I think the problems of local legalization are amplified somewhat by the fact that we are attracting addicts from other places, but mostly I think it illustrates what it would look like nationwide. Unlike you I am not convinced that we have done it terribly much in recent years to enforce drug laws. Certainly we have not on the West Coast at all. But who knows. I just want out of the personal hell this town has become because it is entirely unlivable and I am unfortunately stuck here by virtue of my job.
The war on drugs was justified, in the 70s, in response to community harm. Generation Z talk about a fast-food sandwich being ‘like crack’ and that they are ‘addicted’ and ‘obsessed’ with some sugary coffee drink from a Seattle based chain. You are both old enough to remember the real fear that gripped our nation in the late 80s and early 90s as crack cocaine began to take root - even in rural areas. Families would search for their addicted family members in scary crack houses. Did sentencing overreach? Yes? Has that been addressed. Obviously - since the real Freeway Rick Ross is out along with most of the people affected.
Today we have a preventable issue that is killing a record number of Americans, especially black and brown lives, and is even jeopardizing first responders. It is very easy to be in a predominately BIPOC neighborhood and perceive that all the police do is pull or stop over black and brown folks. It is statistically true too. Just as you mentioned cops are not as active on the Upper West Side, compared to population statistics, however when you compare stops to crime victimization, it almost overlays.
Heavens to Betsies, NO, ffs guys, do you really want the entire financial system to collapse? Do you really want off the book operations to end? What will the CIA do? The drug war lubricates all the clandestine routes into America. How are you going to traffic humans with this gone? It will seriously raise the price of trafficked humans. It will end operations that no one wants reported to congress.
And what about the prisons and the illegal arms trade? The drug trade is heavily reliant on illegal arms and prisons are reliant on drug crimes.
You go ahead do this and you will fuck the entire system up.
The War on Drugs Failed like all US wars since Viet Nam. The Warbwas a money grab for Police and Feds with no results or accountability. Planting drugs was a tactic of Philly Cops in the 70s. Start with legalizing pot ( schedule 1) like we did in NJ then maybe mushrooms. No one says legalize fentanyl.
As a libertarian, I'm mostly against drug laws. But if the only goal is to reduce interactions between (black) youth and police, how much would the reduction be offset by an increase in crime by people affected by drugs? For example, would lowering the drinking age increase the rate of DUI?
Is there a distributed cost to the neighborhood of increased drug sales and use?
I'd point to the decriminalization of shoplifting (presumably to achieve similar goals). How is that working out?
Finally, to Glenn's point, would it really change attitudes? What policing is "acceptable" in the eyes of angry youth?
I agree with John, there's certainly problems with the way policing has been applied, but I'm not sure reducing its scope is the best solution.
Maybe the wiser course of action is to end the war on drugs in the United States, but as others have noted doing so certainly has consequences for the quality of life in our major cities. In any case, I feel like it's worth pointing out that countries like Singapore have some of the most draconian drug laws in the world both against drug use and drug selling/trafficking. Yet Singapore is probably one of the nicest places in the world and I'm not under the impression that there's any lack of trust between the police and the general populace.
Based on what I've seen and read, I'd much rather live in Singapore than Portland if given a choice between the two.
If John wants to decriminalize drugs, he needs to first visit Portland, Oregon, which has become a living hell since we decriminalized all drugs. Actually in the past few weeks the NYT has finally started doing good reporting on this. You cannot walk a block without inhaling second hand fentanyl smoke and it is not unusual for their to be as many as four lethal overdoses in a 24 hour period. We have attracted addicts from all over the country and crime has skyrocketed. Quality of life has crashed and homelessness is among the worst anywhere. Although we are much smaller than San Fran, last year we had more homicides than that (very messed up) city did. Most fentanyl smokers have been Narcan'd back to life over 2 dozen times.
Drugs have changed. This is not as simple as John says of "addiction rates will rise." They will SKYROCKET and it's not "addiction rates," it is really sad, horrible deaths. This is not a fair price to pay for a more productive discussion of race. You will see women pathetically screaming, "I'll blow you for $5." It is horrific.
And, most importantly, I am not convinced that there is a treatment that is effective for fentanyl or the current form of meth. It seems vital instead to cut the supply and prevent new addicts. I don't think many fentanyl addicts live more than about 24 months. Do not let your city become the guinea pig that Portland Oregon is. Certainly not in the name of limiting interactions between cops and people of color
I thought they were talking about national legalization It was hard to tell from the clip. Setting likelihood of it happening aside, why would that be terrible? The reasons would have to be somewhat different from the reasons in your original post. There would be no concentration of addicts from across the country in any one city.
I think they were talking about the concept of decriminalization generally and not in terms of specific legislation. That would be horrible for all the reasons I identified in my post. Fentanyl and P2P meth are profoundly addictive and seem to rob those using them of the will to do anything except to procure more drugs. Why we would pave the way for that kind of product in our society I do not know .
I don't disagree about the dangers of Fentanyl or many other drugs, but allocating resources toward penalizing drug use has not been all that successful. We have an epidemic of drug use and death and also have the violent and serious criminal behavior fueled by the extraordinarily lucrative drug trade produced entirely by the fact drugs are illegal. We put very little effort toward rehabilitating addicts compared to incarcerating them. If someone who has been incarcerated for drug use now wants to clean their life up they have the baggage of past drug charges to overcome. And being arrested for drug use does not seem to be a deterrent to future use. I am also not at all convinced we can cut the supply and prevent new addicts. What would that take? More money and enforcement. We have spent over a $trillion fighting drugs and where are we?
I should also add that we are going to have to seal the border to stop these drugs. This cannot be done community by communIty and we can’t prosecute our way out. To me it is one of the main reasons we need to seal the border and build a coherent legal immigration process.
I don’t disagree with several of those points. We are just seeing that crime is accelerating because a free flow of drugs has resulted in more addicts and addicts care about one thing—getting their drug. Typically they are not employed so they engage in crime to get more. Prior to the decriminalization, we had “drug courts,” which gave people arrested for drug-related crimes the option to choose treatment or jail. Surprisingly, compulsory drug treatment has roughly the same success rate as voluntary drug treatment. So, when you decriminalize drugs you actually lose an important stick that allows drug addicts to get in the treatment lane.
I am not being facetious when I encourage people to visit Portland and see what this looks like. Many of the people involved in the system will happily talk to you. At least 95% of people, including drug addicts, think it is a fiasco. I would also encourage you to read the articles Sam Quinones has written about the new drugs. They really devastate a person’s physiological/psychological ability to muster the emotional wherewithal to deal with the challenges of the recovery process. I think this concept is well intentioned, I just think it is really uninformed by reality.
Come on, Glenn! That’s hardly even an interesting question! Yes is the obvious answer. Thanks for the meatball to hit out the park, but I’m tryin to compete in the big leagues! This penny ante thumbsucker, square faced butt pusher nonsense might challenge finger waggers and knuckle draggers, but where’s the substance in a “no” today? It’s not even a question. Happy retirement, Glenn. Smile
I think the problems of local legalization are amplified somewhat by the fact that we are attracting addicts from other places, but mostly I think it illustrates what it would look like nationwide. Unlike you I am not convinced that we have done it terribly much in recent years to enforce drug laws. Certainly we have not on the West Coast at all. But who knows. I just want out of the personal hell this town has become because it is entirely unlivable and I am unfortunately stuck here by virtue of my job.
The war on drugs was justified, in the 70s, in response to community harm. Generation Z talk about a fast-food sandwich being ‘like crack’ and that they are ‘addicted’ and ‘obsessed’ with some sugary coffee drink from a Seattle based chain. You are both old enough to remember the real fear that gripped our nation in the late 80s and early 90s as crack cocaine began to take root - even in rural areas. Families would search for their addicted family members in scary crack houses. Did sentencing overreach? Yes? Has that been addressed. Obviously - since the real Freeway Rick Ross is out along with most of the people affected.
Today we have a preventable issue that is killing a record number of Americans, especially black and brown lives, and is even jeopardizing first responders. It is very easy to be in a predominately BIPOC neighborhood and perceive that all the police do is pull or stop over black and brown folks. It is statistically true too. Just as you mentioned cops are not as active on the Upper West Side, compared to population statistics, however when you compare stops to crime victimization, it almost overlays.
John's point adds to my reasons for wanting drugs legalized.
Heavens to Betsies, NO, ffs guys, do you really want the entire financial system to collapse? Do you really want off the book operations to end? What will the CIA do? The drug war lubricates all the clandestine routes into America. How are you going to traffic humans with this gone? It will seriously raise the price of trafficked humans. It will end operations that no one wants reported to congress.
And what about the prisons and the illegal arms trade? The drug trade is heavily reliant on illegal arms and prisons are reliant on drug crimes.
You go ahead do this and you will fuck the entire system up.
The War on Drugs Failed like all US wars since Viet Nam. The Warbwas a money grab for Police and Feds with no results or accountability. Planting drugs was a tactic of Philly Cops in the 70s. Start with legalizing pot ( schedule 1) like we did in NJ then maybe mushrooms. No one says legalize fentanyl.
As a libertarian, I'm mostly against drug laws. But if the only goal is to reduce interactions between (black) youth and police, how much would the reduction be offset by an increase in crime by people affected by drugs? For example, would lowering the drinking age increase the rate of DUI?
Is there a distributed cost to the neighborhood of increased drug sales and use?
I'd point to the decriminalization of shoplifting (presumably to achieve similar goals). How is that working out?
Finally, to Glenn's point, would it really change attitudes? What policing is "acceptable" in the eyes of angry youth?
I agree with John, there's certainly problems with the way policing has been applied, but I'm not sure reducing its scope is the best solution.
I'll go for it if we can legalize a cull hunt at the same time.
Maybe the wiser course of action is to end the war on drugs in the United States, but as others have noted doing so certainly has consequences for the quality of life in our major cities. In any case, I feel like it's worth pointing out that countries like Singapore have some of the most draconian drug laws in the world both against drug use and drug selling/trafficking. Yet Singapore is probably one of the nicest places in the world and I'm not under the impression that there's any lack of trust between the police and the general populace.
Based on what I've seen and read, I'd much rather live in Singapore than Portland if given a choice between the two.
If John wants to decriminalize drugs, he needs to first visit Portland, Oregon, which has become a living hell since we decriminalized all drugs. Actually in the past few weeks the NYT has finally started doing good reporting on this. You cannot walk a block without inhaling second hand fentanyl smoke and it is not unusual for their to be as many as four lethal overdoses in a 24 hour period. We have attracted addicts from all over the country and crime has skyrocketed. Quality of life has crashed and homelessness is among the worst anywhere. Although we are much smaller than San Fran, last year we had more homicides than that (very messed up) city did. Most fentanyl smokers have been Narcan'd back to life over 2 dozen times.
Drugs have changed. This is not as simple as John says of "addiction rates will rise." They will SKYROCKET and it's not "addiction rates," it is really sad, horrible deaths. This is not a fair price to pay for a more productive discussion of race. You will see women pathetically screaming, "I'll blow you for $5." It is horrific.
And, most importantly, I am not convinced that there is a treatment that is effective for fentanyl or the current form of meth. It seems vital instead to cut the supply and prevent new addicts. I don't think many fentanyl addicts live more than about 24 months. Do not let your city become the guinea pig that Portland Oregon is. Certainly not in the name of limiting interactions between cops and people of color
"We have attracted addicts from all over the country....."
Doesn't this make Portland a bad case study for evaluating the consequences of a nation wide legalization?
Nationwide decriminalization is DOA, thank God, except maybe marijuana. It will continue to be locale by locale.
I thought they were talking about national legalization It was hard to tell from the clip. Setting likelihood of it happening aside, why would that be terrible? The reasons would have to be somewhat different from the reasons in your original post. There would be no concentration of addicts from across the country in any one city.
I think they were talking about the concept of decriminalization generally and not in terms of specific legislation. That would be horrible for all the reasons I identified in my post. Fentanyl and P2P meth are profoundly addictive and seem to rob those using them of the will to do anything except to procure more drugs. Why we would pave the way for that kind of product in our society I do not know .
I don't disagree about the dangers of Fentanyl or many other drugs, but allocating resources toward penalizing drug use has not been all that successful. We have an epidemic of drug use and death and also have the violent and serious criminal behavior fueled by the extraordinarily lucrative drug trade produced entirely by the fact drugs are illegal. We put very little effort toward rehabilitating addicts compared to incarcerating them. If someone who has been incarcerated for drug use now wants to clean their life up they have the baggage of past drug charges to overcome. And being arrested for drug use does not seem to be a deterrent to future use. I am also not at all convinced we can cut the supply and prevent new addicts. What would that take? More money and enforcement. We have spent over a $trillion fighting drugs and where are we?
I should also add that we are going to have to seal the border to stop these drugs. This cannot be done community by communIty and we can’t prosecute our way out. To me it is one of the main reasons we need to seal the border and build a coherent legal immigration process.
I don’t disagree with several of those points. We are just seeing that crime is accelerating because a free flow of drugs has resulted in more addicts and addicts care about one thing—getting their drug. Typically they are not employed so they engage in crime to get more. Prior to the decriminalization, we had “drug courts,” which gave people arrested for drug-related crimes the option to choose treatment or jail. Surprisingly, compulsory drug treatment has roughly the same success rate as voluntary drug treatment. So, when you decriminalize drugs you actually lose an important stick that allows drug addicts to get in the treatment lane.
I am not being facetious when I encourage people to visit Portland and see what this looks like. Many of the people involved in the system will happily talk to you. At least 95% of people, including drug addicts, think it is a fiasco. I would also encourage you to read the articles Sam Quinones has written about the new drugs. They really devastate a person’s physiological/psychological ability to muster the emotional wherewithal to deal with the challenges of the recovery process. I think this concept is well intentioned, I just think it is really uninformed by reality.
Come on, Glenn! That’s hardly even an interesting question! Yes is the obvious answer. Thanks for the meatball to hit out the park, but I’m tryin to compete in the big leagues! This penny ante thumbsucker, square faced butt pusher nonsense might challenge finger waggers and knuckle draggers, but where’s the substance in a “no” today? It’s not even a question. Happy retirement, Glenn. Smile
The War on (Some) Drugs is a racist's wet dream. Dump it and move on.