5 ms·

"As Hart argues, the drug war has in fact succeeded, not because it has reduced illegal drug use in the United States (it hasn’t), but because it has boosted pr

"As Hart argues, the drug war has in fact succeeded, not because it has reduced illegal drug use in the United States (it hasn’t), but because it has boosted prison and policing budgets, its true, if unstated, purpose." Attacking motives is a nasty way to argue. The general public pays for prison and police and supports keeping some drugs illegal (if not marijuana) because it fears the consequence of widespread drug use. This may be right or wrong, but it's not crazy or malevolent.

z3ncyberpunk 6y ago
you are not the general public nor do you have an understanding of their opinion. please don't project
dfraser992 6y ago
I am old enough to remember when the WoSD really kicked off (i.e. crack cocaine) and that has been shown to be a bunch of bollocks aka propaganda. You are right in that reducing the causes of the WoSD to easily understood simplistic theories is too reductionistic (just like "cannabis is being suppressed because it cures cancer!!!"), but the side benefits of boosted prison and policing budgets (and civil forfeiture) are too beneficial to those in power - and thus prevent the money from being spent to actually solve the underlying problems driving drug abuse (as opposed to drug -use-). So it is sort of malevolent. Look up Richard Miller's "Drug Warriors and Their Prey". And "moral panics" like those Anslinger leveraged to exert control on non-whites etc (and journalists who drove the fad of 'huffing' into overdrive back in the 50s) are another important factor. Again, I am old enough to remember the BS around MDMA and GHB (GHB is actually really useful, if you're responsible with it) and how all of that was founded on actions that have been shown to be less than integral by people with little integrity. I did not read TFA, but I can guess its contents. Now that psychedelics and etc are being medicalized, journalists (who largely like to think of themselves of those who shape society) are writing lemming-like articles about the wonders and benefits of psychedelics. You know what? Those wonders and benefits were apparent / present 30 years ago. Why has it taken so long to break the silence? It's fricking science! But it was deemed 'dangerous' so ... Because societies ... are easily lead around by the nose by those in positions of power or influence (aka presidents and journalists) who have their own agendas. Everything over the past 4 years has made it clear how so many people are so easily influenced (aka social media and presidential Twitter accounts) by "common sense". And at this point, it is just "common sense" to have a WoSD. I am certainly not arguing that heroin should be mindlessly legalized, but the problem absolutely needs to be dealt with in a different way and the existing processes are self-reinforcing because they do serve certain interests of the social systems or processes in place and those in positions of power (and who benefit from them). I am vaguely remember now research into why corporations behave as they do despite the people in charge understanding the larger detrimental effects of the actions they undertake for the benefit of or at the behest of the corporation. I think it's analogous, but I haven't thought this through. So the idea that "the general public" actually understands at a deep or even good level the issues, ramifications, or even the larger social forces at work is naive. You're on HN, so I assume you are smarter than the average person, but seriously, the average person has an IQ less than 120. The older I get, the more I realize how so many people are driven primarily by their emotions and unresolved psychological issues. I guess I am ranting because my sister just asked how she can deprogram my brother-in-law from believing all the QAnon bullshite. QAnon, the drug war, the 9/11 lunatics, the Nazi Blood Libel, these are all facets of something having to do with flaws in human psychology and societies.
- Pet_Ant 6y ago
  WoSD = "War On Some Drugs" https://www.acronymfinder.com/War-on-Some-Drugs-(WOSD).html https://www.acronymfinder.com/War-on-Some-Drugs-(WOSD).html
dontbeevil1992 6y ago
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." - John Ehrlichman, Richard Nixon's Chief Domestic Advisor
- floor2 6y ago
  This often-repeated quote is almost certainly fake. A single person claims to have heard this statement and waited until after Mr. Ehrlichman's death, decades later, to publish the quote. tl;dr - You're spreading misinformation because it confirms your biases
  - res0nat0r 6y ago
    He made that statement in this interview to Harpers in 1994: https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/
    - mikestew 6y ago
      No, it is the memory of an interview for a book (which, AFAICT, was never published) back in 1994, and that memory was posted to a Harper's article in 2016 (I mean, it's right there in the URL), long after Ehrlichman was dead. As the inexplicably-downvoted GP comment says, there is no traceable basis for this quote. As far as we know, the author just made it up. The more likely case is that, at best, it is from old interview notes from 1994.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- 6y ago
pjc50 6y ago
After a while, being wrong and refusing to acknowledge the damage is indistinguishable from malice, and refusing to confront evidence which would contradict that starts to look "crazy".
el_nahual 6y ago
The issue is that the fear of widespread drug use does not emerge spontaneously: it is a direct result of education, law enforcement, and drug policy.
dcolkitt 6y ago
It may not be crazy or malevolent, but it is egregiously negligent. There's a real wisdom behind the quote "with great power, comes great responsibility". While I don't agree, I think it's perfectly possible for a reasonable, well-intentioned person to believe in drug prohibition. But actually following through with that policy inevitably means destroying the lives of millions of people. That may be defensible on utilitarian grounds. But if you're going to pull the Trolley Car level, you better make damn sure that you're not actually switching to a track running over more people, How many of the current policymakers, politicians or prosecutors who continue to wage the drug war have bothered to do a rigorous evaluation of the evidence for themselves? How many have performed an in-depth examination of Portugal's experiment with decriminalization? How many could show you their utilitarian calculus, giving precise figures between people incarcerated and overdoses prevented? Heck, how many politicians lack an even basic understanding of the physiological effects of the chemicals they're imprisoning people for? 99 out of 100 drug warriors show a total lack of respect for the responsibility of the power that they're asking us to give them. If you're going to ruin the lives of millions of people, and infringe on fundamental personal civil liberties, then the standard needs to be higher than "I've got a good feeling that this is the right thing to do".

z3ncyberpunk 6y ago

you are not the general public nor do you have an understanding of their opinion. please don't project

dfraser992 6y ago

I am old enough to remember when the WoSD really kicked off (i.e. crack cocaine) and that has been shown to be a bunch of bollocks aka propaganda. You are right in that reducing the causes of the WoSD to easily understood simplistic theories is too reductionistic (just like "cannabis is being suppressed because it cures cancer!!!"), but the side benefits of boosted prison and policing budgets (and civil forfeiture) are too beneficial to those in power - and thus prevent the money from being spent to actually solve the underlying problems driving drug abuse (as opposed to drug -use-). So it is sort of malevolent. Look up Richard Miller's "Drug Warriors and Their Prey". And "moral panics" like those Anslinger leveraged to exert control on non-whites etc (and journalists who drove the fad of 'huffing' into overdrive back in the 50s) are another important factor. Again, I am old enough to remember the BS around MDMA and GHB (GHB is actually really useful, if you're responsible with it) and how all of that was founded on actions that have been shown to be less than integral by people with little integrity. I did not read TFA, but I can guess its contents. Now that psychedelics and etc are being medicalized, journalists (who largely like to think of themselves of those who shape society) are writing lemming-like articles about the wonders and benefits of psychedelics. You know what? Those wonders and benefits were apparent / present 30 years ago. Why has it taken so long to break the silence? It's fricking science! But it was deemed 'dangerous' so ... Because societies ... are easily lead around by the nose by those in positions of power or influence (aka presidents and journalists) who have their own agendas. Everything over the past 4 years has made it clear how so many people are so easily influenced (aka social media and presidential Twitter accounts) by "common sense". And at this point, it is just "common sense" to have a WoSD. I am certainly not arguing that heroin should be mindlessly legalized, but the problem absolutely needs to be dealt with in a different way and the existing processes are self-reinforcing because they do serve certain interests of the social systems or processes in place and those in positions of power (and who benefit from them). I am vaguely remember now research into why corporations behave as they do despite the people in charge understanding the larger detrimental effects of the actions they undertake for the benefit of or at the behest of the corporation. I think it's analogous, but I haven't thought this through. So the idea that "the general public" actually understands at a deep or even good level the issues, ramifications, or even the larger social forces at work is naive. You're on HN, so I assume you are smarter than the average person, but seriously, the average person has an IQ less than 120. The older I get, the more I realize how so many people are driven primarily by their emotions and unresolved psychological issues. I guess I am ranting because my sister just asked how she can deprogram my brother-in-law from believing all the QAnon bullshite. QAnon, the drug war, the 9/11 lunatics, the Nazi Blood Libel, these are all facets of something having to do with flaws in human psychology and societies.

Pet_Ant 6y ago
WoSD = "War On Some Drugs" https://www.acronymfinder.com/War-on-Some-Drugs-(WOSD).html https://www.acronymfinder.com/War-on-Some-Drugs-(WOSD).html

dontbeevil1992 6y ago

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." - John Ehrlichman, Richard Nixon's Chief Domestic Advisor

floor2 6y ago
This often-repeated quote is almost certainly fake. A single person claims to have heard this statement and waited until after Mr. Ehrlichman's death, decades later, to publish the quote. tl;dr - You're spreading misinformation because it confirms your biases
- res0nat0r 6y ago
  He made that statement in this interview to Harpers in 1994: https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/
  - mikestew 6y ago
    No, it is the memory of an interview for a book (which, AFAICT, was never published) back in 1994, and that memory was posted to a Harper's article in 2016 (I mean, it's right there in the URL), long after Ehrlichman was dead. As the inexplicably-downvoted GP comment says, there is no traceable basis for this quote. As far as we know, the author just made it up. The more likely case is that, at best, it is from old interview notes from 1994.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
6y ago

pjc50 6y ago

After a while, being wrong and refusing to acknowledge the damage is indistinguishable from malice, and refusing to confront evidence which would contradict that starts to look "crazy".

el_nahual 6y ago

The issue is that the fear of widespread drug use does not emerge spontaneously: it is a direct result of education, law enforcement, and drug policy.

dcolkitt 6y ago

It may not be crazy or malevolent, but it is egregiously negligent. There's a real wisdom behind the quote "with great power, comes great responsibility". While I don't agree, I think it's perfectly possible for a reasonable, well-intentioned person to believe in drug prohibition. But actually following through with that policy inevitably means destroying the lives of millions of people. That may be defensible on utilitarian grounds. But if you're going to pull the Trolley Car level, you better make damn sure that you're not actually switching to a track running over more people, How many of the current policymakers, politicians or prosecutors who continue to wage the drug war have bothered to do a rigorous evaluation of the evidence for themselves? How many have performed an in-depth examination of Portugal's experiment with decriminalization? How many could show you their utilitarian calculus, giving precise figures between people incarcerated and overdoses prevented? Heck, how many politicians lack an even basic understanding of the physiological effects of the chemicals they're imprisoning people for? 99 out of 100 drug warriors show a total lack of respect for the responsibility of the power that they're asking us to give them. If you're going to ruin the lives of millions of people, and infringe on fundamental personal civil liberties, then the standard needs to be higher than "I've got a good feeling that this is the right thing to do".