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

61–70 of 145 posts

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

#61

Post by serf »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #58
Natsu wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The war on drugs has always been about racism, corruption, the militarization of police forces, civil forfeiture and the prison-industrial complex. So, there's nothing about not liking the addicts who hassle people on the street?

Maybe we should start a war on homelessness.

perhaps if we (the US) would stop branding all our endeavors with battle phrasing, we'd stop being so apt to do battle.

How about we try to fix homelessness? It's surely a problem, I don't know if it's a battle, adversary, or fight. A struggle, perhaps, but can one call a struggle a war? I don't personally believe so.

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

#63

Post by Natsu »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #58
Natsu wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The war on drugs has always been about racism, corruption, the militarization of police forces, civil forfeiture and the prison-industrial complex. So, there's nothing about not liking the addicts who hassle people on the street?

Maybe we should start a war on homelessness.

While drug users are one segment of the homeless, most of the people I see helping out at the shelter have other issues.

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

#64

Post by chongli »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #58
Natsu wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The war on drugs has always been about racism, corruption, the militarization of police forces, civil forfeiture and the prison-industrial complex. So, there's nothing about not liking the addicts who hassle people on the street?

Maybe we should start a war on homelessness.

That one's already well underway.

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

#65

Post by Natsu »

pekk wrote: post #50
Natsu wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The war on drugs has always been about racism, corruption, the militarization of police forces, civil forfeiture and the prison-industrial complex. So, there's nothing about not liking the addicts who hassle people on the street?

Then outlaw hassling people on the street.

There are also all the people stealing to get their fix, the people exploiting the people stealing to get their fix, etc.

Also, it's already illegal, but sometimes you have to go after the root causes. In this case, the next root cause would be addiction, and yes, I do think drug use should be seen as a medical issue.

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

#66

Post by woah »

Natsu wrote: post #10
zyxley wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If we decriminalized it entirely, addicts wouldn't steal for their next fix because it would be cheap.

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

#67

Post by unclebucknasty »

runeks wrote: post #52
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> I don't know a good response, though. How would you answer? "Yes" would be my answer. I would ask the counter question: what is there to gain from criminalization? Criminalization doesn't lower usage, it makes it harder on addicts (imprisonment retains them in the drug world), it increases the risk of fatality of the drug, and it increases crime, funneling funds from tax payers to criminals. Every time I hear a sto…

Yes. And, especially this:

>I would ask the counter question: what is there to gain from criminalization?

People ask the "what about hard drugs?" question as if criminalization has solved the problem. It obviously hasn't, and has instead created all of the problems associated with the supply-side (i.e. rampant violence, over-crowded jails, etc.)

The demand-side problem is clearly going to exist. So, in what possible way could it make sense to additionally create such a monstrous supply-side problem that criminalization creates? Worse, the incredible sums of money spent battling this completely manufactured supply-side problem could obviously go towards ameliorating the demand-side effects.

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

#68

Post by unclebucknasty »

serf wrote: post #61
unclebucknasty wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we should start a war on homelessness.

perhaps if we (the US) would stop branding all our endeavors with battle phrasing, we'd stop being so apt to do battle. How about we try to fix homelessness? It's surely a problem, I don't know if it's a battle, adversary, or fight. A struggle, perhaps, but can one call a struggle a war? I don't personally believe so.

I agree. My comment was pure sarcasm.

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

#69

Post by msane »

runeks wrote: post #54
Natsu wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The war on drugs has always been about racism, corruption, the militarization of police forces, civil forfeiture and the prison-industrial complex. So, there's nothing about not liking the addicts who hassle people on the street?

> So, there's nothing about not liking the addicts who hassle people on the street? What does that have to do with the War on Drugs? There is no evidence that it lowers drug use; quite the contrary.

I always take issue with the idea that enforcement does not lower usage, and especially the insinuation that it raises it. Each drug has its own usage dynamics. So if we're talking about say OxyContin or Methamphetamine, I think we can be certain that enforcement suppresses a significant portion of usage. The perfect case in point is Florida, where there are loopholes to circumvent enforcement on OxyContin. Predictably, there is a very high OxyContin addiction rate there.

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

#70

Post by cwisecarver »

Doesn't this just come down to capitalism? If there is a demand someone will find a way to supply it. We could have the government select the suppliers through law enforcement, weeding out the criminals that can't find a way to evade them, or we could license dealers, tax their profits and use that money for schools, treatment, and whatever else (Colorado).

People who have a physical or mental addiction will find a way to get their high. That's what we've learned from the WoD. It's water dripping on a stone, from both sides, distribution and consumption.

Tax-paying citizens, not making any judgements, should get back their investment on the fail that is the WoD.

The government and the taxpayers could easily make as much money through taxing drug dealers profits as they've ever made getting handouts from the prison and big-pharma lobby.

Post reply on HN