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

Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 252 posts

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#161

Post by user_0001 »

Nursie wrote: post #99
user_0001 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those who push a pro-drug agenda have to preach what will work. You are got going to get the middle classes, the average parent on side by talking about some peasant farmer half way around the world. They cannot imagine it, it does not seem real. But talk to them about their kids, or kids of family members / friends that is something they can relate to and possibly know of a few examples indirectly

>> You are got going to get the middle classes, the average parent on side by talking about some peasant farmer half way around the world. They cannot imagine it, it does not seem real. This is a major problem with our societies IMHO. People must be made to realise that the policies they vote for are killing people around the world, in their thousands and tens of thousands. But as long as their kid doesn't smoke a jo…

>people must be made to realise that the policies they vote for are killing people around the world

A failure of the so called "free press" that does not delve into the root causes of issues. When the news talks about going to war to "protect our interests", it is not explained what this means.

When a brutal dictator must be removed, it is not explained how they consolidated power so profusely and with whose help.

When the horrors of the Mexican cartels are shown (quite rarely for British news considering the death rate) the logical conclusions are not drawn.

And the average person does not ask questions, just consume what they are told

--- Based on mainstream news outlets and using my parents as a base for my generalisations

---

But the status quo must benefit some, otherwise it would be changed.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#162

Post by Nursie »

paulhauggis wrote: post #153

I'm all for drug legalization, however, this should also be a part of the laws: -Businesses should be able to fire someone for being under the influence of any mind-altering substance. The CA proposition a few years back had a clause in there that made it very difficult. Calling addiction a "medical issue" makes it even worse because the differences between recreational use and addiction aren't that easy to distingui…

>> -Businesses should be able to fire someone for being under the influence of any mind-altering substance.

Pretty sure they already can, you do not come into work drunk, for example.

>> -The individual should pay for all of their own issues, medical expenses, etc due to drug addiction. ... It's unfair for me ...

You already pay lots and lots and lots and lots of money to drug-war enforcement efforts. The cost of health problems related to drugs would be minimal compared to this.

Lots of conservatives seem to want all the benefits of drug legalisation (reduced tax bills) without any responsibility (helping out your fellow man).

Further, those taxes help keep you safe. You want to be robbed by an addict or do you want to give a few cents to the free-heroin-for-addicts program that keeps them from committing crime and helps them become contributing members of society?

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#163

Post by a8da6b0c91d »

chippy wrote: post #62
peteretep wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm surprised they don't also cite the first war > against drugs Being a British publication, presumably they'd consider the Opium Wars - where the Brits fought to be allowed to sell the Chinese junk - as the first drug war.

That was a war for drugs, rather than against them. It was also about fighting for another drug - tea. Tea and coffee also had quite a loud vocal support for prohibition against it in the UK.

Several Asian countries very successfully waged "war" on opium usage, to the benefit of their societies. They killed you if you were caught with any.

I'm not a prohibitionist, but we need to drop the lie that a war on drugs has even been tried in the West. Sentences for drug possession are typically avoidable and usually light. What has been done (same as back in alcohol prohibition days) is corrupt law enforcement rackets have been funded to pursue "dealers."

Well, we know that doesn't work. What does work is very harsh and uniform punishment for users. Which, I reiterate, has not been tried in the West for over a century.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#164

Post by mc32 »

panglott wrote: post #97
baldfat wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my fear. The "War on Drug" really is a health issue, but most people I know that are against the war basically want to smoke more and more pot and/or Libertarians and the reply to stop the war is not and we can help more people.

This is essentially the stereotype of legalization activists, but it's not really true. I don't smoke pot, but have long been an advocate of legalization. It's so strange to me when people assume I do smoke because of this advocacy... I'm also a straight supporter of equal marriage, and a male supporter of pro-choice policies, &c., &c. People who want to use drugs are already using drugs. Marijuana legalization would…

I have also been a supporter of legalizing MJ and light drugs, but I'd never go far and say the same for hard drugs. I knew people in HS who got hooked on hard stuff and it ended terribly for more than I care to think about.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#165

Post by joesmo »

mc32 wrote: post #155
joesmo wrote: post #146

The drug war is a civil war. It divides and breaks up society for horrific purposes. In the US, it's always been racism, a way for the government to put down people of races they could no longer legally murder or enslave. Some 'friendly casualties' in such a war will always be overlooked by any government. It's certainly no coincidence that the ramping up of the drug war by Nixon came only a few years after the passi…

No, I don't think it's a war of any kind. That's a label used by governments to get buy-in from the public. If it's war, it must be serious and we should fund it seriously. This campaign against drugs is not racist in essence, but it is coincidental with race in some places. However, you'll see the same attitudes toward drugs in homogeneous countries as well as Africa, Latin america and Asia. The policy against drugs…

"If it's war, it must be serious and we should fund it seriously."

This is America. Have you seen the wars we fight? Millions dead throughout the word. Millions in jail being tortured. I don't know what definition of war you have, but that is war.

"I think any association with race is coincidental."

If it's not about race, please explain the arrest and incarceration rates for different races given that consumption is roughly equal for all races.

You don't criminalize an everyday, common activity without an agenda. The war on drugs was not a policy mistake, it was intentionally created. It was intentionally labelled as war and now has those connotations despite not being a traditional war. You cannot remove connotations that exist in the world simply by wishful and naive thinking.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#166

Post by tajen »

paulhauggis wrote: post #153

I'm all for drug legalization, however, this should also be a part of the laws: -Businesses should be able to fire someone for being under the influence of any mind-altering substance. The CA proposition a few years back had a clause in there that made it very difficult. Calling addiction a "medical issue" makes it even worse because the differences between recreational use and addiction aren't that easy to distingui…

> If a company sells it and you choose to take it and die, your family shouldn't be able to sue the company or the government.

So companies are free to do as much advertising and marketing as they like to make drugs pervasive, and only the consumer is supposed to resist? It's a heavy penalty on everyone's brain cycles. In Europe we generally forbid ads, marketing and product placement for alcohol and tobacco.

[edit: If you go down the road of charging the consequences of drugs on the users,] I also believe that many of us aren't mature enough, and recreational first-time users should have to consciously unseal a sticker: "Upon consuming this drug, you are not allowed to work for x years, drive, or be treated for health", in addition to cancer/addition-related notices. I have no idea how to convey this message to users.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#167

Post by mc32 »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #150
notsony wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please define "equal marriage". Do you support the marriage between any two individuals? So a brother could marry their sister? Or a mother could marry their daughter? Do you support marriage involving polygamous relationships? Can three or four people can be married?

I am not the OP, but I have no problem with any of those scenarios. Given how much those scenarios would be outliers I see no reason they would adversely impact anything.

Totally off topic, but I recall a guy who killed his father because his father disapproved of his relationship with his dog. I think that was in Maine somewhere. Guy was obviously not quite sane. He'd signed the dog's testimony with a pawprint.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#168

Post by geebee »

peteretep wrote: post #4
Osiris wrote: post #2

While I do not condone the use of mind altering substances, I believe that the externalities of the illegal drug trade are far worse than what the drugs do to the users (e.g., the number of murders is Mexico is currently unknown and is somewhere between 20k and 250k a year). A second argument in favor of regulation over an outright ban is personal liberty. Our social contract is about protecting ourselves from each o…

> While I do not condone the use of mind altering > substances Why not? Also, you should try beer, it's AMAZING.

if by whiskey you mean..., then yeah, it's amazing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#169

Post by Nursie »

mc32 wrote: post #164
panglott wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is essentially the stereotype of legalization activists, but it's not really true. I don't smoke pot, but have long been an advocate of legalization. It's so strange to me when people assume I do smoke because of this advocacy... I'm also a straight supporter of equal marriage, and a male supporter of pro-choice policies, &c., &c. People who want to use drugs are already using drugs. Marijuana legalization would…

I have also been a supporter of legalizing MJ and light drugs, but I'd never go far and say the same for hard drugs. I knew people in HS who got hooked on hard stuff and it ended terribly for more than I care to think about.

How were they helped by the drugs being illegal?

I know this is a little bit of a canard and what people really mean is "I don't want to see more people go that way", but it strikes me that there is a need to separate these two things -

1. Some drugs, particularly opiates, are a bad thing to get into.

2. Therefore banning them and criminalising use is the right thing to do and the best way to stop more bad stuff.

Personally I think a system which decriminalises possession of hard drugs and legalises their distribution from (or use at) a well regulated medical centre would be a good thing, from a harm-reduction viewpoint. But I'd agree that not everything should be as easy to get as a can of beer.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#170

Post by mc32 »

joesmo wrote: post #165
mc32 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't think it's a war of any kind. That's a label used by governments to get buy-in from the public. If it's war, it must be serious and we should fund it seriously. This campaign against drugs is not racist in essence, but it is coincidental with race in some places. However, you'll see the same attitudes toward drugs in homogeneous countries as well as Africa, Latin america and Asia. The policy against drugs…

"If it's war, it must be serious and we should fund it seriously." This is America. Have you seen the wars we fight? Millions dead throughout the word. Millions in jail being tortured. I don't know what definition of war you have, but that is war. "I think any association with race is coincidental." If it's not about race, please explain the arrest and incarceration rates for different races given that consumption is…

It's about class. Look at drug incarceration in Africa, see who gets jailed. The same in any country. Who gets jailed for drugs offences? The poor blacks, Hispanics, whites, etc.

Look who gets locked up for drugs offences in Russia. The poor. It's not race. Race is a byproduct.

Post reply on HN