Time to end the war on drugs • Hacker News Board

Re: Time to end the war on drugs

#91

Post by sunchild » Mon, Dec 26, 2011, 6:11 PM UTC

swah wrote: post #8

I don't understand how a world where making/selling something is a crime but consuming is not could work.

What about alcohol? It was once illegal to consume in the United States. During that period, we created a violent "war" that enabled the criminal syndicates. Since lifting the prohibition, those criminal syndicates have moved on to other prohibited substances (e.g., narcotics), while the alcohol industry has thrived, generated tax revenue, and been forced to comply with government regulation in the public interest.

Re: Time to end the war on drugs

#92

Post by tankenmate » Mon, Dec 26, 2011, 6:13 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #62

TobiasCassell wrote: post #31

If drugs are legalized the United States will be forced to dream up and create other reasons to keep its military outposts in hundreds of countries. This is why we maintain a war on drugs. A war that is impossible to win. The United States will never legalize drugs. PS I'm with richard Branson, but he is being naive or he is not mentioning these elements on purpose as a strategy. Edit; Forgot to mention the United St…

What you are saying is absurd and it doesn't help. At this point, I think many people believe the "war on drugs" is a wasted effort. The best way to make this case would be to show how the American consumer is destroying lives in other countries. Americans trying to have a good time are indirectly killing innocent people in order to get the products they desire into their hands.

How that idea is going to get through to someone who is somatically and / or psychologically addicted to drugs is a little difficult to comprehend. In the same vein of people will fix themselves of drug addiction is a mostly useless statement. People get into this situation either involuntarily or voluntarily, but few get out just by platitudes or sheer will power. Most people who put drug addiction behind them need a cast of people and tools to help, there is no quick fix. To be effective for anyone but the rich help needs to be available free at the point of provision. The money saved from reduction in direct and indirect crime and the increase in production will pay for the service. In most cases families see the value in reforming a drug addicted family member, why shouldn't the state? This is an effective method and motivation to solve the problem; you can reduce the demand of all of the people some of the time, you can reduce the demand of some of the people all of the time, but you can't reduce the demand of all the people all of the time; hence trying to eliminate demand is a non option to fixing the problem.

Re: Time to end the war on drugs

#93

Post by felipe » Mon, Dec 26, 2011, 6:14 PM UTC

torrenegra wrote: post #29

The Colombian president, Juan Manuel Santos (also an entrepreneur), recently called for the legalization of many drugs, including cocaine: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/13/colombia-juan-sa... I'm a NYC-based, Colombian entrepreneur. My step-brother died piloting a Black Hawk helicopter in Colombia that crashed while executing an anti-narcotics operation. The helicopter was "donated" by the US as part of "P…

You bring up an excellent point, which most people in the "developed" countries fail to realize: The human cost in the producing end of the chain. Yes, it's horrible to think of people getting addicted and all, but how about the violence generated by the underground production, distribution and commercialization of an outlaw product? Is it right to try to prevent a few people from addiction while submitting entire populations (millions of people) to the terror of cartels? (either fighting them or living under their rule)?

PS: I am Brazilian-American, so I have experienced both sides of the "war on drugs".

Edit: I realize my post is a little confusing, but just to make it more clear: My point is that the "war on drugs" causes more damage than drugs themselves.

Re: Time to end the war on drugs

#94

Post by themgt » Mon, Dec 26, 2011, 6:22 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #82

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #37

Great article. I would like to further suggest we end the use of the word "war" in contexts that do not involve mandatory conscription and the deaths of large numbers of combatants until one side totally surrenders. (This implies there is a "side" to be able to surrender.) Politicians have so destroyed the word "war" that it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion about any use of violence by the state. Perhaps…

> Drug use is a health-related issue, whether it is a doctor prescribing medications, a patient taking meds off-label, a person self-medicating, an addict, or some kind experimentation > We have a caricatured view of the drug addict -- the unwashed, illiterate, toothless junkie hiding out in a crack house. Yes, addiction ends up that way for some, but by and large addicts are middle-class, educated, and live in house…

I'd add as a third point, that among people who've used a relatively broad range of legal and illegal substances, alcohol and tobacco are widely considered two of the most disgusting, damaging, abuse-prone substances known to man

Re: Time to end the war on drugs

#95

Post by torrenegra » Mon, Dec 26, 2011, 6:22 PM UTC

beardicus wrote: post #63

torrenegra wrote: post #29

The Colombian president, Juan Manuel Santos (also an entrepreneur), recently called for the legalization of many drugs, including cocaine: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/13/colombia-juan-sa... I'm a NYC-based, Colombian entrepreneur. My step-brother died piloting a Black Hawk helicopter in Colombia that crashed while executing an anti-narcotics operation. The helicopter was "donated" by the US as part of "P…

Glyphosate == Roundup(TM). This is the most used herbicide in the US... certainly not banned. Regardless, I agree with your conclusion.

Thank you for the correction! You are right. I was thinking about the act of "aerial-spraying of drug producing crops". For Wikipedia: "In many cases the spraying is carried out by American contractors, such as DynCorp, using planes and helicopters to spray Roundup on coca plantations. Aerial spraying has been repeatedly condemned by human rights and environmental activists because of its affect on human populations and local soil and water systems. In December 2000, Dutch journalist Marjon van Royen found that "because the chemical is sprayed in Colombia from planes on inhabited areas, there have been consistent health complaints [in humans]. Burning eyes, dizziness and respiratory problems being most frequently reported."

Re: Time to end the war on drugs

#96

Post by tsotha » Mon, Dec 26, 2011, 6:22 PM UTC

subwindow wrote: post #36

There seems to be a lot of confusion on this thread about exactly what Portugal did, and the ramifications for the U.S. in terms of time-frame and difficulty. What Portugal did was decriminalize the possession of small amounts of drugs. They did not legalize them. There is a huge difference. Decriminalization essentially means that possession of small amounts of drugs is no longer an offense that warrants an arrest a…

>Marijuana possession is already decriminalized in many states in the U.S...

But it's still illegal at the federal level, and federal penalties are quite severe. Prosecutors can force you to plead to other charges with the threat of turning you over to the feds on marijuana possession.

Re: Time to end the war on drugs

#97

Post by gerggerg » Mon, Dec 26, 2011, 6:28 PM UTC

lukeschlather wrote: post #83

gerggerg wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What he is saying is in support of your point. Those gangs are actually at war. They're fighting over money and control, directly enlisting soldiers and killing each other. Calling a prohibition "The War on Drugs" is a new speak tactic that not only takes the public eye off of real problems, but also waters down the impact the word WAR has. This produces 2 less that awesome situations: It is because of the prohibitio…

The US has been waging what can pretty validly be called a war on drug lords in Latin America for a few decades. After the fall of the USSR, that's basically what our military bases in Latin America do. Generally I agree with macuenca; claiming that it's a war on an abstract principle trivializes the very real combat between US-backed authorities and local drug lords.

"called a war on drug lords in Latin America"

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Humans fighting humans. That is a war. The War on Drugs also includes locking up 16 year olds for smoking pot in their own houses. Calling the general concept of drug control and prohibition a war generates this very confusion.

"claiming that it's a war on an abstract principle trivializes the very real combat"

Claiming those 16 year olds are part of the war is what trivializes it. Theres bloodshed in Latin America? Oh well that's just part of the war on drugs. Got caught with an ounce on you at a party? Oh thats just part of the war on drugs.

Re: Time to end the war on drugs

#98

Post by wpietri » Mon, Dec 26, 2011, 6:29 PM UTC

2arrs2ells wrote: post #76

kreneskyp wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of "drug tourists" is absurd. The worst of the illicit drug addicts can barely take care of themselves. They choose drugs over food and showers. They can't hold jobs and resort to crime to feed their habits. Access to drugs isn't their problem else they wouldn't have become addicts in the first place. They aren't going to spend their money to travel to Portugal even if they can afford it.

Have you been to Amsterdam? It's not the poor addicts who travel, it's the rowdy 16-25 crowd. It must bring in a ton of tourism revenue, but I know the Dutch aren't thrilled about a ton of Brits, Aussies, and Americans wandering about their city stoned out of their minds all the time.

That's a plausible concern to me, but I wonder if it's practically any worse than other party destinations. E.g., New Orleans during Mardi Gras or parts of Florida during spring break.

Here in San Francisco marijuana is effectively legal; friends tell of walking past cops smoking joints. I'd much rather deal with a thoroughly stoned stranger than a thoroughly drunk one.

I think the weed vs booze distinction is really a distraction. There are plenty of cities that sell alcohol that don't end up party destinations. It seems like the right solution to public nuisances is enforcing laws against being a public nuisance.

Re: Time to end the war on drugs

#99

Post by powertower » Mon, Dec 26, 2011, 6:42 PM UTC

sunchild wrote: post #89

powertower wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All those other in-demand jobs that are available right now, that just can't meet the supply? Let see ... there is the $3/hour farm hand shortage going around in a few states. Or do you mean all the new jobs that are going to be created, you know, just-like-that? For which they'll be re-trained, just-like-that? For which they'll get the same pay/benefits, just-like-that?

The premise of the original post in this thread is fatally flawed – the livelihood of law enforcement, corrections officers, judges, lawyers, and everyone else does not depend on putting personal drug users in prison. They can keep their jobs, and put their talents to use on matters that actually benefit the public's best interests.

You can only transfer so many people into other duties (on the same job) before you reach a point where people are now just getting paid to sit and do nothing.

So the real question is how many people are employed by the war-on-drugs, and how many of them can be re-asigned, and how willing will they be to let this happen.

Re: Time to end the war on drugs

#100

Post by maratd » Mon, Dec 26, 2011, 6:42 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #82

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #37

Great article. I would like to further suggest we end the use of the word "war" in contexts that do not involve mandatory conscription and the deaths of large numbers of combatants until one side totally surrenders. (This implies there is a "side" to be able to surrender.) Politicians have so destroyed the word "war" that it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion about any use of violence by the state. Perhaps…

> Drug use is a health-related issue, whether it is a doctor prescribing medications, a patient taking meds off-label, a person self-medicating, an addict, or some kind experimentation > We have a caricatured view of the drug addict -- the unwashed, illiterate, toothless junkie hiding out in a crack house. Yes, addiction ends up that way for some, but by and large addicts are middle-class, educated, and live in house…

> The drugs that you are prescribed and the drugs people consume recreationally are not fundamentally different.

That is not true.

> In fact, in many cases, they're essentially interchangeable from a chemical perspective

This is true.

In a sane society, both would be true. But they are not. The "war on drugs" is not an innocent mistake. It is calculated and it is doing precisely what it was designed to do.

Its purpose it to line the pockets of the politicians who support it.

By prosecuting drug dealers and users, you bring the cost of using illegals drugs up. Significantly. In other words, you make illegal drugs less competitive vs legal drugs. This allows the pharmaceutical companies to maintain or increase prices for legal drugs. The additional funds the pharmaceutical companies get, they do not get to keep. They funnel that into the regulatory apparatus and more importantly, into the campaigns of the very politicians who support the system.