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

171–180 of 353 posts

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

#171

Post by Aa9C4xPz43Gg7k6 »

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…

Policies should be judged by actual results not by stated goals. If it was politically profitable then it's a good enough reason.

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

#172

Post by macspoofing »

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 particular quote always makes the rounds in these kinds of discussions, but the veracity of it is challenged and suspect[1]. I'm inclined to disbelieve it on those grounds and also that it is so politically self-serving that is crosses into the "too good to be true" category.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman#Drug_war_quote

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

#173

Post by pmoriarty »

slownews45 wrote: post #75
dcolkitt wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You almost certainly occupy a bubble in this. I hate the War on Drugs with every fiber in my being, but it’s broadly popular. Cannabis legalization may recently be popular. But I’d be shocked if more than 5% of Americans supported the legalization hard drugs, and if more than 20% supported by Portuguese style decriminalization. Even soft drug prohibition, like MDMA and LSD, are supported by sizable majorities of vote…

Even Cannabis legalization may get rolled back a bit I think, there's been a bit of a backlash locally where I around it.

I'd like to hear more about this backlash. What form does it take, and where?

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

#174

Post by x86_64Ubuntu »

csours wrote: post #161
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.

And a lot more people are fine with "Law and Order" without really thinking about what that means - among other things it means 'I don't want to see or deal with other people's problems'. It's a really easy position to have until other people's problems become your problems, or your family's problems and they can't get out of a bad situation.

They know exactly what is meant by Law and Order, and who that entails the state force apparatus harassing.

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

#175

Post by oh_sigh »

handmodel wrote: post #141
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,"…

It seems weird to say that is the reason In most states (including CA) the percent of minorities in jail for weapons offenses is as disproportionate to the population as drug offenses. And today in states like CA - 50% more people are in jail for weapons charges than drug charges. Is the reason that drug laws/weapons laws exist to disenfranchise people? Or is a true problem in society that in theory would be good to…

Drugs can literally rewire your brain so that you feel an overriding urge to go out and find them. So a lot of low level drug offenders(mere possession) I feel sorry for.

What's the argument for weapons violations? If weapons laws are designed to disenfranchise people, then shouldn't Europe have way more disenfranchisement than Americans?

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

#176

Post by smoldesu »

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…

It would be suicidal to challenge driving, 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 driving should be legal, but only allowed when you really need to get somewhere.

- Driving takes away precious exercise that you otherwise would have gotten walking.

- Driving is addicting, even though people say it's not. I can no longer resist the urge to visit Tesco on a regular basis.

- Driving is a nuisance on streets, apartments, etc. Gas and smog has such a potent smell, it is impossible to get rid of. I would say that it has 100x power of smell than perfumes, probably even more. You can even smell exhaust in your car if you're parked somewhere.

- The risk of crashing, it's undeniable.

- Driving is irresponsible since it also may inspire people to want to fly a plane, which is more dangerous and therefore bad.

It's time we make driving uncool. It's toxic to the society. I welcome counterpoints and discussion, just being honest about how I see the driving culture. I've been there and done that for 2 years straight in college. Roommate had a big van.

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

#177

Post by cwkoss »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #138
sokoloff wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In order of ascending net harm to individual and society: Mushrooms, buprenorphine, LSD, Ecstasy, Steroids, Khat

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/what-does-science-tell-us-abo...

Personally, I think a great amount of harm reduction could be achieved by legalizing at least one recreational drug in every class, determined by which has least relative harm to the user. If there was a clean, legal and affordable option, I believe demand for the more-harmful drugs in the class would be significantly reduced. i.e. "stimulant" demand is somewhat elastic, and by making the least harmful stimulant (not sure if that is Khat or not) easily available, demand for Meth would be significantly reduced and market effects would make its availability much less widespread

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

#178

Post by ericbarrett »

jimbob45 wrote: post #132
ericbarrett wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People commit robbery to get more money for alcohol all the time. The fact that it’s cheap and available everywhere is why there’s not much murder—but there was plenty during Prohibition in the U.S[0].

Go hang out in a liquor store in a less-advantaged area of any U.S. city and tell me the sad sacks coming in for singles of rotgut are fine, upstanding citizens who’ve never broken a car window or traded an EBT card for cash and let their kids go hungry.

I don’t propose a solution for this—I’m a programmer, not a social policy maker. But if you could buy clean amphetamines cheaply and OTC, the way you can with booze, the problems of meth use would look quite different.

[0] https://mafiamembershipcharts.blogspot.com/2017/01/chicago-u... (and this is just gangs)

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

#179

Post by vidarh »

3pt14159 wrote: post #96
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.

A few drugs that are essentially largely used as alternatives to safer drugs could possibly reasonably remain illegal.

The question to me books down to what addicts do if the drug remains illegal. Getting all drug users over onto a legal supply matters. Doesn't need to be easy - prescriptions etc. for the worst ones would be reasonable.

But getting them onto a legal, regulated supply from providers that can nudge them towards treatment or safer alternatives is even more important for the highest risk drugs.

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

#180

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

tetranomiga wrote: post #23

> On Tuesday, two House Democrats introduced legislation that would decriminalize all drugs in the U.S., shifting the national response to a public health model. The measure appears to have zero chance of passage. If that isn't just the perfect description of politics in the US, I don't know what is. I don't know what your political ideology has to be to think the War on Drugs is a good thing, after all the money was…

>If that isn't just the perfect description of politics in the US, I don't know what is. I don't know what your political ideology has to be to think the War on Drugs is a good thing, after all the money wasted, all the lives lost, all the people pointlessly locked up for things half the country can now do openly and legally.

Well it does sound like you're equating the War on Drugs to the War on Marijuana.

There are other substances that most people really don't think should be accessible to everyone. Is it even possible to be a responsible Heroin user? Or even Meth?

Post reply on HN