Is the war on drugs really a war against poor people?

[DrZoidberg]

The fact that the war on drugs actually leads to increased drug usage and drug addiction is hardly controversial anymore. But that still begs the question why we keep doing it?

Is it really as banal as just plain old racism/contempt for the poor? Whatever groups are the most marginalized will always be the same groups most likely to take to psychoactive drugs. After all, they are the groups who have the most to be emotionally stressed about.

Thoughts on this? or is the real explanation more complicated?

 

[barbos]

The fact that the war on drugs actually leads to increased drug usage and drug addiction is hardly controversial anymore.

It is a news for me.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Recent articles and books I have read are really starting to convince me that the whole idea we have about addiction, recovery, the drug war and so on in our culture are fundamentally flawed. They also most definitely have racism deeply embedded within their roots. The two I linked two are just examples, and can provide further food for thought for other reading.

 

[dismal]

The fact that the war on drugs actually leads to increased drug usage and drug addiction is hardly controversial anymore.

I can see how it leads to higher prices, higher profits and draws in a criminal element seeking those profits but in general these things would not increase usage.

Also, I don't think "racism" is the only reason we have drug laws. There are a lot of middle class people who have seen people's lives get messed up and/or just don't want it to be easy for their kid to get drugs.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The fact that the war on drugs actually leads to increased drug usage and drug addiction is hardly controversial anymore.

It is a news for me.

Um... ok. There´s tonnes of material on the net to look for. Tonnes of documentaries. The UK´s top science advisor was fired because he refused to support Brittain´s war on drugs, all in the name of science. I can sum up the arguments like this

1) A drugs illegality has zero impact on a drugs availability. Drugs are simply too easy to traffic and conceal. This was true before the advent of Internet. And now we have encrypted communications and Bitcoin. Hunting drugs is completely pointless. It does drive up price. But it also drives up the potency. Annulling any potential gains, and arguably only making dangerous drugs more dangerous. There´s been loads of studies on this.

2) Addicts are addicted. A police sentence isn´t going to help them rid them of their addiction. The only effective way to combat addiction is through rehab, and stuff like therapy. An addict only takes drugs in order to help them manage emotional distress in various ways. In order to help them get off the drugs we want to remove as much other problems as possible. We certainly don´t want to add to them. Which a criminal record does. In a very big way, pushing them deeper into the addiction.

A huge problem of addiction is how it acts to delude the addict in various ways, filtering reality. Addicts most often simply have to work this shit out on their own. It rarely works telling an addict they have a problem if they don´t already share that belief. Having rehab clinics freely available is a very cost effective way to combat drugs. Which is where we´d put all the war-on-drugs money if we really gave a shit about stopping drug addiction.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I can see how it leads to higher prices, higher profits and draws in a criminal element seeking those profits but in general these things would not increase usage.

An addict with a criminal record isn´t likely going to be hired. Often leaving them with few options other than a life of crime. Busting a drug dealer and putting them in jail has the exact opposite effect. It makes it all the more likely that he´ll keep dealing drugs. People stop dealing drugs if they feel they have viable options. People with criminal sentences for dealing drugs rarely do.

It´s also the tougher sentences the more likely the drug dealer is to reoffend.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Poor drug addicts tend not to vote, which makes them fairly irrelevant in a democracy. The groups that tend to vote are also the groups which tend to know the fewest poor drug addicts, so pandering to those groups by being "tough on crime" helps to get politicians re-elected and the question of whether or not it actually solves a problem or makes a problem worse isn't too much a factor in the decision making process of how to deal with that problem.

 

[barbos]

It is a news for me.

Um... ok. There´s tonnes of material on the net to look for. Tonnes of documentaries. The UK´s top science advisor was fired because he refused to support Brittain´s war on drugs, all in the name of science. I can sum up the arguments like this

1) A drugs illegality has zero impact on a drugs availability. Drugs are simply too easy to traffic and conceal. This was true before the advent of Internet. And now we have encrypted communications and Bitcoin. Hunting drugs is completely pointless. It does drive up price. But it also drives up the potency. Annulling any potential gains, and arguably only making dangerous drugs more dangerous. There´s been loads of studies on this.

2) Addicts are addicted. A police sentence isn´t going to help them rid them of their addiction. The only effective way to combat addiction is through rehab, and stuff like therapy. An addict only takes drugs in order to help them manage emotional distress in various ways. In order to help them get off the drugs we want to remove as much other problems as possible. We certainly don´t want to add to them. Which a criminal record does. In a very big way, pushing them deeper into the addiction.

A huge problem of addiction is how it acts to delude the addict in various ways, filtering reality. Addicts most often simply have to work this shit out on their own. It rarely works telling an addict they have a problem if they don´t already share that belief. Having rehab clinics freely available is a very cost effective way to combat drugs. Which is where we´d put all the war-on-drugs money if we really gave a shit about stopping drug addiction.

You promised evidence of "war on drugs creates more drug use"

 

[barbos]

I can see how it leads to higher prices, higher profits and draws in a criminal element seeking those profits but in general these things would not increase usage.

An addict with a criminal record isn´t likely going to be hired. Often leaving them with few options other than a life of crime. Busting a drug dealer and putting them in jail has the exact opposite effect. It makes it all the more likely that he´ll keep dealing drugs. People stop dealing drugs if they feel they have viable options. People with criminal sentences for dealing drugs rarely do.

It´s also the tougher sentences the more likely the drug dealer is to reoffend.

Good try but no cigar.
Addicts will most certainly get fired anyway, even without criminal record. Most drugs are pretty incompatible with most jobs for the most people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is a news for me.

Um... ok. There´s tonnes of material on the net to look for. Tonnes of documentaries. The UK´s top science advisor was fired because he refused to support Brittain´s war on drugs, all in the name of science. I can sum up the arguments like this

1) A drugs illegality has zero impact on a drugs availability. Drugs are simply too easy to traffic and conceal. This was true before the advent of Internet. And now we have encrypted communications and Bitcoin. Hunting drugs is completely pointless. It does drive up price. But it also drives up the potency. Annulling any potential gains, and arguably only making dangerous drugs more dangerous. There´s been loads of studies on this.

I disagree. Making the addictive stuff legal by prescription with addiction being a valid reason for a prescription does cut down on the supply--pushers have no big profit margins and thus there's little drive to hook new customers. The result is a much lower rate of new addictions.

2) Addicts are addicted. A police sentence isn´t going to help them rid them of their addiction. The only effective way to combat addiction is through rehab, and stuff like therapy. An addict only takes drugs in order to help them manage emotional distress in various ways. In order to help them get off the drugs we want to remove as much other problems as possible. We certainly don´t want to add to them. Which a criminal record does. In a very big way, pushing them deeper into the addiction.

Yes and no. You need both the carrot and stick--addicts won't get help if addiction isn't all that bad.

 

[J842P]

An addict with a criminal record isn´t likely going to be hired. Often leaving them with few options other than a life of crime. Busting a drug dealer and putting them in jail has the exact opposite effect. It makes it all the more likely that he´ll keep dealing drugs. People stop dealing drugs if they feel they have viable options. People with criminal sentences for dealing drugs rarely do.

It´s also the tougher sentences the more likely the drug dealer is to reoffend.

Good try but no cigar.
Addicts will most certainly get fired anyway, even without criminal record. Most drugs are pretty incompatible with most jobs for the most people.

Not really. Most stimulants are entirely compatible with most jobs... caffeine, amphetamines, cocaine etc.
Indeed, not only are stimulants compatible with most jobs but they actually make most people work better.

Even many "downers" are compatible with most jobs - opiods, benzodiazepines etc. Not alcohol, really.

Of course, most psychedelics (e.g. LSD) aren't really compatible with work, but most psychedelics aren't really addicting.

 

[Jarhyn]

An addict with a criminal record isn´t likely going to be hired. Often leaving them with few options other than a life of crime. Busting a drug dealer and putting them in jail has the exact opposite effect. It makes it all the more likely that he´ll keep dealing drugs. People stop dealing drugs if they feel they have viable options. People with criminal sentences for dealing drugs rarely do.

It´s also the tougher sentences the more likely the drug dealer is to reoffend.

Good try but no cigar.
Addicts will most certainly get fired anyway, even without criminal record. Most drugs are pretty incompatible with most jobs for the most people.

Bullshit. Completely and utterly.

I have a stable job that pays about 70k/yr, and I use several drugs, mostly illegal ones. My employers don't care as long as I do a good job, which I can and do.

The only barrier to drug use in most jobs is the fact that employers are just plain dicks about drugs and criminal charges associated with their procurement or possession. Perhaps ADDICTS would get fired, but in reality we aren't talking about addicts, because even infrequent users get fucked by our current prohibition policies and our culture of drug fascism.

If I got arrested for my drug use, I would turn to manufacture and sale of drugs, wetwork, or mercenary work because those are the only other high paying skills I have, and I would probably use a lot more drugs due to the stress and lifestyle associated with those activities.

Edit: the only reason my job doesn't test is because it is high quality work for a very professional company. My experience is that drug test in increases as quality of work decreases, to the point where conservatives want to drug test 100% of people who receive government aid. This strikes me as very much a war on the poor.

 

[dismal]

Good try but no cigar.
Addicts will most certainly get fired anyway, even without criminal record. Most drugs are pretty incompatible with most jobs for the most people.

Bullshit. Completely and utterly.

I have a stable job that pays about 70k/yr, and I use several drugs, mostly illegal ones. My employers don't care as long as I do a good job, which I can and do.

The only barrier to drug use in most jobs is the fact that employers are just plain dicks about drugs and criminal charges associated with their procurement or possession. Perhaps ADDICTS would get fired, but in reality we aren't talking about addicts, because even infrequent users get fucked by our current prohibition policies and our culture of drug fascism.

If I got arrested for my drug use, I would turn to manufacture and sale of drugs, wetwork, or mercenary work because those are the only other high paying skills I have, and I would probably use a lot more drugs due to the stress and lifestyle associated with those activities.

But the higher prices, the criminal element, the risk of losing one's job from drugs being illegal all seem to argue in favor of less drug use not more. Some people will risk these things but many will not.

I don't think the people willing to risk these things will suddenly stop using drugs if they are made safer, cheaper, legal and easier to access.

I don't have a problem with the argument that the drug war causes more harm than good, but I'm not sure this means one should argue people would use drugs less if they were legal.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Um... ok. There´s tonnes of material on the net to look for. Tonnes of documentaries. The UK´s top science advisor was fired because he refused to support Brittain´s war on drugs, all in the name of science. I can sum up the arguments like this

1) A drugs illegality has zero impact on a drugs availability. Drugs are simply too easy to traffic and conceal. This was true before the advent of Internet. And now we have encrypted communications and Bitcoin. Hunting drugs is completely pointless. It does drive up price. But it also drives up the potency. Annulling any potential gains, and arguably only making dangerous drugs more dangerous. There´s been loads of studies on this.

2) Addicts are addicted. A police sentence isn´t going to help them rid them of their addiction. The only effective way to combat addiction is through rehab, and stuff like therapy. An addict only takes drugs in order to help them manage emotional distress in various ways. In order to help them get off the drugs we want to remove as much other problems as possible. We certainly don´t want to add to them. Which a criminal record does. In a very big way, pushing them deeper into the addiction.

A huge problem of addiction is how it acts to delude the addict in various ways, filtering reality. Addicts most often simply have to work this shit out on their own. It rarely works telling an addict they have a problem if they don´t already share that belief. Having rehab clinics freely available is a very cost effective way to combat drugs. Which is where we´d put all the war-on-drugs money if we really gave a shit about stopping drug addiction.

You promised evidence of "war on drugs creates more drug use"

I didn´t. It´s not what the OP is about. And nothing I have any interest in debating. If you haven´t figured it out by now nothing I say is likely to change your mind about it anyway. It was during the first decade of the 21´st century that all the War on Drugs bullshit came under serious scrutiny by main stream media and main stream politics. today it´s not even controversial anymore. The legalisation of "medical marijuana" and the complete decriminalisation of weed in Colorado is a direct result. All countries that have tried decriminlisation have all got falling numbers of addicts real fast once the measure has been passed. So this is already a reality in several countries around the world. It´s tried and tested and we know it works. If you don´t already know this by now, you obviously don´t care. So there´s no point in discussing it. Sorry if I sound dismissive. But it´s not what I created this thread to discuss.

If you do give a shit... just google it. It´s all out there.

 

[bilby]

An addict with a criminal record isn´t likely going to be hired. Often leaving them with few options other than a life of crime. Busting a drug dealer and putting them in jail has the exact opposite effect. It makes it all the more likely that he´ll keep dealing drugs. People stop dealing drugs if they feel they have viable options. People with criminal sentences for dealing drugs rarely do.

It´s also the tougher sentences the more likely the drug dealer is to reoffend.

Good try but no cigar.
Addicts will most certainly get fired anyway, even without criminal record. Most drugs are pretty incompatible with most jobs for the most people.

Hence why all the cigarette smokers and people who drink every evening are unemployed.

The problem isn't the addiction; it is the societal response to the addiction. When heroin is made available cheaply and legally, and when addicts don't get sent to jail just for injecting heroin - as is the case, for example, in parts of Switzerland - addicts generally get jobs, and, over time, stop using heroin.

- - - Updated - - -

Um... ok. There´s tonnes of material on the net to look for. Tonnes of documentaries. The UK´s top science advisor was fired because he refused to support Brittain´s war on drugs, all in the name of science. I can sum up the arguments like this

1) A drugs illegality has zero impact on a drugs availability. Drugs are simply too easy to traffic and conceal. This was true before the advent of Internet. And now we have encrypted communications and Bitcoin. Hunting drugs is completely pointless. It does drive up price. But it also drives up the potency. Annulling any potential gains, and arguably only making dangerous drugs more dangerous. There´s been loads of studies on this.

I disagree. Making the addictive stuff legal by prescription with addiction being a valid reason for a prescription does cut down on the supply--pushers have no big profit margins and thus there's little drive to hook new customers. The result is a much lower rate of new addictions.

2) Addicts are addicted. A police sentence isn´t going to help them rid them of their addiction. The only effective way to combat addiction is through rehab, and stuff like therapy. An addict only takes drugs in order to help them manage emotional distress in various ways. In order to help them get off the drugs we want to remove as much other problems as possible. We certainly don´t want to add to them. Which a criminal record does. In a very big way, pushing them deeper into the addiction.

Yes and no. You need both the carrot and stick--addicts won't get help if addiction isn't all that bad.

Addicts don't need help if addiction isn't all that bad. How much help to people who have a drink every night, or who smoke cigarettes, need?

 

[bilby]

Bullshit. Completely and utterly.

I have a stable job that pays about 70k/yr, and I use several drugs, mostly illegal ones. My employers don't care as long as I do a good job, which I can and do.

The only barrier to drug use in most jobs is the fact that employers are just plain dicks about drugs and criminal charges associated with their procurement or possession. Perhaps ADDICTS would get fired, but in reality we aren't talking about addicts, because even infrequent users get fucked by our current prohibition policies and our culture of drug fascism.

If I got arrested for my drug use, I would turn to manufacture and sale of drugs, wetwork, or mercenary work because those are the only other high paying skills I have, and I would probably use a lot more drugs due to the stress and lifestyle associated with those activities.

But the higher prices, the criminal element, the risk of losing one's job from drugs being illegal all seem to argue in favor of less drug use not more. Some people will risk these things but many will not.

I don't think the people willing to risk these things will suddenly stop using drugs if they are made safer, cheaper, legal and easier to access.

I don't have a problem with the argument that the drug war causes more harm than good, but I'm not sure this means one should argue people would use drugs less if they were legal.

The higher prices, the criminal element, and the risk of losing one's job from drugs being illegal all disappear when drugs are legal. So what are the problems that remain?

Even if people start taking drugs more, what is the problem that arises, when all the ones you just listed are no longer on the table?

I would suggest that the 'new' problems are just more of the same as we see with legal drugs - such as caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco. Joe can't start work until he has had his coffee. Sam hits the bar every night after work and gets plastered. Sue takes a cigarette break every half hour. John shoots up heroin when he gets home.

All of this happens right now; legalisation just means that John will be less likely to be pushed into a life of crime to support his addiction, less likely to lose his job because the boss finds out about his addiction, and is less likely to associate with (and be robbed by) a street gang.

Every one of the problems John experiences today would also be experienced by Sue, if tobacco was declared a Class I narcotic. And arguably John is a better worker than Sue, in a world where both heroin and tobacco are legal; at least he isn't ducking out for a smoke every half hour, and his syringes don't stink up the stairwells and doorways.

 

[Juma]

Perhaps ADDICTS would get fired.

Of course, ADDICTS:

I mean, YOU could stop anytime.

An ADDICT is always someone else...

 

[DrZoidberg]

Um... ok. There´s tonnes of material on the net to look for. Tonnes of documentaries. The UK´s top science advisor was fired because he refused to support Brittain´s war on drugs, all in the name of science. I can sum up the arguments like this

1) A drugs illegality has zero impact on a drugs availability. Drugs are simply too easy to traffic and conceal. This was true before the advent of Internet. And now we have encrypted communications and Bitcoin. Hunting drugs is completely pointless. It does drive up price. But it also drives up the potency. Annulling any potential gains, and arguably only making dangerous drugs more dangerous. There´s been loads of studies on this.

I disagree. Making the addictive stuff legal by prescription with addiction being a valid reason for a prescription does cut down on the supply--pushers have no big profit margins and thus there's little drive to hook new customers. The result is a much lower rate of new addictions.

I don´t think we disagree at all.

2) Addicts are addicted. A police sentence isn´t going to help them rid them of their addiction. The only effective way to combat addiction is through rehab, and stuff like therapy. An addict only takes drugs in order to help them manage emotional distress in various ways. In order to help them get off the drugs we want to remove as much other problems as possible. We certainly don´t want to add to them. Which a criminal record does. In a very big way, pushing them deeper into the addiction.

Yes and no. You need both the carrot and stick--addicts won't get help if addiction isn't all that bad.

I´ve heard that argument a million times. Firstly, I don´t buy it for a second. I think it´s wrong. It´s too simplistic a solution. Secondly, why introduce artificial problems for addict? If an addict can function with their addiction why not just let them get on with it? Is there really a warranted government intervention in people´s lives at a time when the addiction isn´t a problem?

Most of us have some addiction or another that bubbles up in times of emotional distress. It´s just normal. I´m not thinking just drugs here. But there are behaviours we can enter into in order to distract ourselves that prevents us from doing what we really should be doing, and we rationalise the behaviours. I think it´s silly to single out drugs as the main and only offender here. It ignores the psychological mechanic of addictions in general.

 

[barbos]

Good try but no cigar.
Addicts will most certainly get fired anyway, even without criminal record. Most drugs are pretty incompatible with most jobs for the most people.

Hence why all the cigarette smokers and people who drink every evening are unemployed.

You know I was not including smoking and drinking into all of this.
I was talking about heavy stuff. As for the smoking, I hate it, and if I am ever a boss I will ban smoking.

 

[bilby]

Hence why all the cigarette smokers and people who drink every evening are unemployed.

You know I was not including smoking and drinking into all of this.
I was talking about heavy stuff. As for the smoking, I hate it, and if I am ever a boss I will ban smoking.

Take away the problems caused by illegality, and the legal stuff is just as 'heavy' as the illegal.

If you doubt that alcohol is 'heavy stuff', check out what happens to long term severe alcoholics.

There doesn't seem to be any rhyme nor reason for why some drugs are legal and others are not. Certainly their potential for harm is not it; nor their degree of addictiveness.