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

81–90 of 145 posts

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

#81

Post by nmjohn »

Natsu wrote: post #74
joel_perl_prog wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, so some of them moved on to other activities that also shouldn't be criminalized, then. I speak about gambling. Which is de-facto legal now, because of how many Indian casinos there are in so many states. Prostitution? We have a long way to go in decriminalizing this. But slight progress is being made. Just another stupid moralizing law that achieves nothing. Now as to protection rackets, extortion, etc. These…

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…

While I agree that the statement is tautological, it isn't necessarily irrelevant. Consider this. People who are released from prison are significantly more likely to commit another crime landing them back in prison than the average person. On one hand,some might conclude that it simply is because those in prison have some sort of inclination towards that life and simply are an ill fit for the society in which we live.

On the other hand, what if that wasn't really the case, what if it was how desensitized to hatred and violence most prisoners become after a stay in prison. And it was this desensitization combined with the relationships formed in prison, which inherently only could be with other "criminals," that led to an increased propensity to commit a crime?

If that were the case, then decriminalizing things reduces crime, not only by it's tautological implication, but because it reduces the desensitizing effects prison has, leading to the in-and-out cycle experienced by many in the prison system.

I recognize that the world is not 100% like the case I presented, but I would argue the truth lies somewhere in between (like it does in most issues) and that decriminalization or alternative punishments (especially with teens) have potential to significantly reduce crime, by all rights, both in number and it's relative proportion to the hypothetical rate pre-decriminalization.

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

#82

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> 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 being a direct outgrowth of the exportation of the US War on Drugs through US foreign policy. (Ironically, this is true even of international treaties that foreign governments are now accusing the US of violating due to marijuana legalization efforts in some states.)

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

#83

Post by emn13 »

msane wrote: post #69
runeks wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. 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 some drugs are legal (mostly, such as alcohol and nicotine, or partly such as various medicines), so even if "drugs" are less-consumed, the legal variant might still be just as nasty which renders the enforcement pointless despite "success". And even if overall consumption were to drop, you still might find that drug harm has not - some methods of consumption are more dangerous than others.

Given the absurd level of long-term investment there's been, you'd expect some evidence of meaningful success. Where is it?

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

#84

Post by dinkumthinkum »

nmjohn wrote: post #78
dinkumthinkum wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is kind of high schoolish to say "Oh ya, those 'hard drugs' are used by doctors so haha they are not hard drugs." I mean, really that's just kind of ridiculous. It's sort outrageous, people already refer to pain killers as being part of the "hard drug" addiction. It refers to chemically addictive drugs that are also more dangerous than things like marijuana. This is just playing coy to pretend that in hard drugs d…

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.

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

#85

Post by dinkumthinkum »

electronvolt wrote: post #80
dinkumthinkum wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is kind of high schoolish to say "Oh ya, those 'hard drugs' are used by doctors so haha they are not hard drugs." I mean, really that's just kind of ridiculous. It's sort outrageous, people already refer to pain killers as being part of the "hard drug" addiction. It refers to chemically addictive drugs that are also more dangerous than things like marijuana. This is just playing coy to pretend that in hard drugs d…

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.

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

#86

Post by angersock »

Natsu wrote: post #74
joel_perl_prog wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, so some of them moved on to other activities that also shouldn't be criminalized, then. I speak about gambling. Which is de-facto legal now, because of how many Indian casinos there are in so many states. Prostitution? We have a long way to go in decriminalizing this. But slight progress is being made. Just another stupid moralizing law that achieves nothing. Now as to protection rackets, extortion, etc. These…

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.

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

#87

Post by chrischen »

dragonwriter wrote: post #82
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…

> 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.

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

#88

Post by molmalo »

toyg wrote: post #6
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.

Choose your own semi-ironic response now: ☐ "Which totally doesn't happen now. Oh wait..." ☐ "Yeah, Amsterdam is completely run by gangs. Oh wait..." ☐ "Yeah, gangs would get richer and expand as price of drugs plummets and they get commoditised. Oh wait..." Edit: downvotes? I was trying to summarise the inevitable counterpoints.

I think you are very wrong, and your ironic responses don't apply, because there is a major problem with the approach shown in the article. The problem is that they are not legalizing drugs, and providing a legal and regulated market that replaces the illegal, criminalized, drug-lords managed and violent market. They are just putting less energy and resources to enforce drug laws.

So, living in Argentina, a country that in the past few years has chosen the very same path, I can tell you that the expected result is not something like Amsterdam, but something like the favelas, in Brazil. Liberated zones, where criminal organizations grow much much more stronger, organized and richer than what you see today. Crime raises, because drug addicts need money to buy drugs from those gangs. Criminals get much more violent. Wars between gangs get much more open to control more land. And the entire society suffers.

You want something like Amsterdam? OK, chasing drug dealers, but provide a legal, cheaper and with better quality market. Offer and demand will make them go away. But without a legal market, stop enforcing drug laws and I can guarantee you, that things can only get much worse.

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

#89

Post by glenra »

Natsu wrote: post #65
pekk wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People "stealing to get their fix" ought to essentially disappear once getting a fix drops to 1/10th the price (so much less money is required) and once a reliable source is easily obtained (so you don't have to spend any time searching for the next fix or dealing with roller-coaster withdrawal symptoms because you couldn't find it in time).

When drugs are legal, holding down a regular job will be compatible with drug use; people will work regular hours to pay for their habit, pick up their drug at the corner market on the way home, and take the equivalent of cigarette breaks.

When heroin was a branded product of the Bayer corporation, one of the founders of Johns Hopkins was a heroin addict; he took pills. (The chief long-term problem associated with regular heroin use is constipation.)

So, no: people stealing to get their fix is an argument for legalization.

(How many people are today "stealing to get their fix" of beer or cigarettes?)

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

#90

Post by Natsu »

nmjohn wrote: post #81
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…

While I agree that the statement is tautological, it isn't necessarily irrelevant. Consider this. People who are released from prison are significantly more likely to commit another crime landing them back in prison than the average person. On one hand,some might conclude that it simply is because those in prison have some sort of inclination towards that life and simply are an ill fit for the society in which we liv…

Yes, I can agree that prison is sub-optimal and I would like to sees more reform. On the other hand, having had a family member violently murdered, I would like to point out that the rest of us should have the right not to have to see certain people free ever again. There are better tools, like being confined to one's house, for the more petty crimes. On that, I think we agree, as we do also on the fact that reducing recidivism is in everyone's best interests.

The biggest problem with prison it seems to me is that it pulls them further away from normal society and changes their social circle to one made of criminals. This then leads to all the other ills, as they experience a daily life of overt racism, violence and apathy. As you say, though, it's not 100%. I once knew a guy who, based on what I know of him, is most aptly described as a drug loser. He (amazingly) stayed out of prison for some years after pulling all sorts of really stupid crimes and bragging of them. He managed to avoid issues by being a skilled liar and there being a lack of solid proof. Also, there was the time he fled from the jurisdiction. In the end, he was turned in by his own parents after he attacked and seriously injured them. So as you say, it's "prison made them worse" is only part of the story and many of them. It's certainly true from what I can see, but it doesn't mean they were anyone you'd want to hang around in the first place. FWIW, that person had a loving home and parents who did everything they could to help him (counselors, doctors, etc.). I believe the doctors mostly resulted in him selling or trading his meds and/or taking them with alcohol...

While I do not want to see people go to prison for minor offenses, my biggest worry with decriminalization is that it will turn out to be like deinsitutionalization--i.e. they'll end up on the streets causing problems for everyone else with no real support from society. This does not seem like a net benefit for everyone who is not already a criminal.

Post reply on HN