What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War on Drugs?
1–10 of 145 posts
Re: What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War on Drugs?
#2Then organized crime would run the streets, as the combative pressure keeping these operations small would removed. Gangs would spring up like weeds, get absorbed into syndicates, and wield large amounts of power over ghettos and other blighted areas without regular sweeps to keep them in line.
Re: What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War on Drugs?
#3I really hope that in the next few decades we see a deescalation of the drug war. But I think many people overestimate how far along we are in terms of the general public's attitude.
It was only last year that majority of those polled supported legalizing marijuana: http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports.... At the time of the last dot-com bust (2001), it was 60-40 against legalization. Since actual voters skew older and more conservative, it's totally unsurprising that it has only been in the last few years that legalization efforts have gained traction.
Yet legalization of marijuana is just the first step, and one that's easy to take for middle class voters, whose kids may use marijuana or who may use it themselves. It'll still be a long, uphill battle to convince these voters that it'll be better to disengage from the drug war completely. A lot of the people involved in drug distribution are not sympathetic figures to the general public: uneducated, often minorities, and usually with long criminal records. The idea that disengaging from the drug war will mean "going soft" on these people will be a powerful one.
Re: What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War on Drugs?
#4The Economist wrote a near perfect editorial about the war on drugs a few years back:
http://www.economist.com/node/13237193 (you might need to Google "The economist failed states and failed policies" to read the article)
Regarding drug policy, the biggest misstep of the past 40 years has been taking a public heath issue and turning it into a crime and punishment issue.
I highly recommend anyone curious about the history of the war on drugs, and the major problems it has created, watch "The House I Live In" -- arguably one of the best documentaries I have ever seen -
Re: What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War on Drugs?
#5Then organized crime would run the streets, as the combative pressure keeping these operations small would removed. Gangs would spring up like weeds, get absorbed into syndicates, and wield large amounts of power over ghettos and other blighted areas without regular sweeps to keep them in line.
How did you get from "less or no prosecution of drug crimes" to "the police will stop enforcing law entirely, turning the inner city into a Plisskenian hellhole"?
Re: What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War on Drugs?
#6Then organized crime would run the streets, as the combative pressure keeping these operations small would removed. Gangs would spring up like weeds, get absorbed into syndicates, and wield large amounts of power over ghettos and other blighted areas without regular sweeps to keep them in line.
Choose your own semi-ironic response now:
☐ "Which totally doesn't happen now. Oh wait..."
☐ "Yeah, Amsterdam is completely run by gangs. Oh wait..."
☐ "Yeah, gangs would get richer and expand as price of drugs plummets and they get commoditised. Oh wait..."
Edit: downvotes? I was trying to summarise the inevitable counterpoints.
Re: What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War on Drugs?
#7The Economist wrote a near perfect editorial about the war on drugs a few years back: http://www.economist.com/node/13237193 (you might need to Google "The economist failed states and failed policies" to read the article) Regarding drug policy, the biggest misstep of the past 40 years has been taking a public heath issue and turning it into a crime and punishment issue. I highly recommend anyone curious about the his…
Gang Leader For A Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes To The Streets by Sudhir Venkatesh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudhir_Venkatesh) is a great read as well.
Re: What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War on Drugs?
#8The point about grants brings up what I consider to be one of the Federal government's most pernicious behaviors: micro-managing local government through the use of grants and other funds (see also education and school nutrition).
Re: What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War on Drugs?
#9I really hope that in the next few decades we see a deescalation of the drug war. But I think many people overestimate how far along we are in terms of the general public's attitude. It was only last year that majority of those polled supported legalizing marijuana: http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports... . At the time of the last dot-com bust (2001), it was 60-40 against legalization. Since a…
When this topic of marijuana legalization comes up, it seems like most conservative news agencies ask the loaded question, "Does this mean you're in favor of decriminalizing hard drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and meth?"
I don't know a good response, though. How would you answer?
Re: What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War on Drugs?
#10Then organized crime would run the streets, as the combative pressure keeping these operations small would removed. Gangs would spring up like weeds, get absorbed into syndicates, and wield large amounts of power over ghettos and other blighted areas without regular sweeps to keep them in line.
How did you get from "less or no prosecution of drug crimes" to "the police will stop enforcing law entirely, turning the inner city into a Plisskenian hellhole"?
Honestly, I think gangs would lose power as legal outlets took hold, but we'd have more widespread addiction problems and more trouble with jobless addicts stealing for their next fix.