Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War on Drugs?

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 145 posts

Re: What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War on Drugs?

#31

Post by Bahamut »

declan wrote: post #22
Bahamut wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought it was more about religion and politics than those.

I think has it right. In the case of religion, you're confusing a transparent and rarely-invoked justification with the actual reasons for the WoD. In the case of politics, you're confusing the mechanism for prohibition with the actual reasons.

I disagree - when it comes to drug policy, politicians always pontificate about enforcing bans & leaving them in place, which in the US originate strongly with Protestantism & believing that austerity is the solution to various vices seen in society. The Prohibition era is a perfect example of that, and that attitude has never left US politics, which is fraught with religion driving political agenda.

Re: What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War on Drugs?

#32

Post by joel_perl_prog »

aianus wrote: post #30
joel_perl_prog wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just ask yourself one question: what did all the bootleggers do after alcohol prohibition was dropped? Exactly. There's a sort of twinge of classism (or even racism) in your comment, by the way. The assumption that people who participate in a normal capitalist marketplace are inherently criminals is just silly. They do what they do because it's a bustling marketplace. Period.

I don't know, what did the low level bootleggers and enforcers do after prohibition ended? If I was one, I'd have moved on to similar work in narcotics and prostitution. People choose to risk jail time and physical harm to make mediocre money as a street dealer because they have no better options. Most of them don't even have high school diplomas, what else are they going to do? If we don't do anything other than eli…

Sure. But you assume there's a permanent class of criminals whose only interest is crime. The principle interest in the drug game is money. It's a business.

What I'm saying is, there's not a "fixed amount of crime," which you imply; you basically say it's like squeezing a balloon. The amount of air doesn't change, it just gets displaced a little bit.

What we need is a sociologist (or someone who has otherwise done the reading) to come in with studies and numbers. I'm sort of working outward from my reference, Pinker's The Better Angels Of Our Nature, and suggesting that crime, too, overall crime, is dropping. And would drop even more if the laws were written correctly. In other words, there's not a fixed number of criminals, nor a fixed amount of crime.

Re: What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War on Drugs?

#33

Post by mc32 »

chongli wrote: post #19
sharkweek wrote: post #4

The 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…

Regarding drug policy, the biggest misstep of the past 40 years has been taking a public heath issue It's never been a public health issue for its major proponents. The war on drugs has always been about racism, corruption, the militarization of police forces, civil forfeiture and the prison-industrial complex.

I don't think the 'war on drugs' which happens in all sorts of countries, not just the US, is indicative or racism and corruption or police militarization or a prison system. Japan is very homogenous and they have very strict drug enforcement. Same goes for other Asian nations as well as European nations --many of the countries are quite homogenous compared to the US and yet they have strong policies. I think this would indicate that it's more a political issue. In China there is also an anti-imperial reason aspect, but I'd not say their policies are due to what you have described.

Re: What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War on Drugs?

#34

Post by slurry »

sharkweek wrote: post #4

The 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…

Other features of the last 40 years, besides the drug war, include the virtual disappearance of urban rioting and the erasure of youth/minority political militancy.

I believe this is not a coincidence.

Arbitrary search and seizure, checkpoints, mass detention are common features of military counterinsurgency. They are also features of the drug war.

I'm not saying the drug war is consciously aimed at youth and minority citizens the way similar tactics were aimed at Communist guerrillas in the Malaya emergency, or Sunni insurgents in Iraq. But I am saying that the effect is about the same.

That's why it's probably a mistake to lean on rational utilitarian arguments against the drug war. The unspoken selling point is its unacknowledged side effects. Sure there are costs, but no more Watts, no more Black Panthers. The calculus of harm reduction is weak against dots that are never connected out loud.

Re: What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War on Drugs?

#35

Post by threatofrain »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #9
rayiner wrote: post #3

I 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?

There are a great deal of dangerous things that we don't stop citizens from doing, and some of those things seem entirely unproductive (or counterproductive -- a biological hazard), such as extreme sports.

We need a culture that stops people from doing dangerous drugs through cultural techniques, not through police and courts, and that's what the government did with cigarettes. The government realized that criminalizing cigarettes was probably outside of its power, and instead it waged a campaign against the culture of smoking. It painted cigarette smoking as biologically dirty and smokers as inconsiderate or reckless.

I think that cigarette use is no longer popular not because the police have been jailing cigarette smokers, but because it has become a mildly dirty activity. If you use the law to prohibit things, then people won't develop the oral or cultural methods to tell their kids to avoid certain dangers.

Re: What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War on Drugs?

#36

Post by us0r »

The jury is out and this is a lost cause. Unfortunately it is all about money. This is a massive business. The budget just keeps growing. 2015 drug budget:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/about-co...

Of course they make it nearly impossible to figure out a real number of how much is going contractors but since the DEA is supposed to be about only drugs they had a $2,242M FY13 budget. Total contract actions in FY13: $513,659,660.69.

Largest recipient? A scandal plagued private security contractor. Meanwhile in an effort to curb spending House Republicans cut the syringe program in 2011. Needle sharing is 1/3 of all AIDS cases (354,000). Even if you don't want to change drug policy that is just simply a horrible idea.

Forbes article on the horror that happened in Portugal:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-af...

As more State's legalize eventually Washington will need to do something. I have a feeling we will end up with decriminalization which is going to keep the murders, theft and other problems around.

In the meantime Michele Leonhart should be fired, arrested and charged. The NSA running around wild on the Internet is one thing but the DEA using that to build phony cases and investigations is an entirely different animal.

Re: What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War on Drugs?

#37

Post by dinkumthinkum »

joel_perl_prog wrote: post #24
aianus wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I've always wondered: what would street dealers do if they couldn't make money selling crack anymore? I somehow doubt they'd give up and get a job at McDonald's. Legalizing drugs might therefore lead to an increase in robberies, muggings, kidnappings, sex trafficking, etc as these former dealers need to find new ways to support themselves. Thoughts?

Just ask yourself one question: what did all the bootleggers do after alcohol prohibition was dropped? Exactly. There's a sort of twinge of classism (or even racism) in your comment, by the way. The assumption that people who participate in a normal capitalist marketplace are inherently criminals is just silly. They do what they do because it's a bustling marketplace. Period.

Are you serious? Many moved on to other criminal activity.

Re: What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War on Drugs?

#38

Post by declan »

Bahamut wrote: post #31
declan wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think has it right. In the case of religion, you're confusing a transparent and rarely-invoked justification with the actual reasons for the WoD. In the case of politics, you're confusing the mechanism for prohibition with the actual reasons.

I disagree - when it comes to drug policy, politicians always pontificate about enforcing bans & leaving them in place, which in the US originate strongly with Protestantism & believing that austerity is the solution to various vices seen in society. The Prohibition era is a perfect example of that, and that attitude has never left US politics, which is fraught with religion driving political agenda.

Religion can and does drive political agendas in the U.S., true, but the question is whether the WoDPUD (war on some politically unpopular drugs) is being driven primarily by religion.

I know of no evidence for that proposition, and can offer counterexamples. One would be the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative, made up of Protestant, Catholic and Jewish clergy, which supports drug law reform: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_Drug_Policy_Initiati...

You're correct that historically, "anti-vice" austerity linked to Protestantism was a powerful force in American society. But the Prohibition era began nearly a century ago, and society may have changed in one or two teeny tiny ways since then. Like the 1960s? Plus the easy availability of Internet porn should give the lie to the concept that "anti-vice" religious mores are dominant. :)

Re: What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War on Drugs?

#39

Post by Spooky23 »

aianus wrote: post #23
joel_perl_prog wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple. The answer is "yes." So-called hard drugs are ... well ... they ain't health food. But presumably I'm writing to an audience of utilitarian thinkers, so it should be trivial to load up the arguments onto a balance beam: for, and against. We have lived through the against side it. We know exactly what those consequences are, for society. Importantly, criminalization does ZERO to limit demand, and thus, supply.…

One thing I've always wondered: what would street dealers do if they couldn't make money selling crack anymore? I somehow doubt they'd give up and get a job at McDonald's. Legalizing drugs might therefore lead to an increase in robberies, muggings, kidnappings, sex trafficking, etc as these former dealers need to find new ways to support themselves. Thoughts?

Actually, they might. Street level people are pawns who make nothing.

Re: What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War on Drugs?

#40

Post by Spooky23 »

A: Those cities would develop more obvious/visible crime problems as the drug traffickers fought amoungst themselves unabated. The police forces would take a big hit due to the loss of seizure revenue, which means less overtime and poorer coverage.

I think the "war on drugs" is a joke, but local action isn't going to be very effective, because the locality will bear the brunt of the negative effects.

Post reply on HN