
How the war on drugs creates violence - flannery
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-the-war-on-drugs-creates-violence/2015/10/16/6de57a76-72b7-11e5-9cbb-790369643cf9_story.html
======
cubano
I just don't think many people realize just how much legal corporate and
government "business" is created by the insane war on drugs, and I am
convinced this is the reason why it continues.

Like I mentioned before, I just spent 6 months in the deep bowels of the
criminal justice system for drug possession here in Florida, and those
observations have shaped this view.

The cops, the judges, the lawyers on both sides (who eventually become the
politicians that make the laws), the clerks, the guards (do they hate being
called that!), the jail/prison administrators...they ALL are making pretty
awesome livings from the war on drugs, and have zero repeat ZERO incentive to
change anything.

The problem is not a legal one, it's economic.

The public is fed the propaganda of wrecked lives and violence to keep the
status quo...until the population somehow wakes up and sees how the CJS is
totally broken as perhaps even _more corrupt_ then the drug game, I doubt
anything can change.

~~~
will_brown
A little more insight into Florida and street drugs vis-a-vis violence...In
some places drugs dealers are sanctioned specifically to avoid an increase in
violence.

Example, in Miami, FL, there is Grand Avenue, a historic street that could
define "other side of the tracks", whereas Grand Avenue is a street where drug
dealers openly hustle corners, but the road itself leads into Coconut Grove
(an economic center in the heart of Coral Gables - a city where Miami
athletes/celebrities/politicians call home). In fact the police commonly refer
to dealers on Grand, almost endearingly, as Alligators. Because they just sit
out on the corners all day soaking up sun and scuttle away when necessary. Ask
any Coral Gables cop why they don't "shut down" the dealing on Grand Avenue,
the response is, well when dealers can't make money with drugs they arm
themselves and follow the road into Coconut Grove to commit robberies. As a
result there is an unspoken agreement, Grand Avenue is the dealers' so long as
there is no spill over into Coconut Grove. When times are good, in many of the
drug neighborhoods in Miami not just off Grand Avenue, it is often said rich
white people are the safest people in these neighborhoods because they are
protected customers.

I am a criminal defense lawyer in South Florida, but its not exactly as you
say, I don't have an interest in maintaining the laws as is. I assure you with
different laws I wouldn't lose business, because there would be more lucrative
work, namely legitimate business transactions (contracts, commercial leases,
incorporation, etc...).

~~~
cubano
Exactly.

In Orlando, it's Paramour and/or Orange Blossom Trail.

You hit the nail right on the head here..altho it's probably not just a
Florida-thing and represents the utter hypocrisy and gamesmanship of the
ridiculous war on drugs.

EDIT: So I see now you are a criminal defense lawyer so that is very
interesting...may I ask what percentage of your business is derived from
defending non-violent drug offenders?

~~~
will_brown
Drug possession might comprise 10% of my caseload and 100% of mine are non-
violent. However, about 75% of the possession cases I have include another
criminal count (DUI; leaving the scene of an accident; suspended license;
etc...).

------
awjr
I've pretty much come down on the side of prohibition is bad. Yes hard drugs
destroy lives, but many many many more are destroyed by socially acceptable
drugs like alcohol and nicotine.

We live within societies where the way we control substances creates a huge
social and financial cost.

We'd be better off legalising every drug and creating a social framework
within which these drugs can be taxed, consumed safely, and users supported.

Case in point is the legalisation of cannabis which I hope is a stepping stone
to legalisation of all recreational drugs.

~~~
shocks
> users supported

This is the biggest thing, IMO. Legalising drugs isn't about getting control
of distrubution and profits, it's more about changing societies view on drugs.
We need to stop treating these people as addicts that need to be swept under
the rug. We need to treat them as they are - human beings with a
disease/illness for which they need help.

How can they turn to us for help if we chuck them in prison for their problem
and don't help them?

edit; wasn't suggesting that you didn't think this - I think the majority of
people in my country (UK) don't think of addiction as an illness/disease that
we need to help with. They just want to turn a blind eye...

~~~
reddytowns
Why is it that having certain problems gives you a license to demand that
everyone else help you with them?

We've all got problems, but for some reason whenever I mess up on my taxes or
something, I'm to blame, but if someone else robs a liquor store when being
addicted to heroin, "the needle made me do it, mumble ... mumble ..." is an
acceptable excuse.

~~~
snsr
> is an acceptable excuse

No, it's not. Going with your flawed example: having an addiction to heroin
should be a socially acceptable problem, or at least one that doesn't land an
addict in prison in and of itself. Helping those amongst us who are addicted
helps to prevent desperate crimes.

~~~
soylentcola
Exactly. To put it in terms of currently legal drugs, it's not illegal to be
an alcoholic. You won't be imprisoned for the compulsive use of alcohol,
regardless of the framework used to describe it (poor impulse control,
chemical imbalance, whatever).

But if you go beat someone up or crash your car while drunk, you're charged
with those crimes, whether committed due to your addiction or not. But outside
of actual crimes committed against others in society, just being in possession
of alcohol or being an addict isn't illegal. Additionally, there are resources
for people who want to improve their dealings with alcohol or work out the
issues that are causing their problems with it. They can make use of these
resources without fear of being arrested because mere possession and use isn't
a crime.

I don't claim that habitual use of opiates or amphetamines or whatever is a
positive thing but putting someone at risk of criminal penalties and prison
because of something that is (at worst) very unhealthy is sort of preposterous
when you think about it that way.

That doesn't mean we ought to turn a blind eye to crimes committed under the
influence or in search of one's dose but at a minimum, possession and use
ought not to be criminal offenses.

------
kawa
There's only so much profit in the drug business because of the illegality of
many drugs. Changing that would kill the profits of many very rich and
powerful criminals and cartels. So it's very understandable that those people
do everything they can to prevent their business model from collapsing.

The usual way of doing it is simply lots of lobbying: Paying "well meaning"
people, journalists and politicians to stay on the track of keeping most drugs
illegal, so that the drug lords and cartels can continue to earn money.

So does really anybody wonder why the (obviously totally pointless) "war on
drugs" is still waged and will probably waged for quite a while?

~~~
fsloth
I have no idea if gangsters partake in lobbying but I find it hard to believe
it would be the main cause for the continuing policies. Some hold the view
that the war on drugs is mainly ideological. Chomsky has quite a critical view
of the matter. E.g.

"So there are two possibilities: Either those conducting the Drug War are
lunatics, or they have another purpose."

[http://hightimes.com/read/high-times-interview-noam-
chomsky](http://hightimes.com/read/high-times-interview-noam-chomsky)

~~~
Synaesthesia
What's interesting is that the CIA has been proven to be involved in the drug
trade, and they need untraceable money for covert operations quite frequently.
Also this trade is so lucrative, that massive banks are quite involved in it
too.

What's more, large corporations in the US are py directly involve in selling
dangerous narcotics around the world, it's called to tobacco and it's the most
lethal drug sold in the world.

It's interesting, Chomsky points out that we in the US feel entitled to send
helicopters to spray coca crops and troops into Colombia to burn coca crops
etc. Well hard drugs kill not even 1% of the amount of people tobacco kills,
so what if China were to send helicopters and troops to destroy tobacco
plantations in Virginia? Would that be acceptable?

~~~
mindslight
You know the cops, they got a network for the toxic rock!

Nearly a hundred comments and this seems to be the only reference to this
major facet of the drug "war". It's amazing how short-term and steered "our"
attention span is.

And of course now we've got a new instance of the familiar pattern - a Heroin
epidemic a decade after beginning colonization of Afghanistan...

~~~
lm______
And it happens at all levels of dealing too, not just the CIA flying in
bricks... I know people who have been robbed by the cops for drugs.

One friend got off with only a warning for having 10 ounces of high-grade
weed, which were then "confiscated". Another, who has been selling cocaine
since his mid-teens, begrudgingly gives out 8-balls to a few cops that
recognize his cars and pull him over at any opportunity.

------
DanielBMarkham
I'm a libertarian, so I'm already sold on legalization. Count me in.

As such, hopefully I can quibble with the text a bit.

"Ceasing this hypocritical practice by releasing nonviolent offenders is
morally urgent."

Yeah, not so much. Yes, there is a severe moral problem here, but please do
not make moral arguments! It's folks with moral arguments riding around on
high horses that got us into this mess. Instead, argue from the standpoint of
practicality (which she does).

One of the practicality arguments she does not make, which deserves
mentioning, is that because the drug war is unwinnable, there are too many
laws. This makes folks with the power of selective enforcement lords over the
rest of us.

Have a traffic stop? Cops ask to search your car? You have a right to say
"no". But if you do, be prepared to wait around until the drug dog shows up.
He'll sniff around your car and "alert" the cops, even if there's no drugs
present. Then, guess what? They get to tear apart your car while you watch.
All because of the war on drugs.

Let's say you are a drug user. You have a joint in the ashtray. In this case,
it gets even better. Then -- if I'm not mistaken -- they get to take your car!
A few dollars worth of illegal pot, which might not even be yours, and you
could lose tens of thousands of dollars worth of car.

It's not that this is morally outrageous. It certainly is. It's that a system
of justice cannot maintain the consent of the governed when it turns LE
officers into something approaching highway bandits. Selective enforcement of
drug laws -- both by cops and prosecutors -- distorts the legal system so much
as to make it unworkable. Sure, it's bad, but the bigger point is that _it
cannot continue working in this fashion_. Something's gotta give.

I liked the article. It's good to see public discourse slowly become much more
reasonable about drug addiction and its consequences. One caution, though: in
my opinion what we need to do is still stay tough on violent, hardened
criminals while being more pragmatic about drug crimes. Otherwise we'll end up
being slandered as soft-headed and irrational.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
I generally agree with your major thesis which is that the laws need to be
consistent and fair. Clearly the majority of Americans see no harm in an
occasional toke, and the majority indeed have tried MJ. That in itself argues
MJ should be made legal.

The one argument that the police might make against legalization is that it
deprives them of a useful tool -- an immoral tool, but nonetheless vital --
for getting scumbags off the street.

Example: The cops stop a guy who they basically know committed a murder or a
rape or some other violent crime, but they don't have the evidence to hold
him. He'd call his lawyer, the lawyer would come in and make sure he's held
for no more than the maximum number of hours, then he'd be freed and nothing
gained by anyone. But if they can nail him on possession, they at least can
get him off the streets for some days, weeks, or months, while they gather the
evidence to really put him away.

Not really the spirit of the law, but it works. That said, I'd rather we focus
more resources on the few sociopaths and violent types out there, and clear
out the over-crowded prisons.

~~~
pakled_engineer
They do this already with tax evasion laws or they just keep throwing charges
at gangsters to get them off the streets, like here where they use
confidential informants to claim somebody did something then lock them up for
years pending trial which is later dismissed. They also bust them on petty
driving infractions all the time then wait for them to pay with unlaundered
money, which opens the tax evasion case. When police and the state want to
make your life hell they can easily do that without drug charges.

The real problem with the black market is it's wide open to robbery. Criminals
can't do armed escorts for their product and cash or turn to police for
protection so they get violently jacked by anybody with a gun. There's no
insurance or legal recourse so their only method of compensation is more
violence. Nobody jacks beer trucks anymore because the operator can phone
police making such a robbery too risky, and they have insurance, so the beer
company doesn't have to seek compensation by shooting up their rivals company.

As it stands right now the first thing a violent felon does upon release is
rob a drug delivery driver, the black market is their ATM.

------
sixQuarks
Besides all of the stated reasons to legalize/decriminalize, I think just as
important is personal liberty.

I should be free to experiment with my own consciousness (so long as it does
not impede on the rights of others) - how much more personal can you get? For
the government to impede on this is unconscionable (pun intended).

~~~
lighthawk
> so long as it does not impede on the rights of others

This is really the crux of the problem. How do you suggest that you legalize
all drugs and then keep people on those drugs from harming others? Public
safety has a hard enough time without having to deal with some unknown number
of additional people that would try drugs are harm themselves or others if
those drugs were legal.

~~~
sixQuarks
No, the crux of the problem is your line of thinking. The government cannot
and should not replace personal responsibility.

Your argument would mean that no one could drive a car or drink alcohol. Why
are drugs different?

~~~
jamespo
drugs aren't different to alcohol, but I'm sure you can appreciate they are
different to cars

~~~
Lawtonfogle
Temporarily and in places without great public transport. Once automated cars
become common place, the argument will hold for choosing to manually drive.

That being said, I've seen a lot of people who think it will eventually become
illegal to manually drive, at least on crowded public roads within large
cities.

------
suneilp
Is it creating violence or exacerbating violence? I'm more inclined to choose
the latter. The reason why I distinguish the two is that I see the
continuation and increase in drug use as something symptomatic of other issues
in the big picture.

Economic issues, politics, racism.... oppression on various fronts from the
system down to the family to the self.

Drugs (and alcohol) are an escape. Normal activities also provide an escape
when people get obsessed with them. TV, video games, food (my escape),
exercise for some addicts, sex, etc.

Just legalize cannabis and decriminalize other drugs already.

~~~
icanhackit
> Is it creating violence or exacerbating violence?

Depends on the substance, depends on the market, depends on the reason for
using. I haven't seen too many people on MDMA become violent or impoverished
through addiction, though their incessant hugs and platitudes can lead to a
violent response if they don't have enough to go around.

It's complex, but not _that_ complex. We have the power of observation - where
we can plot what is safe to use recreationally, what can be considered
substance abuse, which substances often lead to abusive behaviour, which
socio-economic factors lead to use in the first place, factors in the
marketplace that lead to violence and crime, how we can
monetarily/socially/legislatively abate the negative factors...and yet here we
are with our proverbial junk in our hand wondering what to do. Start being
objective, use methodologies that we've used for years for other problems that
aren't taboo. We've travelled to the fucking moon.

My non-objective opinion: Drugs are interesting. Drugs take the edge off of a
less-than-stellar life. Drugs help the mind momentarily escape the trap set by
forces who care little for your happiness and wellbeing. You can fix the
latter, which is unlikely in our lifetime, or reduce the burden of being a
drug user in the interim.

~~~
idonthaveaname
> We have the power of observation - where we can plot what is safe to use
> recreationally...

Wikipedia says this better than I can: In 2007 [Dr David] Nutt published a
controversial study on the harms of drug use in The Lancet.[12] Eventually,
this led to his sacking from his position in the Advisory Council on the
Misuse of Drugs (ACMD); see government positions below. Subsequently, Nutt and
a number of his colleagues who had subsequently resigned from the ACMD founded
the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs.[13]

Here are the citations: [12] Nutt, D.; King, L. A.; Saulsbury, W.; Blakemore,
C. (2007). "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of
potential misuse". The Lancet 369 (9566): 1047–1053.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4. PMID 17382831. [13] Nutt, D. (2010). "Nutt
damage – Author's reply". The Lancet 375 (9716): 724–724.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60302-9.

Roughly, the story as I recall it was that the head of the government's own
advisory body on the health effects of drugs published a report through
established scientific channels which claimed a significant mis-match between
the harm caused by many popular drugs and the legislation around them. These
were respected scientsists originally picked for their qualifications &
integrity. Their opinion was unpopular with the existing power-structures and
so their leader felt he had to resign, and several of his peers followed
voluntarily.

Up to this point, most governments have exhibited intent to ignore the
suggestions and testable claims of researchers in this area, and to ignore the
will of the people they represent. I doubt an article in the WP will do
anything to change that, no matter how much I wish it would.

------
aidos
The other day Richard Branson posted a leaked report from the UN Office on
Drugs and Crime that agrees with the notion of drug use as a health issue, not
a criminal one. Of course, they've turned around and said that's not their
official stance. Sigh.

[http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/19/un-call-
decri...](http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/19/un-call-
decriminalisation-drugs-richard-branson)

[http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/finally-a-change-in-
co...](http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/finally-a-change-in-course-on-
drug-policy)

------
upofadown
If you have a business disagreement you can't go to drug court to resolve it.
Sometimes attempts to resolve differences go wrong. At some level the violence
in the drug black market is simply because it _is_ a black market.

------
fnordfnordfnord
I'm not too keen on Silver's analysis/conclusion that drug offenses account
for such a low fraction of inmates' crimes. Drug possession renders a lot of
otherwise non criminal behavior into a "violent felony", and prosecutors love
tacking these extra charges on when they can.

------
peterwwillis
Violent crime in America rose dramatically as a result of worsening racial
ties after the death of Martin Luther King, a lack of employment and
investment in local communities, and an increase in use of heroin and (later)
easier to produce drugs like crack.

Increase in the number of robbery and petty crime identically track both the
increase in use of and violence associated with drug use. But the war on
drugs' main influence on this violence has been to keep the pressure on the
drug dealers, increasing risk to sell the product and making it less
available, thus driving up prices, increasing competition, and therefore
promoting violence between drug dealers, and by drug users in order to afford
what they're addicted to.

And all of this leads to increased incarceration, not just from drug charges,
but from the increased violence associated with the drug trade, gang warfare,
and an unlawful under-society where people do whatever they can to get by.

A flow chart would make it a bit easier to grok, but basically the drug war
throws fuel on a fire that was only simmering before.

------
segmondy
Yup, ineffective law enforcement and judicial system turns the survival street
mantra to "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

