How the war on drugs creates violence(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
How the war on drugs creates violence
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-the-war-on-drugs-creates-violence/2015/10/16/6de57a76-72b7-11e5-9cbb-790369643cf9_story.html
113 comments
A little more insight into Florida and street drugs vis-a-vis violence...In some places drugs dealers are sanctioned specifically to avoid an increase in violence.
Example, in Miami, FL, there is Grand Avenue, a historic street that could define "other side of the tracks", whereas Grand Avenue is a street where drug dealers openly hustle corners, but the road itself leads into Coconut Grove (an economic center in the heart of Coral Gables - a city where Miami athletes/celebrities/politicians call home). In fact the police commonly refer to dealers on Grand, almost endearingly, as Alligators. Because they just sit out on the corners all day soaking up sun and scuttle away when necessary. Ask any Coral Gables cop why they don't "shut down" the dealing on Grand Avenue, the response is, well when dealers can't make money with drugs they arm themselves and follow the road into Coconut Grove to commit robberies. As a result there is an unspoken agreement, Grand Avenue is the dealers' so long as there is no spill over into Coconut Grove. When times are good, in many of the drug neighborhoods in Miami not just off Grand Avenue, it is often said rich white people are the safest people in these neighborhoods because they are protected customers.
I am a criminal defense lawyer in South Florida, but its not exactly as you say, I don't have an interest in maintaining the laws as is. I assure you with different laws I wouldn't lose business, because there would be more lucrative work, namely legitimate business transactions (contracts, commercial leases, incorporation, etc...).
Example, in Miami, FL, there is Grand Avenue, a historic street that could define "other side of the tracks", whereas Grand Avenue is a street where drug dealers openly hustle corners, but the road itself leads into Coconut Grove (an economic center in the heart of Coral Gables - a city where Miami athletes/celebrities/politicians call home). In fact the police commonly refer to dealers on Grand, almost endearingly, as Alligators. Because they just sit out on the corners all day soaking up sun and scuttle away when necessary. Ask any Coral Gables cop why they don't "shut down" the dealing on Grand Avenue, the response is, well when dealers can't make money with drugs they arm themselves and follow the road into Coconut Grove to commit robberies. As a result there is an unspoken agreement, Grand Avenue is the dealers' so long as there is no spill over into Coconut Grove. When times are good, in many of the drug neighborhoods in Miami not just off Grand Avenue, it is often said rich white people are the safest people in these neighborhoods because they are protected customers.
I am a criminal defense lawyer in South Florida, but its not exactly as you say, I don't have an interest in maintaining the laws as is. I assure you with different laws I wouldn't lose business, because there would be more lucrative work, namely legitimate business transactions (contracts, commercial leases, incorporation, etc...).
Exactly.
In Orlando, it's Paramour and/or Orange Blossom Trail.
You hit the nail right on the head here..altho it's probably not just a Florida-thing and represents the utter hypocrisy and gamesmanship of the ridiculous war on drugs.
EDIT: So I see now you are a criminal defense lawyer so that is very interesting...may I ask what percentage of your business is derived from defending non-violent drug offenders?
In Orlando, it's Paramour and/or Orange Blossom Trail.
You hit the nail right on the head here..altho it's probably not just a Florida-thing and represents the utter hypocrisy and gamesmanship of the ridiculous war on drugs.
EDIT: So I see now you are a criminal defense lawyer so that is very interesting...may I ask what percentage of your business is derived from defending non-violent drug offenders?
Drug possession might comprise 10% of my caseload and 100% of mine are non-violent. However, about 75% of the possession cases I have include another criminal count (DUI; leaving the scene of an accident; suspended license; etc...).
Sounds like Hamsterdam from The Wire.
I watched someone get out of jury duty by articulating his view of the prison system as a for-profit enterprise a couple years ago. He spoke brilliantly and was immediately dismissed.
You are absolutely right, and perhaps the most under reported effect of the war on any vice is that vice enforcement becomes just as lucrative. It's easier to bust someone for possession than reckless driving, assault, you know, things that have to be verified at the time of offense. It's not that the police, prosecutors, prison owners or lawmakers are bad people, they just deal with corrosive incentives. Just like drugs, drug crime enforcement is a cheap high that gets you to places you wouldn't likely be if you played by the boring rules.
It is also very corrupting work (drug police). Of the handful of people I "know" who got busted, not one was charged with the full amount of drugs nor cash they were arrested with (when it was worthwhile amounts)
This. When you're comparing a $100B business sector, that's a lot of available incentive to look the other way. A cursory search said ~$160B on local law enforcement expenditures (this also included fire).
What do we expect to come out of that comparison?
What do we expect to come out of that comparison?
This is the thesis of the documentary "The House I Live In", which is a suggested watch for anybody who has an interest in the subject[s].
This is the problem with all the broken institutions in America today - too many people are cashing in big time, so they have no interest in changing the status quo.
Healthcare, pharmaceuticals, education, Department of War, tax, minimum wage, environmental protections, unlimited campaign contributions (i.e buying politicians) ... the list goes on
Healthcare, pharmaceuticals, education, Department of War, tax, minimum wage, environmental protections, unlimited campaign contributions (i.e buying politicians) ... the list goes on
This is so true. We have two very recent examples of this, first the US presence in Afghanistan and second the DEA having just left Bolivia. But the media dare not touch this level of analysis.
Further to this, imprisoning people who have drug problems does not solve the problem.
I've pretty much come down on the side of prohibition is bad. Yes hard drugs destroy lives, but many many many more are destroyed by socially acceptable drugs like alcohol and nicotine.
We live within societies where the way we control substances creates a huge social and financial cost.
We'd be better off legalising every drug and creating a social framework within which these drugs can be taxed, consumed safely, and users supported.
Case in point is the legalisation of cannabis which I hope is a stepping stone to legalisation of all recreational drugs.
We live within societies where the way we control substances creates a huge social and financial cost.
We'd be better off legalising every drug and creating a social framework within which these drugs can be taxed, consumed safely, and users supported.
Case in point is the legalisation of cannabis which I hope is a stepping stone to legalisation of all recreational drugs.
> users supported
This is the biggest thing, IMO. Legalising drugs isn't about getting control of distrubution and profits, it's more about changing societies view on drugs. We need to stop treating these people as addicts that need to be swept under the rug. We need to treat them as they are - human beings with a disease/illness for which they need help.
How can they turn to us for help if we chuck them in prison for their problem and don't help them?
edit; wasn't suggesting that you didn't think this - I think the majority of people in my country (UK) don't think of addiction as an illness/disease that we need to help with. They just want to turn a blind eye...
This is the biggest thing, IMO. Legalising drugs isn't about getting control of distrubution and profits, it's more about changing societies view on drugs. We need to stop treating these people as addicts that need to be swept under the rug. We need to treat them as they are - human beings with a disease/illness for which they need help.
How can they turn to us for help if we chuck them in prison for their problem and don't help them?
edit; wasn't suggesting that you didn't think this - I think the majority of people in my country (UK) don't think of addiction as an illness/disease that we need to help with. They just want to turn a blind eye...
This is a very valid point. I don't see the UK government however changing their approach. Treating addiction as a disease just enables the government to vilify users. Many low-level heroin/cocaine users just lead normal lives. As do many low-level wine users.
The only way I see this changing is when it financially makes sense. Taking Colorado as a model, the UK could get in the region of £400million a year in tax benefits from the legalisation of cannabis alone.
Drug related crime is estimated to cost the country £14 billion annually.
The only way I see this changing is when it financially makes sense. Taking Colorado as a model, the UK could get in the region of £400million a year in tax benefits from the legalisation of cannabis alone.
Drug related crime is estimated to cost the country £14 billion annually.
Thanks.
Do you know where I can find some numbers on this? It's something I've always wondered. We're told by the media that 90% of heroin addicts are on the street stealing to maintain their habit - but I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of heroin addicts appear to have these "normal" lives.
Do you know where I can find some numbers on this? It's something I've always wondered. We're told by the media that 90% of heroin addicts are on the street stealing to maintain their habit - but I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of heroin addicts appear to have these "normal" lives.
There are two sources of information in UK.
Office for national statistics are nice. They're robust about what does or doesn't count, and how they count, and where you need to be cautious with the numbers. http://www.ons.gov.uk/
The other place might be Public Health Outcomes: http://www.phoutcomes.info/
EG http://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile-group/mental-health
And finally NICE tend to have excellent referencing.
Noodle around here to find the NICE guidance. http://pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/drug-misuse
Office for national statistics are nice. They're robust about what does or doesn't count, and how they count, and where you need to be cautious with the numbers. http://www.ons.gov.uk/
The other place might be Public Health Outcomes: http://www.phoutcomes.info/
EG http://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile-group/mental-health
And finally NICE tend to have excellent referencing.
Noodle around here to find the NICE guidance. http://pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/drug-misuse
Depends how you define "addict". As any heroin user? Someone whose whole life is based around the drug? Something else?
>> Many low-level heroin/cocaine users just lead normal lives. As do many low-level wine users.
This is a pretty ridiculous comparison
This is a pretty ridiculous comparison
Hardly, just because alcohol is socially accepted doesn't mean it's not a drug. Alcohol and heroine are considered the most harmful drugs out there. It's an apt comparison.
It's only ridiculous if you don't think about it.
Yvain's classic on disease/failure of personality is worth bringing up[0].
Also, his more recent take on (US) attitude towards treating heroin addicts[1].
The ending paragraph of [1] works as a great TL;DR:
"Society is fixed, biology is mutable. People have tried everything to fix drug abuse. Being harsh and sending drug users to jail. Being nice and sending them to nice treatment centers that focus on rehabilitation. Old timey religion where fire-and-brimstone preachers talk about how Jesus wants them to stay off drugs. Flaky New Age religion where counselors tell you about how drug abuse is keeping you from your true self. Government programs. University programs. Private programs. Giving people money. Fining people money. Being unusually nice. Being unusually mean. More social support. Less social support. This school of therapy. That school of therapy. What works is just giving people a chemical to saturate the brain receptor directly. We know it works. The studies show it works. And we’re still collectively beating our heads against the wall of finding a social solution."
[0] - http://lesswrong.com/lw/2as/diseased_thinking_dissolving_que...
[1] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/02/practically-a-book-revi...
Also, his more recent take on (US) attitude towards treating heroin addicts[1].
The ending paragraph of [1] works as a great TL;DR:
"Society is fixed, biology is mutable. People have tried everything to fix drug abuse. Being harsh and sending drug users to jail. Being nice and sending them to nice treatment centers that focus on rehabilitation. Old timey religion where fire-and-brimstone preachers talk about how Jesus wants them to stay off drugs. Flaky New Age religion where counselors tell you about how drug abuse is keeping you from your true self. Government programs. University programs. Private programs. Giving people money. Fining people money. Being unusually nice. Being unusually mean. More social support. Less social support. This school of therapy. That school of therapy. What works is just giving people a chemical to saturate the brain receptor directly. We know it works. The studies show it works. And we’re still collectively beating our heads against the wall of finding a social solution."
[0] - http://lesswrong.com/lw/2as/diseased_thinking_dissolving_que...
[1] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/02/practically-a-book-revi...
I have read (from sources of dubious provenance) that narcotics addicts who have done multiple rounds of rehab and relapse were able to finally kick their habits by taking high doses of entheogen drugs, such as LSD, psilocybin, and ibogaine.
Suggest someone attend substance abusers' anonymous meetings for the rest of their lives, and no one bats an eye. Suggest that someone kick their drug habit by taking another drug, just once, and people lose their freakin' minds.
Suggest someone attend substance abusers' anonymous meetings for the rest of their lives, and no one bats an eye. Suggest that someone kick their drug habit by taking another drug, just once, and people lose their freakin' minds.
"Experiments have shown rats to forgo food to the point of starvation in order to work for brain stimulation or intravenous cocaine when both food and stimulation are offered concurrently for a limited time each day."
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_stimulation_reward
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_stimulation_reward
When given positive other life experiences, rats do not prefer cocaine to food.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
Rats imprisoned in a cage in a laboratory with no chance of escape prefer to numb them selves with non-stop IV high quality cocaine where possible.
So would I probably.
Rats living freely in their natural habit - probably different story
So would I probably.
Rats living freely in their natural habit - probably different story
The quote I cited was about heroin in particular; I don't know the state of anti-cocaine methods and the article doesn't go into it. It only states that apparently we have a perfectly good method of curing heroin addiction that's not being used for pretty stupid reasons.
I'd argue that, especially given the social history of how the prohibitions came to be, that it's the other way round: condemning 'vice' starts out as a pretext for social exclusion and blaming the poor for their condition. We don't want to help so we set up a situation where we don't have to.
Nobody suggests testing the financial services industry for performance-enhancing drugs, for example.
Nobody suggests testing the financial services industry for performance-enhancing drugs, for example.
Why is it that having certain problems gives you a license to demand that everyone else help you with them?
We've all got problems, but for some reason whenever I mess up on my taxes or something, I'm to blame, but if someone else robs a liquor store when being addicted to heroin, "the needle made me do it, mumble ... mumble ..." is an acceptable excuse.
We've all got problems, but for some reason whenever I mess up on my taxes or something, I'm to blame, but if someone else robs a liquor store when being addicted to heroin, "the needle made me do it, mumble ... mumble ..." is an acceptable excuse.
> is an acceptable excuse
No, it's not. Going with your flawed example: having an addiction to heroin should be a socially acceptable problem, or at least one that doesn't land an addict in prison in and of itself. Helping those amongst us who are addicted helps to prevent desperate crimes.
No, it's not. Going with your flawed example: having an addiction to heroin should be a socially acceptable problem, or at least one that doesn't land an addict in prison in and of itself. Helping those amongst us who are addicted helps to prevent desperate crimes.
Exactly. To put it in terms of currently legal drugs, it's not illegal to be an alcoholic. You won't be imprisoned for the compulsive use of alcohol, regardless of the framework used to describe it (poor impulse control, chemical imbalance, whatever).
But if you go beat someone up or crash your car while drunk, you're charged with those crimes, whether committed due to your addiction or not. But outside of actual crimes committed against others in society, just being in possession of alcohol or being an addict isn't illegal. Additionally, there are resources for people who want to improve their dealings with alcohol or work out the issues that are causing their problems with it. They can make use of these resources without fear of being arrested because mere possession and use isn't a crime.
I don't claim that habitual use of opiates or amphetamines or whatever is a positive thing but putting someone at risk of criminal penalties and prison because of something that is (at worst) very unhealthy is sort of preposterous when you think about it that way.
That doesn't mean we ought to turn a blind eye to crimes committed under the influence or in search of one's dose but at a minimum, possession and use ought not to be criminal offenses.
But if you go beat someone up or crash your car while drunk, you're charged with those crimes, whether committed due to your addiction or not. But outside of actual crimes committed against others in society, just being in possession of alcohol or being an addict isn't illegal. Additionally, there are resources for people who want to improve their dealings with alcohol or work out the issues that are causing their problems with it. They can make use of these resources without fear of being arrested because mere possession and use isn't a crime.
I don't claim that habitual use of opiates or amphetamines or whatever is a positive thing but putting someone at risk of criminal penalties and prison because of something that is (at worst) very unhealthy is sort of preposterous when you think about it that way.
That doesn't mean we ought to turn a blind eye to crimes committed under the influence or in search of one's dose but at a minimum, possession and use ought not to be criminal offenses.
You've got it totally wrong. I didn't say anything like this.
In your example, you can turn to the government (or someone else) for help with your taxes. There is no stigma (or law) that makes it difficult for you. That's not the case for a drug addict. It's a lot harder to get help.
I also didn't say that addicts should not be held accountable for their actions. Of course they should.
(...unless you're tring to evade tax...)
In your example, you can turn to the government (or someone else) for help with your taxes. There is no stigma (or law) that makes it difficult for you. That's not the case for a drug addict. It's a lot harder to get help.
I also didn't say that addicts should not be held accountable for their actions. Of course they should.
(...unless you're tring to evade tax...)
If I make a mistake on my taxes, or lets say, park in the wrong place, I get fined.
If someone does heroin and gets hooked, they get a treatment program.
What is the difference? Why, according to you, should I be punished, while the person on heroin should get all these treatment options opened up to them?
Where is my "parked my car in the wrong place" rehab program?
If someone does heroin and gets hooked, they get a treatment program.
What is the difference? Why, according to you, should I be punished, while the person on heroin should get all these treatment options opened up to them?
Where is my "parked my car in the wrong place" rehab program?
Please stop saying I've said things that I haven't. We can't have a conversation if you do that.
I didn't say you should be punished for doing your taxes badly.
Your parking example is terrible. If you get a parking fine then you must have ignored a sign or not seen it. It's entirely possible there was no sign and you legitimately didn't realised you parked somewhere you shouldn't. There are appeals processes for exactly this. There are rules and regulation on conditions required to fine someone for parking.
I don't understand how you can compare this to a drug problem.
Someone should get help for a drug problem because it is exactly that - a problem they need help with.
I didn't say you should be punished for doing your taxes badly.
Your parking example is terrible. If you get a parking fine then you must have ignored a sign or not seen it. It's entirely possible there was no sign and you legitimately didn't realised you parked somewhere you shouldn't. There are appeals processes for exactly this. There are rules and regulation on conditions required to fine someone for parking.
I don't understand how you can compare this to a drug problem.
Someone should get help for a drug problem because it is exactly that - a problem they need help with.
It's hard to have a conversation if you just tap dance around all my points without addressing any of them.
Again, why, according to you, are doing illegal drugs treated as a problem that people need to be helped with, yet other illegal behaviour is the responsibility of the individual? Or aren't you saying that, and in that case, what are you saying?
Again, why, according to you, are doing illegal drugs treated as a problem that people need to be helped with, yet other illegal behaviour is the responsibility of the individual? Or aren't you saying that, and in that case, what are you saying?
You'd have to fuck up pretty hard on your taxes to ruin your life the way being caught with certain drugs can do. I'm not sure any drug offense can compare to a parking ticket.
Legalization itself is partly a moral issue, as the state doesn't really have any business telling me what to eat or smoke or inject, or for that matter what plants I grow on my property for personal use. Coupled with drug treatment programs it is also a practical issue: the cost of treating an addict is lower than the cost to the government of keeping him in the justice system for most of his life, lower than the cost to society of keeping him on the margins for most of his life. It's also cheaper solely from a health perspective. It's good policy because it saves money so you don't have to pay so much in taxes and parking tickets in the first place.
So there's your answer: we don't have treatment programs for people who can't figure out where to park, or how to pay their taxes, because those are dumb ideas with low ROI.
Legalization itself is partly a moral issue, as the state doesn't really have any business telling me what to eat or smoke or inject, or for that matter what plants I grow on my property for personal use. Coupled with drug treatment programs it is also a practical issue: the cost of treating an addict is lower than the cost to the government of keeping him in the justice system for most of his life, lower than the cost to society of keeping him on the margins for most of his life. It's also cheaper solely from a health perspective. It's good policy because it saves money so you don't have to pay so much in taxes and parking tickets in the first place.
So there's your answer: we don't have treatment programs for people who can't figure out where to park, or how to pay their taxes, because those are dumb ideas with low ROI.
> What is the difference?
Both [legalisation/treatment-based approach to drug addition and fining drivers parking in the wrong place] are about reduction of harm on society and the individual, and effectiveness of that treatment.
The driver addicted to "parking my car in the wrong place", is not potentially going to die if he suddenly can't park inconsiderately, so a gradual reduction strategy of "parking with just one wheel across the pavement", then progressing to "staying just a few minutes over the allotted parking time" is not required.
The rehab program is the fine.
Both [legalisation/treatment-based approach to drug addition and fining drivers parking in the wrong place] are about reduction of harm on society and the individual, and effectiveness of that treatment.
The driver addicted to "parking my car in the wrong place", is not potentially going to die if he suddenly can't park inconsiderately, so a gradual reduction strategy of "parking with just one wheel across the pavement", then progressing to "staying just a few minutes over the allotted parking time" is not required.
The rehab program is the fine.
The fine isn't to punish you so much as to dissuade you from parking illegally. It's to steer you in the right direction. You won't lose your job, you won't lose your self esteem or right to travel, you'll just look for the sign next time.
Giving an addict a criminal record and stuffing him in jail with violent criminals isn't going to steer him in the right direction at all. Rehab might. Plus, it's cheaper than jail anyways!
Giving an addict a criminal record and stuffing him in jail with violent criminals isn't going to steer him in the right direction at all. Rehab might. Plus, it's cheaper than jail anyways!
As an example, when the UK government tried to demonize the cost to the National Health Service of smoking related diseases (£450Million), the tobacco industry rightly pointed out that tax revenue was around the £12Billion.
Taxing drugs would more than pay for any social programme needed to support users. At the moment, general taxation is used to incarcerate users which could be better used elsewhere.
Taxing drugs would more than pay for any social programme needed to support users. At the moment, general taxation is used to incarcerate users which could be better used elsewhere.
No one said that robbers should be punished less harshly if they have an addiction.
Exactly. Many of the medicine that we label illegal, is from the nature, like cannabis. For that purpose also, we should regulate them, so that people would have better and more controlled access, and not have to figure out healing themselves and caught addicted because they have no legal way to get help.
Reality is there are many people who do not trust the medical companies and their "medicine", and are looking for alternative, natural remedies. Misuse is also a big problem, because when there is no legal source, there is no way to assure what you are getting is good, aside from experimenting and finding people who know their shit on this subject, and it can be difficult to look beyond the stigma of society.
This is very much a problem in countries where cannabis is illegal. People buy too much, use too much, because they have no idea or control when they are going to access more. Been through that process. Nobody is denying cannabis is not addictive, it is, very.
But putting it in the hands of people who know what it does, how it does and in what amounts you should use it, this will help people who have no idea to control their medicinal use better.
Of course there is recreational use, abusive use, but this is also partly because we have no real discussion going on in the public about this. Why? Because it's illegal to discuss even, and can immediately label you as a "drug user".
Same goes for different medicine from the nature also, mushrooms, ayahuasca, iboga and so on. If these were understood, studied and regulated, we would have real medicine to heal people with, not just things created by humans which are produced just to keep people addicted and hooked on the bill of medical cost.
Many medical companies know exactly this, and this why I feel many laws are kept in place to prevent natural use, it's just to protect the immoral practice of selling sickness to people.
Just make everything legal already, and have people who have experience working with these medicines act as healers in the process. This is already happening also, but it is not discussed on a public level, as it is illegal and can cause stigma and fear, but I hope more and more people will do it so we can have a real alternative to the current system again in place.
Reality is there are many people who do not trust the medical companies and their "medicine", and are looking for alternative, natural remedies. Misuse is also a big problem, because when there is no legal source, there is no way to assure what you are getting is good, aside from experimenting and finding people who know their shit on this subject, and it can be difficult to look beyond the stigma of society.
This is very much a problem in countries where cannabis is illegal. People buy too much, use too much, because they have no idea or control when they are going to access more. Been through that process. Nobody is denying cannabis is not addictive, it is, very.
But putting it in the hands of people who know what it does, how it does and in what amounts you should use it, this will help people who have no idea to control their medicinal use better.
Of course there is recreational use, abusive use, but this is also partly because we have no real discussion going on in the public about this. Why? Because it's illegal to discuss even, and can immediately label you as a "drug user".
Same goes for different medicine from the nature also, mushrooms, ayahuasca, iboga and so on. If these were understood, studied and regulated, we would have real medicine to heal people with, not just things created by humans which are produced just to keep people addicted and hooked on the bill of medical cost.
Many medical companies know exactly this, and this why I feel many laws are kept in place to prevent natural use, it's just to protect the immoral practice of selling sickness to people.
Just make everything legal already, and have people who have experience working with these medicines act as healers in the process. This is already happening also, but it is not discussed on a public level, as it is illegal and can cause stigma and fear, but I hope more and more people will do it so we can have a real alternative to the current system again in place.
"Nobody is denying cannabis is not addictive, it is, very"
Can I get a source on that? It flies in the face of conventional wisdom.
Can I get a source on that? It flies in the face of conventional wisdom.
> People buy too much, use too much
ill source this from myself. both are false statements.
420 blz it
ill source this from myself. both are false statements.
420 blz it
On that topic I strongly recommend the TV show "Narcos". If that degree of violence is the price for prohibition then prohibition has to go.
It is pointless to vote laws that are unenforceable.
It is pointless to vote laws that are unenforceable.
Maybe I'm being obtuse, but wouldn't that be an argument for prohibition? As in, drugs that aren't prohibited cause much more harm than those that are?
There's only so much profit in the drug business because of the illegality of many drugs. Changing that would kill the profits of many very rich and powerful criminals and cartels. So it's very understandable that those people do everything they can to prevent their business model from collapsing.
The usual way of doing it is simply lots of lobbying: Paying "well meaning" people, journalists and politicians to stay on the track of keeping most drugs illegal, so that the drug lords and cartels can continue to earn money.
So does really anybody wonder why the (obviously totally pointless) "war on drugs" is still waged and will probably waged for quite a while?
The usual way of doing it is simply lots of lobbying: Paying "well meaning" people, journalists and politicians to stay on the track of keeping most drugs illegal, so that the drug lords and cartels can continue to earn money.
So does really anybody wonder why the (obviously totally pointless) "war on drugs" is still waged and will probably waged for quite a while?
I have no idea if gangsters partake in lobbying but I find it hard to believe it would be the main cause for the continuing policies. Some hold the view that the war on drugs is mainly ideological. Chomsky has quite a critical view of the matter. E.g.
"So there are two possibilities: Either those conducting the Drug War are lunatics, or they have another purpose."
http://hightimes.com/read/high-times-interview-noam-chomsky
"So there are two possibilities: Either those conducting the Drug War are lunatics, or they have another purpose."
http://hightimes.com/read/high-times-interview-noam-chomsky
What's interesting is that the CIA has been proven to be involved in the drug trade, and they need untraceable money for covert operations quite frequently. Also this trade is so lucrative, that massive banks are quite involved in it too.
What's more, large corporations in the US are py directly involve in selling dangerous narcotics around the world, it's called to tobacco and it's the most lethal drug sold in the world.
It's interesting, Chomsky points out that we in the US feel entitled to send helicopters to spray coca crops and troops into Colombia to burn coca crops etc. Well hard drugs kill not even 1% of the amount of people tobacco kills, so what if China were to send helicopters and troops to destroy tobacco plantations in Virginia? Would that be acceptable?
What's more, large corporations in the US are py directly involve in selling dangerous narcotics around the world, it's called to tobacco and it's the most lethal drug sold in the world.
It's interesting, Chomsky points out that we in the US feel entitled to send helicopters to spray coca crops and troops into Colombia to burn coca crops etc. Well hard drugs kill not even 1% of the amount of people tobacco kills, so what if China were to send helicopters and troops to destroy tobacco plantations in Virginia? Would that be acceptable?
You know the cops, they got a network for the toxic rock!
Nearly a hundred comments and this seems to be the only reference to this major facet of the drug "war". It's amazing how short-term and steered "our" attention span is.
And of course now we've got a new instance of the familiar pattern - a Heroin epidemic a decade after beginning colonization of Afghanistan...
Nearly a hundred comments and this seems to be the only reference to this major facet of the drug "war". It's amazing how short-term and steered "our" attention span is.
And of course now we've got a new instance of the familiar pattern - a Heroin epidemic a decade after beginning colonization of Afghanistan...
And it happens at all levels of dealing too, not just the CIA flying in bricks... I know people who have been robbed by the cops for drugs.
One friend got off with only a warning for having 10 ounces of high-grade weed, which were then "confiscated". Another, who has been selling cocaine since his mid-teens, begrudgingly gives out 8-balls to a few cops that recognize his cars and pull him over at any opportunity.
One friend got off with only a warning for having 10 ounces of high-grade weed, which were then "confiscated". Another, who has been selling cocaine since his mid-teens, begrudgingly gives out 8-balls to a few cops that recognize his cars and pull him over at any opportunity.
Whilst US made tobacco certainly does kill many Chinese, the vast majority of it is Chinese tobacco. The cheap <50c a packet type
In those cases, a government destroying drug crops is not about saving lives, it's about money. Illegal drug cartels do not pay taxes, tobacco plantations in Virginia do.
Politics works on a combination of public opinion and donations to candidates and parties. If you have a lot of money, it's quite easy to move things a bit in the direction you want. Also here, you're doing it for a "good cause", because we all know that drugs are bad and everybody should think of the children, etc...
So of course many people don't suspect bad intentions here, maybe even many politicians or organizations which are on the receiving end of a donation, which originated from drug money.
Of course there are some other reasons too, but considering the amount of stupidity which is necessary to really believe that the "war on drugs" can be won, it's quite unlikely that there isn't lots of active lobbying involved to let the war continue as long as possible.
In the end, it's just a very profitable business and the people involved aren't stupid and have lots of money at their disposal. So why shouldn't they do it?
So of course many people don't suspect bad intentions here, maybe even many politicians or organizations which are on the receiving end of a donation, which originated from drug money.
Of course there are some other reasons too, but considering the amount of stupidity which is necessary to really believe that the "war on drugs" can be won, it's quite unlikely that there isn't lots of active lobbying involved to let the war continue as long as possible.
In the end, it's just a very profitable business and the people involved aren't stupid and have lots of money at their disposal. So why shouldn't they do it?
I don't know about the drug cartels but the prison industry definitely lobbies.
I'll go with "lunatics"
It's interesting that we actually have a potential big opponent for the drug cartels - drug companies. Legalizing drugs will drive cartels out of business because they'd be competing with clean drugs sold in pharmacies, prepared in well-funded laboratories of entities used to cooperating with safety regulations. So why the Big Pharma isn't lobbying for ending the war on drugs?
I wonder if it isn't the social view that's blocking them - the first pharmaceutical company to step up and vote for legalization could face a serious PR shitstorm centered about morality of "legitimizing addiction".
I wonder if it isn't the social view that's blocking them - the first pharmaceutical company to step up and vote for legalization could face a serious PR shitstorm centered about morality of "legitimizing addiction".
Firstly because they are well known drugs which they can't patent and make big profits off, their interest is in novel drugs which they can invent and profit off. Secondly they are a part of the system, and many drugs can actually threaten their model, like if mushrooms proved effective for depression, it could affect their sales of anti-depressants.
Many illegal drugs are actually dangerous, so you need legalization and some mechanism to shield them from liability.
They also already sell many analogues to illegal drugs under prescription, so you have to look at whether a legalized market would be a better business than the one they currently have.
They also already sell many analogues to illegal drugs under prescription, so you have to look at whether a legalized market would be a better business than the one they currently have.
You're right. As long as there are limits to access to drugs, there will be some market for getting them illicitly - even if for convenience reasons (say, getting prescription drugs without a prescription). The question is, whether that market will be big enough to support organized crime the way the war on drugs does.
> So why the Big Pharma isn't lobbying for ending the war on drugs?
Because the stuff used as illegal drugs is actually dangerous to health, and pharma industry selling that stuff -- even if completely pure and legitimate -- would be disastrous for their public image, and profits.
The public will want separate recreational drug companies (but even then there will be "revelations" that Big Pharma is "secretly" producing harmful drugs in factories that are also used for production of legitimate, useful medication).
Because the stuff used as illegal drugs is actually dangerous to health, and pharma industry selling that stuff -- even if completely pure and legitimate -- would be disastrous for their public image, and profits.
The public will want separate recreational drug companies (but even then there will be "revelations" that Big Pharma is "secretly" producing harmful drugs in factories that are also used for production of legitimate, useful medication).
"Dangerous" is too vague to be useful. There's plenty of legal, commercially produced opioids and opiates. Those have been well studied and have a variety of adverse reactions if not used delicately. However, they're perceived as "medicine" or "useful drugs" and hence do not have the same stigma.
If "dangerous" is too vague, then "untested" is valid. You can absolutely get me on board with the "DEA/FDA limit testing of illegal substances" rebuttal, but you can't say the variety of illegal substances have been as well tested through customer dosage as something that currently goes to market.
I think the biggest advantage Big Pharma would have over the cartels and fly-by-night drug makers is that legitimate companies are held accountable to quality and safety standards, therefore you can be sure that you're buying a drug produced following a proper process and contains only what it's supposed to. A lot of deaths from (illegal) drug use is caused by impurities and not by the drug itself, and illicit actors don't have incentives to reduce them.
> Because the stuff used as illegal drugs is actually dangerous to health
Recreational drugs are not inherently any more dangerous than the chemicals produced for medicinal use. They are the same kind of thing, recreational drugs just happen to be used for, well, recreation.
Some recreational chemicals are even less dangerous than drugs you can get OTC. For example, LSD has a stellar safety record. There are no recorded overdoses on it, and no known long term physical side effects. It is impossible to get addicted to LSD, because frequent use builds up a massive short term tolerance extremely quickly.
Contrast that with acetaminophen. It is widely and cheaply available, overused by a large number of people and it does some serious damage to your liver. You can also overdose on it.
Also, the pharmaceutical industry already produces many chemicals that are used recreationally, like opiates, benzodiazepines, amphetamines(including methamphetamine), various other stimulants, ketamine, DXM etc.
Infact, the only class of popular recreational compounds they don't produce happen to be the comparatively much safer psychedelics including tryptamines, phenylethylamines and lysergamides.
Recreational drugs are not inherently any more dangerous than the chemicals produced for medicinal use. They are the same kind of thing, recreational drugs just happen to be used for, well, recreation.
Some recreational chemicals are even less dangerous than drugs you can get OTC. For example, LSD has a stellar safety record. There are no recorded overdoses on it, and no known long term physical side effects. It is impossible to get addicted to LSD, because frequent use builds up a massive short term tolerance extremely quickly.
Contrast that with acetaminophen. It is widely and cheaply available, overused by a large number of people and it does some serious damage to your liver. You can also overdose on it.
Also, the pharmaceutical industry already produces many chemicals that are used recreationally, like opiates, benzodiazepines, amphetamines(including methamphetamine), various other stimulants, ketamine, DXM etc.
Infact, the only class of popular recreational compounds they don't produce happen to be the comparatively much safer psychedelics including tryptamines, phenylethylamines and lysergamides.
> Recreational drugs are not inherently any more dangerous than the chemicals produced for medicinal use.
That is true, but the general public creates its view on perceptions. Recreational drugs are frowned upon in many societies. In some (often primitive) societies the same substances may even be revered. But much of the world is very averse to psychoactive drugs in the popular opinion.
Same is true for other chemicals in our environment, too. For instance, it is common that people (even the same people) have a negative attitude towards a company that sells alcohol for human consumption (recreational use for intoxication) and a positive attitude towards a company that sells alcohol for use as fuel (biofuel, a renewable source of energy).
(And it is also common that people approve of drinking alcohol but do not approve of smoking marijuana, regardless of legality. And vice versa.)
That is true, but the general public creates its view on perceptions. Recreational drugs are frowned upon in many societies. In some (often primitive) societies the same substances may even be revered. But much of the world is very averse to psychoactive drugs in the popular opinion.
Same is true for other chemicals in our environment, too. For instance, it is common that people (even the same people) have a negative attitude towards a company that sells alcohol for human consumption (recreational use for intoxication) and a positive attitude towards a company that sells alcohol for use as fuel (biofuel, a renewable source of energy).
(And it is also common that people approve of drinking alcohol but do not approve of smoking marijuana, regardless of legality. And vice versa.)
Recreational drugs typically get overused, to the point of toxicity. Just do a 'ride-along' with your emergency room nurse friend any weekend evening, and keep count of overdose cases - prescribed vs recreational.
The parent commenter was implying that the public wouldn't stand for having recreational drugs being manufactured by regular pharm companies, because they were somehow more dangerous. I pointed out that pharm companies already manufacture dangerous chemicals, that include these recreational drugs.
Yes, but the fact that a company manufactures pharmaceuticals that are known to be dangerous but used in a controlled way (e.g. narcotic substances used for sedating persons when making operations by qualified medical personnel) is perceived by the public highly differently from manufacturing and delivering the same narcotics for recreational use.
And I think this is quite understandable, and not really about "war on drugs", it's about corporate responsibility.
Many companies are taking some flak for supplying completely legal chemical substances to the public (say, sugar drinks).
And I think this is quite understandable, and not really about "war on drugs", it's about corporate responsibility.
Many companies are taking some flak for supplying completely legal chemical substances to the public (say, sugar drinks).
Maybe that's because the recreational drug doesn't come with an MSDS/safe use documentation, because it was bought on the street.
Or perhaps because its recreational, and more fun is better, folks have no self control. They are called 'addictive' for a reason.
Or perhaps it's some unknown combination of all the factors that you can think of, but no one really knows because the very illegality makes it difficult to determine.
This means logically, you have to ignore the preconceptions, because they have no basis in reality, just your biases.
This means logically, you have to ignore the preconceptions, because they have no basis in reality, just your biases.
> They are called 'addictive' for a reason.
A reason that has little to do with recreation and a lot with altering brain chemistry.
A reason that has little to do with recreation and a lot with altering brain chemistry.
You're not really refuting his point.
It ultimately comes down to the concept of personal responsibility. Drinking does not absolve one of their subsequent actions and choices, regardless of their subsequent "mental state". Any choice to have an "unsound mind" was made while of sound mind, and thus responsibility for all results lie with the person themselves. Being mentally impaired doesn't magically transform someone into a blameless zombie.
Colleges seem to be doing their best to erode this concept, but I digress.
It ultimately comes down to the concept of personal responsibility. Drinking does not absolve one of their subsequent actions and choices, regardless of their subsequent "mental state". Any choice to have an "unsound mind" was made while of sound mind, and thus responsibility for all results lie with the person themselves. Being mentally impaired doesn't magically transform someone into a blameless zombie.
Colleges seem to be doing their best to erode this concept, but I digress.
There's an article I linked to in another comment subthread, it deals in details with this issue - in particular, when we should talk about personal responsibility and when just call it an illness.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10424645
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10424645
I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive. In the article you linked, the husband is right for making it clear that it is Sandy's problem, the doctor is also right for recommending medical treatment, and Sandy is right for seeking the doctor for help solving her problem.
What isn't right is things such as the doctor telling Sandy that obesity is "primary genetic". Even if the statement is scientifically correct in a narrow context, it functions to absolve Sandy of responsibility for solving her own problem - whether it be by dieting, seeing additional doctors, exercising, or all of the above. Heck, telling her husband "I am fine with my weight" is in this same category of self-actualization, although she must accept others' inevitable reactions.
As for my comment, I certainly wasn't meaning to advocate "personal responsibility" in the sense of "let them suffer". In aggregate, addiction should be addressed as a public health problem. But that doesn't mean we should absolve the individuals of responsibility for their own actions because their brain has been chemically altered. This is what I was getting at, because that junk reasoning is used to justify inebriated behavior as nobody's fault, which is then used to justify a sweeping bans on altering one's mental state.
What isn't right is things such as the doctor telling Sandy that obesity is "primary genetic". Even if the statement is scientifically correct in a narrow context, it functions to absolve Sandy of responsibility for solving her own problem - whether it be by dieting, seeing additional doctors, exercising, or all of the above. Heck, telling her husband "I am fine with my weight" is in this same category of self-actualization, although she must accept others' inevitable reactions.
As for my comment, I certainly wasn't meaning to advocate "personal responsibility" in the sense of "let them suffer". In aggregate, addiction should be addressed as a public health problem. But that doesn't mean we should absolve the individuals of responsibility for their own actions because their brain has been chemically altered. This is what I was getting at, because that junk reasoning is used to justify inebriated behavior as nobody's fault, which is then used to justify a sweeping bans on altering one's mental state.
Having perused the literature it seems that everything you said of LSD is also true of psilocybin.
I'm a libertarian, so I'm already sold on legalization. Count me in.
As such, hopefully I can quibble with the text a bit.
"Ceasing this hypocritical practice by releasing nonviolent offenders is morally urgent."
Yeah, not so much. Yes, there is a severe moral problem here, but please do not make moral arguments! It's folks with moral arguments riding around on high horses that got us into this mess. Instead, argue from the standpoint of practicality (which she does).
One of the practicality arguments she does not make, which deserves mentioning, is that because the drug war is unwinnable, there are too many laws. This makes folks with the power of selective enforcement lords over the rest of us.
Have a traffic stop? Cops ask to search your car? You have a right to say "no". But if you do, be prepared to wait around until the drug dog shows up. He'll sniff around your car and "alert" the cops, even if there's no drugs present. Then, guess what? They get to tear apart your car while you watch. All because of the war on drugs.
Let's say you are a drug user. You have a joint in the ashtray. In this case, it gets even better. Then -- if I'm not mistaken -- they get to take your car! A few dollars worth of illegal pot, which might not even be yours, and you could lose tens of thousands of dollars worth of car.
It's not that this is morally outrageous. It certainly is. It's that a system of justice cannot maintain the consent of the governed when it turns LE officers into something approaching highway bandits. Selective enforcement of drug laws -- both by cops and prosecutors -- distorts the legal system so much as to make it unworkable. Sure, it's bad, but the bigger point is that it cannot continue working in this fashion. Something's gotta give.
I liked the article. It's good to see public discourse slowly become much more reasonable about drug addiction and its consequences. One caution, though: in my opinion what we need to do is still stay tough on violent, hardened criminals while being more pragmatic about drug crimes. Otherwise we'll end up being slandered as soft-headed and irrational.
As such, hopefully I can quibble with the text a bit.
"Ceasing this hypocritical practice by releasing nonviolent offenders is morally urgent."
Yeah, not so much. Yes, there is a severe moral problem here, but please do not make moral arguments! It's folks with moral arguments riding around on high horses that got us into this mess. Instead, argue from the standpoint of practicality (which she does).
One of the practicality arguments she does not make, which deserves mentioning, is that because the drug war is unwinnable, there are too many laws. This makes folks with the power of selective enforcement lords over the rest of us.
Have a traffic stop? Cops ask to search your car? You have a right to say "no". But if you do, be prepared to wait around until the drug dog shows up. He'll sniff around your car and "alert" the cops, even if there's no drugs present. Then, guess what? They get to tear apart your car while you watch. All because of the war on drugs.
Let's say you are a drug user. You have a joint in the ashtray. In this case, it gets even better. Then -- if I'm not mistaken -- they get to take your car! A few dollars worth of illegal pot, which might not even be yours, and you could lose tens of thousands of dollars worth of car.
It's not that this is morally outrageous. It certainly is. It's that a system of justice cannot maintain the consent of the governed when it turns LE officers into something approaching highway bandits. Selective enforcement of drug laws -- both by cops and prosecutors -- distorts the legal system so much as to make it unworkable. Sure, it's bad, but the bigger point is that it cannot continue working in this fashion. Something's gotta give.
I liked the article. It's good to see public discourse slowly become much more reasonable about drug addiction and its consequences. One caution, though: in my opinion what we need to do is still stay tough on violent, hardened criminals while being more pragmatic about drug crimes. Otherwise we'll end up being slandered as soft-headed and irrational.
I generally agree with your major thesis which is that the laws need to be consistent and fair. Clearly the majority of Americans see no harm in an occasional toke, and the majority indeed have tried MJ. That in itself argues MJ should be made legal.
The one argument that the police might make against legalization is that it deprives them of a useful tool -- an immoral tool, but nonetheless vital -- for getting scumbags off the street.
Example: The cops stop a guy who they basically know committed a murder or a rape or some other violent crime, but they don't have the evidence to hold him. He'd call his lawyer, the lawyer would come in and make sure he's held for no more than the maximum number of hours, then he'd be freed and nothing gained by anyone. But if they can nail him on possession, they at least can get him off the streets for some days, weeks, or months, while they gather the evidence to really put him away.
Not really the spirit of the law, but it works. That said, I'd rather we focus more resources on the few sociopaths and violent types out there, and clear out the over-crowded prisons.
The one argument that the police might make against legalization is that it deprives them of a useful tool -- an immoral tool, but nonetheless vital -- for getting scumbags off the street.
Example: The cops stop a guy who they basically know committed a murder or a rape or some other violent crime, but they don't have the evidence to hold him. He'd call his lawyer, the lawyer would come in and make sure he's held for no more than the maximum number of hours, then he'd be freed and nothing gained by anyone. But if they can nail him on possession, they at least can get him off the streets for some days, weeks, or months, while they gather the evidence to really put him away.
Not really the spirit of the law, but it works. That said, I'd rather we focus more resources on the few sociopaths and violent types out there, and clear out the over-crowded prisons.
They do this already with tax evasion laws or they just keep throwing charges at gangsters to get them off the streets, like here where they use confidential informants to claim somebody did something then lock them up for years pending trial which is later dismissed. They also bust them on petty driving infractions all the time then wait for them to pay with unlaundered money, which opens the tax evasion case. When police and the state want to make your life hell they can easily do that without drug charges.
The real problem with the black market is it's wide open to robbery. Criminals can't do armed escorts for their product and cash or turn to police for protection so they get violently jacked by anybody with a gun. There's no insurance or legal recourse so their only method of compensation is more violence. Nobody jacks beer trucks anymore because the operator can phone police making such a robbery too risky, and they have insurance, so the beer company doesn't have to seek compensation by shooting up their rivals company.
As it stands right now the first thing a violent felon does upon release is rob a drug delivery driver, the black market is their ATM.
The real problem with the black market is it's wide open to robbery. Criminals can't do armed escorts for their product and cash or turn to police for protection so they get violently jacked by anybody with a gun. There's no insurance or legal recourse so their only method of compensation is more violence. Nobody jacks beer trucks anymore because the operator can phone police making such a robbery too risky, and they have insurance, so the beer company doesn't have to seek compensation by shooting up their rivals company.
As it stands right now the first thing a violent felon does upon release is rob a drug delivery driver, the black market is their ATM.
I have a few additional points to add.
The SCotUS has ruled that a cop cannot detain you at a traffic stop solely for the purpose of getting a dog to sniff your car. You can only be held for an amount of time reasonable to investigate the offense for which you were stopped, or any other offense that became obvious as a result of the stop.
It does not take 30 minutes to issue a speeding ticket, so if you are stopped for speeding and held 30 minutes until a K-9 shows up to hit on your car, that search is unconstitutional.
This may be why cops have, via extensive self-training, willed their noses into being able to smell things that ordinary people, dogs, and electronic noses cannot detect. When you roll down your window at the traffic stop to hand over license, insurance, and registration, the investigating officer says (for the benefit of his bodycam or dashcam), "I smell alcohol," or "I smell marijuana."
Then they search your car anyway. They do not, for some strange reason, fill several mylar balloons with the air from the inside of your car, and process them as evidence, so that they could possibly be independently tested for those telltale odors later.
They don't even need to find a joint in your ashtray. They could just seize your car on suspicion, without ever charging you with a crime. As forfeiture is an in rem proceeding against the car itself, and the car is not a person, it has no presumption of innocence. You then have to prove not only that you have power of attorney to appear in court for your car, but also prove its innocence from a presumption of guilt.
As long as cops can take that "mucho dinero in the trucky-trailer" with impunity, the forfeiture system will continue to grow more corrupt.
"I do not consent to searches or seizures. I will not respond to questions without legal counsel. Am I free to go?"
The SCotUS has ruled that a cop cannot detain you at a traffic stop solely for the purpose of getting a dog to sniff your car. You can only be held for an amount of time reasonable to investigate the offense for which you were stopped, or any other offense that became obvious as a result of the stop.
It does not take 30 minutes to issue a speeding ticket, so if you are stopped for speeding and held 30 minutes until a K-9 shows up to hit on your car, that search is unconstitutional.
This may be why cops have, via extensive self-training, willed their noses into being able to smell things that ordinary people, dogs, and electronic noses cannot detect. When you roll down your window at the traffic stop to hand over license, insurance, and registration, the investigating officer says (for the benefit of his bodycam or dashcam), "I smell alcohol," or "I smell marijuana."
Then they search your car anyway. They do not, for some strange reason, fill several mylar balloons with the air from the inside of your car, and process them as evidence, so that they could possibly be independently tested for those telltale odors later.
They don't even need to find a joint in your ashtray. They could just seize your car on suspicion, without ever charging you with a crime. As forfeiture is an in rem proceeding against the car itself, and the car is not a person, it has no presumption of innocence. You then have to prove not only that you have power of attorney to appear in court for your car, but also prove its innocence from a presumption of guilt.
As long as cops can take that "mucho dinero in the trucky-trailer" with impunity, the forfeiture system will continue to grow more corrupt.
"I do not consent to searches or seizures. I will not respond to questions without legal counsel. Am I free to go?"
Besides all of the stated reasons to legalize/decriminalize, I think just as important is personal liberty.
I should be free to experiment with my own consciousness (so long as it does not impede on the rights of others) - how much more personal can you get? For the government to impede on this is unconscionable (pun intended).
I should be free to experiment with my own consciousness (so long as it does not impede on the rights of others) - how much more personal can you get? For the government to impede on this is unconscionable (pun intended).
> so long as it does not impede on the rights of others
This is really the crux of the problem. How do you suggest that you legalize all drugs and then keep people on those drugs from harming others? Public safety has a hard enough time without having to deal with some unknown number of additional people that would try drugs are harm themselves or others if those drugs were legal.
This is really the crux of the problem. How do you suggest that you legalize all drugs and then keep people on those drugs from harming others? Public safety has a hard enough time without having to deal with some unknown number of additional people that would try drugs are harm themselves or others if those drugs were legal.
>How do you suggest that you legalize all drugs and then keep people on those drugs from harming others?
The bulk of the societal harm that comes from drug use is in the steps people take to get drugs, not from the actual drug use. Having adverse reactions to drugs can be mitigated by actually knowing what you're taking. And removing the stigma and taking on addiction as a public health issue and not a criminal one is a huge boost to community safety.
The bulk of the societal harm that comes from drug use is in the steps people take to get drugs, not from the actual drug use. Having adverse reactions to drugs can be mitigated by actually knowing what you're taking. And removing the stigma and taking on addiction as a public health issue and not a criminal one is a huge boost to community safety.
> How do you suggest that you legalize all drugs and then keep people on those drugs from harming others?
It depends on what you mean by that.
If you mean they harm others by going on a drug fueled rampage, there isn't much we can do but react when it happens like we do for, say, a passion fueled rampage or a drunken rampage.
If you mean people getting desperate because of a crippling addition so that they try to harm others in order to get access to their drug then I'd recommend spending a fraction of what we do going after and incarcerating these people and get them medical help with their addiction and the basic necessities of survival. And if they continue breaking the laws against other crimes, than prosecute them for those crimes.
It depends on what you mean by that.
If you mean they harm others by going on a drug fueled rampage, there isn't much we can do but react when it happens like we do for, say, a passion fueled rampage or a drunken rampage.
If you mean people getting desperate because of a crippling addition so that they try to harm others in order to get access to their drug then I'd recommend spending a fraction of what we do going after and incarcerating these people and get them medical help with their addiction and the basic necessities of survival. And if they continue breaking the laws against other crimes, than prosecute them for those crimes.
> How do you suggest that you legalize all drugs and then keep people on those drugs from harming others?
Illegalizing drugs doesn't keep people on those drugs from harming others; in general, government policy can't absolutely prevent any class of unconsented harms, what it can provide accountability and compensatory mechanism and do things to mitigate (or increase!) the quantity of such harms. And I think the evidence is pretty clear that prohibition, as it has been attempted with alcohol and many other drugs, does quite a bit to increase harms inflicted on others related to the use of and market for the prohibited drugs. A better policy is needed, but its not reasonable to expect that that policy will "keep people on those drugs from harming others".
Illegalizing drugs doesn't keep people on those drugs from harming others; in general, government policy can't absolutely prevent any class of unconsented harms, what it can provide accountability and compensatory mechanism and do things to mitigate (or increase!) the quantity of such harms. And I think the evidence is pretty clear that prohibition, as it has been attempted with alcohol and many other drugs, does quite a bit to increase harms inflicted on others related to the use of and market for the prohibited drugs. A better policy is needed, but its not reasonable to expect that that policy will "keep people on those drugs from harming others".
No, the crux of the problem is your line of thinking. The government cannot and should not replace personal responsibility.
Your argument would mean that no one could drive a car or drink alcohol. Why are drugs different?
Your argument would mean that no one could drive a car or drink alcohol. Why are drugs different?
drugs aren't different to alcohol, but I'm sure you can appreciate they are different to cars
Temporarily and in places without great public transport. Once automated cars become common place, the argument will hold for choosing to manually drive.
That being said, I've seen a lot of people who think it will eventually become illegal to manually drive, at least on crowded public roads within large cities.
That being said, I've seen a lot of people who think it will eventually become illegal to manually drive, at least on crowded public roads within large cities.
That's not a crux, that's compounding the issue with a completely orthogonal problem. Politics 101.
How do you legalize alcohol and then keep people on alcohol from harming others? How do you legalize guns and then keep people with guns from harming others?
How do you legalize alcohol and then keep people on alcohol from harming others? How do you legalize guns and then keep people with guns from harming others?
This is not happening in a vacuum. There's already problems with experimentation causing considerable public expense, exposure to danger and needless suffering. Anybody can give you an anecdote - I will resist posting mine since they are a dime a dozen.
The war on drugs has never been about public safety - it's been about control on minorities. This is well documented.
Do drugs have risks? Of course. But as pointed out elsewhere, so does everything else. It's also very clear that any ostensible benefit from prohibition is easily outweighed by the crime and suffering caused by it.
Do drugs have risks? Of course. But as pointed out elsewhere, so does everything else. It's also very clear that any ostensible benefit from prohibition is easily outweighed by the crime and suffering caused by it.
> Anybody can give you an anecdote - I will resist posting mine since they are a dime a dozen.
Links to reputable studies backing this up would be welcome.
Links to reputable studies backing this up would be welcome.
You can say that about anything. Should the government stop people from eating junk food? from participating in dangerous sports activities? Why are drugs different?
Because, car accidents, child neglect, spouse abuse, healthcare, time lost to work...
Some of those other things are regulated as well. E.g. You can't rappel in many state parks, because idiots kept getting hurt and costing the state $$$ in rescue attempts to remote locations.
Its not all cruel government heedlessly restricting rights. That's an immature viewpoint. Count the cost and see that nothing is free.
Some of those other things are regulated as well. E.g. You can't rappel in many state parks, because idiots kept getting hurt and costing the state $$$ in rescue attempts to remote locations.
Its not all cruel government heedlessly restricting rights. That's an immature viewpoint. Count the cost and see that nothing is free.
Count the cost of prohibition and do the math. It's cheaper to not spend billions of dollars on prisons and courts then to treat drug abuse like the health issue that it is.
Perhaps the police need to come and kick down your door and throw you in prison to keep you from drinking any more alcohol. You know, for your own good and to protect society.
Perhaps the police need to come and kick down your door and throw you in prison to keep you from drinking any more alcohol. You know, for your own good and to protect society.
They'd have the wrong house :) I don't drink.
Well that would be too bad, because it's happening today over drugs. Mistakes happen, and if it's to protect citizens from hurting themselves then it's all for good, right?
Meanwhile people are dying all over the world due to the Drug War but you can feel smug and secure knowing that you are above it all.
Meanwhile people are dying all over the world due to the Drug War but you can feel smug and secure knowing that you are above it all.
So that means you ARE for prohibition of alcohol. Read your last sentence: count the cost and see that nothing is free.
Do you think prohibition of alcohol had no costs? Same thing with drugs - which the article pointed out. The cost of keeping it illegal far outweighs the potential costs resulting from irresponsible users (which we still pay for even when it is illegal)
Do you think prohibition of alcohol had no costs? Same thing with drugs - which the article pointed out. The cost of keeping it illegal far outweighs the potential costs resulting from irresponsible users (which we still pay for even when it is illegal)
Alcohol is regulated in almost every state in the US. Because its dangerous.
Show me any evidence that taking a drug causes a person to beat their spouse or neglect their child.
And, for anyone who would drive intoxicated or cripple their health via drug abuse, that is already easy to do -- drugs aren't hard to find if you're looking. Prohibition hasn't and will not stop any of the negative consequences of drug use.
And, for anyone who would drive intoxicated or cripple their health via drug abuse, that is already easy to do -- drugs aren't hard to find if you're looking. Prohibition hasn't and will not stop any of the negative consequences of drug use.
This sub-thread seems to be begging for an anecdote.
https://www.reddit.com/r/oakland/comments/3pf0xk/machete_wie...
https://www.reddit.com/r/oakland/comments/3pf0xk/machete_wie...
Is it creating violence or exacerbating violence? I'm more inclined to choose the latter. The reason why I distinguish the two is that I see the continuation and increase in drug use as something symptomatic of other issues in the big picture.
Economic issues, politics, racism.... oppression on various fronts from the system down to the family to the self.
Drugs (and alcohol) are an escape. Normal activities also provide an escape when people get obsessed with them. TV, video games, food (my escape), exercise for some addicts, sex, etc.
Just legalize cannabis and decriminalize other drugs already.
Economic issues, politics, racism.... oppression on various fronts from the system down to the family to the self.
Drugs (and alcohol) are an escape. Normal activities also provide an escape when people get obsessed with them. TV, video games, food (my escape), exercise for some addicts, sex, etc.
Just legalize cannabis and decriminalize other drugs already.
> Is it creating violence or exacerbating violence?
Depends on the substance, depends on the market, depends on the reason for using. I haven't seen too many people on MDMA become violent or impoverished through addiction, though their incessant hugs and platitudes can lead to a violent response if they don't have enough to go around.
It's complex, but not that complex. We have the power of observation - where we can plot what is safe to use recreationally, what can be considered substance abuse, which substances often lead to abusive behaviour, which socio-economic factors lead to use in the first place, factors in the marketplace that lead to violence and crime, how we can monetarily/socially/legislatively abate the negative factors...and yet here we are with our proverbial junk in our hand wondering what to do. Start being objective, use methodologies that we've used for years for other problems that aren't taboo. We've travelled to the fucking moon.
My non-objective opinion: Drugs are interesting. Drugs take the edge off of a less-than-stellar life. Drugs help the mind momentarily escape the trap set by forces who care little for your happiness and wellbeing. You can fix the latter, which is unlikely in our lifetime, or reduce the burden of being a drug user in the interim.
Depends on the substance, depends on the market, depends on the reason for using. I haven't seen too many people on MDMA become violent or impoverished through addiction, though their incessant hugs and platitudes can lead to a violent response if they don't have enough to go around.
It's complex, but not that complex. We have the power of observation - where we can plot what is safe to use recreationally, what can be considered substance abuse, which substances often lead to abusive behaviour, which socio-economic factors lead to use in the first place, factors in the marketplace that lead to violence and crime, how we can monetarily/socially/legislatively abate the negative factors...and yet here we are with our proverbial junk in our hand wondering what to do. Start being objective, use methodologies that we've used for years for other problems that aren't taboo. We've travelled to the fucking moon.
My non-objective opinion: Drugs are interesting. Drugs take the edge off of a less-than-stellar life. Drugs help the mind momentarily escape the trap set by forces who care little for your happiness and wellbeing. You can fix the latter, which is unlikely in our lifetime, or reduce the burden of being a drug user in the interim.
> We have the power of observation - where we can plot what is safe to use recreationally...
Wikipedia says this better than I can: In 2007 [Dr David] Nutt published a controversial study on the harms of drug use in The Lancet.[12] Eventually, this led to his sacking from his position in the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD); see government positions below. Subsequently, Nutt and a number of his colleagues who had subsequently resigned from the ACMD founded the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs.[13]
Here are the citations: [12] Nutt, D.; King, L. A.; Saulsbury, W.; Blakemore, C. (2007). "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse". The Lancet 369 (9566): 1047–1053. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4. PMID 17382831. [13] Nutt, D. (2010). "Nutt damage – Author's reply". The Lancet 375 (9716): 724–724. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60302-9.
Roughly, the story as I recall it was that the head of the government's own advisory body on the health effects of drugs published a report through established scientific channels which claimed a significant mis-match between the harm caused by many popular drugs and the legislation around them. These were respected scientsists originally picked for their qualifications & integrity. Their opinion was unpopular with the existing power-structures and so their leader felt he had to resign, and several of his peers followed voluntarily.
Up to this point, most governments have exhibited intent to ignore the suggestions and testable claims of researchers in this area, and to ignore the will of the people they represent. I doubt an article in the WP will do anything to change that, no matter how much I wish it would.
Wikipedia says this better than I can: In 2007 [Dr David] Nutt published a controversial study on the harms of drug use in The Lancet.[12] Eventually, this led to his sacking from his position in the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD); see government positions below. Subsequently, Nutt and a number of his colleagues who had subsequently resigned from the ACMD founded the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs.[13]
Here are the citations: [12] Nutt, D.; King, L. A.; Saulsbury, W.; Blakemore, C. (2007). "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse". The Lancet 369 (9566): 1047–1053. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4. PMID 17382831. [13] Nutt, D. (2010). "Nutt damage – Author's reply". The Lancet 375 (9716): 724–724. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60302-9.
Roughly, the story as I recall it was that the head of the government's own advisory body on the health effects of drugs published a report through established scientific channels which claimed a significant mis-match between the harm caused by many popular drugs and the legislation around them. These were respected scientsists originally picked for their qualifications & integrity. Their opinion was unpopular with the existing power-structures and so their leader felt he had to resign, and several of his peers followed voluntarily.
Up to this point, most governments have exhibited intent to ignore the suggestions and testable claims of researchers in this area, and to ignore the will of the people they represent. I doubt an article in the WP will do anything to change that, no matter how much I wish it would.
The other day Richard Branson posted a leaked report from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime that agrees with the notion of drug use as a health issue, not a criminal one. Of course, they've turned around and said that's not their official stance. Sigh.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/19/un-call-decri...
http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/finally-a-change-in-co...
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/19/un-call-decri...
http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/finally-a-change-in-co...
If you have a business disagreement you can't go to drug court to resolve it. Sometimes attempts to resolve differences go wrong. At some level the violence in the drug black market is simply because it is a black market.
I'm not too keen on Silver's analysis/conclusion that drug offenses account for such a low fraction of inmates' crimes. Drug possession renders a lot of otherwise non criminal behavior into a "violent felony", and prosecutors love tacking these extra charges on when they can.
Violent crime in America rose dramatically as a result of worsening racial ties after the death of Martin Luther King, a lack of employment and investment in local communities, and an increase in use of heroin and (later) easier to produce drugs like crack.
Increase in the number of robbery and petty crime identically track both the increase in use of and violence associated with drug use. But the war on drugs' main influence on this violence has been to keep the pressure on the drug dealers, increasing risk to sell the product and making it less available, thus driving up prices, increasing competition, and therefore promoting violence between drug dealers, and by drug users in order to afford what they're addicted to.
And all of this leads to increased incarceration, not just from drug charges, but from the increased violence associated with the drug trade, gang warfare, and an unlawful under-society where people do whatever they can to get by.
A flow chart would make it a bit easier to grok, but basically the drug war throws fuel on a fire that was only simmering before.
Increase in the number of robbery and petty crime identically track both the increase in use of and violence associated with drug use. But the war on drugs' main influence on this violence has been to keep the pressure on the drug dealers, increasing risk to sell the product and making it less available, thus driving up prices, increasing competition, and therefore promoting violence between drug dealers, and by drug users in order to afford what they're addicted to.
And all of this leads to increased incarceration, not just from drug charges, but from the increased violence associated with the drug trade, gang warfare, and an unlawful under-society where people do whatever they can to get by.
A flow chart would make it a bit easier to grok, but basically the drug war throws fuel on a fire that was only simmering before.
[deleted]
Yup, ineffective law enforcement and judicial system turns the survival street mantra to "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."
Like I mentioned before, I just spent 6 months in the deep bowels of the criminal justice system for drug possession here in Florida, and those observations have shaped this view.
The cops, the judges, the lawyers on both sides (who eventually become the politicians that make the laws), the clerks, the guards (do they hate being called that!), the jail/prison administrators...they ALL are making pretty awesome livings from the war on drugs, and have zero repeat ZERO incentive to change anything.
The problem is not a legal one, it's economic.
The public is fed the propaganda of wrecked lives and violence to keep the status quo...until the population somehow wakes up and sees how the CJS is totally broken as perhaps even more corrupt then the drug game, I doubt anything can change.