4 ms·

War on drugs != War on drug users. Shouldn't it be War on dug dealers?

by ferguess_k 2y ago

op00to 2y ago
That hasn’t been the implementation applied in almost all cases.
relistan 2y ago
It’s shouldn’t be a war at all. That framing is unhelpful to solving the actual policy and societal problems.
- rexpop 2y ago
  The point of the "war" framing is to manufacture consent for the chronic inflammation that is patriarchal domination via semi-martial law.
  - SteveNuts 2y ago
    > the chronic inflammation that is patriarchal domination via semi-martial law What does this mean?
- ferguess_k 2y ago
  It can be some legal actions, for sure? If it's illegal polices should move forward to clean them up?
  - davkan 2y ago
    No, patrolling your streets like you would a warzone is bad for everyone. It’s not a war. Any allusion to it being a war is bad. It is policing.
    - ferguess_k 2y ago
      [flagged]
- moralestapia 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - relistan 2y ago
    If you have a point to make, it would help if you made it.
    - moralestapia 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - relistan 2y ago
        There is a war happening because we have waged it. We attacked the symptom with military gusto and ignored the problems that caused it. We made domestic policies that legislated morality and poured billions into the coffers of the cartels. We countered with billions spent in the military industrial complex and by militarizing the police. So yes, there is a war happening. Because that is how we framed it.
        quacked 2y ago
        Billions of dollars were going to flow into the coffers of the cartels either way; the people want drugs, the cartels are willing to use violence in order to organize who gets to distribute and at what prices they sell. There's no such thing as a peaceful hard-drug manufacturing operation.
        relistan 2y ago
        > Billions of dollars were going to flow into the coffers of the cartels either way There is no evidence for that and prohibition in the US provides a strong counter argument. > There's no such thing as a peaceful hard-drug manufacturing operation. Because it has never been tried in the modern era.
- janalsncm 2y ago
  I agree, and I think the militarization of the police has been a net negative on the US. It should be police action. East Asian countries have very low drug use rates because they deal with drug use appropriately. Meanwhile in San Francisco, a comparably far richer place, drug use is tolerated and the problem proliferates. And you don’t need armored vehicles and SWAT teams to get to a better place.
- nomdep 2y ago
  You are changing the framing to excuse drug dealers. Most of the people with harsh lives don’t become criminals.
  - relistan 2y ago
    No I am not. Who is excusing drug dealers? But, making things illegal that (clearly) people will buy anyway just pours billions into criminal enterprises. The vast majority of crime is funded by drug money in one way or another. The same thing happened during US prohibition: people did not stop drinking alcohol, but all the money from alcohol suddenly poured into the criminal economy. This is a well-trodden path and we should know better by now. Has "the war" worked out? We're several decades in with no win in sight.
BobaFloutist 2y ago
The imaginary clean dichotomy between the two is one of the convenient fictions that serves to make the war on drugs semi-palatable.
- ForTheKidz 2y ago
  Portugal seems to legally distinguish between distributors and consumers just fine. Perhaps there's some weight to the idea that demonization of distributors harms consumers—but this doesn't seem to be an ideological barrier between being aware of the harms to users and the obvious economic boon of taking advantage of regulation to exploit the market advantage.
buu700 2y ago
It shouldn't be a war on anything. Because we insist on treating adults like children, we're taking money that would have gone to tightly regulated pharmaceutical corporations like Bayer[1] and funneling it into violent criminal syndicates. The "War on Drugs" is just a massive subsidy for the cartels via US markets. A sane approach to actually reduce drug use and fentanyl deaths would be to mirror the policies that have brought American tobacco use to a historic low and invest the tax revenue from legal narcotic sales into addiction treatment centers. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#History

War on drugs != War on drug users. Shouldn't it be War on dug dealers?

op00to 2y ago

That hasn’t been the implementation applied in almost all cases.

relistan 2y ago

It’s shouldn’t be a war at all. That framing is unhelpful to solving the actual policy and societal problems.

rexpop 2y ago
The point of the "war" framing is to manufacture consent for the chronic inflammation that is patriarchal domination via semi-martial law.
- SteveNuts 2y ago
  > the chronic inflammation that is patriarchal domination via semi-martial law What does this mean?
ferguess_k 2y ago
It can be some legal actions, for sure? If it's illegal polices should move forward to clean them up?
- davkan 2y ago
  No, patrolling your streets like you would a warzone is bad for everyone. It’s not a war. Any allusion to it being a war is bad. It is policing.
  - ferguess_k 2y ago
    [flagged]
moralestapia 2y ago
[flagged]
- relistan 2y ago
  If you have a point to make, it would help if you made it.
  - moralestapia 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - relistan 2y ago
      There is a war happening because we have waged it. We attacked the symptom with military gusto and ignored the problems that caused it. We made domestic policies that legislated morality and poured billions into the coffers of the cartels. We countered with billions spent in the military industrial complex and by militarizing the police. So yes, there is a war happening. Because that is how we framed it.
      - quacked 2y ago
        Billions of dollars were going to flow into the coffers of the cartels either way; the people want drugs, the cartels are willing to use violence in order to organize who gets to distribute and at what prices they sell. There's no such thing as a peaceful hard-drug manufacturing operation.
        relistan 2y ago
        > Billions of dollars were going to flow into the coffers of the cartels either way There is no evidence for that and prohibition in the US provides a strong counter argument. > There's no such thing as a peaceful hard-drug manufacturing operation. Because it has never been tried in the modern era.
janalsncm 2y ago
I agree, and I think the militarization of the police has been a net negative on the US. It should be police action. East Asian countries have very low drug use rates because they deal with drug use appropriately. Meanwhile in San Francisco, a comparably far richer place, drug use is tolerated and the problem proliferates. And you don’t need armored vehicles and SWAT teams to get to a better place.
nomdep 2y ago
You are changing the framing to excuse drug dealers. Most of the people with harsh lives don’t become criminals.
- relistan 2y ago
  No I am not. Who is excusing drug dealers? But, making things illegal that (clearly) people will buy anyway just pours billions into criminal enterprises. The vast majority of crime is funded by drug money in one way or another. The same thing happened during US prohibition: people did not stop drinking alcohol, but all the money from alcohol suddenly poured into the criminal economy. This is a well-trodden path and we should know better by now. Has "the war" worked out? We're several decades in with no win in sight.

BobaFloutist 2y ago

The imaginary clean dichotomy between the two is one of the convenient fictions that serves to make the war on drugs semi-palatable.

ForTheKidz 2y ago
Portugal seems to legally distinguish between distributors and consumers just fine. Perhaps there's some weight to the idea that demonization of distributors harms consumers—but this doesn't seem to be an ideological barrier between being aware of the harms to users and the obvious economic boon of taking advantage of regulation to exploit the market advantage.

buu700 2y ago

It shouldn't be a war on anything. Because we insist on treating adults like children, we're taking money that would have gone to tightly regulated pharmaceutical corporations like Bayer[1] and funneling it into violent criminal syndicates. The "War on Drugs" is just a massive subsidy for the cartels via US markets. A sane approach to actually reduce drug use and fentanyl deaths would be to mirror the policies that have brought American tobacco use to a historic low and invest the tax revenue from legal narcotic sales into addiction treatment centers. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#History