The war on drugs might subside because of the perfect enemy they have now: terrorists. A faceless, ever-present threat that can keep the war drums beating.
What I'd like to see is the military-industrial complex shift their battle to a War on Extinction: space exploration.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_haunted_world
Good luck.
It's absurd. The absurd part being, if you told me we actually got rid of it, I wouldn't believe it either. So maybe better keep some, just in case. So understandable and so stupid at the same time--absurdity.
Not really "the US" per se, but the lobbies behind politics (the police likes the war on drugs because they get massive federal grants for it, and equipment resellers are happy to oblige - and where there is big money, there are influencers to make sure politicians go a certain way) in order to thrive.
Add to that that the public opinion is pretty much against drugs in America, and it's fairly straightforward for politicians to double-down on that kind of topic and enforce rigidity.
I think generally there are people with all sorts of agendas. Unfortunately, in the current state of society, the ones that stick will always be the ones who drive profits the most.
Fear might be the strongest motivator for the average human being. It's not surprising systems fed by conflict and imaginary enemies seem to thrive so much.
It doesn't mean that there aren't bubbles of people who are different, but they are just ripples among the waves.
That said, I think it might subside for different reasons.
The demographics of drug addiction are changing. Addictive drug use went from being primarily a poor minority inner city epidemic to something affecting affluent white kids, professionals with bad backs and the elderly. The road from Oxycontin to heroin is a well documented phenomenon[1] that has become all too familiar with the people who pushed for severe punishments for drug crimes.
If your kid could be facing 10 years in jail because he was charged with the intent to distribute a bag of heroin, and that same situation is playing out in towns all over America, suddenly the wheels of change get greased.
[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/15/heroin-...
Give me a break. I've never heard a more hyperbolic statement even from diehard warmongers.
There is no conceivable way that terrorists threaten our national existence/security. Even several orders of magnitude more attacks a year would be barely a blip in terms of actual casualties.
There are sizable portions of the US and Europe that believe muslims are terrorist sympathizers who want to enact Sharia law. To them terrorists, immigrants and muslims are existential threats: they want to blow them up, take their jobs and run their lives and government.
> There is no conceivable way that terrorists threaten our national existence/security.
I agree.
Sure, and there are millions of people who believe all sorts of nutty things. Millions of people believe that stars predict the future or that aliens regularly abduct people. That doesn't mean we should legitimize these beliefs.
Edit: just reread your comment and several orders is 200 buildings?
Realistically, as cold as this sounds, a terrorist attack which managed to level downtown would not even pose an existential threat to the US.
More terrorism might change the nature of US democracy, but it will still be the US.
It's actually not that hard to imagine: dirty bomb set off in midtown Manhattan, kills thousands and sickens tens of thousands. In its hasty reply, the US launches a massive counterstrike against somewhere based on shoddy intel. Putin says, oh hell no, and red buttons are pushed. That's game over folks.
This statement surprises me. Especially your talk of casualties. I think you miss something important about "terrorism". It is far more than raw casualty numbers. It is about the "fear and uncertainty" they generate in a populace. And that, to me, is a threat to any modern nation's existence, in a world whose economy depends a lot on things like "confidence" and "optimism".
Perhaps I misunderstand developed nations, but from my point of view, your statement seems alarmingly absurd.
Also keep in mind that people are already extraordinarily pessimistic and unconfident about the country.
As much as I'd hate to live in a police state, I don't think you can call that the "collapse of the USA." China is very much alive.
And doesn't anymore.
only allowed a minority of citizens to vote for most of its history
And now does.
These are both examples of how the US has improved over time. I would be very surprised to see a reversal on either of these. If there were, people would similarly question whether it was still the US in anything but name, even if this had been the situation in the past.
You're being sarcastic, right?
This is a really good way to phrase it as a marketing campaign. It could be used for global warming, energy problems and like you mention space exploration.
Maybe we ought to instead start a "War on Health" or a "War on Learning" ;)
We lack the social cohesion to exist otherwise. Our nation has lost the grand dreams that drove our forefathers... now we huddle together fearing the nightmares and boogeymen.
We stage coups in democratic countries, then we install puppet leaders. Then we start growing, harvesting, or selling drugs there. Then we move on to the next country.
Check out the history of Captagon.
This is a good book that shows some of the motivation for a War on Drugs is not in the name of health, safety, security... but the exact opposite. The War on Drugs sorta failed in these aims, so now "terrorists" are the new excuse for a 'soft' police state.
As for people using drugs recreationally - if they're functioning adults then who cares? It's no different than drinking alcohol for a lot of people. If you do it in excess or irresponsibly you can die. Part of being an adult is taking a little personal responsibility.
I completely believe that to control the world, you must control people's minds, and to control people's minds, you must control drugs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Egypt#Ottoman_peri...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Singapore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Opium_Convention
There are also references of the ban in Turkey and Greece in 1890 everywhere but without good sources.
The above should be enough to realize that that different nations made various drugs illegal without the US influence and without intention to oppress black panthers and communists.
A cynical person may think that that the modern war on drugs is intended to increase profits for the CIA for things that they couldn't ask the tax payers for.
An extra cynical person may think that the CIA has found a new and much cleaner way of raising money via the tech startup industry.
But you'd have to be pretty cynical to believe that.
Guess which country has rules to bend to the war on terror?
All you need is a compliant media and lots of Money to be made to corrupt enough legislators....
Spoken by someone who has never known an opioid or cocaine addict, and watched lives crumble, sometimes into death.
Most drugs are quite dangerous and have seriously adverse affects upon populations at large.
Cocaine, Meth, and Opioids create massive social health problems far beyond anything dope or alcohol ever could.
I have no doubt there are 'responsible' users out there, but in general, those things will lay waste to populations at large.
I had a friend who lived in his (wealthy) parents basement, smocking crack all day, every day. Visiting with him - there was gerbil feces everywhere, a divot in the sofa were he sat all day, and a pile of ashes next to him on the sofa. He had every opportunity in life, he now lives in a clinic.
Another 'responsible partier' friend in who died of suffocation 'laughing gas' mask to his face.
Another - a weed addict (yes, despite the fact that pot is not really chemically addictive, there is definitely such a thing as addiction) - who threw himself in front of a subway in despair. Not blaming the drugs, but it's specifically related in this case.
A family member who is point-blank prescription opioid addict - and it's complicated because she gets debilitating migraines that few drugs can help her with, but the 'solution' is poison.
And finally - close family members and friends who are 'chronic' pot smokers, who manage it quite well, but are basically always high. It has dramatically affected their lives, though they are functional - they are entirely different people. I'm not sure if I would call that addiction, but I would say it is problematic.
I live in a mixed neighbourhood of creatives/wealthy/working class, there's a health clinic across the street - and the effect of crack in my neighbourhood is quite visible.
Visit places where the 'war on drugs' is truly being lost, like West Virginia, and you get the picture pretty quickly.
Of course there is no reason to put pot smokers in jail - but this antagonism about the 'war on drugs' is very naive, unsympathetic, and dangerous.
Chewing on coca leaves? Maybe. The occasional LSD/Hyabithsca user? Doesn't matter.
But there is no way we will legalize opioids, coke, meth - it doesn't matter that some can 'handle it' - it just wreaks havoc overall. On the whole they destroy lives, families, social scenes, and this is before the legal framework.
I think that the 'perception' problem of the 'war on drugs' is largely led by people who are recreational users, living in the 'Burning Man' bubble of people who have their act together. Then they read up on 'jailing' because of this and that. Remember that if you're in that club, heck, if you're reading HN, you're probably in the top 5% of Americans, and probably the top 0.1% of global population.
Visit your local Salvation Army :)
The part of this sentence after the hyphen is where you're fundamentally wrong. You listed a lot of sad facts and stories about drug abuse, but those do not constitute a defense of the war on drugs. It's naive to excuse the war on drugs simply because some drugs cause horrible effects for some people.
No.
Meth, cocaine and opioids represent the vast majority of illegal use outside of weed (which I think is a different category, and it is treated differently in most places) - and they represent a huge risk to society at large.
Prescription opioid use is becoming a massive problem (and now the #1 source of addiction etc.) in the US - it's systematic - not just a problem for 'some people'.
This not about 'specific examples' - it's widespread and systematic.
Making drugs illegal ultimately prevents people from getting the help they need.
2) the infinitely more dangerous threat,which you accurately described, is opioids...yet ask an average high schooler and they'll tell you they were taught weed is so evil...
3) oh, and lack of health insurance kills more people in the US than cocaine
In Canada (a prison in Ottawa, specifically) if you 'go in' an opioid addict, the actually give you 3 doses of methodone a day. A friend of mine in there for a few days (small thing) described them as insane zombies, banging on the door to the clinic when it was almost time for their next dose.
The 'short term' harm reduction ideal of 'giving them drugs' might be nice, but in the 'long term' - keeping people jacked on opioids for months at a time has to be one of the most cruel things imaginable.
2) I think that most 'high schoolers' grasp that heroin, meth and coke are far worse than weed.
3) This is a separate issue. In other countries, such as Canada, we still have 'the war on drugs' - and 'free healthcare'.
Paracetamol (is this tylenol in the US) is a pretty effective poison too. Many drugs are poisonous either in large doses or sustained use. It appears cannabis is not one of them btw. What is your solution?
I don't think GP advances a blanket solution, which is good, because there isn't one. I do think he's a bit arguing against a blanket legalization policy that no one here is advancing, and that's good too, because that way lies madness.
Opinions of HN users may vary on how exactly to fix these problems, but I think it's safe to say that neither the system we have now (villainizing and condemning users) nor complete and total deregulation are solutions.
Think Mexican drug cartels, gang wars over drug selling operations, etc.
The 'war on drugs' has not been shown responsible for addiction, addiction-related crime and related social ills.
The premise is thus: every nation in North and South America must perfectly legalize all illegal drugs across the board for use, production and distribution (any imperfect law structures could cause illegal behavior), else the nations that do not establish perfect systems are responsible for all ills related to said non-perfect legalization no matter where they occur in the hemisphere. That's what is being proposed in concept if you extrapolate it.
I support the complete legalization of all drugs. However, trying to pin all ills on the US, is nothing more than a political convenience. It occurs with practically every bad thing on the planet. The US does not control the world; take China as one example when it comes to drugs, or broader Asia (most of which frequently shares China's general sentiment on drugs) - the US didn't impose those policies on China. The US doesn't control Latin America any more than it controls China or Asia. The same mentality that has existed in the US regarding the war on drugs, is in fact very common throughout the rest of the planet, including in Latin America.
The US has active military operation against drug production all over Latin America.
Plus the US is responsable for the massive demand that drives a lot of these activities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJUXLqNHCaI
Deaths might not be in the million range, but the number of ruined life thanks to the war is well beyond millions.
A case could be made for exceptions here and there (like the child in this article) but I don't think it works so well in society.
Almost all of the drug users I know are highly motivated and very successful people. Even if you include illegal drugs.
Perhaps this is just selection bias at work, but that knife cuts both ways.
There isn't just the selection bias of people you tend to know potentially not being representative of most drug users, but the need for comparing how those same drug users would do without drugs (I'm not sure how this is possible to evaluate). It isn't enough to say that some drug users are highly motivated and successful, which I don't contest.
If they were enjoying a light marijuana buzz (or a light alcohol/caffeine buzz!!!) during work hours -- or in a way that directly and visibly effects their work performance -- you might have a point.
But even in those cases, I would still strongly disagree with your rationale. The same line of reasoning also justifies jailing people for obesity, which "Has Been Known To Significantly Decrease Productivity". And it certainly justifies jailing people who drink alcohol, since even mild hang-overs have rather extreme effects on productivity. If you're too over-weight or hung-over or high to work, then you should be fired. Not jailed.
But justifying a law on the basis that individuals should organize their private life choices such that they are optimally productive as members of society? That's quite the burden, and if we're going to impose that burden, I suspect we'd have a compelling justification for jailing literally anyone.
Conversely, all of the drug users I know are employed and earn between 1x and 3x the national average household income. At jobs where they're highly respected for their contributions.
Again, maybe that's just anecdote. But the "anecdote" criticism cuts both ways. The only real difference is that I'm not justifying jailing people on the basis of personal anecdote.
You're saying that by sampling opinions that are formed in small neighborhoods around voters, we can get a picture of ground truth -- even if reality is distorted in various ways around those small neighborhoods.
This can work, but not in the case where there's something masking a portion of the data set such that personal anecdote isn't indicative of underlying reality, even locally.
In that case, anecdotes aren't even locally accurate, and that effect amortizes over the voting population to result in a globally inaccurate picture of reality.
Which is the case here. Criminalizing and stigmatizing drugs means that grandma doesn't necessarily know successful son-in-law smokes pot on the weekend, for example.
It's definitely selection bias.
I too lived in an urban/cool area with 'pro' drug users and (mostly) never saw a problem, though there was one accidental OD in my circle.
But get out into the real world, working class areas where meth and crack in particular have laid waste - it's another story.
Rural areas, working class areas, ghettos - another story - and I think they represent the 'majority' of users by far.
In fact - I think that this bias is the #1 contributor to the misinformation about 'the war on drugs'.
As I stated in another thread, the "all drug users are lazy" mythos is also a form of selection bias. The only difference is that my selection bias isn't being used as a justification for jailing people. I think that's an important difference.
> Rural areas, working class areas, ghettos - another story - and I think they represent the 'majority' of users by far.
We see similar harms from excessive tobacco and alcohol abuse in those communities, but we don't outlaw those drugs.
So, why do we draw the arbitrary line where we do?
And how, exactly, does jailing these people actually help anything?
Basically, I don't take this argument seriously unless the person advocating it is in favor of marijuana legalization or else supports alcohol prohibition.
what happens when you become the target? what if society decides that your behavior is undesirable?
It's not just anecdotal evidence, but also a basic understanding of human psychology and how drugs and addiction influences people.
show me your proof.
i use drugs every day. i also have a high-paying job, friends, family. i pay my taxes, and participate in the community. i know lots of other people who live similar lifestyles.
the question is, why aren't drugs destroying us? why hasn't colorado burnt to the ground? or portugal for that matter?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/05/why-h...
https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decr...
https://news.vice.com/article/ungass-portugal-what-happened-...
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/revenue/colorado-marijuana-...
you are positing something that you have no proof of. what we do know is that the war on drugs is damaging to society. we also know that decriminalization worked for Portugal. where is your proof?
i want to be free. i don't want you or anyone else to have the power to dictate my (or anyone's) behavior.
Your assumptions are not knowledge. Also, your concept of freedom seems rather misplaced. Everyone already does dictate your behavior. If you think otherwise, you are not thinking hard enough.
have some data:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_239505_EN_T...
decriminalization works. punishing users doesn't.
if you want to do something about drugs, treat the addiction. fund rehab programs. see them as people with a medical issue, rather than morally corrupt individuals.
Do you have any evidence to support your "deep suspicion"?
This is why declaring war is traditionally a last-resort approach, appropriate only when you believe the inevitable evils of waging war are worth enduring to eliminate the great evil you're facing. If the evil you're facing is not that great, war is not the right tool.