3 ms·

The drug war is a civil war. It divides and breaks up society for horrific purposes. In the US, it's always been racism, a way for the government to put down pe

by joesmo 12y ago

The drug war is a civil war. It divides and breaks up society for horrific purposes. In the US, it's always been racism, a way for the government to put down people of races they could no longer legally murder or enslave. Some 'friendly casualties' in such a war will always be overlooked by any government. It's certainly no coincidence that the ramping up of the drug war by Nixon came only a few years after the passing of civil rights legislation. I'm not as familiar with the histories of countries like China or Russia, but I am curious as to what nefarious purposes their drug war serves. With such scummy, tyrannical regimes, it's easy to imagine a million reasons for the persecution they are and will cause their people. While some people say not to ascribe to evil what can be ascribed to stupidity, I disagree strongly. Evil is just as pervasive and I just cannot believe that this drug war in Asia comes simply from stupidity, especially given the tyrannical governments now perpetuating it. Well, at least the US is now in the proper company with other tyrants--just as our laws are changing. It's hard to estimate the power and money that governments can make when persecuting and oppressing any group of people deemed to be enemies, whether they're deemed so because of drug use, race, religion, etc.

mc32 12y ago
No, I don't think it's a war of any kind. That's a label used by governments to get buy-in from the public. If it's war, it must be serious and we should fund it seriously. This campaign against drugs is not racist in essence, but it is coincidental with race in some places. However, you'll see the same attitudes toward drugs in homogeneous countries as well as Africa, Latin america and Asia. The policy against drugs comes from a fear it will make citizens beholden to something unproductive. That is drugged up people don't contribute to society and makes people lazy. It also means the government has less influence on these people. They provide unwanted drag. On the other hand, if you want a docile population, do drug them up like they did during the opium wars in Asia. I think any association with race is coincidental. That's to say we'd have had this policy in the US even if we had been 100% homogenous population. However, we do know the policies affected those population most susceptible to the effects of drug addiction. Poor people black and white. Appalachia is just as ravaged by drugs as any place in the us, trailer parks, etc. Poor people can't get treatment, they can't hide their addiction as easily, can't hire competent lawyers, etc. It was never a war though. It was a bad policy. Just like the one child policy in China. It was not a war on families, it was terrible policy.
- joesmo 12y ago
  "If it's war, it must be serious and we should fund it seriously." This is America. Have you seen the wars we fight? Millions dead throughout the word. Millions in jail being tortured. I don't know what definition of war you have, but that is war. "I think any association with race is coincidental." If it's not about race, please explain the arrest and incarceration rates for different races given that consumption is roughly equal for all races. You don't criminalize an everyday, common activity without an agenda. The war on drugs was not a policy mistake, it was intentionally created. It was intentionally labelled as war and now has those connotations despite not being a traditional war. You cannot remove connotations that exist in the world simply by wishful and naive thinking.
  - mc32 12y ago
    It's about class. Look at drug incarceration in Africa, see who gets jailed. The same in any country. Who gets jailed for drugs offences? The poor blacks, Hispanics, whites, etc. Look who gets locked up for drugs offences in Russia. The poor. It's not race. Race is a byproduct.
    - joesmo 12y ago
      It might be a byproduct outside the US, but it certainly isn't one inside the US, which is the point of my comment.
      - mc32 12y ago
        I don't think someone said, how do we suppress black people? Oh, let's criminalize drugs. I believe, as most things which go badly, they start out with good intentions, but it snowballs, and has unintended consequences. In towns with black mayors or black police forces, judges, etc., people still believe that drugs are a scourge and anyone involved in it needs to be corrected. It's not a white conspiracy, it's people's genuine belief drugs add to undesirable behavior and want to lessen it. I think this attitude stems from people's religious upbringing, believing addiction is a fall from grace, some personal failure. I think as a society we're beginning to realize that this infatuation with punishing addicts is counterproductive. And the real enemy is poverty. If you address poverty and allow people to earn a decent wage, you'll have a better society, fewer social problems, more social cohesion and more bonhommie.
Shivetya 12y ago
It is definitely not a tool to continue a race war, racial program, etc, etc. It is a tool of politicians much like the issues with pornography. It relies on fear, uncertainty, and doubt, with a big dose of apathy thrown in. The last is because the majority really doesn't care what happens to users because they do not themselves use these drugs. Images on TV, internet, and newspaper, reinforce the image of those who do as low lifes, malcontents, people you cross the street because of, and such. Politicians love power with which comes money. Police love the job security and money. Prison systems love the job security and money. So any solution is going to involve taking the monetary rewards out of it to those who enforce it. One example, instead of paying prisons by the number of people you penalize the system for repeat offenders. This would drive the implementation of more programs designed to get people off the drugs and also get them jobs training so that the job is more valuable than the drugs. Should it end up costing too much then the system needs to adjust what it jails people for which eventually would lead to the decriminalization of drugs. Make it too expensive for those who currently profit off the situation as is and it will lead to a road where it can be fixed
- joesmo 12y ago
  It's not a tool to continue the race war, it's the main tool to continue the race war. The rest of your points are quite valid but are not an argument against the numbers that prove that race is not only a major factor, it's the driving factor behind the war. Otherwise, you'd have to explain the racial disparity in deaths, arrests, incarceration, and poverty directly related to drugs.

by joesmo 12y ago

mc32 12y ago

No, I don't think it's a war of any kind. That's a label used by governments to get buy-in from the public. If it's war, it must be serious and we should fund it seriously. This campaign against drugs is not racist in essence, but it is coincidental with race in some places. However, you'll see the same attitudes toward drugs in homogeneous countries as well as Africa, Latin america and Asia. The policy against drugs comes from a fear it will make citizens beholden to something unproductive. That is drugged up people don't contribute to society and makes people lazy. It also means the government has less influence on these people. They provide unwanted drag. On the other hand, if you want a docile population, do drug them up like they did during the opium wars in Asia. I think any association with race is coincidental. That's to say we'd have had this policy in the US even if we had been 100% homogenous population. However, we do know the policies affected those population most susceptible to the effects of drug addiction. Poor people black and white. Appalachia is just as ravaged by drugs as any place in the us, trailer parks, etc. Poor people can't get treatment, they can't hide their addiction as easily, can't hire competent lawyers, etc. It was never a war though. It was a bad policy. Just like the one child policy in China. It was not a war on families, it was terrible policy.

joesmo 12y ago
"If it's war, it must be serious and we should fund it seriously." This is America. Have you seen the wars we fight? Millions dead throughout the word. Millions in jail being tortured. I don't know what definition of war you have, but that is war. "I think any association with race is coincidental." If it's not about race, please explain the arrest and incarceration rates for different races given that consumption is roughly equal for all races. You don't criminalize an everyday, common activity without an agenda. The war on drugs was not a policy mistake, it was intentionally created. It was intentionally labelled as war and now has those connotations despite not being a traditional war. You cannot remove connotations that exist in the world simply by wishful and naive thinking.
- mc32 12y ago
  It's about class. Look at drug incarceration in Africa, see who gets jailed. The same in any country. Who gets jailed for drugs offences? The poor blacks, Hispanics, whites, etc. Look who gets locked up for drugs offences in Russia. The poor. It's not race. Race is a byproduct.
  - joesmo 12y ago
    It might be a byproduct outside the US, but it certainly isn't one inside the US, which is the point of my comment.
    - mc32 12y ago
      I don't think someone said, how do we suppress black people? Oh, let's criminalize drugs. I believe, as most things which go badly, they start out with good intentions, but it snowballs, and has unintended consequences. In towns with black mayors or black police forces, judges, etc., people still believe that drugs are a scourge and anyone involved in it needs to be corrected. It's not a white conspiracy, it's people's genuine belief drugs add to undesirable behavior and want to lessen it. I think this attitude stems from people's religious upbringing, believing addiction is a fall from grace, some personal failure. I think as a society we're beginning to realize that this infatuation with punishing addicts is counterproductive. And the real enemy is poverty. If you address poverty and allow people to earn a decent wage, you'll have a better society, fewer social problems, more social cohesion and more bonhommie.

Shivetya 12y ago

It is definitely not a tool to continue a race war, racial program, etc, etc. It is a tool of politicians much like the issues with pornography. It relies on fear, uncertainty, and doubt, with a big dose of apathy thrown in. The last is because the majority really doesn't care what happens to users because they do not themselves use these drugs. Images on TV, internet, and newspaper, reinforce the image of those who do as low lifes, malcontents, people you cross the street because of, and such. Politicians love power with which comes money. Police love the job security and money. Prison systems love the job security and money. So any solution is going to involve taking the monetary rewards out of it to those who enforce it. One example, instead of paying prisons by the number of people you penalize the system for repeat offenders. This would drive the implementation of more programs designed to get people off the drugs and also get them jobs training so that the job is more valuable than the drugs. Should it end up costing too much then the system needs to adjust what it jails people for which eventually would lead to the decriminalization of drugs. Make it too expensive for those who currently profit off the situation as is and it will lead to a road where it can be fixed

joesmo 12y ago
It's not a tool to continue the race war, it's the main tool to continue the race war. The rest of your points are quite valid but are not an argument against the numbers that prove that race is not only a major factor, it's the driving factor behind the war. Otherwise, you'd have to explain the racial disparity in deaths, arrests, incarceration, and poverty directly related to drugs.