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

201–210 of 353 posts

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

#201

Post by pseingatl »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #83
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…

Note that crack itself was a result of the drug war. Crack is a way to get more use out of a given amount of cocaine.

It's also due to the fact that at least for a while, the DEA made ether unavailable. So the drug labs turned to benzene as a substitute. The problem is benzene is gasoline and no one is putting powder that smells like gasoline up their nose. The solution? Cook crack. The smell disappears when you boil the powder with baking soda. Had it not been for the DEA, crack never would have been an option.

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

#202

Post by MuffinFlavored »

tetranomiga wrote: post #140
bun_at_work wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Are you trying to say there are existing racist policies in 2021? Can you list some examples?

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

#203

Post by Broken_Hippo »

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 rarely commit robbery and murder to get another hit of alcohol."

This is mostly because shoplifting is a thing, and possibly because you can do things like steal from family and your food budget can generally keep you drunk enough that you don't care if you eat. Vodka can be really, really cheap.

Addicts with enough money to afford their addiction rarely commit robbery or murder, by the way, as evidenced by the politicians, entertainers, and sports players that wind up having addiction issues. Small towns still generally have low murder rates, and have addiction.

I'd argue that folks rarely commit robbery and murder for their other addictions, too - we just hear about them on the news, the same one that draws attention to things that hook into your fear and sensationalizes it. In any case, I'd need sources to see if it is really a cause in anything but a tiny number of addicts. I'm guessing more get caught for public intox or possession.

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

#204

Post by whakim »

neither_color wrote: post #97
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 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 do…

China and Middle Eastern countries are one-party states, not peer countries with comparable independent systems of criminal justice. Yes, many drugs are illegal in other peer countries (the UK, France, Canada, etc.). But the percentage of the United States' population incarcerated on drug-related charges alone is higher than the percentage of peer countries' population incarcerated on all charges. So the United States isn't simply outlawing drugs, it is choosing to crack down in a way that peers aren't. As far as the racial element goes, it's hard to separate racism from drug enforcement: the vast majority of those serving prison time on drug related charges are people of color (the percentage is greater in federal prisons than state prisons), even though substance abuse rates are similar across groups.

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

#205

Post by pseingatl »

callmeal wrote: post #152
reggieband wrote: post #115

I'm hazy on where I heard this justification, but I recall some argument that the rate of violent criminals who recreationally use drugs is very high. That is, if a violent criminal is caught walking down the street and is searched then there is a high probability that they will have some kind of illegal drug on them. The opposite isn't necessarily the case. That is, a drug user is not high probability to be a violen…

> "three strikes" policies has the effect of significantly reducing violent crime. That's not quite true. The three strikes policy had the effect of increasing violent crime. After all, if it's going to be their third strike, why would anyone go small? https://slate.com/business/2008/03/do-three-strikes-laws-mak...

Or violently resist arrest if a three strike indictment is a possibility. No need to violently resist a shoplifting bust, but if it might carry a life sentence, the calculus is very different.

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

#206

Post by csours »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #147
a2tech wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To borrow the quote from another post on this thread (which is still very valid): "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 public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing…

I'm not trying to stir the pot when I ask this: How is a quote about how the Nixon administration having "black people as the enemy" around 1968-1971 still relevant in 2021 when the current administration's messaging is one of inclusion and equality?

There are multiple jurisdictions in the United States. Many of those are still directly attacking inclusion and equality, for instance by tightening voting laws without also funding efforts for voting access.

Additionally, many people do not agree with the current administration. Politics is not just about the big guy in charge, it's about how everyone approaches the matter at hand.

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

#207

Post by thaumasiotes »

howenterprisey wrote: post #195
pmoriarty wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm about as anti War on Drugs as it's possible to get, but agree with those who consider that quote to be highly suspect. Ehrlichman supposedly said it in a private interview with Baum, and there was no public record of it for 22 years after it was said, and 17 years after Ehrlichman died. It's very rare to hear such mea culpas from powerful, politically adept figures that cast their subjects in such a negative ligh…

Ok, what about this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Ehrlichman#San_Franc... . > NIXON: [...] Let's look at the strong societies. The Russians. Goddamn, they root 'em out. They don't let 'em around at all. I don't know what they do with them. Look at this country. You think the Russians allow dope? Homosexuality, dope, immorality, are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and left-wingers…

That quote doesn't really support the idea that "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities." Instead, it supports the idea that Nixon thought drugs undermined society and stamping out drug use was valuable for its own sake.

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

#208

Post by passivate »

whydoibother wrote: post #154
jimbob45 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rarely commit robbery and murder to get another hit of alcohol. Weird. Almost like making it legal, relatively cheap, and easily accessible makes it so you don't have to resort to desperate means.

> Almost like making it legal, relatively cheap, and easily accessible makes it so you don't have to resort to desperate means.

I think the question of legality muddles the argument. Its illegal to drive under the influence yet many do and some end up in horrific accidents.

We're stewards of the next generation. We're their parents, teachers, role models. Our aim should be to reduce the use of crystal meth, and other drugs that cause self-harm. No different than promoting exercise, knowledge, healthy lifestyles, etc.

Making something illegal is a powerful disincentive - but we don't expect it to work 100% perfectly. Its important to recognize when something isn't working - but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Government policies are like supertankers and once they're operating at speed, they're hard to stop/steer.

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

#209

Post by dfxm12 »

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…

But, it has provided many with an excuse to pass restrictive laws, to win elections, to gain contracts with the government.

Don't forget: prevent people from voting (https://www.aclu.org/blog/smart-justice/sentencing-reform/ri...), funnel people into for profit prisons (https://www.axios.com/war-drugs-prison-america-e66ffe61-c876...), steal assets from citizens under the guise of civil asset forfeiture (https://drugpolicy.org/issues/asset-forfeiture-reform), all while targeting minorities (https://drugpolicy.org/issues/race-and-drug-war).

It's clear that this is very well calculated and understood.

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

#210

Post by locallost »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #180
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…

it probably isn't, but bans don't work either or are simply not effective compared to education. the only places where it works are basically dictatorships where people are obedient and don't make waves about anything. if you're a democracy and have "freedom" as a high priority it simply doesn't work to order people what they have a right to smoke, drink or inject. but what you can do is educate people and it's not even expensive compared to the ludicrous amounts of money spent on the war on drugs. countries like Portugal have demonstrated that quite well.
Post reply on HN