Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nursie | Hacker News Reader

It sorta sickens me that those on the pro-war side of this debate always ignore what happens in South America and parts of Africa. The rhetoric is always about preventing addiction at home, stopping a few American (or British or Australian or whatever) kids from getting hooked and having a tough life.

Never mind the destabilised countries, the thousands slaughtered, that's far away and not our problem. Jim-bob having a reduced bank-balance, a hole in his septum or a heart condition from cocaine abuse is far worse, somehow. To the outside world our countries are schizophrenic or just plain hypocritical - buying massive quantities of drugs and at the same time sending out military and quasi-military forces around the world to stop them.

The whole thing is crazy and pushes our demand-side problem out to the poorer places on the supply side.

View on HN

Agree 100%: War on Drugs is bad, instead legalize/ decriminalize/ provide medical care. The War on Drugs puts massive pressure on South-/Central American countries. End the War on Drugs and this pressure is relieved.

HOWEVER, no one seems to spell out exactly who is hypocritical or schizophrenic: The actual people who buy drugs that originate from these countries. People need to actually stop giving their money directly to the Cartels, right?

>> HOWEVER, no one seems to spell out exactly who is hypocritical or schizophrenic

To me it's the actions of the country as a whole. On the one hand the citizens set up this incredibly lucrative market, and on the other the (allegedly) democratic governments send out the troops/agents/whatever to make life worse for those in the countries selling/producing.

>> People need to actually stop giving their money directly to the Cartels, right?

It's both, equally. One side creates the market, the other forces it underground. Without the buyers the cartels would fold. If the trade was white-market the cartels would fold. It takes both 'sides', the buyers and the suppressors, to get where we are now.

Those who push a pro-drug agenda have to preach what will work.

You are got going to get the middle classes, the average parent on side by talking about some peasant farmer half way around the world. They cannot imagine it, it does not seem real.

But talk to them about their kids, or kids of family members / friends that is something they can relate to and possibly know of a few examples indirectly

>> You are got going to get the middle classes, the average parent on side by talking about some peasant farmer half way around the world. They cannot imagine it, it does not seem real.

This is a major problem with our societies IMHO. People must be made to realise that the policies they vote for are killing people around the world, in their thousands and tens of thousands. But as long as their kid doesn't smoke a joint then it must all be ok, because drugs are bad. What those other people do is up to them. Never mind that your kid is actually giving money to a mexican or colombian cartel, and then your government sends some people over there to destroy their crops and land as retaliation...

Unfortunately you are right, and making sure the argument addresses their lives directly is the only way to change it.

Sad.

>people must be made to realise that the policies they vote for are killing people around the world

A failure of the so called "free press" that does not delve into the root causes of issues. When the news talks about going to war to "protect our interests", it is not explained what this means.

When a brutal dictator must be removed, it is not explained how they consolidated power so profusely and with whose help.

When the horrors of the Mexican cartels are shown (quite rarely for British news considering the death rate) the logical conclusions are not drawn.

And the average person does not ask questions, just consume what they are told

--- Based on mainstream news outlets and using my parents as a base for my generalisations

---

But the status quo must benefit some, otherwise it would be changed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com