Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the war on drugs creates violence

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 114 posts

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#21

Post by maxerickson »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #20
kawa wrote: post #18

There's only so much profit in the drug business because of the illegality of many drugs. Changing that would kill the profits of many very rich and powerful criminals and cartels. So it's very understandable that those people do everything they can to prevent their business model from collapsing. The usual way of doing it is simply lots of lobbying: Paying "well meaning" people, journalists and politicians to stay o…

It's interesting that we actually have a potential big opponent for the drug cartels - drug companies. Legalizing drugs will drive cartels out of business because they'd be competing with clean drugs sold in pharmacies, prepared in well-funded laboratories of entities used to cooperating with safety regulations. So why the Big Pharma isn't lobbying for ending the war on drugs? I wonder if it isn't the social view tha…

Many illegal drugs are actually dangerous, so you need legalization and some mechanism to shield them from liability.

They also already sell many analogues to illegal drugs under prescription, so you have to look at whether a legalized market would be a better business than the one they currently have.

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#22

Post by durzagott »

inDigiNeous wrote: post #11
shocks wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> users supported This is the biggest thing, IMO. Legalising drugs isn't about getting control of distrubution and profits, it's more about changing societies view on drugs. We need to stop treating these people as addicts that need to be swept under the rug. We need to treat them as they are - human beings with a disease/illness for which they need help. How can they turn to us for help if we chuck them in prison fo…

Exactly. Many of the medicine that we label illegal, is from the nature, like cannabis. For that purpose also, we should regulate them, so that people would have better and more controlled access, and not have to figure out healing themselves and caught addicted because they have no legal way to get help. Reality is there are many people who do not trust the medical companies and their "medicine", and are looking for…

"Nobody is denying cannabis is not addictive, it is, very"

Can I get a source on that? It flies in the face of conventional wisdom.

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#23

Post by TeMPOraL »

maxerickson wrote: post #21
TeMPOraL wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that we actually have a potential big opponent for the drug cartels - drug companies. Legalizing drugs will drive cartels out of business because they'd be competing with clean drugs sold in pharmacies, prepared in well-funded laboratories of entities used to cooperating with safety regulations. So why the Big Pharma isn't lobbying for ending the war on drugs? I wonder if it isn't the social view tha…

Many illegal drugs are actually dangerous, so you need legalization and some mechanism to shield them from liability. They also already sell many analogues to illegal drugs under prescription, so you have to look at whether a legalized market would be a better business than the one they currently have.

You're right. As long as there are limits to access to drugs, there will be some market for getting them illicitly - even if for convenience reasons (say, getting prescription drugs without a prescription). The question is, whether that market will be big enough to support organized crime the way the war on drugs does.

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#24

Post by darkr »

reddytowns wrote: post #17
shocks wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've got it totally wrong. I didn't say anything like this. In your example, you can turn to the government (or someone else) for help with your taxes. There is no stigma (or law) that makes it difficult for you. That's not the case for a drug addict. It's a lot harder to get help. I also didn't say that addicts should not be held accountable for their actions. Of course they should. (...unless you're tring to evad…

If I make a mistake on my taxes, or lets say, park in the wrong place, I get fined. If someone does heroin and gets hooked, they get a treatment program. What is the difference? Why, according to you, should I be punished, while the person on heroin should get all these treatment options opened up to them? Where is my "parked my car in the wrong place" rehab program?

> What is the difference?

Both [legalisation/treatment-based approach to drug addition and fining drivers parking in the wrong place] are about reduction of harm on society and the individual, and effectiveness of that treatment.

The driver addicted to "parking my car in the wrong place", is not potentially going to die if he suddenly can't park inconsiderately, so a gradual reduction strategy of "parking with just one wheel across the pavement", then progressing to "staying just a few minutes over the allotted parking time" is not required.

The rehab program is the fine.

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#25

Post by deciplex »

reddytowns wrote: post #17
shocks wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've got it totally wrong. I didn't say anything like this. In your example, you can turn to the government (or someone else) for help with your taxes. There is no stigma (or law) that makes it difficult for you. That's not the case for a drug addict. It's a lot harder to get help. I also didn't say that addicts should not be held accountable for their actions. Of course they should. (...unless you're tring to evad…

If I make a mistake on my taxes, or lets say, park in the wrong place, I get fined. If someone does heroin and gets hooked, they get a treatment program. What is the difference? Why, according to you, should I be punished, while the person on heroin should get all these treatment options opened up to them? Where is my "parked my car in the wrong place" rehab program?

You'd have to fuck up pretty hard on your taxes to ruin your life the way being caught with certain drugs can do. I'm not sure any drug offense can compare to a parking ticket.

Legalization itself is partly a moral issue, as the state doesn't really have any business telling me what to eat or smoke or inject, or for that matter what plants I grow on my property for personal use. Coupled with drug treatment programs it is also a practical issue: the cost of treating an addict is lower than the cost to the government of keeping him in the justice system for most of his life, lower than the cost to society of keeping him on the margins for most of his life. It's also cheaper solely from a health perspective. It's good policy because it saves money so you don't have to pay so much in taxes and parking tickets in the first place.

So there's your answer: we don't have treatment programs for people who can't figure out where to park, or how to pay their taxes, because those are dumb ideas with low ROI.

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#26

Post by aianus »

reddytowns wrote: post #17
shocks wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've got it totally wrong. I didn't say anything like this. In your example, you can turn to the government (or someone else) for help with your taxes. There is no stigma (or law) that makes it difficult for you. That's not the case for a drug addict. It's a lot harder to get help. I also didn't say that addicts should not be held accountable for their actions. Of course they should. (...unless you're tring to evad…

If I make a mistake on my taxes, or lets say, park in the wrong place, I get fined. If someone does heroin and gets hooked, they get a treatment program. What is the difference? Why, according to you, should I be punished, while the person on heroin should get all these treatment options opened up to them? Where is my "parked my car in the wrong place" rehab program?

The fine isn't to punish you so much as to dissuade you from parking illegally. It's to steer you in the right direction. You won't lose your job, you won't lose your self esteem or right to travel, you'll just look for the sign next time.

Giving an addict a criminal record and stuffing him in jail with violent criminals isn't going to steer him in the right direction at all. Rehab might. Plus, it's cheaper than jail anyways!

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#27

Post by shocks »

reddytowns wrote: post #17
shocks wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've got it totally wrong. I didn't say anything like this. In your example, you can turn to the government (or someone else) for help with your taxes. There is no stigma (or law) that makes it difficult for you. That's not the case for a drug addict. It's a lot harder to get help. I also didn't say that addicts should not be held accountable for their actions. Of course they should. (...unless you're tring to evad…

If I make a mistake on my taxes, or lets say, park in the wrong place, I get fined. If someone does heroin and gets hooked, they get a treatment program. What is the difference? Why, according to you, should I be punished, while the person on heroin should get all these treatment options opened up to them? Where is my "parked my car in the wrong place" rehab program?

Please stop saying I've said things that I haven't. We can't have a conversation if you do that.

I didn't say you should be punished for doing your taxes badly.

Your parking example is terrible. If you get a parking fine then you must have ignored a sign or not seen it. It's entirely possible there was no sign and you legitimately didn't realised you parked somewhere you shouldn't. There are appeals processes for exactly this. There are rules and regulation on conditions required to fine someone for parking.

I don't understand how you can compare this to a drug problem.

Someone should get help for a drug problem because it is exactly that - a problem they need help with.

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#28

Post by shocks »

awjr wrote: post #5
shocks wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> users supported This is the biggest thing, IMO. Legalising drugs isn't about getting control of distrubution and profits, it's more about changing societies view on drugs. We need to stop treating these people as addicts that need to be swept under the rug. We need to treat them as they are - human beings with a disease/illness for which they need help. How can they turn to us for help if we chuck them in prison fo…

This is a very valid point. I don't see the UK government however changing their approach. Treating addiction as a disease just enables the government to vilify users. Many low-level heroin/cocaine users just lead normal lives. As do many low-level wine users. The only way I see this changing is when it financially makes sense. Taking Colorado as a model, the UK could get in the region of £400million a year in tax be…

Thanks.

Do you know where I can find some numbers on this? It's something I've always wondered. We're told by the media that 90% of heroin addicts are on the street stealing to maintain their habit - but I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of heroin addicts appear to have these "normal" lives.

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#29

Post by ptaipale »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #20
kawa wrote: post #18

There's only so much profit in the drug business because of the illegality of many drugs. Changing that would kill the profits of many very rich and powerful criminals and cartels. So it's very understandable that those people do everything they can to prevent their business model from collapsing. The usual way of doing it is simply lots of lobbying: Paying "well meaning" people, journalists and politicians to stay o…

It's interesting that we actually have a potential big opponent for the drug cartels - drug companies. Legalizing drugs will drive cartels out of business because they'd be competing with clean drugs sold in pharmacies, prepared in well-funded laboratories of entities used to cooperating with safety regulations. So why the Big Pharma isn't lobbying for ending the war on drugs? I wonder if it isn't the social view tha…

> So why the Big Pharma isn't lobbying for ending the war on drugs?

Because the stuff used as illegal drugs is actually dangerous to health, and pharma industry selling that stuff -- even if completely pure and legitimate -- would be disastrous for their public image, and profits.

The public will want separate recreational drug companies (but even then there will be "revelations" that Big Pharma is "secretly" producing harmful drugs in factories that are also used for production of legitimate, useful medication).

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#30

Post by idonthaveaname »

icanhackit wrote: post #15
suneilp wrote: post #3

Is it creating violence or exacerbating violence? I'm more inclined to choose the latter. The reason why I distinguish the two is that I see the continuation and increase in drug use as something symptomatic of other issues in the big picture. Economic issues, politics, racism.... oppression on various fronts from the system down to the family to the self. Drugs (and alcohol) are an escape. Normal activities also pro…

> Is it creating violence or exacerbating violence? Depends on the substance, depends on the market, depends on the reason for using. I haven't seen too many people on MDMA become violent or impoverished through addiction, though their incessant hugs and platitudes can lead to a violent response if they don't have enough to go around. It's complex, but not that complex. We have the power of observation - where we can…

> We have the power of observation - where we can plot what is safe to use recreationally...

Wikipedia says this better than I can: In 2007 [Dr David] Nutt published a controversial study on the harms of drug use in The Lancet.[12] Eventually, this led to his sacking from his position in the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD); see government positions below. Subsequently, Nutt and a number of his colleagues who had subsequently resigned from the ACMD founded the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs.[13]

Here are the citations: [12] Nutt, D.; King, L. A.; Saulsbury, W.; Blakemore, C. (2007). "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse". The Lancet 369 (9566): 1047–1053. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4. PMID 17382831. [13] Nutt, D. (2010). "Nutt damage – Author's reply". The Lancet 375 (9716): 724–724. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60302-9.

Roughly, the story as I recall it was that the head of the government's own advisory body on the health effects of drugs published a report through established scientific channels which claimed a significant mis-match between the harm caused by many popular drugs and the legislation around them. These were respected scientsists originally picked for their qualifications & integrity. Their opinion was unpopular with the existing power-structures and so their leader felt he had to resign, and several of his peers followed voluntarily.

Up to this point, most governments have exhibited intent to ignore the suggestions and testable claims of researchers in this area, and to ignore the will of the people they represent. I doubt an article in the WP will do anything to change that, no matter how much I wish it would.

Post reply on HN