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

After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us?'

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 353 posts

Re: After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us?'

#91

Post by whydoibother »

systemvoltage wrote: post #64

It would be suicidal to challenge marijuana, since it is going against the current mob mentality on HN and elsewhere, but I am going to do just that. In my personal experience: - I think Marijuana should be legalized but it needs to be made uncool to consume just like Tobacco. Currently, it is the opposite. Social media loves weed. - Marijuana destroys personal ambition, productivity and self-esteem. - Marijuana is a…

You do realize you can vape flower/concentrate and eat edibles, right?

>Marijuana is a gateway drug, I strongly believe this but open for changing my mind if there is data supporting otherwise.

The burden of proof is on you to show this. What you strongly feel doesn't matter.

Re: After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us?'

#92

Post by AnimalMuppet »

the_economist wrote: post #30

Counterpoint: The war on drugs has been progressively ramped down since the late 90s. NYTimes wrote a long story about how during the feds quit using tactics such as convicted drug dealers to flip on their bosses, etc. We aren't putting as many drug dealers in jail and we aren't putting many drug users in jail. What you get is an epic rise in opioid deaths over the past 30 years and chaos on the streets of our cities…

Adding to the counterpoint: Bill Clinton once said "If cocaine were legal, my brother would be dead."

Drugs ruin lives. Drugs end lives. And the War on Drugs ruins lives, and ends lives. The question is, if we change, will the total damage go up or down?

Re: After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us?'

#93

Post by whakim »

coopsmoss wrote: post #74
bgroins wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reasoning is well established at this point. It was started by the Nixon administration to reduce the amount of left and left-leaning voters, particularly black Americans. "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the…

I still find it abhorrent that incarcerated people can't vote in the US. That seems so obviously exploitable.

Not only this, but in many cases felons permanently lose their right to vote, even after they serve their sentence.

Edit: I stand corrected, this is true in some states but not others.

Re: After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us?'

#94

Post by samatman »

camjohnson26 wrote: post #47
dcolkitt wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal and purity regulated heroin would have by far the biggest impact, because of the scourge of fentanyl deaths. If I had to choose between legal cannabis and legal heroin, I’d choose the latter on utilitarian grounds. (Although obviously I support both wholeheartedly.)

Given how addictive heroin is how do people supporting decriminalization suggest dealing with hard core addicts that can’t afford the drug? Giving it away for free in a clinic, hospitalizing hardcore users, letting legal dealers take on the risks directly?

A one-sentence summary of my policy goal is "make sure all addicts get heroin, from a place where they have access to help in quitting if they can".

So any dispensary would have addiction specialists on hand, anyone getting heroin would have a card and a database. "Casual" and light users would pay, a known hard-case addict with limited means would get it subsidized or free.

The goal is primarily to kick the bottom out of the black market, with a close second being keeping addicts healthy and alive, where quitting heroin is the best case scenario.

Re: After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us?'

#95

Post by duped »

chrischen wrote: post #67
alamortsubite wrote: post #41

I feel like Ehrlichman admitting the war on drugs was just a pretext for marginalizing Blacks and progressives should have been the end of it. But no, and that's already 25 years ago: In a 1994 interview published in Harper's Magazine, Nixon adviser John Ehrlichman suggested racial animus was among the motives shaping the drug war. "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the [Vietnam] War or Black,"…

I think the obvious answer often overlooked is that a lot of people are simply still totally fine marginalizing Blacks, Latinos, progressives, and other minorities.

Not just "fine" with it, it's the current driving force behind the Republican Party.

Re: After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us?'

#96

Post by 3pt14159 »

lettergram wrote: post #66

If you look at violent crime over the last 50 years it has steadily decreased. I think it’s reasonable to see a correlation. It’s possible decriminalizing could lead to a huge wave in crimes as people try to pay for their fix. That being said, I’m pro-liberty. I feel all drugs should be accessible

All drugs?

Carfentanil which has a lethal dose that's so small it's hard to notice or see?

I understand legalizing somethings we don't necessarily even like to put up with, but if something is as lethal as a gun I'm pretty comfortable infringing a bit on some freedoms.

Re: After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us?'

#97

Post by neither_color »

bgroins wrote: post #19
ElViajero wrote: post #8

> "The war on drugs was an absolute miscalculation of human behavior," said Kassandra Frederique, who heads the Drug Policy Alliance, a national group that advocates for total drug decriminalization. For me it would be incredibly interesting to know how much it was a miscalculation or actually it was very well calculated. The "War on Drugs" have failed to make USA safer, healthier or any other positive metric. But, i…

The reasoning is well established at this point. It was started by the Nixon administration to reduce the amount of left and left-leaning voters, particularly black Americans. "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the…

I don't buy it. That's one administration's decision to capitalize on anti-drug sentiment, but it really is a world-wide phenomenon with many powerful countries not controlled by the US choosing to continue outlawing drugs, like middle eastern countries and China. Most Asian countries still have very harsh penalties for drug possession. If you use an earthquake or a hurricane to engage in some crony capitalism, it doesn't mean you started the earthquake. Likewise, something about drug control means most governments have a stake in perpetuating it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis

Re: After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us?'

#98

Post by fosk »

Besides the controversial political agenda behind the "War on Drugs", I guess we all agree that drugs are obviously bad for society as a whole.

But it's kinda hard to do a war on drugs without - you know - arresting the drug dealers on known corners. Looking at you San Francisco.

Drugs enable misery, poverty, overdoses and homicides. Especially the ones that create physical addiction (opioids, meth, fentanyl, etc). But most importantly, they enable lower social economical classes into thinking that selling drugs is a viable and alternative way to level up in life (wealth), instead of allowing them to focus on real career paths. It's a false shortcut that distracts people from being able to focus on their real future. It also encourages illegal immigration.

Why aren't the Feds arresting drug dealers on every corner in a large scale operation first and foremost? Perhaps the simplest thing to do in order to disrupt the supply.

Re: After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us?'

#99

Post by ericbarrett »

jimbob45 wrote: post #71
ElViajero wrote: post #8

> "The war on drugs was an absolute miscalculation of human behavior," said Kassandra Frederique, who heads the Drug Policy Alliance, a national group that advocates for total drug decriminalization. For me it would be incredibly interesting to know how much it was a miscalculation or actually it was very well calculated. The "War on Drugs" have failed to make USA safer, healthier or any other positive metric. But, i…

>The "War on Drugs" have failed to make USA safer, healthier or any other positive metric. Speak for yourself. My methhead sister-in-law is in prison and I certainly feel safer. Addicts cannot be trusted and bring families down. People raised away from addicts (read: white liberals) don’t understand how destructive they can be to a community.

People destroy their lives with alcohol just the same. Should we abolish liquor again? (I have meth-addled family too btw)

Re: After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us?'

#100

Post by atombum »

balozi wrote: post #55

I see the failure of the War on Drugs and the resultant human toll as an indictment of the big government idea. Its an attempt to central micro-manage an issue that should be addressed at the state or even community level. The federal gov often involves itself in much more than it should.

Big government here meaning the intersection between Big Business, Big Lobby and Big "Government". The War on Drugs wouldn't have near the legs it does if it wasn't aggressively lobbied for by private prisons, alcohol distributors, and pharmaceutical companies.
Post reply on HN