7 ms·

Great article. I would like to further suggest we end the use of the word "war" in contexts that do not involve mandatory conscription and the deaths of large n

Great article. I would like to further suggest we end the use of the word "war" in contexts that do not involve mandatory conscription and the deaths of large numbers of combatants until one side totally surrenders. (This implies there is a "side" to be able to surrender.) Politicians have so destroyed the word "war" that it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion about any use of violence by the state. Perhaps that was the goal. Don't know. Drug use is a health-related issue, whether it is a doctor prescribing medications, a patient taking meds off-label, a person self-medicating, an addict, or some kind experimentation. All of these situations are much more personal health concerns than public safety concerns. Yes, addiction is a terrible tragedy and sometimes danger for the rest of us -- but it's a personal disaster a long time before it affects any of us. I'd argue that in the aggregate most addicts suffer a lot more personally than any damage they inflict on society. We have a caricatured view of the drug addict -- the unwashed, illiterate, toothless junkie hiding out in a crack house. Yes, addiction ends up that way for some, but by and large addicts are middle-class, educated, and live in houses with their friends or families. Hollywood and moralists have done us a great disservice by putting these horrible outlier pictures in people's heads when they think of drug use. Take for instance the word "addict", which like the word "war" is such a broad term that it doesn't have much meaning on it's own without further clarification. One side wants you to believe that all drug use consists of PhDs smoking pot while talking astronomy. The other side wants you to believe that all drug use ends in addiction and death. People need to stop with the histrionics. I support legalization, although I am extremely cautious personally when it comes to drug use. I might support criminalization of dealing hard drugs. I'd have to think about it a bit. But declaring "war" on our own population is a pretty idiotic way to spend our social resources if you ask me. Just like the "war on poverty," the "war on illiteracy," the "war on obesity," and the "culture war," enough with the wars already.

Vivtek 15y ago
I would like to further suggest we end the use of the word "war" in contexts that do not involve mandatory conscription and the deaths of large numbers of combatants until one side totally surrenders. I'd like to upvote that a hundred times.
- jackfoxy 15y ago
  I'd like to upvote condemnation of misuse of the word war too, however note real war frequently does not involve mandatory conscription, deaths of large numbers of combatants, or one side totally surrendering.
  - scarmig 15y ago
    As a corollary, I'd like to add this as a rule: If you are engaged in a mass bombing of civilians and military targets or committing ground forces to combative action for a period of longer than a week or two, that is a war, not a "police action" or other euphemism meant to get around (American) Constitutional requirements.
    - jackfoxy 15y ago
      Yes. I posted to this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2158522 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2158522 outlining some of the unfortunate history of war and militarism changing the face of what was originally a more libertarian (small L) form of government in the U.S. If I were to expand that comment I would add the role Wilsonian Internationalism played in making War a good thing, if not a moral obligation. War becomes a euphemism for any given social engineering project (war on poverty, war on cancer, war on obesity, war on drugs).
macuenca 15y ago
What you suggest not to call a "war" has killed thousands of people in countries like Mexico and Colombia[1]. Is this what you mean when you say "deaths of large numbers of combatants"? I come from a country that suffers this "war on drugs", I've had members of my family kidnapped, I've seen people being assassinated in front of me by hit-men. Some others haven't been that lucky. I, with you permission, call this a "war". [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War
- mkr-hn 15y ago
  All that is a product of treating it like a war. Terminology has a way of controlling how we think. Imagine if we called it a holiday on drugs.
- tdfx 15y ago
  Well-armed criminal groups and government forces can have a war. I don't think anyone disputes that. But you can't go to war against a concept (i.e. drug use).
  - gregholmberg 15y ago
    Have a conventional war against a concept? No. Declaring "war" on an idea allows the state to permanently oppress anyone who can be associated with the idea. This is a powerful totalitarian tool. [0] [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_war
- gerggerg 15y ago
  What he is saying is in support of your point. Those gangs are actually at war. They're fighting over money and control, directly enlisting soldiers and killing each other. Calling a prohibition "The War on Drugs" is a new speak tactic that not only takes the public eye off of real problems, but also waters down the impact the word WAR has. This produces 2 less that awesome situations: It is because of the prohibition called "The War on Drugs" that a real war fueled by drug money is out of control. Because of the over use of the word, it's now harder to distinguish between what is a war and what is not a war. TLDR: You can't have a war on a concept. It logically and literally makes no sense.
chimeracoder 15y ago
> Drug use is a health-related issue, whether it is a doctor prescribing medications, a patient taking meds off-label, a person self-medicating, an addict, or some kind experimentation > We have a caricatured view of the drug addict -- the unwashed, illiterate, toothless junkie hiding out in a crack house. Yes, addiction ends up that way for some, but by and large addicts are middle-class, educated, and live in houses with their friends or families Excellent points. If there were just two things I wish everyone in the world (or at least in the US) would understand, it's this: 1. The drugs that you are prescribed and the drugs people consume recreationally are not fundamentally different. In fact, in many cases, they're essentially interchangeable from a chemical perspective (Adderall/Desoxyn/Methamphetamine/"Speed" are a great example; Marijuana/Marinol is a partial example too). The prescription vs. "everything else" divide is almost arbitrary. If someone told you that they were prescribed diacetylmorphine for chronic pain, what would you say? What would you say if they took heroin for pain? 2. The stereotypes of 'drug addicts' and 'drug users' are grossly inaccurate. Yes, some people who use heroin/meth/coke/etc. fall into the respective stereotypes. But many don't - you just don't know it, because they're the ones who manage to maintain normal lives. Look up diactylmorphine (heroin) maintenance programs in Switzerland and the UK, and you'll see that many people who used to fit the stereotypes of the homeless sex-working heroin addict are able to maintain steady 'normal' jobs if they are given regular access to heroin of a consistent quality/potency and with no adulterants (this requirement is key!) In the UK, there was a 'Nice People Use Drugs' campaign, which was aimed at exactly that - demonstrating to people that the stereotypical drug users are just more visible; the invisible majority of people who use or have used drugs have no lasting/debiltating/noticeable problems (if any at all). Everybody knows people who use drugs of some sort; they just don't always know that those people use drugs. (And sometimes, they're not the ones you'd expect!)
- themgt 15y ago
  I'd add as a third point, that among people who've used a relatively broad range of legal and illegal substances, alcohol and tobacco are widely considered two of the most disgusting, damaging, abuse-prone substances known to man
  - 15y ago
anamax 15y ago
> Drug use is a health-related issue, whether it is a doctor prescribing medications, a patient taking meds off-label, a person self-medicating, an addict, or some kind experimentation. All of these situations are much more personal health concerns than public safety concerns. Not so fast. "We" have decided that obesity is a public health issue that warrants all manner of intrusions. I think agree with you about drug use but ....
eigenvector 15y ago
> I would like to further suggest we end the use of the word "war" in contexts that do not involve mandatory conscription and the deaths of large numbers of combatants until one side totally surrenders. This is totally orthogonal to your main point, but by this definition the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan would not qualify as wars.
chunkyslink 15y ago
The 'War on Drugs' in the USA is simply a way for the government to heavily arm the police in order to enforce the Police State that it is itself becoming. The government know that the war can never be won, but that isn't actually the point of the war.

Vivtek 15y ago

I would like to further suggest we end the use of the word "war" in contexts that do not involve mandatory conscription and the deaths of large numbers of combatants until one side totally surrenders. I'd like to upvote that a hundred times.

jackfoxy 15y ago
I'd like to upvote condemnation of misuse of the word war too, however note real war frequently does not involve mandatory conscription, deaths of large numbers of combatants, or one side totally surrendering.
- scarmig 15y ago
  As a corollary, I'd like to add this as a rule: If you are engaged in a mass bombing of civilians and military targets or committing ground forces to combative action for a period of longer than a week or two, that is a war, not a "police action" or other euphemism meant to get around (American) Constitutional requirements.
  - jackfoxy 15y ago
    Yes. I posted to this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2158522 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2158522 outlining some of the unfortunate history of war and militarism changing the face of what was originally a more libertarian (small L) form of government in the U.S. If I were to expand that comment I would add the role Wilsonian Internationalism played in making War a good thing, if not a moral obligation. War becomes a euphemism for any given social engineering project (war on poverty, war on cancer, war on obesity, war on drugs).

macuenca 15y ago

What you suggest not to call a "war" has killed thousands of people in countries like Mexico and Colombia[1]. Is this what you mean when you say "deaths of large numbers of combatants"? I come from a country that suffers this "war on drugs", I've had members of my family kidnapped, I've seen people being assassinated in front of me by hit-men. Some others haven't been that lucky. I, with you permission, call this a "war". [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War

mkr-hn 15y ago
All that is a product of treating it like a war. Terminology has a way of controlling how we think. Imagine if we called it a holiday on drugs.
tdfx 15y ago
Well-armed criminal groups and government forces can have a war. I don't think anyone disputes that. But you can't go to war against a concept (i.e. drug use).
- gregholmberg 15y ago
  Have a conventional war against a concept? No. Declaring "war" on an idea allows the state to permanently oppress anyone who can be associated with the idea. This is a powerful totalitarian tool. [0] [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_war
gerggerg 15y ago
What he is saying is in support of your point. Those gangs are actually at war. They're fighting over money and control, directly enlisting soldiers and killing each other. Calling a prohibition "The War on Drugs" is a new speak tactic that not only takes the public eye off of real problems, but also waters down the impact the word WAR has. This produces 2 less that awesome situations: It is because of the prohibition called "The War on Drugs" that a real war fueled by drug money is out of control. Because of the over use of the word, it's now harder to distinguish between what is a war and what is not a war. TLDR: You can't have a war on a concept. It logically and literally makes no sense.

chimeracoder 15y ago

> Drug use is a health-related issue, whether it is a doctor prescribing medications, a patient taking meds off-label, a person self-medicating, an addict, or some kind experimentation > We have a caricatured view of the drug addict -- the unwashed, illiterate, toothless junkie hiding out in a crack house. Yes, addiction ends up that way for some, but by and large addicts are middle-class, educated, and live in houses with their friends or families Excellent points. If there were just two things I wish everyone in the world (or at least in the US) would understand, it's this: 1. The drugs that you are prescribed and the drugs people consume recreationally are not fundamentally different. In fact, in many cases, they're essentially interchangeable from a chemical perspective (Adderall/Desoxyn/Methamphetamine/"Speed" are a great example; Marijuana/Marinol is a partial example too). The prescription vs. "everything else" divide is almost arbitrary. If someone told you that they were prescribed diacetylmorphine for chronic pain, what would you say? What would you say if they took heroin for pain? 2. The stereotypes of 'drug addicts' and 'drug users' are grossly inaccurate. Yes, some people who use heroin/meth/coke/etc. fall into the respective stereotypes. But many don't - you just don't know it, because they're the ones who manage to maintain normal lives. Look up diactylmorphine (heroin) maintenance programs in Switzerland and the UK, and you'll see that many people who used to fit the stereotypes of the homeless sex-working heroin addict are able to maintain steady 'normal' jobs if they are given regular access to heroin of a consistent quality/potency and with no adulterants (this requirement is key!) In the UK, there was a 'Nice People Use Drugs' campaign, which was aimed at exactly that - demonstrating to people that the stereotypical drug users are just more visible; the invisible majority of people who use or have used drugs have no lasting/debiltating/noticeable problems (if any at all). Everybody knows people who use drugs of some sort; they just don't always know that those people use drugs. (And sometimes, they're not the ones you'd expect!)

themgt 15y ago
I'd add as a third point, that among people who've used a relatively broad range of legal and illegal substances, alcohol and tobacco are widely considered two of the most disgusting, damaging, abuse-prone substances known to man
- 15y ago

anamax 15y ago

> Drug use is a health-related issue, whether it is a doctor prescribing medications, a patient taking meds off-label, a person self-medicating, an addict, or some kind experimentation. All of these situations are much more personal health concerns than public safety concerns. Not so fast. "We" have decided that obesity is a public health issue that warrants all manner of intrusions. I think agree with you about drug use but ....

eigenvector 15y ago

> I would like to further suggest we end the use of the word "war" in contexts that do not involve mandatory conscription and the deaths of large numbers of combatants until one side totally surrenders. This is totally orthogonal to your main point, but by this definition the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan would not qualify as wars.

chunkyslink 15y ago

The 'War on Drugs' in the USA is simply a way for the government to heavily arm the police in order to enforce the Police State that it is itself becoming. The government know that the war can never be won, but that isn't actually the point of the war.