7 ms·

We should really stop calling it "war on drugs". It's really the "war on what people are allowed to consume, for their own sake" and so is on par with the "war

We should really stop calling it "war on drugs". It's really the "war on what people are allowed to consume, for their own sake" and so is on par with the "war on raw milk" and who knows maybe the "war on fat" or the "war on meat" in a few years. I'm not even a smoker but if somebody wants to consume/ingest all kinds of substances I don't lay any claims to his digestive track or blood stream and it's really his business to destroy himself if he so wishes, at any rate he pleases. In fact it might even be good "for the environment" since drug addicts are unlikely to have many kids and they usually have shorter life spans thus leaving a smaller carbon footprint on our precious Gaia. Clearly the society should not subsidize their medical treatment either and if they kill while hallucinating or steal to pay for their fix, being a drug-addict should not be treated as extenuating circumstances. Personal responsibility cuts both ways.

mmariani 13y ago
Let them call it war on drugs. Then I can call what they do war on freedom. ;)
breischl 13y ago
"Clearly the society should not subsidize their medical treatment..." That's one big problem - we do subsidize it. Many states even require drug addiction treatment to be rolled into health insurance. Everyone has to pay for it, so everyone has some right, or at least reasonable excuse, to tell you not to do it. That's part of the rationale behind the Wars on Fat, Sugar, Soda, TransFats, etc etc. When your choices hit my pocketbook, then I have to care about all that stuff. It's one of the lovely side effects of socialized medicine, and socialized programs in general, that people don't like to talk or think about.
- bayesianhorse 13y ago
  One of the benefits of "social medicine" that some people don't like to talk about is that socialized medicine as practiced in Europe is usually way cheaper for society and works a whole lot better... You as a rich person might survive with everyone around you obese, depending on low-quality food and low-quality health care, but infectious diseases tend to spread without consulting how much you paid for your health care plans. Bad health care actually lowers the productivity, and most above-average earners depend on productive below-average earners more than they'd like to know...
- spikels 13y ago
  Not just in some state but drug treatment coverage is required in policies offered on the new Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) exchanges as well for newly eligible Medicaid recipients. http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/healthcare http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/healthcare
- Gormo 13y ago
  You're making a very cogent and compelling argument for why health care should not be funded or mediated in any way by the state.
- RougeFemme 13y ago
  The Wars on fat, sugar, etc. are also occurring outside of socialized medicine. (I assume that by socialized medicine, you mean, in the U.S.,Medicare, Medicaid, and any other health program explicitly funded and/or provided by a government entity.) These wars are also being fought by private insurance companies, where the healthy subsidize the less-healthy, and the profit motive exists.
rayiner 13y ago
The reductionism isn't warranted. There are a group of people who liken drug use to drinking raw milk. I'm sorry, have you ever been to a town devastated by raw milk consumption? Do you see many kids born with birth defects because of raw milk consumption? Do you see raw milk addicts stealing to feed their raw milk habit? I agree that we should end the drug war, but comments like yours are blindly one sided. Drug use isn't just high functioning professional recreational users. Its also people who poison their kids making meth at home, and people who coerce addicted women into prostitution using the promise of the next hit. Criminalization may be the wrong solution to it, but that doesn't mean its not a real social problem.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- MarcusBrutus 13y ago
  It's a very real problem for some individuals, no quarrel there. But it's not a "real social problem". As a matter of fact I could so far as to say that I would be hard-pressed to find any "real social problems". They really all boil down to individuals making bad choices but asking society to foot the bill. And of course "social problems" are very much welcomed by the political class and various others busybodies , do-gooders, etc. who earn their livelihoods (and sometimes much more than that) by "fixing" "social problems". And please don't play the "it's about the kids" card. If the effects spill over to non-consenting adults or minors, custody can be removed or charges can be brought just like the case of parents copulating in front of their kids without having to criminalize sex.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Walk around Philly surrounded by strung out junkies and tell me its not a social problem. Step on a used syringe in New York and tell me its not a social problem. Talk to some foster kids who were taken away from parents with heroin or meth addictions and tell me its not a social problem.
    - xj9 13y ago
TranceMan 13y ago
I'm curious as to your definition of 'being a drug addict'. >In fact it might even be good "for the environment" since drug addicts are unlikely to have many kids and they usually have shorter life spans thus leaving a smaller carbon footprint on our precious Gaia. Am I about to pull out a Strawman? Probably. A drug addict is also less likely to drive a car, fly on a airplane etc...thus not leaving a larger carbon footprint than somebody who decides to travel to the Utopia x times a year they strive; and has a society willing to 'subsidize' their medical treatment as they are not 'addicts'
cle 13y ago
What people consume has enormous impact on people around them. Ignoring the negative externalities doesn't make them go away, and it certainly won't convince those who have been affected by them.
DanBC 13y ago
> since drug addicts are unlikely to have many kids This is very wrong. Drug addicts have plenty of children.
- memracom 13y ago
  Right. So the net outcome of the war on drugs is to help drug addicts breed until they outnumber the rest of us. That is a very clever plan and well worth the investment of our hard earned tax dollars, isn't it? :-(
detcader 13y ago
We should really stop calling it "war on drugs". It's really the "war on the communities of black and brown people" and so is on par with the US legal apparatus since the country's founding
- smsm42 13y ago
  I have a feeling making this problem into a race problem will only make it worse. If there's anything that can make completely insane drug discourse in the US even more insane (it's hard to see how it's possible but it is) - I think it's exactly making it about race. Yes, I know there's racism among law enforcement and establishment - but the source of prohibition problems is not racial. Alcohol prohibition failed, and drug prohibition failed too, for the same reason, having nothing to do with race.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    I think you should watch Eugene Jarecki's documentary 'the house I live in.' The source is very much racial, and this was also the case for alcohol prohibition to a large extent.
    - smsm42 13y ago
      I did actually, some time ago. It is a powerful work, but I do not see how the conclusion that drug war is caused by racism follows from it. Same for alcohol prohibition - while prohibitionists featured plenty of racist propaganda, they weren't just driven by racial hate - even if America were completely racially homogeneous, there still would be prohibitionists.
  - mistercow 13y ago
    >I have a feeling making this problem into a race problem will only make it worse. Observing that it's a race problem isn't "making it into a race problem".
    - smsm42 13y ago
GrinningFool 13y ago
I'd just go with "war on the people". Easier to fit in a soundbite.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Nursie 13y ago
>>I'm not even a smoker but if somebody wants to consume/ingest all kinds of substances I don't lay any claims to his digestive track or blood stream and it's really his business to destroy himself if he so wishes, at any rate he pleases. Umm, very many people use various drugs occasionally and recreationally without any harm coming to them. Denying healthcare to users is cruel, especially as the risks involved are comparable to playing sport. Shall we deny healthcare to horse riders and rock climbers too? Denying healthcare to addicts is especially cruel as they have a problem. Personal responsibility is not a good reason to behave like an arsehole towarda the needy.

mmariani 13y ago

Let them call it war on drugs. Then I can call what they do war on freedom. ;)

breischl 13y ago

"Clearly the society should not subsidize their medical treatment..." That's one big problem - we do subsidize it. Many states even require drug addiction treatment to be rolled into health insurance. Everyone has to pay for it, so everyone has some right, or at least reasonable excuse, to tell you not to do it. That's part of the rationale behind the Wars on Fat, Sugar, Soda, TransFats, etc etc. When your choices hit my pocketbook, then I have to care about all that stuff. It's one of the lovely side effects of socialized medicine, and socialized programs in general, that people don't like to talk or think about.

bayesianhorse 13y ago
One of the benefits of "social medicine" that some people don't like to talk about is that socialized medicine as practiced in Europe is usually way cheaper for society and works a whole lot better... You as a rich person might survive with everyone around you obese, depending on low-quality food and low-quality health care, but infectious diseases tend to spread without consulting how much you paid for your health care plans. Bad health care actually lowers the productivity, and most above-average earners depend on productive below-average earners more than they'd like to know...
spikels 13y ago
Not just in some state but drug treatment coverage is required in policies offered on the new Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) exchanges as well for newly eligible Medicaid recipients. http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/healthcare http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/healthcare
Gormo 13y ago
You're making a very cogent and compelling argument for why health care should not be funded or mediated in any way by the state.
RougeFemme 13y ago
The Wars on fat, sugar, etc. are also occurring outside of socialized medicine. (I assume that by socialized medicine, you mean, in the U.S.,Medicare, Medicaid, and any other health program explicitly funded and/or provided by a government entity.) These wars are also being fought by private insurance companies, where the healthy subsidize the less-healthy, and the profit motive exists.

rayiner 13y ago

The reductionism isn't warranted. There are a group of people who liken drug use to drinking raw milk. I'm sorry, have you ever been to a town devastated by raw milk consumption? Do you see many kids born with birth defects because of raw milk consumption? Do you see raw milk addicts stealing to feed their raw milk habit? I agree that we should end the drug war, but comments like yours are blindly one sided. Drug use isn't just high functioning professional recreational users. Its also people who poison their kids making meth at home, and people who coerce addicted women into prostitution using the promise of the next hit. Criminalization may be the wrong solution to it, but that doesn't mean its not a real social problem.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
MarcusBrutus 13y ago
It's a very real problem for some individuals, no quarrel there. But it's not a "real social problem". As a matter of fact I could so far as to say that I would be hard-pressed to find any "real social problems". They really all boil down to individuals making bad choices but asking society to foot the bill. And of course "social problems" are very much welcomed by the political class and various others busybodies , do-gooders, etc. who earn their livelihoods (and sometimes much more than that) by "fixing" "social problems". And please don't play the "it's about the kids" card. If the effects spill over to non-consenting adults or minors, custody can be removed or charges can be brought just like the case of parents copulating in front of their kids without having to criminalize sex.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Walk around Philly surrounded by strung out junkies and tell me its not a social problem. Step on a used syringe in New York and tell me its not a social problem. Talk to some foster kids who were taken away from parents with heroin or meth addictions and tell me its not a social problem.
  - xj9 13y ago

TranceMan 13y ago

I'm curious as to your definition of 'being a drug addict'. >In fact it might even be good "for the environment" since drug addicts are unlikely to have many kids and they usually have shorter life spans thus leaving a smaller carbon footprint on our precious Gaia. Am I about to pull out a Strawman? Probably. A drug addict is also less likely to drive a car, fly on a airplane etc...thus not leaving a larger carbon footprint than somebody who decides to travel to the Utopia x times a year they strive; and has a society willing to 'subsidize' their medical treatment as they are not 'addicts'

cle 13y ago

What people consume has enormous impact on people around them. Ignoring the negative externalities doesn't make them go away, and it certainly won't convince those who have been affected by them.

DanBC 13y ago

> since drug addicts are unlikely to have many kids This is very wrong. Drug addicts have plenty of children.

memracom 13y ago
Right. So the net outcome of the war on drugs is to help drug addicts breed until they outnumber the rest of us. That is a very clever plan and well worth the investment of our hard earned tax dollars, isn't it? :-(

detcader 13y ago

We should really stop calling it "war on drugs". It's really the "war on the communities of black and brown people" and so is on par with the US legal apparatus since the country's founding

smsm42 13y ago
I have a feeling making this problem into a race problem will only make it worse. If there's anything that can make completely insane drug discourse in the US even more insane (it's hard to see how it's possible but it is) - I think it's exactly making it about race. Yes, I know there's racism among law enforcement and establishment - but the source of prohibition problems is not racial. Alcohol prohibition failed, and drug prohibition failed too, for the same reason, having nothing to do with race.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  I think you should watch Eugene Jarecki's documentary 'the house I live in.' The source is very much racial, and this was also the case for alcohol prohibition to a large extent.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    I did actually, some time ago. It is a powerful work, but I do not see how the conclusion that drug war is caused by racism follows from it. Same for alcohol prohibition - while prohibitionists featured plenty of racist propaganda, they weren't just driven by racial hate - even if America were completely racially homogeneous, there still would be prohibitionists.
- mistercow 13y ago
  >I have a feeling making this problem into a race problem will only make it worse. Observing that it's a race problem isn't "making it into a race problem".
  - smsm42 13y ago

GrinningFool 13y ago

I'd just go with "war on the people". Easier to fit in a soundbite.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Nursie 13y ago

>>I'm not even a smoker but if somebody wants to consume/ingest all kinds of substances I don't lay any claims to his digestive track or blood stream and it's really his business to destroy himself if he so wishes, at any rate he pleases. Umm, very many people use various drugs occasionally and recreationally without any harm coming to them. Denying healthcare to users is cruel, especially as the risks involved are comparable to playing sport. Shall we deny healthcare to horse riders and rock climbers too? Denying healthcare to addicts is especially cruel as they have a problem. Personal responsibility is not a good reason to behave like an arsehole towarda the needy.