4 ms·

Besides the controversial political agenda behind the "War on Drugs", I guess we all agree that drugs are obviously bad for society as a whole. But it's kinda

by fosk 5y ago

Besides the controversial political agenda behind the "War on Drugs", I guess we all agree that drugs are obviously bad for society as a whole. But it's kinda hard to do a war on drugs without - you know - arresting the drug dealers on known corners. Looking at you San Francisco. Drugs enable misery, poverty, overdoses and homicides. Especially the ones that create physical addiction (opioids, meth, fentanyl, etc). But most importantly, they enable lower social economical classes into thinking that selling drugs is a viable and alternative way to level up in life (wealth), instead of allowing them to focus on real career paths. It's a false shortcut that distracts people from being able to focus on their real future. It also encourages illegal immigration. Why aren't the Feds arresting drug dealers on every corner in a large scale operation first and foremost? Perhaps the simplest thing to do in order to disrupt the supply.

tshaddox 5y ago
> I guess we all agree that drugs are obviously bad for society as a whole That seems to require defining “drugs” very deliberately to only count substances and use cases such that by definition you’ve only included stuff that’s bad for society as a whole.
rjbwork 5y ago
I think drugs are great for society as a whole. I think criminalizing a handful of addictive drugs so that there is no economically viable way to be an addict and live an even minimally productive life or keep from poisoning yourself is terrible for society as a whole.
soperj 5y ago
>Perhaps the simplest thing to do in order to disrupt the supply. When you're removing supply, but not disrupting demand, a way will be found. The real answer is to legalize & sell it, no more drug dealers, remove the overdoses because it was cut with fentanyl, no longer fund gangs = less homicides
- fosk 5y ago
  This is false. Arrest drug dealers day after day for a generation, and the demand will lower because new generations won't even know what drugs are, or when the effect of heroin is, therefore they won't chase it. Demand for a good (or drug in this case) it is not inevitable. It can be disrupted too, it's not a given. But the demand for any good cannot be disrupted without first and foremost removing the supply. So we must start disrupting the supply, which shows up every day at 6am on our street corners.
  - greedo 5y ago
    Economics would tell us that if you decrease the supply of something that has a high demand, then the price will rise. That means it's more valuable for criminals to distribute, and they will also use more violence to protect this trade. So while we're cracking skulls to achieve your drug-free nirvana, we've basically consigned a generation to hell. Constant police patrolling and intervention in their communities, extremely violent narco-traffickers, and yet somehow no treatment for addicts.
  - soperj 5y ago
    Show me somewhere that it has worked and I'll believe you, I've never seen it though.
- alessivs 5y ago
  > The real answer is to legalize & sell it, no more drug dealers On the other hand, there are huge profits and motivators for money laundering. Ask HSBC, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Western Union, or Citigroup.
pjc50 5y ago
Firstly, that would get them into a lot of jurisdiction fights with the local cops. Secondly, it would also get into a lot of fights with the locals; every "bust a group of people standing on the corner" runs the risk of false positives, the gradual loss of trust of the population, and an increased rate of violent incidents. Thirdly, in order to avoid just displacing it, it requires cops (or at least cameras) everywhere. America has a lot of corners. As with Prohibition, this would probably accelerate the collapse of the policy.
greedo 5y ago
Almost all of the dudes I've know who sell drugs never thought of it as a way to "level" up. It was a way of making money where there were absolutely no jobs. And most of them didn't make much above minimum wage. Several of them had minimum wage jobs on the side. If you haven't already, you should watch The Wire (HBO) about how futile street busts are in either combatting the drug trade or improving the lives of people living in the city.
coderintherye 5y ago
>Why aren't the Feds arresting drug dealers on every corner in a large scale operation first and foremost? Because they did, and it was a large reason our prison population boomed. And...it didn't work. Read the article. >Drugs enable misery, poverty, overdoses and homicides No, drugs use is a respite for people in misery and poverty. It is a symptom not the underlying wound. I highly suggest taking a read of "Dignity" by Chris Arnande for a personal and expansive look at this. Though if you prefer academic articles the NIH has more papers on it then you can read in a lifetime and happy to link you to them. >I guess we all agree that drugs are obviously bad for society as a whole Hard disagree, and in fact you are actually in a small minority now in this position: https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-inches-new-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-...
spathi_fwiffo 5y ago
I have to disagree with your big assumptions: 1. " I guess we all agree that drugs are obviously bad for society as a whole." I don't think drugs are good or bad for society. There are positives and negatives. I do think that our drug policy is bad for society, though. 2. "Drugs enable misery, poverty, overdoses and homicides" a. ... "enable misery": or they reduce pain and misery (medical applications of many things (pot, cocaine derivations, opiate derivations, mdma/shroom derivations for depression/ptsd/etc). b. ... "poverty" I don't think they enable poverty. i would say that addiction does so, which can be a result of drug use. but not all users are addicts, and not all of the 'drug' class substances are addicting. Addition to legal substances have the same issues of emptying wallets (tabbacco, alcohol, pills). c. ... "overdoses". this is almost totally a result of the world's drug policies and the requirement of using a black market to get the drugs. If the purity and dosing information were provided with the drugs, the number would likely go in line with overdose numbers for legal substances. We also wouldn't have people taking spiked/doctored/cut/etc drugs in the same numbers -- remove the black market and you remove black market problems d. ... "homicides". again this is 100% a black market/drug policy issue. The numbers will go in line with normal legal substances once the black market is removed. New issues may pop up (mainly because the existing market is so heavily managed by crime organizations), but those new issues will be better than the current issues, and they will be solvable, unlike the current black market issues (there is demand, so a black market will exist). 3. " they enable lower social economical classes into thinking that selling drugs is a viable and alternative" -- entirely due to the black market (created by the current drug policy). 4. "It also encourages illegal immigration." - what? how? why? maybe a few migrants agree (or are forced) to transport drugs when they cross, but that's not why the people are migrating illegally. 5. "arresting drug dealers on every corner ... disrupt the supply" -- how is arresting a dealer going to damage the supply. The supply is already done when it gets to the dealer (at least the supply into the country, perhaps not the supply to the consumer, but lack of supply does not produce lack of demand). And because there is demand, they will just find new dealers. ... this is basically the entire war on drugs. The fact that you are complaining about this as not having been done or been effective 50 years in is more proof that it has failed.

by fosk 5y ago

tshaddox 5y ago

> I guess we all agree that drugs are obviously bad for society as a whole That seems to require defining “drugs” very deliberately to only count substances and use cases such that by definition you’ve only included stuff that’s bad for society as a whole.

rjbwork 5y ago

I think drugs are great for society as a whole. I think criminalizing a handful of addictive drugs so that there is no economically viable way to be an addict and live an even minimally productive life or keep from poisoning yourself is terrible for society as a whole.

soperj 5y ago

>Perhaps the simplest thing to do in order to disrupt the supply. When you're removing supply, but not disrupting demand, a way will be found. The real answer is to legalize & sell it, no more drug dealers, remove the overdoses because it was cut with fentanyl, no longer fund gangs = less homicides

fosk 5y ago
This is false. Arrest drug dealers day after day for a generation, and the demand will lower because new generations won't even know what drugs are, or when the effect of heroin is, therefore they won't chase it. Demand for a good (or drug in this case) it is not inevitable. It can be disrupted too, it's not a given. But the demand for any good cannot be disrupted without first and foremost removing the supply. So we must start disrupting the supply, which shows up every day at 6am on our street corners.
- greedo 5y ago
  Economics would tell us that if you decrease the supply of something that has a high demand, then the price will rise. That means it's more valuable for criminals to distribute, and they will also use more violence to protect this trade. So while we're cracking skulls to achieve your drug-free nirvana, we've basically consigned a generation to hell. Constant police patrolling and intervention in their communities, extremely violent narco-traffickers, and yet somehow no treatment for addicts.
- soperj 5y ago
  Show me somewhere that it has worked and I'll believe you, I've never seen it though.
alessivs 5y ago
> The real answer is to legalize & sell it, no more drug dealers On the other hand, there are huge profits and motivators for money laundering. Ask HSBC, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Western Union, or Citigroup.

pjc50 5y ago

Firstly, that would get them into a lot of jurisdiction fights with the local cops. Secondly, it would also get into a lot of fights with the locals; every "bust a group of people standing on the corner" runs the risk of false positives, the gradual loss of trust of the population, and an increased rate of violent incidents. Thirdly, in order to avoid just displacing it, it requires cops (or at least cameras) everywhere. America has a lot of corners. As with Prohibition, this would probably accelerate the collapse of the policy.

greedo 5y ago

Almost all of the dudes I've know who sell drugs never thought of it as a way to "level" up. It was a way of making money where there were absolutely no jobs. And most of them didn't make much above minimum wage. Several of them had minimum wage jobs on the side. If you haven't already, you should watch The Wire (HBO) about how futile street busts are in either combatting the drug trade or improving the lives of people living in the city.

coderintherye 5y ago

>Why aren't the Feds arresting drug dealers on every corner in a large scale operation first and foremost? Because they did, and it was a large reason our prison population boomed. And...it didn't work. Read the article. >Drugs enable misery, poverty, overdoses and homicides No, drugs use is a respite for people in misery and poverty. It is a symptom not the underlying wound. I highly suggest taking a read of "Dignity" by Chris Arnande for a personal and expansive look at this. Though if you prefer academic articles the NIH has more papers on it then you can read in a lifetime and happy to link you to them. >I guess we all agree that drugs are obviously bad for society as a whole Hard disagree, and in fact you are actually in a small minority now in this position: https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-inches-new-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-...

spathi_fwiffo 5y ago

I have to disagree with your big assumptions: 1. " I guess we all agree that drugs are obviously bad for society as a whole." I don't think drugs are good or bad for society. There are positives and negatives. I do think that our drug policy is bad for society, though. 2. "Drugs enable misery, poverty, overdoses and homicides" a. ... "enable misery": or they reduce pain and misery (medical applications of many things (pot, cocaine derivations, opiate derivations, mdma/shroom derivations for depression/ptsd/etc). b. ... "poverty" I don't think they enable poverty. i would say that addiction does so, which can be a result of drug use. but not all users are addicts, and not all of the 'drug' class substances are addicting. Addition to legal substances have the same issues of emptying wallets (tabbacco, alcohol, pills). c. ... "overdoses". this is almost totally a result of the world's drug policies and the requirement of using a black market to get the drugs. If the purity and dosing information were provided with the drugs, the number would likely go in line with overdose numbers for legal substances. We also wouldn't have people taking spiked/doctored/cut/etc drugs in the same numbers -- remove the black market and you remove black market problems d. ... "homicides". again this is 100% a black market/drug policy issue. The numbers will go in line with normal legal substances once the black market is removed. New issues may pop up (mainly because the existing market is so heavily managed by crime organizations), but those new issues will be better than the current issues, and they will be solvable, unlike the current black market issues (there is demand, so a black market will exist). 3. " they enable lower social economical classes into thinking that selling drugs is a viable and alternative" -- entirely due to the black market (created by the current drug policy). 4. "It also encourages illegal immigration." - what? how? why? maybe a few migrants agree (or are forced) to transport drugs when they cross, but that's not why the people are migrating illegally. 5. "arresting drug dealers on every corner ... disrupt the supply" -- how is arresting a dealer going to damage the supply. The supply is already done when it gets to the dealer (at least the supply into the country, perhaps not the supply to the consumer, but lack of supply does not produce lack of demand). And because there is demand, they will just find new dealers. ... this is basically the entire war on drugs. The fact that you are complaining about this as not having been done or been effective 50 years in is more proof that it has failed.