Via Bean and Brad Plumer, this article in the Rolling Stone about the War On (Some Classes Of People Who Use) Drugs promises to be fascinating. Brad highlights the roll of local police and city officials in reimagining the drug wars in a way that address the problems that can be controlled—street violence, violence in general, open air markets that breed violence—vs. the problems that can’t be controlled by the police, namely the demand for drugs.* The article describes one strategy undertaken by police in a city in North Carolina.
High Point police began in the West End neighborhood, one of the city’s three overt drug markets. A team of officers staked out the site, videotaping hundreds of hand-to-hand sales and mapping out a complete anthropology of the West End drug market. They found it was strikingly small: Sumner had expected as many as fifty dealers working there, but it turned out there were only sixteen. Before long, the officers had enough evidence to put away each of the sixteen dealers for good. But they didn’t. Instead, Sumner and Kennedy called them in for a meeting. They showed each of them the portfolio of evidence against them and said that unless they stopped dealing drugs, the whole file would be handed over to the prosecutors and they’d be in jail for years. Family members were brought in to urge the dealers to stop, and social-service providers pledged assistance with food, housing and job training.
“We didn’t think it would work,” Sumner tells me, “but the drug markets have disappeared.” …
In 2007, in the program’s fourth year, [the number of drug-related murders] has plummeted to two. Violent crime in the West End has declined by thirty-five percent. “The use of drugs isn’t something we could affect,” says Kennedy. “But the violence was.” His logic has an appealing clarity for overworked police departments: There are now more than sixty cities in the United States that use some version of Kennedy’s program, edging away from thirty-five years of punitive measures that have turned the United States into the world’s leading jailer to a social-work model that encourages communities and cops to engage the problem on a more human level.
Upside to this strategy: It works, it’s realistic, it’s humane. Downside: If your definition of what “works” is whatever maximizes the number of black men in jail—which is why I think the right wing is so invested in the drug war—then you’re going to turn your nose up to this strategy. But your average voter is not so far to the right that they’d sacrifice peace on the streets to continue a process that’s main end result is perpetuating violence in poorer neighborhoods and creating a permanent underclass. So hopefully the strategy will spread.
I will say that the first thing that popped into my head when I read this was how similar the program is to the catch-neuter-release programs that have helped various cities get their stray cat population under control. Basically, the reason that the programs work is that you fix cats that have already proven their survival skills on the streets so they can’t make any more kittens. They then beat out the competition for their territories when they’re released, meaning less kittens produced per acre. Same principle at work—release the people that you already know dominate the market, but release them “neutered” against breeding violence.
Considering the similarities, I’d like to point out at this time that feral cat programs are not just about control, but about providing services. Cats are also given shots and fed, and the programs work all the better for it. If law enforcement was backed up by genuine help for people that are strung out on drugs, I bet you’d see even more benefits proceed from these programs, especially since junkies probably drive a good deal of the drug market. I don’t want to belabor the analogy too much—people are, after all, not dumb animals—but the territory issues in any economy, animal or human, just have some interesting similarities.
*I think you could do a major dent in the demand for drugs if you provided universal health care that included drug treatment and mental health treatment. Junkies drive a lot of the market, but not all of it, though. Casual drug use is going nowhere anytime soon.
57 Responses to “Drug war reform”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
This is a truly elegant solution. I hope it catches on!
Season 3 of The Wire is relevant here, no?
You’re right, of course, that it’s all about perceptions. Do you really want the violence to drop, or do you want to disenfranchise a percentage of the population? Do you want to help reduce the problem overall, or do you want to maintain your power. For the right, the answer has always been the latter, and it has been a successful strategy for a long time.
The cynic in me says that the long term goal has been to have a permanent underclass that provides vice for the dominant class in a part of the city where that same dominant class can then decry how irresponsible the inhabitants are for doing all those bad things. The realist in me agrees with the cynic.
I am thrilled to see this. I worked in AIDS services in High Point- it has a huge intravenous drug problem because it is a neat half way point between Miami and New York/New Jersey. I’m really happy to see actual thoughtful people working on violence prevention programs- what has been happening hasn’t been working. (end/ stating the obvious)
Actually, I’ve heard that technique before. There’s some communities in Canada that are starting to use this method for first offenders: instead of tossing first offenders into Juvie, they bring them in for something akin to an intervention, with the community talking about the impact of the crime, putting a human face on it, and work through the issues. It doesn’t work on everyone of course, but from what I hear, the rates of recidivism are remarkably low.
I recall Sara Robinson talking about her experience with this at Orcinus, but for the life of me, I can’t remember the specific name of the technique, or find the original post she made. I’ll see if I can track down more info.
Oy, can we call of the “war” please. It’s been a massive failure, it’s intensified racial inequality, it’s cost people financial aid and educational opportunities, it’s cost people work opportunities, it’s destroyed communities, and it hasn’t made a dent in any kind of drug use.
What a fucking destructive waste of human lives and resources…just like war.
No, the elegant solution is: end drug prohibition.
As usual the liberals will argue the logic (it is overwhelming, alcohol and tobacco cause more than 95% of the deaths from recreational drugs in America) and the conservatives will lie to maintain a system that benefits politicians, newspapers, police, and the prison industrial complex.
A war on drugs is a war on America’s inner cities. You want a kinder, more gentle war? What a joke.
Ban tobacco and alcohol, or legalize all recreational drugs.
Amanda, why are the posts taking so long to appear, without some note that they are caught in moderation limbo or some such? It seems a prescription for double posting.
Just looking deep into a gift horse’s mouth. Or is the operant expression, Beggars can’t be choosers?
Amanda, why are the posts taking so long to appear, without some note that they are caught in moderation limbo or some such? It seems a prescription for double posting
I also have one in mod. Has it been acting up again?…a few times recently it seems to me, comments have been sent to mod, without links or nothing.
There was a bout of this before, as I recall….is there still no way to put up a “comment in moderation” message like before?
Back to the drug war…..
A Freudian slip? (roll=doughnut)?
Um, actually that’s exactly true and there’s empircal evidence to back that up, evidence that is the result of the drug policy of the best anti-drug President we’ve ever had. Richard Nixon.
Yeah, that’s right.
Nixon’s anti-drug policy was twofold: one, cut off demand by using methodone clinics. (Methodone was problematic but I believe the final consensus was it was still better than heroin, the killer drug of the day.) Two, do what Nixon did best: lie his ass off. He once told his drug czar as they helicoptered over a city that you and I both know that the best way to stop the drug problem is to stop demand, but those people down there want me to put people in jail. So the “law and order” president said he was throwing criminals in jail and then didn’t work too hard on the follow-up.
Nixon was an asshole, but it doesn’t make him stupid. Like Bush Sr., he may be a beast, but not one so foolish that he shits where he eats.
(Compare to Bush Jr.)
Anyway, Nixon’s fuckup made it impossible to keep that policy going. The deathblow was Carter’s fuckup with his drug czar — he was an actual freakn’ advocate of cocaine use and, iirc, committed statutory. Anywho, I’m certain he had to be replaced, and, along with him, the Carter family’s laissez-faire view of drugs (Carter’s son admitted to using pot). The coup de grace was Reagan.
The entire poinnt of the War on Drugs is that it won’t work. Similar issue with prostitution. If you started publishing the names of johns once arrested, business would drop off.
While this is certainly better than the usual alternative, it’s still stupid for two reasons: one, it doesn’t do anything to address the demand for drugs, and two, it still maintains the fantasy that there’s some kind of qualitative difference between alcohol/nicotine and other drugs, where you can have as much as you can handle, and usually more, of the first two, but you can go to jail for the rest.
It’s just dumb, and even if this is a marginally better idea, it’s still dumb, unless and until you can explain to me some compelling reason why I can get shitfaced on bourbon every night and incur no legal consequences but I can go to jail for smoking pot and mowing the lawn or taking pills and really, really looking closely at my hand.
What stops them from going to different towns and doing the same thing there? I wonder because while I think its great that they are provided with job training, I am not sure how many employeers are going to appreciate drug dealers, and I am curious if their new full time work pays anywhere near what dealing did? Of course, maybe it isn’t easy to start dealing in a new town; I don’t know.
I think it it a great solution for smaller areas, but I don’t see it working in big cities.
I like it!
And I agree that large but indeterminable amount of drug use is self-medication. To deal with it, we need both universal medical care *and* information. I did not know until my twenties that it wasn’t natural to ache constantly; I’d grown up with my father complaining of aches and had minor joint aches from at least age 6. (Fibromyalgia, now controlled with one pill a day). Likewise, some forms of mental illness, depression as an obvious one, are the natural state of things from the pov of the sufferer.
They just might, sadly, for the same reasons that they will spend like there’s no tomorrow on wars and prisons as you mentioned in the comments section of the other “drug war” thread. They don’t care about the ultimate consequences, believing that it’s SEP (the mention of which made me want to read “Life, the Universe, and Everything” again), or that they can just blame it on the Dems when it happens and that the people will be gullible enough to swallow it.
They don’t like to compromise. They want things their way. If somebody comes along with something that works better than their way, they don’t want to hear it.
Example: one part of the documentary “The Age of AIDS”, where a comparison was made between the policies of Reagan and Thatcher in fighting the spread of the disease.
Thatcher, for all of her conservatism, thought needle exchange programs were a good idea, and they were implemented while she was in power.
Reagan, OTOH, wouldn’t even consider it. To him, and those of like mind, it was pretty much the same as encouraging people to shoot up. They weren’t gonna be pragmatic, they weren’t gonna give the appearance of being “soft on crime”, they weren’t gonna settle for anything less than their original plan of “arrest everybody”. Who cared if needle exchanges were helping matters in the UK?
So if they reject this strategy as well, I won’t be surprised, not in the least. I’m not saying that racism doesn’t play a part, mind you, but being perceived as “soft on crime” because they’re willing to condone “negotiating with criminals” is one more reason why they won’t go for it.
Left_Wing_Fox:
Perhaps “Diversion programs” are what you are looking for?
Thanks LWM; Trefayne got the name I was looking for though “Restorative Justice”, although the diversion programs certainly sound like much the same concept. I’ll be sure to read up more about those once I have the chance.
But the only time it’s “soft on crime” is when the accused (not the criminal, the accused) is brown. Hence sentencing disparities between whites and blacks convicted of drug crimes. For the former, it’s a mistake, for the latter, an immoral declaration of war against decent society. We haven’t had a real “tough on crime” president in my lifetime since such policies are always played through a racial lens. . . not that they’d be hugely better sans racism. . .
felagund, I think the point is that this is the best methodology for a bad policy. It does the most good without destroying the mythos that drives the entire endeavor. It’s a damn sight better than some of our policies which fail on BOTH moral and methodological grounds.
I wish more had been made of this back when everyone was thinking about his legacy in 2004. One of Reagan’s greatest legacies is the AIDS epidemic in the US.
Damn well about time. But this requires seeing drug dealers (the black and brown boogie man in the middle class mind’s eye) as human.
There’s still a long row to hoe in that regard, but this is a first step.
Every dealer I ever knew said he/she was dealing to 1) support a habit 2) to make a lot more than at seven eleven or walmart and to keep up with the consumerist craze of our culture.
The problems of poverty are multi-faceted, but lack of decent primary education, lack of resources or knowledge of such for higher education and family break-down due to extreme economic security (not lack of values).
This is encouraging but also, the prison complex (much of it private for profit) and politicos will still be able to make hay of prejudice and they will.
epistemology: “A war on drugs is a war on America’s inner cities.”
Working at a prison, I sure see a lot of white guys who sold drugs. Motorcycle gangs, Aryan Brothers, and just plain old dealers. (And yes, that did surprise me. I really did expect to see even more Blacks and Hispanics. Prison isn’t like the movies and teevee says it is. Blow me over with a feather.) And they were usually from suburban or rural locales. And not many of them came from wealthy backgrounds. The war on drugs is a war on poor people’s self-medicating and recreation, whether they are urban, suburban, or rural. It’s undeniably true that most of the focus and most of the “casualties” of the “war” are urban, but that’s more a matter of demographics than a targeted emphasis/conspiracy by the three Ps: police, prosecutors, and politicians.
I have a laissez faire attitude toward drugs: the drugs aren’t the problem, the problem is the illegality and the black market created by that illegality. Cocaine grows in the same conditions as high-grade coffee, pot grows damn near anywhere (is it called “weed” because it is so difficult to cultivate?,) and meth is something people who didn’t even take high school chemistry can cook up. Add illegality and jack the prices up, and suddenly there’s an upturn in items stolen from cars, cars just plain stolen, home break-ins, and guns in areas that could just have a bunch of losers wasting their time in their own way.
I don’t like drug users, and I don’t support drug use, but I think the illegality of drugs is the biggest cause of the problems with drugs. Drugs are a waste of time and unhealthy to boot, but they are also effective ways to get the desired effects. The history of the war on drugs is filled with racism, class warfare, and increased government intrusion into our lives. The war on drugs and the illegality surrounding it creates a black market that fuels oppression in foreign lands, funds the Taliban (and probably the CIA, too,) is intertwined with local and global prostitution, and so on.
People want their drugs, other people want to keep their chosen drugs away, and the status quo is maintained by the fact that no one wants to be seen as “weak on crime” or in favor of children using drugs or some such bullshit. This unsuccessful war on drugs has been going on too long. I could have said the same thing twenty years ago, and I’ll probably say it twenty years from now. I despair of the cost in money, lives, and health. If people were just left alone to be high, they’d probably leave us alone. Not all of them, but enough to make a serious dent in the cost of this war.
No One of Consequence: “Similar issue with prostitution. If you started publishing the names of johns once arrested, business would drop off.”
Our paper occasionally publishes the names of convicted johns (thank goodness they spell that one correctly) along with their photos, but I have a feeling business is still there. The underlying desire for the services of prostitutes doesn’t go away whether the service is legal or illegal to various degrees. Making something illegal won’t make it go away!
Here’s another example: driving. If people need to make an illegal uturn at a certain part of a road, they’ll do it. Not all of them, but enough to make the governmental decision something the government will eventually have to justify.
Of course, it’s not just the right wing that is so invested in the drug war. The war on drugs is truly bipartisan, as we can see in our current presidential race in which only fringe candidates in both parties support ending it (NB: the previous sentence does not–repeat does not–constitute an endorsement of or argument for Ron Paul).
But I’m willing to accept that the two parties are invested in it for different reasons.
Why is it that Democrats, too, are so invested in the so-called War on Drugs?
What stops them from going to different towns and doing the same thing there?
Relocating for your job may be feasible if you’re an office worker, not so much if your a pusher. No smack dealer is going to pack up and move down the road and start building their clientèle form scratch. They can’t afford it for one and part of the plan that makes this work– the family and community intervention aspect, is why they don’t move away.
Their family and community is there. That’s who they get their support and the business from. They sell to their friends and neighbors. But by removing the pusher, it has the much vaunted but rarely seen trickle down effect. No more supply, means friends and famiy members who were users go clean, too.
Shorter GOP on drug policy: “1. We like it because it gives more power to the police and the state. 2. We like it because it screws over the poor and leaves rich drug users comparatively unscathed. 3. The more we spend on jails and cops the less money there is for social programs, which we know don’t work (and by `don’t work’ we mean `don’t work for our purposes’). 4. More niggers in jail means less niggers who can vote. Heaven! (Not that we’d ever say `niggers’; we say `criminals’ because that really means niggers and Democrats, and, hey, all three are pretty much the same thing as far as we’re concerned.)”
Ooooh!! I know this one!Because they’re either bought, or terrified of looking weak, or really Republicans at heart, or because they dislike and fear blacks as much as their GOP neighbours, or as much in love with well-established, dumbass easy answers no matter how palpably failed the status quo is.
Now gimme me my cookie.
Amanda, why are the posts taking so long to appear, without some note that they are caught in moderation limbo or some such?
Sorry it takes so long sometimes. I left the house last night to go to Drinking Liberally. When I am unstrapped from the computer, modding comments is hard to do.
Bingo. As noted in other threads here (often on sex) the powers that be aren’t against being happy or in control of your own happiness, they are just ferociously against such joys being in the hands of anybody other than themselves.Maybe the way to actually win any war is not to fight but to negotiate?
Thank you so much for posting this, Amanda. It gives me hope.
Every dealer I ever knew said he/she was dealing to 1) support a habit 2) to make a lot more than at seven eleven or walmart and to keep up with the consumerist craze of our culture.
The second belief is, as demonstrated by several studies, a deluded one. In fact the majority of street-level drug dealers, when you take into account the number of hours working versus income they get to keep, make less than minimum wage. The ones who make the money are the ones further up the food chain.
If you want to talk about social inequality, the drug business is the poster child for it. It is literally a few, stinkingly rich people living off the back of a poorly-paid and oppressed (both by them and the law) working class.
Nixon’s drug policy was the best one the US ever had, or would have been had it been fully implemented. I have a copy of the report his administration commissioned on Marijuana, and it is simply excellent.
The momentum towards decriminalization and even legalization of marijuana was so strong in the early 70s that tobacco companies started trademarking potential names for commercial marijuana products. “Acapulco Gold” is a registered trademark of Phillip Morris (now Altria, IIRC).
Because the people want druggies thrown in jail and Democrats don’t seem to have the good sense that Richard Nixon did. Democrats don’t want to lie their asses off to the American people, then to implement policies that actually work behind their backs.
Perhaps it is because so many Democrats were so disgusted by Watergate that they have lost this essential political skill? Democrats propose sensible, reasonable policies, while Republicans lie and scapegoat, then do what they want. Guess who wins?
This basic policy is already in wide scale use - it’s the policy alrealy applied to the children of well-off white people.
I imagine that the other plus side of this is a greater cooperation between the police and people in the community. One of the biggest problem I saw when working in poor neighborhoods in Chicago was that people justifiably wouldn’t help the police. In many cases they weren’t especially scared of criminals (for things like small-scale dealing), it’s just that they didn’t want to see relatives or neighbors in jail for something petty.
Show them that you will work against the violence, which all people want controlled, and you aren’t out to put a generation of kids in jail, and many more people will help.
Before 1914, cocaine, heroin, and other extremely addictive drugs were availible over the counter no questions asked. There was very little crime associated with these drugs (hysteria about “Negro Cocaine Feinds” not withstanding).
There was no crime simply because these drugs were so cheap there was no reason to commit a crime to get your fix. Most addicts were middle class, law-abiding people.
I know this sounds really cynical but sometimes I wonder if the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs isn’t ended because marijuana, opiates, et al. are very easy to grow in your backyard and therefore both big pharma and the government will be shut out of any revenue coming from them. Thoughts?
I like the Don Julio Tequila ad pasted right next to an article about a war on drugs.
Kind of highlights the duplicity in this country’s tolerance of some drugs (re: accepted by whitey) such as alcohol and the intolerance of others.
an anonymous kate - you nailed it. That’s one of those insights I smack my forehead for not having had myself. Thanks.
Democrats propose sensible, reasonable policies, while Republicans lie and scapegoat, then do what they want. Guess who wins?
wayward,
OK. Maybe I missed it.
Can you point to the “sensible, reasonable policies” on drugs that have been proposed by any of the leading Democratic candidates for President…or by the Democratic leadership in either house of Congress?
(And, no, the fact that they want the ridiculous penalties for crack possession to be no worse than the ridiculous penalties for powder cocaine does not constitute a reasonable or sensible policy, only a slightly less overtly racist one.)
Kate said: “Every dealer I ever knew said he/she was dealing to 1) support a habit 2) to make a lot more than at seven eleven or walmart and to keep up with the consumerist craze of our culture.”
Keith M replied: “The second belief is, as demonstrated by several studies, a deluded one. In fact the majority of street-level drug dealers, when you take into account the number of hours working versus income they get to keep, make less than minimum wage. The ones who make the money are the ones further up the food chain.”
It may still be true that people are joining the drug trade because they believe it holds greater opportunities for advancement than minimum wage jobs in the service sector. It’s one thing to work a $7/hr job if you’re confident that it’s a stepping stone to bigger and better things. It’s quite another to resign yourself to a lifetime of low-wage, insecure jobs–which is what a lot of people have to look forward to if they reject the drug trade.
Eh, partially. There’s some industrial inertia there. But keep in mind that the war on people of color is a multi-billion dollar boondoggle. Prison overfills, drug seizure bonuses for law enforcement, lobbyists — these people are making fucking bank.
And you simply cannot get past the racial element. Pot is illegal because we didn’t like the Mexicans and this was the easiest way to get at them. Drug abuse is attributed, knee-jerk, as a black characteristic even though it’s more prevalent amongst whites.
And the War is free points for bad politicians. You move an extra mil to law enforcement and voila, you’re tough on crime. It’s easy. Actually fixing the problem doesn’t play so easily in the media — that requires more political skill than just getting a cop to shake your hand on camera.
But I will give you this: big Pharma makes mint because pot is illegal. I’m not a huge fan of any drug, but pot’s theraputic effects are completely undeniable by any scientist. If you introduce marijuana into the mainstream medical establishment, many expensive-to-research drugs will become obsolete. All those expensive patents lasting for another five years? Fuck ‘em, writeoffs.
So, in the case of pot, they had better keep it illegal, else the painkiller industry will grab its ankles.
And the War is free points for bad politicians. You move an extra mil to law enforcement and voila, you’re tough on crime. It’s easy. Actually fixing the problem doesn’t play so easily in the media — that requires more political skill than just getting a cop to shake your hand on camera.
That reminds me of this great video–Incarcerex!
But I will give you this: big Pharma makes mint because pot is illegal. I’m not a huge fan of any drug, but pot’s theraputic effects are completely undeniable by any scientist. If you introduce marijuana into the mainstream medical establishment, many expensive-to-research drugs will become obsolete. All those expensive patents lasting for another five years? Fuck ‘em, writeoffs.
Sure, and the same goes for opiates. If it wasn’t for the fear of DEA agents bursting into peoples houses at 2 am and ramsacking their home, people could grow opium poppies very easily in their backyards for pennies. But then there would be no market for Oxycotin!
Do you suffer from losing your election?
(Alongside a graphic of a downward arrow.)
Then the film just goes full-the-fuck-out and the arrow is placed on a pol’s groin.
This was horrible, AF. I’m sending it to _everyone_.
Wow, what a blanket statement. May I ask why not? I’ve certainly never done anything to harm YOU. I’m willing to bet most ppl you know are in fact drug users. You know, prescription drugs, alcohol and tobacco are ALSO drugs. But to just declare you straight out don’t like ANY of us is pretty stupid. you must just not like ppl at all i guess.
Before 1914, cocaine, heroin, and other extremely addictive drugs were availible over the counter no questions asked. There was very little crime associated with these drugs (hysteria about “Negro Cocaine Feinds” not withstanding).
There was no crime simply because these drugs were so cheap there was no reason to commit a crime to get your fix. Most addicts were middle class, law-abiding people
Don’t forget that opium became a tool in fomenting the “yellow scares.” The early war on drugs was also a war on people of color.
Casey,
The subject was pot, cocaine, and meth, mostly. And I don’t want to be around their users when they’re using those drugs. If someone needs some Sudafed, aspirin, or a heart pill, no problemo. But I prefer to be not there while people are using illegal drugs. That’s all. What you do on your own is no big thing to me as long as it’s done away from me. Damn right it was a blanket statement, but contextually it was accurate.
And thanks for the info regarding alcohol. Now you got me, since I enjoy drinking in public. I’m a big fucking hypocrite, except I’m not. If cocaine was legal and someone put a line on the bar, no problem. If pot was legal and they didn’t exhale in my face, again, no problem (but take it outside.) I’m not sure what places would want meth users, but I guess they’d be interesting to watch on a dance floor. Heroin users would be booooooring. Acid trippers are always among us, so whatever. I’m sure I’m missing others, but for tobacco-users: I’m glad you have to smoke outside in my state! All your whining just makes me laugh! And I don’t smell like a bar anymore.
Atomic Fruitbat, you might be interested to know that the AMA was formed specifically to lobby the goverment and place opiates under the control of doctors. Formal “prescriptions” didn’t exist until then.
Jon,
So just because something is illegal then it’s bad? Like abortion in the 1880s, alcohol in the 1920s, and sodomy in Texas? And just because something is legal then it’s Ok? Like street harassment, homophobia, and rudeness?
It seems that people say “Illegal Drugs are bad because they are Illegal,” instead of looking at the science.
Atomic Fruitbat, you might be interested to know that the AMA was formed specifically to lobby the goverment and place opiates under the control of doctors. Formal “prescriptions” didn’t exist until then
The AMA started out as a protectionist racket? Somehow I’m not surprised.
Haydin, I just don’t want to be around many types of illegal activity. Illegal drug users, which was the original subject of my statements, participate in one type of illegal activity that I do not wish to be a part of. I don’t like those who use illegal drugs to do so in my presence, and I tend to mistrust most users as well.
But no, all illegal activity is not bad, immoral, or whatever just because it is illegal. I favor abortion, drug legalization, vibrators for Alabamans, big scary knives, backyard building without permits, many forms of civil disobedience, obscenity, and public nudity. I think marriage should be privatized and even allow for polygamy and polyandry. I’ll even say I’m okay with public sex after ten at night. I’m way more liberal than most liberals in regards to many things, but I’m just not comfortable around those who use illegal drugs, and I prefer that they don’t tell me about it
I’m amused at this whole “drugs are an inner city problem” thing. I live in a smallish burg in Arkansas, it’s got about 30,000 people in it and about two-thirds of them are white.
The high school I went to has this incredible underground drug culture–it’s pretty well known who the dealers are. Shrooms are apparently quite popular, but the big thing is weed. I didn’t know about this while I was actually in high school (I was a sheltered Good Little Girl), but my sister is friends with a lot of people who do various drugs or know people who do.
Not to mention there’s a meth lab bust a week around here.
I’ve got no problems with drugs myself (never done any of them, mostly because I don’t tend to go out of my way to do something that will get me in trouble, regardless of how I feel about it). Responsible, informed recreational use is something I can definitely get behind–in fact, it’s the same concept behind comprehensive sex ed: people are gonna do it, so why not tell them how to do it safely?
Meth is some scary shit, though. Not big on that.
I think alcohol and tobacco should be illegal.
ok, so you don’t like me (even though you’ve never met me) simply because my drug of choice is illegal?? YOUR drug of choice (alcohol) is WAY worse than mine, health wise, for the society, etc.
i am also glad ppl have to smoke outside now! i hate second-hand smoke. no one should be able to force their drug onto others around them. but i certainly don’t dislike all tobacco smokers just because they have a dif drug of choice than me.
i’m amused by the “i don’t like to be around drug users” type because frequently they are telling me this - in complete oblivion that they are talking to someone who is high! i mean, i don’t go around ADVERTISING i do illegal drugs… so i’ll have ppl tell me how they hate stoners, right to my face! uh huh, whatever. asshole.
Casey. Casey. Casey. Calm down.
Okay? I’m just saying that if you can use your illegal drugs in your own home, that’s fine. Hell, I think it should be legal, damnit! But since it isn’t, I don’t want the grief. Yes, alcohol causes a shitload of health problems in this world (it’s even high in calories!) And yes, I don’t know you. But I do know the following:
When my car window is smashed or a house window is broken and some motherfucker runs off with some of my stuff, chances are that it was done by a drug user. If someone needs to eat, they’ll steal food, so it surely wasn’t hunger of that sort that causes such acts. Whether this was a situation caused by the creation of a black market or just because the criminal is a fucking lowlife who can’t get his shit together enough to hold down a job, is something I don’t care about. All I care about is the fact that that drug user is an asshole. And so, I discriminate against drug users. Maybe even you, Casey.
Then again, your dealer may insist upon seeing W-4s of all his patrons, have high ethical standards, and offer discounts for low-income customers. If so, I apologize. I want the stuff legal so there’s less smash-and-grab crime, and I think the stuff is generally no worse than what’s already legal (prescription and otherwise.) But until then, I want that shit away from me.
My best friend got her hair pulled, thrown on the sidewalk, and kicked in the head and chest on Tuesday night by someone who wanted her car. What are the chances that the perp wanted to sell her car to buy drugs? Probably somewhere in the 110% range.
Assholes like that are why the incredibly large percentage of drug users who are able to hold down a job, behave responsibly, and even raise children have a hard time advocating for drug legalization. They are also the reason why drug legalization is so needed. But if anyone ever wonders why I’m not a fan of illegal drug users, that asshole’s my brand new Exhibit A. I’d love to be able to keep the Caseys and others separate from the carjackers and thieving breaking-and-entering slime, but under the current system, I just can’t always say so I err on the side of caution.
Actually, the chances it was an alcoholic are WAY higher than that it was a pothead. think about it.
how many homeless alcoholics do you see?
how many homeless stoners?
and i’ve had
accidentally pressed enter…
i’ve had MY car broken into as well. let’s put CRIMINALS in jail for committing CRIMES, instead of putting innocent ppl in jail (yes, i’ve been in jail for my habit) for enjoying themselves.
I’ve been raped by a man. Should I just discriminate against and hate all men now?