10 ms·

The Economist wrote a near perfect editorial about the war on drugs a few years back: http://www.economist.com/node/13237193 http://www.economist.com/node/1323

• sksk 12y ago
  Gang Leader For A Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes To The Streets by Sudhir Venkatesh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudhir_Venkatesh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudhir_Venkatesh) is a great read as well.
• tdaltonc 12y ago
  I feel like the economist does this every few years.
• chongli 12y ago
  Regarding drug policy, the biggest misstep of the past 40 years has been taking a public heath issue It's never been a public health issue for its major proponents. The war on drugs has always been about racism, corruption, the militarization of police forces, civil forfeiture and the prison-industrial complex.
  • Bahamut 12y ago
    I always thought it was more about religion and politics than those.
    • declan 12y ago
      I think <chongil> has it right. In the case of religion, you're confusing a transparent and rarely-invoked justification with the actual reasons for the WoD. In the case of politics, you're confusing the mechanism for prohibition with the actual reasons.
      • Bahamut 12y ago
        I disagree - when it comes to drug policy, politicians always pontificate about enforcing bans & leaving them in place, which in the US originate strongly with Protestantism & believing that austerity is the solution to various vices seen in society. The Prohibition era is a perfect example of that, and that attitude has never left US politics, which is fraught with religion driving political agenda.
        • declan 12y ago
          Religion can and does drive political agendas in the U.S., true, but the question is whether the WoDPUD (war on some politically unpopular drugs) is being driven primarily by religion. I know of no evidence for that proposition, and can offer counterexamples. One would be the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative, made up of Protestant, Catholic and Jewish clergy, which supports drug law reform: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_Drug_Policy_Initiative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_Drug_Policy_Initiati... You're correct that historically, "anti-vice" austerity linked to Protestantism was a powerful force in American society. But the Prohibition era began nearly a century ago, and society may have changed in one or two teeny tiny ways since then. Like the 1960s? Plus the easy availability of Internet porn should give the lie to the concept that "anti-vice" religious mores are dominant. :)
          • Bahamut 12y ago
            You're correct in that it's not as dominant now, and has been slowly losing its power over time, but its strength is still present, especially due in no small part to the Bible belt. Even alcohol is tightly regulated still in various parts of the country. Congressmen still show a reluctance to reverse already existing laws regulating drugs - it's easier to get them to pass new laws than reverse existing ones unless the existing ones are truly broken.
    • deciplex 12y ago
      Why is this being down-voted? Prohibition of drugs was a natural extension of prohibition of alcohol, which itself was borne of the Temperance Movement, a movement steeped in religion from the very beginning.
    • snikeris 12y ago
      Some folks feel like the war on drugs infringes upon their freedom of religion. There have been some exceptions made [1], but the general populace is prohibited from using substances that have been used entheogenically for thousands of years[2][3]. It's a shame that our founding fathers didn't explicitly spell out a right to the dictate the contents/state of your own mind. Perhaps it is implicit in the other rights: what good is freedom of speech and religion if I'm not allowed to enter a contemplative state of mind in which I could have significant insights about my life and spirituality? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_A... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyote#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyote#History [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin_mushroom#Early http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin_mushroom#Early
  • mc32 12y ago
    I don't think the 'war on drugs' which happens in all sorts of countries, not just the US, is indicative or racism and corruption or police militarization or a prison system. Japan is very homogenous and they have very strict drug enforcement. Same goes for other Asian nations as well as European nations --many of the countries are quite homogenous compared to the US and yet they have strong policies. I think this would indicate that it's more a political issue. In China there is also an anti-imperial reason aspect, but I'd not say their policies are due to what you have described.
    • dragonwriter 12y ago
      > I don't think the 'war on drugs' which happens in all sorts of countries, not just the US, is indicative or racism and corruption or police militarization or a prison system. The War on Drugs that happens in many countries is, in fact, a result of that; specifically, its a result of (1) the War on Drugs in the US being a direct result of those things, and (2) the War on Drugs implemented in many other countries being a direct outgrowth of the exportation of the US War on Drugs through US foreign policy. (Ironically, this is true even of international treaties that foreign governments are now accusing the US of violating due to marijuana legalization efforts in some states.)
      • chrischen 12y ago
        While true for a lot of countries, this not true for China, which have probably stricter drug policies (with the exception of maybe alcohol). China would not let itself be dictated by US policies.
        • dragonwriter 12y ago
          Well, yeah, there are a number of countries that have their own parallels to some or all aspects of the US motivations for the war on drugs -- particularly as part of a broader militaristic centralization of authority, the racism involved in the US war on drugs is a less-common motivation -- and don't need to be pressured by the US. There's also religious authoritarianism in, e.g., the Islamic world, though that often overlaps with militaristic centralization. My point was that a lot of the countries where there may not be direct domestic parallels to the US motivations still have a War on Drugs as a product of the same motivations because they do so as a result of US pressure.
  • Natsu 12y ago
    > The war on drugs has always been about racism, corruption, the militarization of police forces, civil forfeiture and the prison-industrial complex. So, there's nothing about not liking the addicts who hassle people on the street?
    • pekk 12y ago
      Then outlaw hassling people on the street.
      • Natsu 12y ago
        There are also all the people stealing to get their fix, the people exploiting the people stealing to get their fix, etc. Also, it's already illegal, but sometimes you have to go after the root causes. In this case, the next root cause would be addiction, and yes, I do think drug use should be seen as a medical issue.
        • glenra 12y ago
          People "stealing to get their fix" ought to essentially disappear once getting a fix drops to 1/10th the price (so much less money is required) and once a reliable source is easily obtained (so you don't have to spend any time searching for the next fix or dealing with roller-coaster withdrawal symptoms because you couldn't find it in time). When drugs are legal, holding down a regular job will be compatible with drug use; people will work regular hours to pay for their habit, pick up their drug at the corner market on the way home, and take the equivalent of cigarette breaks. When heroin was a branded product of the Bayer corporation, one of the founders of Johns Hopkins was a heroin addict; he took pills. (The chief long-term problem associated with regular heroin use is constipation.) So, no: people stealing to get their fix is an argument for legalization. (How many people are today "stealing to get their fix" of beer or cigarettes?)
          • Natsu 12y ago
            This assumes they are employable and thereby able to afford it. And by "employable", I mean able to work, not merely able to pass background checks though the two are interrelated (i.e. there are rational business reasons to consider it a negative factor). I have worked at a place that did not screen out such (a factory, one of the few places, as I understand it, where you could get employed with a record). We're talking about being unable to show up for work or follow simple directions after a week. I can only imagine how they might've behaved in something customer-facing (i.e. flipping burgers). Now yes, there is the other side of that. There were also a number of folks struggling to fix up their life. These I commend and I helped where I could along that route.
  • waterlesscloud 12y ago
    Or people who have seen family or friends suffer in ways that are easily attributed to heavy drug use and would genuinely like to reduce the occurrence of that. And to fight what they see as a force that damages the social fabric. The point here isn't to argue whether drugs have this affect, or are a symptom rather than a cause, or to argue if the War On Drugs has much success in fighting it. The point is that this genuinely is the motivation for a lot of people supporting it. Even if you believe they're wrong to do so, you'd be wrong to say that's not why they do.
    • smsm42 12y ago
      This is the motivation of the people, but alone it could not bring on the wave of atrocities we now are witnessing as the war on drugs. The feelings of these people, while understandable, is just being used to support the worst set of policy decisions in US history since the Prohibition, and are used to expand government, militarize the law enforcement and curtail civil rights. In fact, it's much worse than the original Prohibition - at least there it collapsed after mere 13 years. The drug war is in its fifth decade now, and it's getting worse all the time. The feelings of these people are understandable, but they need also to understand what monster they are creating and supporting.
      • adventured 12y ago
        Fortunately the war on drugs situation is getting better, not worse. That momentum shifted several years ago in fact. Incarceration rates are falling now. Legalization has gained a massive amount of momentum, obviously including the first two states, and the Feds are increasingly not willing to step in and interrupt that progress (including Holder recently telling the DEA chief to get in line with the new direction). The rest of the world is going to relatively rapidly legalize many forms of drug use as well, with the US taking its boot of their throat on the issue. That will make it that much harder for the US to ever fall backwards and regain traction with the global war on drugs concept the government had been using. That said, the militarization of police will likely continue regardless of the war on drugs ending. I view that as the next great issue to begin focusing on after several more states have legalized pot. Also, mandatory minimum sentencing has completely lost steam. There is a lot of momentum toward rolling that back, and I think that momentum will continue. It's a failed approach, and a wide spectrum of people increasingly recognize that in my opinion. It will probably go out the window with the war on drugs. It'll be a huge victory if so.
  • Tloewald 12y ago
    I think it's a mistake to be completely cynical about the motivations for the war on drugs. A lot of the lobby groups that now seek to perpetuate it were in fact created by it (e.g. the prison lobby). The problem is that it was a kneejerk reactiom to a real problem (addiction) that simply had massive unintended consequences, including the creation of cynical interest groups. I think that when arguing for drug liberalization one should acknowledge the validity of the concerns of those who have heartfelt support for drug laws. The point isn't that addiction isn't a problem, it's that criminalization doesn't fix it.
  • javajosh 12y ago
    Spot on chongli, great comment. For now, I think the right course of action is to a) decriminalize and dismantle the system, and b) until that happens, don't do drugs at all. It's a corrupt system that you just don't want to be caught up in, ever. (The most appalling thing to me is the lack of compassion shown to real drug addicts. It's like, "Aha! Your life is a horrible shithole now, but we're gonna make it worse. That'll learn you.")
• slurry 12y ago
  Other features of the last 40 years, besides the drug war, include the virtual disappearance of urban rioting and the erasure of youth/minority political militancy. I believe this is not a coincidence. Arbitrary search and seizure, checkpoints, mass detention are common features of military counterinsurgency. They are also features of the drug war. I'm not saying the drug war is consciously aimed at youth and minority citizens the way similar tactics were aimed at Communist guerrillas in the Malaya emergency, or Sunni insurgents in Iraq. But I am saying that the effect is about the same. That's why it's probably a mistake to lean on rational utilitarian arguments against the drug war. The unspoken selling point is its unacknowledged side effects. Sure there are costs, but no more Watts, no more Black Panthers. The calculus of harm reduction is weak against dots that are never connected out loud.
  • acacia314 12y ago
    Love this perspective.
  • glenra 12y ago
    Wait, last 40 years? What makes that your metric? Marijuana was outlawed in 1937, heroin in 1925. And the Black Panthers were in part a reaction against hamfisted selective enforcement of dumb laws - including drug laws - by the powers-that-be.
    • deciplex 12y ago
      IIRC the sort of zealous enforcement of drug laws we see now, didn't really gain traction until the 60s and 70s, which supports slurry's argument.
      • glenra 12y ago
        You don't think drug laws were zealously enforced during Prohibition in the 1920s? Or during the 1950s? I'm just not seeing it. There have been moral panics over drugs leading to ludicrous overreach (at various levels of government) on quite a regular basis since well before "Reefer Madness". It didn't start with "crack babies" and "glue sniffing" - claims that the latest new drug (whatever it is) is different and more addictive and more dangerous than any prior drugs and this makes users extra dangerous to deal with which justifies using extra force or even shooting people with higher caliber weaponry, goes back at least a century.