Hacker News Reader

Comment by lukifer | Hacker News Reader

There are mental gymnastics involved anytime the umbrella term "drugs" is invoked; the behavioral differences between cannabis, LSD, PCP, heroin and crack cocaine are so staggering, it's absurd to talk about them lumped together. You might as well try to include roller skates, go-carts and fighter jets into traffic laws.

Anecdotally, there are instances where there is a correlation between some drugs and violence, which is why the myth persists, even if the statistical likelihood of violence is identical for non-drug-related circumstance. But the vast majority of drug violence is a product of inevitable black markets, and a reflection of the misused violence of the state.

View on HN

Well, the article pointed to three different sources of drug violence - violence from intoxication, violence from getting money for drugs, and violence from selling drugs. They need to be dealt with as separate issues.

Violence from intoxication depends on the drug. Alcohol is probably the worst, followed by amphetamines and cocaine. Nobody wants to break a nose because they're high on pot. So the laws don't line up with violent potential.

Violence from getting money for drugs is because drugs are expensive, and addicts tend to be social outcasts. It's also incidental to property crime in general.

Violence from drug sales is 100% the result of prohibition. During alcohol Prohibition, alcohol business crime was widespread. Today, it's nonexistent. Likewise, there's virtually no violence in the field of loosely handled prescription drugs. If drugs (not just marijuana, but hard drugs like cocaine and heroin) were broadly legalized and readily available in a safe and competitive market, violence from both the drug trade and the cost of drug addiction would disappear.

Which makes one ask, "Why do we do this?", when it makes so little sense. Then one might answer, "Is racism a root cause of the war on drugs?", and a whole bunch of people would howl with indignation.

Try "socially unacceptable drugs" or "taboo drugs." The classification is completely arbitrary, and is usually related to whether or not the drug is used by a socially marginal or ethnic minority group like blacks or hippies. Alcohol can be as dangerous as heroin if used heavily, but upper class white people drink it so it's okay and is not a "drug."

>Upper class white people

Your racism is showing.

Upper class people like Cocaine too, care to inject a racial undertone as to why that is illegal?

People with money like cocaine. There is a correlation between class and money, but they are not the same thing.

That's why the penalties for cocaine are historical less than for crack despite them being the same drug.

It's not racial per se -- in the original message I think "dominant mainstream culture" would be better than "white" -- though in the 50s and 60s those were almost the same thing. Back then the dominant culture implied white, English-speaking, and protestant Christian, and other cultures and ethnic groups were second class. That's much less true today but not totally.

I'm speaking to the historical reasons for the war on drugs, which are mostly related to racism as well as a desire to suppress subcultures like the 'hippie' movement. The original propaganda used to make marijuana illegal was all about black men seducing white women. Google it.

If the war on drugs were about health and based on rational health evidence, marijuana would be legal and alcohol would be schedule I.

Crack is much more addictive, and most of the people buying crack are white.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com