke-marijuana.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/284135/percentage-americans-smo...
- bosie 6y ago
  Not OP but how do you normalise this statement: > Obesity and alcoholism is far more rampant than most drugs used in the war on drugs. since ... of course alcoholism is more rampant when i can just buy it legally in the supermarket. that is a nobrainer conclusion. same for nicotine. caffeine has so little impact in a drug-related conversation that i won't even bother going there. i dont think you do yourself any favour dragging it into this discussion. problem with 'low nutritional value fast foods' is that eating is a necessity. you need your X calories a day. drugs (nicotine, alcohol, heroine, prescription drugs,...) on the other hand are purely optional (genuine medical reasons aside). so the process of consuming food can't be dropped similar to how you could just not drink alcohol. that leads to a complicated question as you need to substitute the low nutritional value fast foods with something more substantive. this leads you to evaluate the entire process of food consumption, from agriculture to purchasing decisions to prep work to marketing to food labelling etc. > If you are on welfare should you be prohibited from drinking alcohol? What about eating low nutritional value fast foods? because of the above i don't think those two things are comparable at all.
  - thatcat 6y ago
    Drugs are already highly available. The availability of legal drugs would result in reduced medical complications due to increased regulation on supply side. Caffeine, etc has some small statistical probability of triggering a heart issues which is the most common cause of death - from a nationalized health cost perspective this is not negligible. If you consider quality of life as the metric rather than death then low nutrition food is probably worse than caffeine, etc.
    - bosie 6y ago
      > Drugs are already highly available. not sure i follow, what is your definition of highly available? if cocaine is highly available, how do you classify nicotine and/or alcohol? > some small statistical probability of triggering a heart issues which is the most common cause of death - from a nationalized health cost perspective this is not negligible. do you have a link to a writeup of sorts showing the damage on the national cost perspective (don't even care if it is health or any other associated cost). it just seems 'some small statistical probability' and 'not negligible' is borderline orthogonal. would be interesting if that is already non-negligible how much worse the real offenders are.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
heavyset_go 6y ago
> I think drug use is immoral, especially in a society with a welfare system. I mean, park systems could be immoral in a society with a welfare system. People might end up spending time they could use being productive at a job instead having picnics in the park, and they could spend more of their money on entrance and parking fees, and on unhealthy things like hot dogs, soda and funnel cakes. Same thing with fields and stadiums. People could end up spending all their time and money on tickets, hot dogs, beer and gambling. > That’s the basis for anti-drug attitudes in places like Sweden. Sweden also has a notoriously abstinence-based and zero-tolerance drug policy that encourages the denial of real addiction problems and epidemics, and causes harm reduction efforts to be ineffectual[1]. [1] https://transformdrugs.org/drug-policy-in-sweden-a-repressive-approach-that-increases-harm/ https://transformdrugs.org/drug-policy-in-sweden-a-repressiv...

ggggtez 6y ago

The war on drugs was tied specifically to anti-communist and anti-hippie movements. You can argue that black community was only one type of minority being policed. Still, marijuana was given such disproportionate higher punishments largely because of it's adoption in black communities. No one thinks of alcohol as a narcotic or drug. The same was true before. But by lumping MJ in with heroin, they were able to convince people to think about them similarly. I recommend the propaganda film "Reefer Madness" for an example taken to the extreme, where science was discarded in favor of learning on people's existing moral apprehensions in order to get the desired ban.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
This. The fact that the public was able to eventually push some of this idiocy aside ( there are still vestiges of really strong resistance ) is more of an indication of that somewhat hopeful message that will of the people eventually wills out. Granted, it took white teenagers doing what all teenagers do ( try everything ) to make it happen, but it happened. I don't have a firm grasp on the history of prohibition, but my understanding is that at least there, at the time there was a real, clear drinking problem among the US population.

_jal 6y ago

> we have some people who think drug use is immoral Sure. But that's a big aspect of the argument, at least for me - lots of things are immoral, many of which are legal. It is entirely possible to concede the point and still, for either public health or cost reasons, want to stop doing destructive, expensive things that don't actually reduce drug use, decrease property crime or violence, or dampen business for the cartels. (My views are different, just saying these are logical views people hold.)

cgriswald 6y ago

Politicians will never have this 'realization'. Either a pro-drug-war politician is already using this as a dog whistle and does not want it exposed (else why not be open about your stance on minorities), or he isn't using it as a dog whistle but still does not want this connection made. Voters are the ones who need to make the connection. The politicians will follow. Many on the left, particularly on social media, are quick to claim that supporting a particular policy is racist if the policy itself is racist, regardless of the reason an individual supports the policy. My own personal view is that the intent of this definition and behavior is not to 'solve racism' but to stifle discussion and influence voters. The fact that this definition is seldom, if ever, applied to the war on drugs is confirmation of my view. What I see instead, and is present in some of these threads, are offers of solutions that are ill-defined, untried, and even if effective do not have clear timelines for actually helping people; and very clearly will do nothing to help in the short term. In contrast, solutions that have worked in other places, have immediate effects, and are generally accepted as good ideas are vilified as harmful to minorities with no evidence provided.