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

Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 304 posts

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#61

Post by rayiner »

gravypod wrote: post #25
lotsofpulp wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe now that politicians see that people are very against drug laws we'll see some of them renege on their hard anti-drug stances. The purpose of existing drug laws, especially marijuana, is to give police a reason to harass and discriminate against certain populations.

I'm not so sure if that's the only thing people voted for when they wanted to be hard on drugs. As you can see in this comment thread (on an extremely left-leaning site) we have some people who think drug use is immoral. One of the sister comments says "I believe it's wrong". Definitely some section of the population wanted to use this as a way to bully minorities but another section of the population was convinced "…

I think drug use is immoral, especially in a society with a welfare system. (That’s the basis for anti-drug attitudes in places like Sweden.)

I’m against harsh drug laws because I think they’re create a lot of problems in criminal justice and are abused against Black communities.

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#62

Post by viraptor »

zdragnar wrote: post #33
downrightmike wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The war on drugs was started as a way to target people of color by Nixon. Before then, MJ was around and used, it is a plant and good pain killer that you can grow yourself. And Nixon stated that is why he was doing it in the White House tapes. For 50 years the WoD was used to justify invading other countries and setting up coups and all that has lead to our current issue with powerful militarized Narco gangs and all…

> The war on drugs was started as a way to target people of color by Nixon So was Planned Parenthood. Instead of endlessly prosecuting the past, which can never change, let's look at today and tomorrow instead. Or, if you prefer, we could look at the exact opposite approach- the Opium wars were fought to force China to allow the sale and consumption of opium, the extensive use of which was practically epidemic. As su…

> could also be argued that legalizing drugs is an attack in minorities who are disproportionately poor and thus prone to consumption

Legalising the production and sale - yes, that would be possible. But legalising use and possession is very far from that. It opens the doors for better social approach to the problems and helps keep families together.

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#63

Post by ravenstine »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #5
gravypod wrote: post #4

Could this be a situation where politicians have faulty data and use that to guide how they act? I would have assumed that a majority of these states - and my home state of NJ - would be very anti-drug but these votes with >60% in favor of legalization show that significant portions of America think drug-related activities are not "immoral" or "wrong" and should not be criminalized. If you had asked me a few years ag…

> Maybe now that politicians see that people are very against drug laws we'll see some of them renege on their hard anti-drug stances. The purpose of existing drug laws, especially marijuana, is to give police a reason to harass and discriminate against certain populations.

Well, and taxes, too, as has been the case with distilling alcohol since before marijuana became an issue. The government gets pissed if they don't get their cut. Way more fires would be caused by illicit stills blowing up if it was actually about safety.

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#64

Post by masklinn »

refurb wrote: post #60
loeg wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP's comment can of course be read more correctly as "the purpose of existing drug laws (in the US) , ..."

Canada had very harsh drug laws too (at least for hard drugs). And so did much of Europe. Did all those countries also create those laws to harass certain populations?

How many did basically at the behest of the US? The US very much lead the crusade on drugs criminalisation after WWII.

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#65

Post by devenblake »

miles wrote: post #53
lotsofpulp wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe now that politicians see that people are very against drug laws we'll see some of them renege on their hard anti-drug stances. The purpose of existing drug laws, especially marijuana, is to give police a reason to harass and discriminate against certain populations.

> The purpose of existing drug laws, especially marijuana, is to give police a reason to harass and discriminate against certain populations. Japan is largely homogenous and has very harsh drug penalties: Japan drug law among world’s toughest, personal possession attracts five-year jail https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/international-b... Why Japan Is So Strict About Drugs https://kotaku.com/why-japan-is-s…

The purpose of existing drug laws in America is to give police the means to harass minorities though. See:

https://archive.attn.com/stories/1503/war-on-drugs-real-reas...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/real-reasons-marijuana-is-ban...

http://www.history.com/news/why-the-u-s-made-marijuana-illeg...

https://www.salon.com/2015/07/02/the_real_reason_marijuana_i... (though this one pretty much reiterates the attn article).

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#66

Post by cbozeman »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #5
gravypod wrote: post #4

Could this be a situation where politicians have faulty data and use that to guide how they act? I would have assumed that a majority of these states - and my home state of NJ - would be very anti-drug but these votes with >60% in favor of legalization show that significant portions of America think drug-related activities are not "immoral" or "wrong" and should not be criminalized. If you had asked me a few years ag…

> Maybe now that politicians see that people are very against drug laws we'll see some of them renege on their hard anti-drug stances. The purpose of existing drug laws, especially marijuana, is to give police a reason to harass and discriminate against certain populations.

No it isn't.

The purpose is to provide a source of labor for for-profit prisons, to legally extort money from an activity or activities that largely harm no one, and to provide something for the police to actively do.

If police were to enforce what most people consider the "important" laws, their death rate would go through the roof, because they'd be actively chasing after large criminal gangs.

They want the low-hanging fruit of an 18 year old who's dealing a little pot, they don't want to have to go after the crime syndicate that will kill them and their family.

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#67

Post by chiefalchemist »

gravypod wrote: post #4

Could this be a situation where politicians have faulty data and use that to guide how they act? I would have assumed that a majority of these states - and my home state of NJ - would be very anti-drug but these votes with >60% in favor of legalization show that significant portions of America think drug-related activities are not "immoral" or "wrong" and should not be criminalized. If you had asked me a few years ag…

> Maybe now that politicians see that people are very against drug laws we'll see some of them renege on their hard anti-drug stances.

Lots to unpack here.

As a general rule, politicians will say or do whatever furthers their agenda (i.e., reelection). Hard stance on X are generally a reflection of appeal in the market. Moral of the story: Few politicians have the wherewithal to lead, most reflect (in a focus group driven sort of way).

I'm not so sure it's that most ppl are against drug laws. It's that the laws aren't working. They're not delivering on what was promised. It's yet another case - consciously or not - where the public is realizing that you can't cure a problem by attacking a symptom.

If there's a hope it's that more politicians step up, lean in, and lead. "Wait a minute, that's not a solving a problem, that's only a symptom." When we hear that often then we'll know the paradigm has changed. As it is, one change (e.g., drug laws) is not a trend.

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#68

Post by cbozeman »

downrightmike wrote: post #11
gravypod wrote: post #4

Could this be a situation where politicians have faulty data and use that to guide how they act? I would have assumed that a majority of these states - and my home state of NJ - would be very anti-drug but these votes with >60% in favor of legalization show that significant portions of America think drug-related activities are not "immoral" or "wrong" and should not be criminalized. If you had asked me a few years ag…

The war on drugs was started as a way to target people of color by Nixon. Before then, MJ was around and used, it is a plant and good pain killer that you can grow yourself. And Nixon stated that is why he was doing it in the White House tapes. For 50 years the WoD was used to justify invading other countries and setting up coups and all that has lead to our current issue with powerful militarized Narco gangs and all…

No it didn't... the War on Drugs started with Harry J. Anslinger. He was going after drugs as early as 1917. He was a raging racist, but Nixon did not the start the "War on Drugs".

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#69

Post by kmonsen »

rayiner wrote: post #61
gravypod wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure if that's the only thing people voted for when they wanted to be hard on drugs. As you can see in this comment thread (on an extremely left-leaning site) we have some people who think drug use is immoral. One of the sister comments says "I believe it's wrong". Definitely some section of the population wanted to use this as a way to bully minorities but another section of the population was convinced "…

I think drug use is immoral, especially in a society with a welfare system. (That’s the basis for anti-drug attitudes in places like Sweden.) I’m against harsh drug laws because I think they’re create a lot of problems in criminal justice and are abused against Black communities.

I’m curious why you think that is so, and why is for example alcohol and cigarettes (or even sugar) included as drugs? Certainly many medical drugs should be included.

There is a reason people use all of these and for example marijuana is not really more dangerous.

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#70

Post by bluedino »

devenblake wrote: post #65
miles wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The purpose of existing drug laws, especially marijuana, is to give police a reason to harass and discriminate against certain populations. Japan is largely homogenous and has very harsh drug penalties: Japan drug law among world’s toughest, personal possession attracts five-year jail https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/international-b... Why Japan Is So Strict About Drugs https://kotaku.com/why-japan-is-s…

The purpose of existing drug laws in America is to give police the means to harass minorities though. See: https://archive.attn.com/stories/1503/war-on-drugs-real-reas... https://www.huffpost.com/entry/real-reasons-marijuana-is-ban... http://www.history.com/news/why-the-u-s-made-marijuana-illeg... https://www.salon.com/2015/07/02/the_real_reason_marijuana_i... (though this one pretty much reiterates the attn article)…

So what’s the purpose of them in Japan?
Post reply on HN