5 ms·

I mean, the problem with the War on Drugs is that the drugs were only ever a symptom—while it's true that some small percentage of people would try, and get add

I mean, the problem with the War on Drugs is that the drugs were only ever a symptom—while it's true that some small percentage of people would try, and get addicted to, drugs otherwise, the vast majority of addicts were people trying to fill a major hole in their lives. Treating addiction as a disease instead of a moral failing or a crime, legalizing drugs, and making sure that people who want to quit have resources available to do so, are all vastly more effective at reducing the illegal drug trade, as other countries have found. In a similar way, a huge amount of this fraud would disappear if we took more known-to-be-effective measures to combat poverty (because many of these fraud techniques rely on hiring a whole bunch of desperate people to help keep it going): things like providing housing, single-payer health care, and universal basic income.

godelski 3y ago
> I mean, the problem with the War on Drugs is that the drugs were only ever a symptom No argument here, and it should be unsurprising I agree, since I'm arguing to not go after users. But also remember we can say the same about internet fraud. I'm all for addressing the roots of the problem. Big fan of ensuring there's a floor to living standards. But admittedly that's not the whole problem and fixing these things is incredibly complex. But I would say treating the addiction is a different side since that's downstream of production. Though complex because we do need to produce some drugs but we shouldn't need to spill blood to do so.
- danaris 3y ago
  > But also remember we can say the same about internet fraud. Indeed—that's basically my point, too! :-D