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

131–140 of 353 posts

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

#131

Post by tetranomiga »

whydoineedthis wrote: post #48

People say it failed without recognizing how bad the crack epidemic was, and is currently only a shadow of what it could be had it been left unchecked. Yes, there are still drug problems - but not to the common extent you saw in the 80's. I think the issue is that people hear the word "war" and think that only the cops and military are the sole soldiers. There is only so much they can be expected to capture without s…

I can't believe you're unironically using the crack epidemic (that ravaged poor minority communities and was caused by the US government) to justify the War on Drugs (that ravaged poor minority communities and was caused by the US government). The REAL SOLUTION is boosting the lower classes and making life better for everybody, but that's too expensive to try, so wasting trillions and ruining minority and poor lives is better. /s

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

#132

Post by jimbob45 »

ericbarrett wrote: post #99
jimbob45 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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)

I would argue that we (assuming you're US, like me) largely already have with the liquor ban until 21.

However, no, I don't agree that alcohol is "just the same". People rarely commit robbery and murder to get another hit of alcohol. Conversely, many drug addicts are unable to stop themselves from taking desperate measures to get their next hit when it is not easily accessible.

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

#133

Post by dasv »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #108
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.)

I definitely wouldn't support the legalization of heroin. We already have alternatives(kratom, suboxone) that are legal and have far less abuse potential. Not all drugs are the same, we shouldn't act like they are.

Well, we have already tried that with methadone clinics. To compete with the black market it needs to be the same product.

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

#134

Post by l33t2328 »

duped wrote: post #95
chrischen wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t think that’s true in the slightest.

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

#135

Post by dalbasal »

Often being for and against things creates a logic of its own, especially when things are contentious and doubly so when they're political.

Military spending is popular. Civil aid aimed at similar causes is extremely unpopular, even when the sums are far smaller.

I'm reminded of French classes, in my education. We learned French for four years. None of us spoke French at the end of these years. I brought up this fact to teachers, parents. When I grew up I spoke about it to friends, who were language teachers.

The idea of giving up, canceling French classes, simply because it was failing to teach kids French is mostly seen as appalling. OTOH, a priori, I'm quite certain that "teaching French even though kids won't be able to speak French after four years' would not be a popular idea. "Learning a foreign language is important."

I agree that the war on drugs is bad. But, I also use illicit drugs myself sometimes.. and it is considered normal in my social circle. That makes it easy for me.

For someone that considers drug use immoral, or terrible in other ways... "I am against drug use" will usually translate into support for whatever anti-drug policy is going. Efficacy is just rhetoric fodder.

We're just not that rational, even less so at the political level. "It works" or "it doesn't work" aren't anywhere near as important as "I am for/against..."

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

#136

Post by world_peace42 »

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…

That appears to be a fake quote fabricated decades after that person’s death by an author seeking views.

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

#137

Post by Falling3 »

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.

Unless you're locking these people up forever, giving them a timeout solves absolutely nothing. Evidence-based prevention and treatment are the clear answers. No one is claiming addiction isn't a problem. We just simple want to actually address the problem instead of enacting feel good measures that either fail to address the problem or actively make it worse.

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

#138

Post by MuffinFlavored »

sokoloff wrote: post #111
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a national group that advocates for total drug decriminalization. Will this ever be achieved in the US in the next... 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years?

I tend to expect a federal decriminalization of marijuana in the next 10 years. I doubt we'll see a decriminalization of crystal meth in the next 50 years.

What drug would be next to target on the list of "good candidates for decriminalization" after marijuana?

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

#139

Post by pope_meat »

jkestner wrote: post #44
pope_meat wrote: post #3

Created a lot of jobs in the industry of arresting and detaining humans. Being number 1 per capita in prison population isn't a lean operation, a lot of people's lives depend on the system continuing. I think the solution is to rent bulldozers, armor them, and just level a bunch of them. Too many prison beds, too many laws, it's all gotten very dumb.

Let's start with the prisons about to be built, of which there are still many. A campaign to convince the Travis County (Austin) commissioners not to fund a new $80M women's prison succeeded this week. Next step is to get them to instead fund diversion and mental health programs. You may find similar movements that you can join in pressuring local officials. The fun thing is that at this level of government, commissi…

While a good thing, a losing battle in my opinion. You can perhaps convince your local authorities to not build another prison here this year, but somewhere else another prison still got built. There isn't enough people who give a shit, and an alarming amount of people who are rock hard for cruel punishment as a good thing.

Unbuild the existing prisons.

John Brown didn't write letters, he burned down plantations.

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

#140

Post by tetranomiga »

bun_at_work wrote: post #103
banannaise wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I thought the government (and the rest of the world, really) was all about equality and inclusion as of late. They're certainly all about talking about it. They don't really take a lot of actions to back it up.

> They don't really take a lot of actions to back it up. Is this why more groups have been added to the list of protected classes? Is this why our current administration is one of the most diverse to ever exist? I get the twitter outrage is fun, but when you look at data, our government has become more and more about equality and inclusion in meaningful ways. The US government isn't perfect, but it can't be perfect,…

Diversity of skin color is not meaningful change in the slightest if all the policies stay the same. They're just hiring different faces to say the same things.
Post reply on HN