4 ms·

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.

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.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    You can support mandatory minimum sentencing without supporting drug prohibition. I think that preventing sentencing based on affinity is almost as important for minority groups as ending sending people to jail for drugs.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      But mandatory minimums just raise the stakes of prosecutors choosing among overlapping potential charges based on affinity, and remove the ability of courts to compensate for that. So they do the opposite of preventing sentencing based on affinity,by changing the point of the process in which affinity applies to dictate sentencing.
    - smsm42 12y ago
      Taking common sense and judicial discretion out completely is not the best way to achieve equality. It is the socialist way, if I can make the analogy - fighting inequality by making everybody equally poor (or, in this case, equally oppressed by insane sentences for minor crimes). Making policy changes that prevent anybody from getting insane punishments for minor crimes seems much better alternative to me.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    The problem is that while specific substances can be added to the approved list, the effects of the war and policies introduced by it still remain - be it militant police, trained to treat the population as an enemy to be subjugated, not served and protected, or financial controls, or expansion of surveillance, or the whole civil forfeiture scandal. True, some of these are getting press attention, but so far not much has changed there yet.

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.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  You can support mandatory minimum sentencing without supporting drug prohibition. I think that preventing sentencing based on affinity is almost as important for minority groups as ending sending people to jail for drugs.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    But mandatory minimums just raise the stakes of prosecutors choosing among overlapping potential charges based on affinity, and remove the ability of courts to compensate for that. So they do the opposite of preventing sentencing based on affinity,by changing the point of the process in which affinity applies to dictate sentencing.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    Taking common sense and judicial discretion out completely is not the best way to achieve equality. It is the socialist way, if I can make the analogy - fighting inequality by making everybody equally poor (or, in this case, equally oppressed by insane sentences for minor crimes). Making policy changes that prevent anybody from getting insane punishments for minor crimes seems much better alternative to me.
- smsm42 12y ago
  The problem is that while specific substances can be added to the approved list, the effects of the war and policies introduced by it still remain - be it militant police, trained to treat the population as an enemy to be subjugated, not served and protected, or financial controls, or expansion of surveillance, or the whole civil forfeiture scandal. True, some of these are getting press attention, but so far not much has changed there yet.