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

91–100 of 114 posts

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#91

Post by ex_ex_nihilo »

bluedino wrote: post #42
awjr wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> Many low-level heroin/cocaine users just lead normal lives. As do many low-level wine users. This is a pretty ridiculous comparison

It's only ridiculous if you don't think about it.

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#92

Post by DanBC »

shocks wrote: post #28
awjr wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are two sources of information in UK.

Office for national statistics are nice. They're robust about what does or doesn't count, and how they count, and where you need to be cautious with the numbers. http://www.ons.gov.uk/

The other place might be Public Health Outcomes: http://www.phoutcomes.info/

EG http://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile-group/mental-health

And finally NICE tend to have excellent referencing.

Noodle around here to find the NICE guidance. http://pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/drug-misuse

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#93

Post by logfromblammo »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #16
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…

Yvain's classic on disease/failure of personality is worth bringing up[0]. Also, his more recent take on (US) attitude towards treating heroin addicts[1]. The ending paragraph of [1] works as a great TL;DR: "Society is fixed, biology is mutable. People have tried everything to fix drug abuse. Being harsh and sending drug users to jail. Being nice and sending them to nice treatment centers that focus on rehabilitation…

I have read (from sources of dubious provenance) that narcotics addicts who have done multiple rounds of rehab and relapse were able to finally kick their habits by taking high doses of entheogen drugs, such as LSD, psilocybin, and ibogaine.

Suggest someone attend substance abusers' anonymous meetings for the rest of their lives, and no one bats an eye. Suggest that someone kick their drug habit by taking another drug, just once, and people lose their freakin' minds.

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#94

Post by logfromblammo »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #12

I'm a libertarian, so I'm already sold on legalization. Count me in. As such, hopefully I can quibble with the text a bit. "Ceasing this hypocritical practice by releasing nonviolent offenders is morally urgent." Yeah, not so much. Yes, there is a severe moral problem here, but please do not make moral arguments! It's folks with moral arguments riding around on high horses that got us into this mess. Instead, argue f…

I have a few additional points to add.

The SCotUS has ruled that a cop cannot detain you at a traffic stop solely for the purpose of getting a dog to sniff your car. You can only be held for an amount of time reasonable to investigate the offense for which you were stopped, or any other offense that became obvious as a result of the stop.

It does not take 30 minutes to issue a speeding ticket, so if you are stopped for speeding and held 30 minutes until a K-9 shows up to hit on your car, that search is unconstitutional.

This may be why cops have, via extensive self-training, willed their noses into being able to smell things that ordinary people, dogs, and electronic noses cannot detect. When you roll down your window at the traffic stop to hand over license, insurance, and registration, the investigating officer says (for the benefit of his bodycam or dashcam), "I smell alcohol," or "I smell marijuana."

Then they search your car anyway. They do not, for some strange reason, fill several mylar balloons with the air from the inside of your car, and process them as evidence, so that they could possibly be independently tested for those telltale odors later.

They don't even need to find a joint in your ashtray. They could just seize your car on suspicion, without ever charging you with a crime. As forfeiture is an in rem proceeding against the car itself, and the car is not a person, it has no presumption of innocence. You then have to prove not only that you have power of attorney to appear in court for your car, but also prove its innocence from a presumption of guilt.

As long as cops can take that "mucho dinero in the trucky-trailer" with impunity, the forfeiture system will continue to grow more corrupt.

"I do not consent to searches or seizures. I will not respond to questions without legal counsel. Am I free to go?"

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#95

Post by TeMPOraL »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #88
avn2109 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe that's because the recreational drug doesn't come with an MSDS/safe use documentation, because it was bought on the street.

Or perhaps because its recreational, and more fun is better, folks have no self control. They are called 'addictive' for a reason.

> They are called 'addictive' for a reason.

A reason that has little to do with recreation and a lot with altering brain chemistry.

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#96

Post by ethbro »

user_0001 wrote: post #82
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are absolutely right, and perhaps the most under reported effect of the war on any vice is that vice enforcement becomes just as lucrative. It's easier to bust someone for possession than reckless driving, assault, you know, things that have to be verified at the time of offense. It's not that the police, prosecutors, prison owners or lawmakers are bad people, they just deal with corrosive incentives. Just like d…

It is also very corrupting work (drug police). Of the handful of people I "know" who got busted, not one was charged with the full amount of drugs nor cash they were arrested with (when it was worthwhile amounts)

This. When you're comparing a $100B business sector, that's a lot of available incentive to look the other way. A cursory search said ~$160B on local law enforcement expenditures (this also included fire).

What do we expect to come out of that comparison?

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#97

Post by ethbro »

talmand wrote: post #41
Synaesthesia wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's interesting is that the CIA has been proven to be involved in the drug trade, and they need untraceable money for covert operations quite frequently. Also this trade is so lucrative, that massive banks are quite involved in it too. What's more, large corporations in the US are py directly involve in selling dangerous narcotics around the world, it's called to tobacco and it's the most lethal drug sold in the w…

In those cases, a government destroying drug crops is not about saving lives, it's about money. Illegal drug cartels do not pay taxes, tobacco plantations in Virginia do.

This sounds like another argument for marijuana plantations in Virginia.

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#98

Post by ethbro »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #35
ptaipale wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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" produci…

"Dangerous" is too vague to be useful. There's plenty of legal, commercially produced opioids and opiates. Those have been well studied and have a variety of adverse reactions if not used delicately. However, they're perceived as "medicine" or "useful drugs" and hence do not have the same stigma.

If "dangerous" is too vague, then "untested" is valid. You can absolutely get me on board with the "DEA/FDA limit testing of illegal substances" rebuttal, but you can't say the variety of illegal substances have been as well tested through customer dosage as something that currently goes to market.

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#99

Post by worik »

fsloth wrote: post #31
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…

I have no idea if gangsters partake in lobbying but I find it hard to believe it would be the main cause for the continuing policies. Some hold the view that the war on drugs is mainly ideological. Chomsky has quite a critical view of the matter. E.g. "So there are two possibilities: Either those conducting the Drug War are lunatics, or they have another purpose." http://hightimes.com/read/high-times-interview-noam-c…

I'll go with "lunatics"

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#100

Post by mindslight »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #95
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or perhaps because its recreational, and more fun is better, folks have no self control. They are called 'addictive' for a reason.

> They are called 'addictive' for a reason. A reason that has little to do with recreation and a lot with altering brain chemistry.

You're not really refuting his point.

It ultimately comes down to the concept of personal responsibility. Drinking does not absolve one of their subsequent actions and choices, regardless of their subsequent "mental state". Any choice to have an "unsound mind" was made while of sound mind, and thus responsibility for all results lie with the person themselves. Being mentally impaired doesn't magically transform someone into a blameless zombie.

Colleges seem to be doing their best to erode this concept, but I digress.

Post reply on HN