Hacker News Reader

Comment by subsystem | Hacker News Reader

"It's not a war on drugs, don't ever think it's a war on drugs. It's a war on the blacks, it started as a war on the blacks," says Ed Burns, the co-creator of the television show The Wire. "It's now spread [to] the Hispanics and poor whites, but initially it was a war on blacks. And it was designed, basically, to take that energy that was coming out of the civil rights movement and destroy it."

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryus2012/2012/0...

View on HN

Not sure why your comment was downvoted, since it's essentially true.

They call it War on Drugs, because "War on Blacks" would be racist and "War on the Poor" would be admitting to class warfare.

Think about the simplest example: crack vs. powder cocaine. Prior to 2010, there was a 100:1 ratio on the Federal penalties for the two types of the same drug. Crack cocaine also carried a five year mandatory minimum. Officially, this was based on Congress's belief that crack was more dangerous than powder. Unofficially, it was because crack was much, much more common among blacks and Hispanics, whereas powder was often consumed by rich white people.

In 2010 Obama reduced the disparity to 18:1 and removed the mandatory sentencing on crack. The disparity is still crazy racist however.

But countries which have >99% white population have similar policies as the United States on drugs, so the race theory doesn't seem to be correct.

>But countries which have >99% white population have similar policies as the United States on drugs, so the race theory doesn't seem to be correct.

They have similar policies but not the same policies.

And even when they are the same, they execute them differently.

No country has even close to the American incarceration rate for mere drug use.

These numbers are from 2008, and quite a few states have decriminalized pot, so I wouldn't get quite too excited. Also it is probably just coincidental that crime peaked just as incarceration rates went up and crime rates continued to decline as incarceration increased.

similar != the same. For example our sentencing is not similar to most western european countries. There is also a difference between how a law is on the books, versus how it is implemented.

You are completely missing the point: these are laws which were enacted to target a specific minority. And which have been expanded because it is profitable for private interests and easy for politicians to campaign as "tough on crime."

Similar laws in other countries are genuinely irrelevant.

Bear in mind the USA's pressure on other countries to "harmonize" their drug laws. Some of this is purely political, but consider what happens when some regions have looser regulation on a given drug. Suddenly the drug is cheaper there, and criminal exporters take notice.

Which countries are you talking about?

No Western country I know of has an even remotely similar policy to the US on drugs. Most of them don't have >99% white population either btw.

Well, most European countries have similar laws like the United States. Possession and use of cannabis and other drugs is illegal. There are a few countries like Netherlands which have lax laws, and some countries have decriminalization laws (like Portugal).

There's a difference in policy with respect to sentencing. While in Finland (for example) possession of cannabis usually gets you a fine, it's possible to get a jail sentence for that in the United States (though it's legal to possess small amounts of cannabis in some states). However, this difference can be explained by tougher sentencing for crime in general

Decriminalization of cannabis seems to be slightly more common in the USA than it's in Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-cannabis-laws.png

I don't understand where this idea comes from that drug laws are lax in Europe (maybe from pop culture references to the Netherlands?). They're pretty tough, but jail sentences are less common just as it's for other crimes.

"They're pretty tough, but jail sentences are less common "

-- huh? --

It is true that smoked crack is more dangerous than insufflated cocaine. It has a faster, more pleasurable onset, and effects don't last as long.

These properties both make it more addictive. Many prescription drugs use an extended release formulation to make them less addictive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com