Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aqueous | Hacker News Reader

You realize that this argument justifies anything even tangentially related to the drug war because they are just the side effect of the 'criminalization of victimless drug use' right?

This includes the thousands of people who are beheaded each year by the Mexican/Colombian cartels, which, if you look at it this way, can be blamed on the US government's 'criminalization of victimless drug use'. The US government's policy might be stupid - but the cartels are also evil, and we should do as much as possible to try to curb these kinds of atrocities.

Look the drug war is terrible, drugs should de-criminalized and treated like a health problem as they are in Europe. However, you can recognize this while recognizing that the people who traffic drugs tend to be engaged in some pretty reprehensible behavior, and money laundering is one of those things (along with human trafficking and gang violence.)

View on HN

I strongly agree that human trafficking and gang violence are not only reprehensible, but truly sickening.

However, I strongly disagree with you that money laundering belongs in that group. I mean, if we're going to arbitrarily criminalize an activity that cartels and gangs engage in, why not criminalize their mobile phone usage? It's actively used in their criminal endeavors.

And yes, I agree with you that most of these horrible groups and events are a side effect of the war on drug. Without all the power that drug money brings them (which results from the fact that drugs are illegal), they would just be local bullies and psychopaths -- the kind that local police forces can deal with. But because of money that results from the war on drugs, these groups have accumulated trans-national power to the extent that the build their own submarines.

Study the history of the prohibition and the mafia power that grew from prohibition..

> This includes the thousands of people who are beheaded each year by the Mexican/Colombian cartels, which, if you look at it this way, can be blamed on the US government's 'criminalization of victimless drug use'.

Why should it not be blamed on the criminalization of victimless drug use? Where would the cartels get the immense capital with which to terrorize whole provinces and take on state actors, if not for those highly lucrative drugs - their profitably grossly inflated by their illegality? If our societies would stop burying their heads in the sand over the issue of drugs and the immense demand for them (which remains remarkably static no matter how many billions are spent on 'war' against them), the cartels wouldn't have much left to fight over.

I'm not doubting that US drug policy remains the driving force. It pushes people who would consume drugs legally or illegally into a black market where they inevitably do business with some extension of these powerful criminal organizations. I agree with all that - and it needs to change.

But too often I see people using the stupidity of US drug policy as an excuse for all sorts of morally reprehensible deeds. Case in point: when asked, Ross Ulbricht trotted out all sorts of high-minded rhetoric about freedom and libertarianism and the gross injustice of prohibition, but in private he was ordering hits on his own users, and as far as he knew and was concerned, the murders were carried out successfully. Is that in the spirit of libertarian ideology? Is that about protesting US drug policy or is it just Ullbricht's greed?

People will go through all sorts of mental gymnastics in order to rationalize their personal appetites. In the end the consumers of drugs have to know that they are buying from people who either engage in violence themselves or work for someone who does, and because they are participating in this marketplace they are in some way partially responsible for the violence that occurs because of it. It may be unrealistic to think that they will realize that - but we should not relax our personal criticism of them just because its convenient for our political position.

What you say feels right intuitively, but I can't figure out the logic behind it. Does participating in a marketplace automatically make one partially responsible for the crimes of others who participate in it? That doesn't seem quite right. There's a lot of violence in poor inner city areas, is it morally wrong to own a gun shop in such an area? Are we morally responsible for the actions of the corporations we buy from? What about our nation's foreign policy? To take an extreme example if you sell food to enough people, you know that eventually you'll feed a murderer. But intuitively there's a big difference between selling food and money laundering. I don't know.

The Ross Ulbricht case doesn't really help. Ordering hits is morally wrong whatever the context, so that doesn't help in figuring out whether his other actions were wrong.

I live right in the center of europe and drugs are not treated like a health problem.

It was my understanding that at least in some parts of Europe, like the Netherlands, drugs were considered more of a health problem than a criminal problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com