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

121–130 of 145 posts

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

#121

Post by br78 »

watwut wrote: post #105
mc32 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Drugs are illegal in Europe, but Europe does not have war on drugs rhetoric nor such high incarcerations rates nor such high punishments for small amounts of marijuana nor stop and frisk policies nor cops militarized to the same degree.

In the UK police have powers of stop and search which are very wide ranging. Small, personal amounts of cannabis possession are sometimes overlooked or given a 'caution' (which still goes on your record) but its completely up to the cop's discretion. No surprise, figures out last month showed black people are rarely given a caution compared to white. Cannabis is the same class (B) as mephedrone and speed and more restricted than class C ketamine.

Few European countries have police as militarized or jails as full as yours, but many of them eat up the same war on drugs rhetoric.

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

#122

Post by llllllllllll »

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.

There's quite a bit of evidence that the exact opposite is true, that violence increases with stronger police enforcement, due to the destabilization of established trafficking lines and the resulting struggle to fill the void.

Here's a study done on the Marijuana trade in Denmark:

http://euc.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/01/10/147737081246...

Mexico is an even better example. Minimum 60,000 dead after Felipe Calderon dramatically increased resistance against the cartels.

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

#123

Post by justincormack »

thecabinet wrote: post #44
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.

Instead of accusing people of racism, why I don't you try actually answering the question? "OMG, he said crack rather than meth, therefore racism!" So, what did all the bootleggers do? I don't have any idea, so I'm probably a racist too... I do know alot of them became politicians, so I think the suggestion that they might turn to a different criminal enterprise is entirely on point. According to Freakonomics, a lot…

No they really can't find other work. Drugs are the only option in many areas. Philippe Bourgois's book In Search of Respect is a good read on this. So there will be more issues in areas with no jobs after legalization.

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

#124

Post by dragonwriter »

chrischen wrote: post #87
dragonwriter wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The War on Drugs that happens in many countries is, in fact, a result of that; specifically, its a result of (1) the War on Drugs in the US being a direct result of those things, and (2) the War on Drugs implemented in many other countries bei…

While true for a lot of countries, this not true for China, which have probably stricter drug policies (with the exception of maybe alcohol). China would not let itself be dictated by US policies.

Well, yeah, there are a number of countries that have their own parallels to some or all aspects of the US motivations for the war on drugs -- particularly as part of a broader militaristic centralization of authority, the racism involved in the US war on drugs is a less-common motivation -- and don't need to be pressured by the US. There's also religious authoritarianism in, e.g., the Islamic world, though that often overlaps with militaristic centralization.

My point was that a lot of the countries where there may not be direct domestic parallels to the US motivations still have a War on Drugs as a product of the same motivations because they do so as a result of US pressure.

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

#125

Post by dragonwriter »

pessimizer wrote: post #115
adventured wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But mandatory minimums just raise the stakes of prosecutors choosing among overlapping potential charges based on affinity, and remove the ability of courts to compensate for that. So they do the opposite of preventing sentencing based on affinity,by changing the point of the process in which affinity applies to dictate sentencing.

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

#126

Post by javajosh »

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.

Spot on chongli, great comment.

For now, I think the right course of action is to a) decriminalize and dismantle the system, and b) until that happens, don't do drugs at all. It's a corrupt system that you just don't want to be caught up in, ever.

(The most appalling thing to me is the lack of compassion shown to real drug addicts. It's like, "Aha! Your life is a horrible shithole now, but we're gonna make it worse. That'll learn you.")

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

#127

Post by [deleted] »

emn13 wrote: post #83
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…

Sure, in the abstract (whatever good that does), some amount of enforcement almost necessarily impacts some drug trade, pretty much by definition. But in the practical sense, for relevant real-world drugs and populations, I don't think there's any evidence that enforcement has ever had one iota of effect. People switch drugs, switch suppliers, switch habits, switch methods of consumption etc. etc. Not to mention that…

[deleted]

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

#128

Post by msane »

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 -…

People need to understand exactly what Portugal has done. "Decriminalization" of use is very different than ceasing enforcement. They stopped sending users to prison, they did not stop enforcement.

You still need to enforce against the people who deal addictive drugs, and Portugal still does.

Also, if you are caught with personal use quantities in Portugal it is usually confiscated and you are obligated to some interactions with the state aimed at treatment.

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

#129

Post by chrischen »

dragonwriter wrote: post #124
chrischen wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While true for a lot of countries, this not true for China, which have probably stricter drug policies (with the exception of maybe alcohol). China would not let itself be dictated by US policies.

Well, yeah, there are a number of countries that have their own parallels to some or all aspects of the US motivations for the war on drugs -- particularly as part of a broader militaristic centralization of authority, the racism involved in the US war on drugs is a less-common motivation -- and don't need to be pressured by the US. There's also religious authoritarianism in, e.g., the Islamic world, though that ofte…

Right. And what you end up seeing is that all disparate cultures, religions, non-religions, have concluded that they need to control drugs, in order to control the people. When Opium was unleashed China it just allowed the British to control the people.

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

#130

Post by msane »

emn13 wrote: post #83
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…

Sure, in the abstract (whatever good that does), some amount of enforcement almost necessarily impacts some drug trade, pretty much by definition. But in the practical sense, for relevant real-world drugs and populations, I don't think there's any evidence that enforcement has ever had one iota of effect. People switch drugs, switch suppliers, switch habits, switch methods of consumption etc. etc. Not to mention that…

Florida isn't an abstract place, it's located in the southern United States. Contrast it with other states that enforce OxyContin better.

I believe you are confused about enforcement of sale vs use, and the specifics of any policy beyond the buzzword "drug war", which is typical of this debate.

Post reply on HN