13 ms·

This, the Parallel Construction story, and the Patriot act having been principally used for the War on Drugs than terror... has made me consider that the War on

This, the Parallel Construction story, and the Patriot act having been principally used for the War on Drugs than terror... has made me consider that the War on Drugs may actually be more dangerous to Liberty than the war on terror. No doubt it's basic premise, that putting a substance into one's own body is a "crime", is a pernicious lie. The War on Terror's pernicious lie is twofold: Terrorism isn't a crime, and thus isn't subject to any laws, that this war is eternal, and the whole world is a battlefield. Certainly in practical effects the Drug war is worse: Minorities whose communities are regularly raided by soldiers, depopulated, and placed into our glorious, humane prison system with the highest incarceration rate in the world, than stripped of voting rights and essentially blackballed from employment afterwards, would think surely so... My natural tendency has so far been to see the war on Terror as worse, this may be me I, like many HNers with dissident political opinions, am more likely to see myself as an actual target in the War on Terror. That, and being an Orwell fan...

detcader 13y ago
Read "The New Jim Crow" by Michelle Alexander and then start reading up on the history of civil rights activism and the beginning of the war on drugs
tel 13y ago
You can also take a look at the worldwide impact it's had through empowering Colombian cartels for instance.
sharkweek 13y ago
The Economist rants on this every couple of months, and I couldn't agree more. The war on drugs is a terrible misstep. Drugs should never have been a criminal issue, they should be strictly a public health issue. But we're far too entrenched to make that change now. Watch "The House I Live In" (streaming on Netflix) for a ridiculously detailed picture of the problem
- csmatt 13y ago
  "The House I Live In" was an eye opener for me. Also, one of the directors, David Simon, is the creator of the HBO show 'The Wire' which dealt heavily with the side effects of the war on drugs. 'The Wire' is the first thing I thought of when reading about this story.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  The most impressive bit of THILI for me was the two cops that you saw ~15 years ago as young idealistic tough guys in a reality show, and now as jaded cynics who have mostly given up hope.
mpyne 13y ago
And now you know why David Simon was one of the few people speaking up about why PRISM wasn't really a big deal, as he has seen firsthand the effect of the War of Drugs on minorities through his work on The Wire. If the government should have the power to do these types of investigations (and the people keep voting people in who are 'Tough on Crime' so apparently they feel the government should have that power...), then at least the NSA's abuses are essentially equal opportunity with some form of judicial oversight applied. Minorities don't seem to even get that much when we're talking about DEA, FBI, etc.
- toyg 13y ago
  > as he has seen firsthand the effect of the War of Drugs on minorities through his work on The Wire Or rather through his 16 years as journalist on the police beat at the Baltimore Sun, from which he got enough material to write 3 books and 3 TV series, including The Wire. It's really weird how TV just outshines everything else as soon as it gets in the picture. Simon will forever be "the guy who wrote The Wire", like he was a barista in Hollywood who just sat down at the kitchen table one day and made up all of it in his head and then proceeded to film it for TV. (And no, I don't agree with him on the subject: the fact that evils come in different forms and shapes doesn't mean we should ignore one or the other.)
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > Or rather through his 16 years as journalist on the police beat at the Baltimore Sun You know I almost mentioned that, but then I had the horrifying thought that he might have had someone on the police beat on his production team and that it may not have been Simon himself with that experience, and I didn't want to spout anything factually incorrect so I left it out completely. I'm glad to be corrected on that, hopefully I'll remember for the next time it comes up.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  The jump from "The War on Drugs is worse than PRISM" to "PRISM really isn't a big deal" is rather large... "If the government should have the power to do these types of investigations..." See, they obviously shouldn't. Justifying PRISM because the DEA is doing something that they shouldn't is silly. Both deserve criticism, and we should not curtail criticism of PRISM just because the War on Drugs isn't getting nearly the criticism it deserves. David Simon's complaint is just "hipster outrage" bullshit: "I was upset at something before it was cool!" It is just the flipside of the people who get frustrated with recent attention to surveillance because "Of course this is going on, haven't you heard of Room 641A? I've been talking about this for years! Grrr, I am upset that I am no longer unique for my suspicions."
viggity 13y ago
I can appreciate where you're coming from with regards to the basic premise of the war on drugs. Like the old adage says: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The thing that tears me up about it is that some of these drugs (primarily meth and to a lesser degree heroin) completely obliterate lives and leave a huge cost to the general welfare of society. I don't think that we should be throwing users in jail instead of treatment, but a place where methamphetamine is legal and freely available is a scary place. I think there is a line between legalizing and decriminalizing and I'm not sure I'd want to see some drugs legalized. Weed, MDMA, I can see being legalized, but the hardcore stuff I'd be more comfortable simply decriminalizing usage.
- WildUtah 13y ago
  "a place where methamphetamine is legal and freely available is a scary place" Like the USA in the 1960's? Benzedrine was sold over the counter to children and widely used throughout the country. Now benzedrine is probably less dangerous than methamphetamine because it's slightly less hydrophobic, which often makes addiction less trouble. Meth showed up as the very similar black market substitute when benzedrine was made prescription only. It turned out methamphetamine was easier to make with household solvents in trailers; users would probably prefer benzedrine. Both methamphetamine and benzedrine are available with a prescription. Benzedrine is the active substance in Adderall; in fact, Adderall is only a hair's breadth different from methamphetamine. The difference is that today it's only black market customers that use methamphetamine. If we re-legalized dexedrine or benzedrine over the counter, the trouble would mostly go away.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    >If we re-legalized dexedrine or benzedrine over the counter, the trouble would mostly go away. We'd have: Rehab for getting women off of diet pills. Same thing for truckers, just for a different reason. And we'd read about students abusing diet pills to study with.
    - WildUtah 13y ago
prawn 13y ago
Is the War on Drugs just modernised slavery? Privatised prison system with the profit-based incentives to take on more and more prisoners.
- ballard 13y ago
  Most slaves turn a profit, while most prisons require funding. Prisons are garbage processors for grinding up as many undesirables as possible, for as long as possible. Whom is chosen is somewhat random, but usually people that are undesirable: ugly or antisocial. As for the minor point of finding guilt: a crime can always be found, so that's not a limiting factor. The majority have already volunteered to be slaves. Healthcare and visa status the whips for native and immigrant employees respectively, especially in the US. Debt and consumption alike further captivate these unfortunate creatures on an unending treadmill of pseudo-affluence they will never attain.
  - prawn 13y ago
    Require funding or get funding? Doesn't a privatised prison derive a profit from its "use" of prisoners (getting/requiring funding) in the same way that slaveholders once derived a profit from their use of slaves?
    - ballard 13y ago
      Most prisons, whether for profit or not, require money to keep going. The money ultimately comes from society via taxes. But the net effect is it costs society thrice to imprison a person: fewer taxes collected, less goods/services produced and cost to imprison.
      - prawn 13y ago
        Ultimately, private prisons draw funds from those they hold captive, many of whom are imprisoned for minor issues.
        13y ago

detcader 13y ago

Read "The New Jim Crow" by Michelle Alexander and then start reading up on the history of civil rights activism and the beginning of the war on drugs

tel 13y ago

You can also take a look at the worldwide impact it's had through empowering Colombian cartels for instance.

sharkweek 13y ago

The Economist rants on this every couple of months, and I couldn't agree more. The war on drugs is a terrible misstep. Drugs should never have been a criminal issue, they should be strictly a public health issue. But we're far too entrenched to make that change now. Watch "The House I Live In" (streaming on Netflix) for a ridiculously detailed picture of the problem

csmatt 13y ago
"The House I Live In" was an eye opener for me. Also, one of the directors, David Simon, is the creator of the HBO show 'The Wire' which dealt heavily with the side effects of the war on drugs. 'The Wire' is the first thing I thought of when reading about this story.
anigbrowl 13y ago
The most impressive bit of THILI for me was the two cops that you saw ~15 years ago as young idealistic tough guys in a reality show, and now as jaded cynics who have mostly given up hope.

mpyne 13y ago

And now you know why David Simon was one of the few people speaking up about why PRISM wasn't really a big deal, as he has seen firsthand the effect of the War of Drugs on minorities through his work on The Wire. If the government should have the power to do these types of investigations (and the people keep voting people in who are 'Tough on Crime' so apparently they feel the government should have that power...), then at least the NSA's abuses are essentially equal opportunity with some form of judicial oversight applied. Minorities don't seem to even get that much when we're talking about DEA, FBI, etc.

toyg 13y ago
> as he has seen firsthand the effect of the War of Drugs on minorities through his work on The Wire Or rather through his 16 years as journalist on the police beat at the Baltimore Sun, from which he got enough material to write 3 books and 3 TV series, including The Wire. It's really weird how TV just outshines everything else as soon as it gets in the picture. Simon will forever be "the guy who wrote The Wire", like he was a barista in Hollywood who just sat down at the kitchen table one day and made up all of it in his head and then proceeded to film it for TV. (And no, I don't agree with him on the subject: the fact that evils come in different forms and shapes doesn't mean we should ignore one or the other.)
- mpyne 13y ago
  > Or rather through his 16 years as journalist on the police beat at the Baltimore Sun You know I almost mentioned that, but then I had the horrifying thought that he might have had someone on the police beat on his production team and that it may not have been Simon himself with that experience, and I didn't want to spout anything factually incorrect so I left it out completely. I'm glad to be corrected on that, hopefully I'll remember for the next time it comes up.
jlgreco 13y ago
The jump from "The War on Drugs is worse than PRISM" to "PRISM really isn't a big deal" is rather large... "If the government should have the power to do these types of investigations..." See, they obviously shouldn't. Justifying PRISM because the DEA is doing something that they shouldn't is silly. Both deserve criticism, and we should not curtail criticism of PRISM just because the War on Drugs isn't getting nearly the criticism it deserves. David Simon's complaint is just "hipster outrage" bullshit: "I was upset at something before it was cool!" It is just the flipside of the people who get frustrated with recent attention to surveillance because "Of course this is going on, haven't you heard of Room 641A? I've been talking about this for years! Grrr, I am upset that I am no longer unique for my suspicions."

viggity 13y ago

I can appreciate where you're coming from with regards to the basic premise of the war on drugs. Like the old adage says: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The thing that tears me up about it is that some of these drugs (primarily meth and to a lesser degree heroin) completely obliterate lives and leave a huge cost to the general welfare of society. I don't think that we should be throwing users in jail instead of treatment, but a place where methamphetamine is legal and freely available is a scary place. I think there is a line between legalizing and decriminalizing and I'm not sure I'd want to see some drugs legalized. Weed, MDMA, I can see being legalized, but the hardcore stuff I'd be more comfortable simply decriminalizing usage.

WildUtah 13y ago
"a place where methamphetamine is legal and freely available is a scary place" Like the USA in the 1960's? Benzedrine was sold over the counter to children and widely used throughout the country. Now benzedrine is probably less dangerous than methamphetamine because it's slightly less hydrophobic, which often makes addiction less trouble. Meth showed up as the very similar black market substitute when benzedrine was made prescription only. It turned out methamphetamine was easier to make with household solvents in trailers; users would probably prefer benzedrine. Both methamphetamine and benzedrine are available with a prescription. Benzedrine is the active substance in Adderall; in fact, Adderall is only a hair's breadth different from methamphetamine. The difference is that today it's only black market customers that use methamphetamine. If we re-legalized dexedrine or benzedrine over the counter, the trouble would mostly go away.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  >If we re-legalized dexedrine or benzedrine over the counter, the trouble would mostly go away. We'd have: Rehab for getting women off of diet pills. Same thing for truckers, just for a different reason. And we'd read about students abusing diet pills to study with.
  - WildUtah 13y ago

prawn 13y ago

Is the War on Drugs just modernised slavery? Privatised prison system with the profit-based incentives to take on more and more prisoners.

ballard 13y ago
Most slaves turn a profit, while most prisons require funding. Prisons are garbage processors for grinding up as many undesirables as possible, for as long as possible. Whom is chosen is somewhat random, but usually people that are undesirable: ugly or antisocial. As for the minor point of finding guilt: a crime can always be found, so that's not a limiting factor. The majority have already volunteered to be slaves. Healthcare and visa status the whips for native and immigrant employees respectively, especially in the US. Debt and consumption alike further captivate these unfortunate creatures on an unending treadmill of pseudo-affluence they will never attain.
- prawn 13y ago
  Require funding or get funding? Doesn't a privatised prison derive a profit from its "use" of prisoners (getting/requiring funding) in the same way that slaveholders once derived a profit from their use of slaves?
  - ballard 13y ago
    Most prisons, whether for profit or not, require money to keep going. The money ultimately comes from society via taxes. But the net effect is it costs society thrice to imprison a person: fewer taxes collected, less goods/services produced and cost to imprison.
    - prawn 13y ago
      Ultimately, private prisons draw funds from those they hold captive, many of whom are imprisoned for minor issues.
      - 13y ago