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

91–100 of 145 posts

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

#91

Post by nmjohn »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #84
nmjohn wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say "it is kind of high schoolish" to change the phrasing of my statement by adding the "Oh ya" and "so haha" making the statement sound silly by word choice, and not actually countering the argument whatsoever. As a fact, those drugs are used by doctors commonly. And the idea of a drug being considered a "hard drug" is entirely based in opinion and semantics. So your outrage is entirely your opinion, which you h…

No, I think it is entirely appropriate. What you wrote is this sort of smart aleck sort of response. It's not as if most people are not aware that you can be prescribed drugs very similar to street drugs. I don't think it adds much, it's just typical way of trying up define problems out if existence.

The idea was to highlight the smart aleckness of your response, but my goal clearly failed.

But I'm really not quite sure what you are even trying to argue at this point. The original question posed was how to respond to the comparison of the legalization of marijuana to hard drugs.

> It's not as if most people are not aware that you can be prescribed drugs very similar to street drugs.

I have nothing but anecdotal evidence from real life and online forums, but I very much believe that this is false. Many people know cocaine is used as a prescription drug, few people know desoxyn is meth, and fewer still know about heroin. It is for this reason I made that a point of how to respond, in an attempt to question the distinction between legal and illegal drugs and to persuade the conservative viewers (the hypothetical scenario implied fox news) that there is still a conversation to be had, that the question is not already answered like most would believe.

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

#92

Post by SilasX »

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.

It's already illegal. The problem is getting:

1) police to care about this kind of crime enough to come quickly

2) victims to follow through and testify when an arrest is made

3) the public to be willing to commit resources to arrest and incarcerate perpetrators.

It may (or may not) be the case that targeting the behavior is less costly then banning it. Either way, it's not as simple as just banning the immediately-objectionable behavior.

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

#93

Post by glenra »

slurry wrote: post #34
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 minorit…

Wait, last 40 years? What makes that your metric? Marijuana was outlawed in 1937, heroin in 1925. And the Black Panthers were in part a reaction against hamfisted selective enforcement of dumb laws - including drug laws - by the powers-that-be.

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

#94

Post by yen223 »

mc32 wrote: post #33
chongli wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wo…

"In China there is also an anti-imperial reason aspect, but I'd not say their policies are due to what you have described."

This is a reference to a period in Chinese history when the entire nation suffered from a crippling opium addiction. The opium was introduced by the British, in an effort to address trade imbalances.

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

#95

Post by deciplex »

Bahamut wrote: post #20
chongli wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why is this being down-voted? Prohibition of drugs was a natural extension of prohibition of alcohol, which itself was borne of the Temperance Movement, a movement steeped in religion from the very beginning.

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

#96

Post by MichaelGG »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #84
nmjohn wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say "it is kind of high schoolish" to change the phrasing of my statement by adding the "Oh ya" and "so haha" making the statement sound silly by word choice, and not actually countering the argument whatsoever. As a fact, those drugs are used by doctors commonly. And the idea of a drug being considered a "hard drug" is entirely based in opinion and semantics. So your outrage is entirely your opinion, which you h…

No, I think it is entirely appropriate. What you wrote is this sort of smart aleck sort of response. It's not as if most people are not aware that you can be prescribed drugs very similar to street drugs. I don't think it adds much, it's just typical way of trying up define problems out if existence.

Most people are unaware that meth is legal and less scheduled than pot, that heroin is used as a painkiller (and was a trademark of Bayer), and that ketamine is only Schedule III and regularly given to children.

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

#97

Post by deciplex »

glenra wrote: post #93
slurry wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 minorit…

Wait, last 40 years? What makes that your metric? Marijuana was outlawed in 1937, heroin in 1925. And the Black Panthers were in part a reaction against hamfisted selective enforcement of dumb laws - including drug laws - by the powers-that-be.

IIRC the sort of zealous enforcement of drug laws we see now, didn't really gain traction until the 60s and 70s, which supports slurry's argument.

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

#98

Post by deciplex »

honestcoyote wrote: post #28
GauntletWizard wrote: post #2

Then 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.

I realized the drug war was a farce when I was a teenager watching the evening news with my parents. They ran a story about arresting a Colombian drug lord and raiding his mansion. Immediately following was a commercial break which featured August Busch talking about some charity his brewery was sponsoring. And it hit me: one drug lord gets a small army sent after him and another drug lord is allowed to operate openl…

Agree except for the last part. Pablo Escobar brought a different set of skills to the table running his empire than would be required of someone running a legitimate business trafficking in the same goods. With legalization, the Pablo Escobars of the go into the business of stocking store shelves and picking up trash - they do not become CEOs of successful companies. Other people do that instead.

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

#99

Post by Natsu »

angersock wrote: post #86
Natsu wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's tautological to say that decriminalizing things reduces crime. It would be more productive to do a cost benefit analysis. Most of the advocacy I've seen is starry-eyed and simply ignores or rejects the idea that the social costs--for example marginally or completely unemployable addicts. There's a fair point that this is true of legal drugs (alcohol) but it's not something we should want to expand (c.f. drunk dr…

" for example marginally or completely unemployable addicts. " This is, in particular, a really bad example--consider the background checks and nonviolent felons which are created by the current policies. Or, you know the, hundreds of thousands incarcerated instead of out in the workforce.

Having worked with such people in a place where they were employed, being one of the few places in the area that did NOT reject folks for that, I am instead referring to violent or erratic behavior, inability to follow simple instructions, propensity to not show up for work (especially after being paid) as well as the fact that they can endanger others.

I have personally witnessed all of the above except for that violence, which I've only heard bragging of and, eventually, a conviction for. This was a factory environment. It does not take great skill to work there and it pays a very decent wage for unskilled labor and should be within the means of almost anyone capable of being useful.

> Or, you know the, hundreds of thousands incarcerated instead of out in the workforce.

Be careful what you wish for. I only hope you are someday able to work with some of the people I've met.

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

#100

Post by smsm42 »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #77
chongli wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or people who have seen family or friends suffer in ways that are easily attributed to heavy drug use and would genuinely like to reduce the occurrence of that. And to fight what they see as a force that damages the social fabric. The point here isn't to argue whether drugs have this affect, or are a symptom rather than a cause, or to argue if the War On Drugs has much success in fighting it. The point is that this g…

This is the motivation of the people, but alone it could not bring on the wave of atrocities we now are witnessing as the war on drugs. The feelings of these people, while understandable, is just being used to support the worst set of policy decisions in US history since the Prohibition, and are used to expand government, militarize the law enforcement and curtail civil rights. In fact, it's much worse than the original Prohibition - at least there it collapsed after mere 13 years. The drug war is in its fifth decade now, and it's getting worse all the time. The feelings of these people are understandable, but they need also to understand what monster they are creating and supporting.
Post reply on HN