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

111–120 of 145 posts

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

#111

Post by icebraining »

runeks wrote: post #75
msane wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Predictab…

Portugal decriminalized possession of all drugs in amounts for personal use. 10 years later drug abuse has gone down , not up. [1] I think the natural path for anything that is suppressed is to increase after the suppression is lifted, and then slowly decline. I wouldn't be surprised if drug legalization would increase drug use right at the beginning, but it certainly didn't have such a long term effect in Portugal -…

I wouldn't be surprised if drug legalization would increase drug use right at the beginning, but it certainly didn't have such a long term effect in Portugal

It should be noted that we decriminalized them, not legalized them. The results shouldn't be naively extrapolated to an hypothetical legalization.

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

#112

Post by electronvolt »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #85
electronvolt wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pointing out that what are usually stigmatized as 'hard drugs' are used in medical situations is meaningful, because it puts into question the categorization of a substance as 'hard' versus 'soft' drugs, which is reasonable. Your characterization of all 'hard drugs' as 'chemically addictive drugs that are more dangerous than things like marijuana' also is at odds with the governmental classification system and the pu…

I think you're quibble about LSD and tobacco and alcohol is just more of this playing coy stuff.

Pointing out that categories are used to create a false dichotomy in public discourse is not "playing coy", or a "quibble".

Unless you can show scientific research that firmly differentiates the addictivity and/or health effects of what people would consider hard drugs from what people wouldn't, in some meaningful way, your argument that "hard drugs" is a meaningful category doesn't hold up. You need to be able to make a meaningful distinction between 'hard drugs' and 'soft drugs', which holds up under scrutiny, which hasn't really been done in the public discourse.

As I said before, I don't think anyone is claiming that there are drugs that're more addictive and more harmful than marijuana: it's just that many legal drugs also fall into that category. If you aren't going to consider alcohol a hard drug (which is frankly an incredibly dangerous substance, fairly easy to overdose on, addictive, incredibly bad for almost all of your body, has one of the most dangerous withdrawal profiles, and causes some people to become aggressive, violent or otherwise dangerous), then you're clearly drawing the line somewhere other than where you're claiming to have drawn it.

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

#113

Post by Bahamut »

declan wrote: post #38
Bahamut wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/w…

You're correct in that it's not as dominant now, and has been slowly losing its power over time, but its strength is still present, especially due in no small part to the Bible belt. Even alcohol is tightly regulated still in various parts of the country.

Congressmen still show a reluctance to reverse already existing laws regulating drugs - it's easier to get them to pass new laws than reverse existing ones unless the existing ones are truly broken.

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

#114

Post by acdha »

Spooky23 wrote: post #40

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.

The proposal was decriminalizing drug offenses, not murder or assault. It'd arguably be better for those cities if the local police were able to persue crimes which take time to investigate rather than chasing drug possession charges to satisfy quotas and they'd be able to develop a better relationship (i.e. tips) with communities which currently associate the police with unconstitutional intrusions on their daily lives.

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

#115

Post by pessimizer »

adventured wrote: post #106
smsm42 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 origi…

Fortunately the war on drugs situation is getting better, not worse. That momentum shifted several years ago in fact. Incarceration rates are falling now. Legalization has gained a massive amount of momentum, obviously including the first two states, and the Feds are increasingly not willing to step in and interrupt that progress (including Holder recently telling the DEA chief to get in line with the new direction).…

You can support mandatory minimum sentencing without supporting drug prohibition. I think that preventing sentencing based on affinity is almost as important for minority groups as ending sending people to jail for drugs.

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

#116

Post by zo1 »

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.

The US started a war on poverty somewhere in the 50/60s, I think. And it's been increasing ever since.

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

#117

Post by Tloewald »

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 think it's a mistake to be completely cynical about the motivations for the war on drugs. A lot of the lobby groups that now seek to perpetuate it were in fact created by it (e.g. the prison lobby). The problem is that it was a kneejerk reactiom to a real problem (addiction) that simply had massive unintended consequences, including the creation of cynical interest groups.

I think that when arguing for drug liberalization one should acknowledge the validity of the concerns of those who have heartfelt support for drug laws. The point isn't that addiction isn't a problem, it's that criminalization doesn't fix it.

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

#118

Post by supervacuo »

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…

Hard to tell, but I hope you're not saying this has been a good thing. Locking up kids for being poor and stifling dissent are hardly noble goals.

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

#120

Post by sirdogealot »

dobbsbob wrote: post #49
sirdogealot wrote: post #27

The same thing that would happen to any country or state that decided to stop participating in the war on drugs. They would be sanctioned and heckled by other city governments. They may even have their drug enforcement programs carried out by other governments, like when Canada sat back for years while Marc Emery sold Marijuana seeds worldwide. The DEA basically coughed and the RCMP had Emery arrested on the spot and…

I live a block away from Emery's store. There's a seed store still there that is doing exactly what Emery was doing (selling pot seeds to Americans) yet they haven't been busted. This is probably because it's owner didn't give a million dollars to NORML in the US to fight prohibition of Marijuana. Emery also writes a federal prison blog, interesting insight into how foreign prisoners are treated in the US, like the t…

Very interesting. I was not aware that there are "foreigner only prisons". I wonder why they exist?

I haven't kept up on his blog writings much, as it's too depressing to be honest.

Which is a shame considering he is such a great writer.

Thankfully, he should be out soon and it doesn't sound like they have broken his spirit one bit.

Post reply on HN