Live data from Hacker News

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

npr.org

271–280 of 353 posts

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

#271
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you're possibly ascribing more awareness to a lot of people than they actually have. I'm not sure the thought goes much past wanting to feel safe against something that they were taught was evil early on and never questioned.

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

#272

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.

Diversity of skin color is meaningful in many ways, but that's not the greatest example. Policies that have changed in recent years include giving transgender individuals protected class status, as well as gay marriage being legal, federally.

There are also the states legalizing marijuana to consider. If the war on drugs is in fact a racist policy, then turning back the pages on that, wrt the most common, least harmful drug, then real policy changes are being made. Furthermore, the current congress has introduced legislation to legalize marijuana federally. So yeah, we are seeing policies change.

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

#273

There is, I think, a global misunderstanding about the nature of addiction. When pushed to the extreme, any addiction can be destructive. Food, sex, alcohol, tobacco or games are a few perfectly legal examples. Food addiction is especially interesting because it is at the same time widespread and denied. Also, the immediate effects and destructive power are less spectacular than crack. From my completely empirical ob…

I was seriously addicted to video games for years. Thank god I wasn't thrown in jail for it. That's an extra source of misery that neither me nor my family needed.

Imagine if they threw fat people in jail for being addicted to food. This is basically the same thing they're doing to drug addicts. It's insane.

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

#274
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

[deleted]

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

#275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I buy it. It was forced on the world by the UN with the convention of psychotropic substances 1971. Only a handful of nations, now including the US are seeing this as a horrible mistake. It is, was and always will be a horrible mistake, maybe the worst sociopolitical action in the 20th century. The brutality we have seen as a result of these policies leaves little moral ambiguity.

The argument is that Richard Nixon, a disgraced and impeached president, is conveniently responsible for all of the world's drug control "because racism." That sounds a little too comic book villainy to me. Nixon was such a failure that his successor could've immediately reversed that decision. To say that China is still to this day executing drug dealers because Richard Nixon was racist(which is true, I don't disput…

Nixon was a comic book villain. China executes political prisoners and sells their organs. What China does has no baring on sensible drug policy; quite the opposite.

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

#276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>There are other substances that most people really don't think should be accessible to everyone This is not how a free society operates. I choose what I put into my body and not you or anyone else. If doing so causes me to commit a crime, then punish that crime, but banning drugs because "most people" don't like them is not freedom. If you don't like them, then don't do them. >Is it even possible to be a responsible…

There are other cases where society punish people before they commit a crime. We punish people from driving under the influence, even if the drug has yet to cause an accident. Society and the majority of the populace has generally decided that the risk to society is bad enough to make it illegal.

Under the process of law making, a lot of things has been made illegal because it adds a risk to society. From a simplistic perspective it is just risk management, with risk on one side and the cost of the mitigation on the other side. It is not necessary any ideology behind it, and thus the removal of one costly mitigation strategy can have little impact on other strategies that are less costly.

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

#277
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.

Local governments could get it just as wrong as federal government does.

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

#278
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The historical goals of the "War on Drugs" have not been to make the USA safer (though proponents often claim that). The goal has been white supremacy, which is served by giving cops laws that they can enforce based on racial prejudice. Cannabis was made illegal because it was mostly used by Mexican immigrants. https://www.history.com/news/why-the-u-s-made-marijuana-ille... Crack was sentenced at a 10x higher rate th…

I am all for decriminalizing drug use but let’s not throw around false narratives. Here are the actual reasons for the “war on drugs” straight from the horses mouth: 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, ar…

Crack has harsher penalties because black leaders asked for them because it was destroying black communities. An example of such a leader is Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), who is black and was one of the strongest anti-drug representatives. From his wiki page:

>In 1983, Rangel became chair of the Select Committee on Narcotics, which solidified his position as a leading strategist on this perennially important issue to him Rangel kept the committee going, in the face of the usual pressure to disband special committees. He battled against proposed cutbacks in the federal anti-drug budget, and advocated increased grants to states and cities for better shelters for the homeless. Rangel's amendments providing increased funding for state and local law enforcement were included in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. He traveled to countries in Central and South America and elsewhere to inspect the sources of drugs and the law enforcement efforts against them; Ebony magazine termed Rangel "a front-line general in the war against drugs." Rangel said "We need outrage!", making reference to the slow reaction by both government and religious leaders to the epidemics of crack cocaine, heroin, PCP, and other drugs that hit American streets during the 1980s. He believed that legalizing drugs would represent "moral and political suicide". Nor did he refrain from criticizing those most affected by drugs, saying that Hispanic and black teenagers had no sense of self-preservation, and that drug dealers were so stupid that they had to eat in fast-food places because they could not read a menu. By 1988, Rangel was saying that President Ronald Reagan had not done enough in the war on drugs, but that First Lady Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign had been quite valuable. The narcotics committee itself was termed possibly the most important select committee of its time. The Washington Post said Rangel was "in a powerful position to shape policy on an issue at the top of the nation's agenda". He would remain as chair of the committee through 1993, when it was abolished along with other House select committees.

Rangel is far from the only black leader at the time who wanted harsh penalties for drugs. So while it is true that crack has harsher penalties that other drugs because black people use it, it isn't true that those penalties are because of racist white people. It was destroying black communities, and black leaders wanted a fix, and they thought harsh penalties would work.

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

#279
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?

Watch this

https://mobile.twitter.com/thehill/status/140521998971242496...

Then read website until you get bored of example after example.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27518459

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

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>There are other substances that most people really don't think should be accessible to everyone This is not how a free society operates. I choose what I put into my body and not you or anyone else. If doing so causes me to commit a crime, then punish that crime, but banning drugs because "most people" don't like them is not freedom. If you don't like them, then don't do them. >Is it even possible to be a responsible…

All drug use has health costs. If healthcare is public or heavily subsidized then the taxpayer has to foot the bill for every unhealthy decision that others make.

We can have a free society where people are free to put whatever they want in their bodies, and to suffer the health outcomes and poverty and combination of those things freely as well, if they make bad decisions.

What we can't afford as a society is to give free health care and UBI to people who choose to destroy their bodies, at the expense of everyone who chooses against their own interests to be productive members of society, assuming there are enough people who wouldn't choose to live on the dole and do drugs if they were legal.

Post reply on HN