
An undercover cop who abandoned the war on drugs - okket
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/26/neil-woods-undercover-cop-who-abandoned-the-war-on-drugs
======
simonswords82
It's old news that the police in the UK, with the exception of large scale
busts that they continue to go after, are losing the will to fight the war on
drugs [1].

Society at large are also coming round to the idea that making criminals of
drug users isn't working.

Now all we need is for the government to swallow their pride, along with the
evidence presented to them, and change the law.

As an aside, I always point people at this video about why the continued war
on drugs will not work:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8yYJ_oV6xk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8yYJ_oV6xk).
It's an interview with a retired police captain who is now vice chair of the
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). Well worth a watch...

[1] [http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/what-drug-cops-really-
think-o...](http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/what-drug-cops-really-think-of-the-
drug-trade-war-on-drugs)

~~~
bostik
> _for the government to swallow their pride, along with the evidence
> presented to them, and change the law_

As another poster has already quipped, there's practically zero chance of that
happening without overhauling the entire government. It may be hard for us,
makers and engineers, to see why anyone would obstinately refuse to accept
facts as ever more data flows in, but that's not how real life works. Sadly.

Politics and engineering are, in certain aspects, polar opposites. In politics
changing one's opinion, even in face of facts, is a mark of incompetence.
That's a big factor in why it takes so long to reverse bad decisions. While
enough (read: too many) of the representatives who voted 'yay' are still in
office, they will keep attacking any attempts to undo whatever they have done
or approved. And because the big decision was to make all drugs illegal, there
will be constant squeeze to push all other decisions further in that
direction.

Reversing the earlier error is simply inconceivable. It takes a new generation
of elected representatives to revoke old laws.

~~~
sliverstorm
_zero chance of that happening without overhauling the entire government._

Hasn't it already happened a little bit in several states (without complete
overhaul)? I'm of course talking about marijuana legalization. It's only some
states, and only marijuana, but it's movement in the right direction.

~~~
CaptSpify
I'd tentatively argue that "old people with old ideas die out and society
moves on" could be a form of overhaul.

~~~
simonswords82
It would be so much nicer if we could somehow convince old people to change
their views. Everybody would benefit!

~~~
CaptSpify
I'd actually argue that we need some form of conservative-ism to keep us from
going off the rails. A little bit too much forward movement can destabilize
societies too much.

------
josho
And if you are wondering what decriminalizing drugs might do to your country
then take a look at a country that has already done this.
[https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-
decr...](https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-
decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening)

Though, I suspect the US would see different results because decriminalizing
requires resources in public health, which seems to be overly politicized in
the US and therefore not likely to happen.

~~~
andy_ppp
Just to get a feel for things:

Healthcare spending (2015) £3.2tn

vs

War on drugs spending (2015) $51bn

So maybe if all that spending went to healthcare it might be enough to care
for people harming themselves. It won't go to health of course if it were to
become available...

~~~
pavlov
Does that "war on drugs spending" number include any of the US prison
industry?

The United States spends a lot of money on keeping its citizens locked up for
drug offences. If that money were redirected to healthcare, it could make a
difference.

~~~
nickff
The US Federal Government spends about 8.5 billion dollars on prisons (which
are all government-owned as far as I know), and about half of prisoners are
there on drug-related offences, though many of those have committed other
offences as well. A much smaller percentage of state prisoners are there on
drug offences (somewhere on the order of 10%), but many states have private
prisons. I am not sure that this amount of money would be a meaningful
contribution to healthcare.

Please also remember that some of the strongest advocates for greater
incarceration rates are the prison staff unions, which have very strong
lobbying groups, and are much larger than any of the private prison
corporations. The unions can monopolize the state supply of jailers, whereas
the prison companies cannot.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The US Federal Government spends about 8.5 billion dollars on prisons (which
> are all government-owned as far as I know),

They are not; the justice department only _just_ announced that it would begin
phasing out the use of private prisons.

~~~
Jarwain
Roughly 6% of state prisoners are in private prisons, and 16% of federal
prisoners. All in all, private prisons are a minority compared to public.
Phasing out the use of private prisons is a step in the right direction, but
the private companies that service prisons hemorrhage money.

[https://www.aclu.org/issues/mass-
incarceration/privatization...](https://www.aclu.org/issues/mass-
incarceration/privatization-criminal-justice/private-prisons)

------
kaosjester
Another instance of a cop who has watched the 'war on drugs' rage on and on,
and came to speak out about the fundamental flaw in the approach: you can't
fight a war against drugs; you have to treat the people at the bottom,
hopelessly addicted users, like the victims they are. The poignant quote in
the article isn't the one used for the headline, but this one: "drug policy
should be about reducing not drug use, but drug harm."

~~~
ythl
I know what you're saying, and I mostly agree with it, but some fundamental
part of me feels wrong about just unconditionally helping all the addicted
users.

It's like, they've made so many stupid decisions, disregarded so many
warnings, broken laws, possibly harmed other people (theft, robbery, etc.),
and now people like me, people who heeded the warnings, avoided the drugs,
have to pay for them one way or another to get out of the hole they dug. And
addicts are addicts for life - it's not like it's a one time treatment. They
will be mental health money sponges for the rest of their lives (esp. ones
that relapse), and the people that made good choices have to pay for it all.
It just seems unfair. Uncharitable? Maybe. But as long as I'm contributing to
a charity, I would like to pick the people my money goes to. I don't like the
government forcing me to be charitable and then paying out my money how they
see fit to people that make poor choices.

~~~
magic_beans
The problem with addicts is that they are _born_ addicts. That is to say that
addiction (to drugs, to food, gambling, video games, sex etc) is a disorder of
the brain. It is something some people are born with and some people are not.

Addicts "make poor choices" because their brains are wired that way. What the
government needs to do is provide options for addicts to re-learn how to cope
with life without resorting to their addiction.

~~~
ythl
> Addicts "make poor choices" because their brains are wired that way.

I reject this statement. Even _if_ people are more _prone_ to addiction, that
doesn't excuse their choices. Otherwise you could excuse serial killers by
saying "Oh well, his brain was wired that way. He got derived sexual
satisfaction from torture and killing. He couldn't control his actions; he's
not responsible for his choices."

Once you blame genetics, then suddenly nobody has accountability for anything.
"Oh, he did X? He didn't have a choice, his brain was wired that way."

~~~
dota_fanatic
Why can't both be true. For some people, they're prone but overcome their
instincts through nurturing and support from their environment to be
different. For others, they're VERY prone, and lack nurturing and support from
their environment to be different.

It's incredible to me how quickly we support, nurture, even worship people who
are born into extremely good circumstances with all the advantages of the
modern age, who are able to exercise common sense and ethical behavior (did
they deserve it?), while others are blamed and despised when they were born
into extremely poor circumstances, disadvantage after disadvantage (did they
deserve it?)

Context differs wildly and yet everyone is held to the same standards and
expectations, when we're all just barely evolved higher intelligence, with
severely flawed wetware. It's fucking ridiculous.

------
beat
The purpose of drug laws is not to punish intoxication. It never was.

Drug laws exist to punish subcultures. They're grounded in racism and cultural
bias, and they're enforced that way as well. It's not about the addicts. It's
about the blacks and the Mexicans and the hippies and the punks. The
undesirables. Drug laws are an excuse for police to harass anyone who doesn't
look "right".

If we can't accept this basic fact, if we have to lie to others (and
ourselves) about it, we can't have an honest conversation about drugs.

~~~
gozur88
That's not a fact at all. It's not even true. Drugs are illegal or heavily
restricted in every country in the world, including countries that are nearly
homogeneous.

Drugs are illegal because drug addicts cause problems for the people around
them. It's really that simple.

~~~
swayvil
The #1 drug-addict population is alcoholics. I don't think we go after them
like we do, say, the potheads or the hallucinogen enthusiasts. I don't think
that "troublesome addicts" is the reason for drug laws.

I think that /u/beat has it right, except it ain't the hippies, blacks, etc.
It's everybody. The drug war is a universal justification for spying, search
and seizure. That's its purpose.

~~~
beat
I'm not sure it's universal, though. It's strongly targeted. It's universal on
paper, but not in practice.

I got pulled over last night, for a broken headlight. I got a warning. A
couple of months ago, someone was _shot_ by the police in my community after
getting pulled over for a broken taillight. Uneven enforcement, for sure.

------
munificent

        > The argument Woods heard more than any other
        > from his colleagues was: yes, the war on drugs
        > is hard to win, but just because lots of people
        > burgle houses that’s no reason to legalise
        > burglary, so we shouldn’t legalise drugs just
        > because so many people take them.
    

The counter-argument to this is simple: Outlawing burglary works because
people aren't _addicted_ to burglary. (Well, except for a small number of
actual kleptomaniacs.) Criminalization is not an effective treatment for
addiction, but it's perfectly fine for dissuading other non-addictive
behaviors.

~~~
WayneBro
Not every drug is addictive. Marijuana isn't, not physiologically speaking.

Furthermore a very high majority of users do not become dependent on the most
addictive drugs such as heroin [1].

It's pretty simple to me - The war on drugs is not really a war on drugs, it's
a war on people. People like drugs and alcohol just like every animal [2].
It's totally natural. However, certain other people in power have taken it as
an opportunity to exact control over the entire world.

With drugs being illegal - the feds get to take your money and property, the
CIA gets secret money since they secretly control the entire drug trade, the
DEA gets your tax money, the police get to invade your privacy and jail you
more easily and on and on.... With legal drugs, none of that is possible.

What other possible activity could be outlawed which would be as profitable?

[1]
[https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/heroin](https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/heroin)
[2]
[http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/13791/20150331/natur...](http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/13791/20150331/natures-
junkies-drugs-alcohol-why-animals-use.htm)

~~~
tajen
However, there is social pressure. The social pressure that makes that given
your social level and how smart you are, you are much more akin to fall into
drugs (tobacco, alcohol) if it's allowed.

Take it this way: It's incredibly hard, today, in France, to explain someone
smoking at a bar outdoors that he's reducing your life expectancy. It's
incredibly hard to find bars to go to. It's incredibly hard in my city (Lyon),
to walk on the sidewalk and avoid smokers. It's impossible to run around our
park without being under the smoke of smokers - and that's the only place
where asthmatists can go running.

Smokers don't even think of smoking as harmful in practice, even if they admit
it in theory.

While I'm unhappy with the war on drugs and the class domination it represents
(jailing the poorer and the political opponents), I'm incredibly happy that I
don't have to explain my friends that they can't come to work with drugs or
that we don't have to explain children that drugs are legal but shouldn't be
bought. The law makes things clear: It's forbidden because it's bad.

And I'm happy that I'm not proposed drugs during cocktails, while I'm
insistently proposed cigarettes and alcohol.

~~~
munificent
Smoking is legal in the US, but smoking _in bars and restaurants_ is illegal
in many places now. I think that strikes a good balance between giving smokers
the freedom to smoke while giving non-smokers the freedom to inhale clean air
in most places.

I can't tell you how wonderful it was to move from a city that allowed smoking
in bars to one that didn't. I used to play in a band and coming home from
every show reeking of smoke was awful. The first time I went out in my new
city and came home not needing a shower was amazing.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Smoking is legal in the US, but smoking in bars and restaurants is illegal
> in many places now. I think that strikes a good balance between giving
> smokers the freedom to smoke while giving non-smokers the freedom to inhale
> clean air in most places.

Note that in most places, those bans aren't justified primarily on protection
of non-smoking customers, but were instead removal of exception in existing
workplace smoking bans that had excluded bars and restaurants, to protect
people _working_ in those places.

------
tempodox
The war on drugs is proof that politics has nothing to do with reality. It's
only about defending some arbitrary ideology. And the addicts are the end-
losers, victims of a war between reality and ideology.

Funny thing is, I can relate better to drug dealers than to war-on-drugs guys.
At least the pile of money the dealers are after would be _real_ , if they
achieved it. What the war-on-drugs guys hallucinate, I don't even want to
know.

~~~
ythl
> And the addicts are the end-losers, victims of a war between reality and
> ideology.

Drug users aren't victims of the war on drugs (except maybe weed users). If
drugs were legal they would still be hopeless addicts. Just because you can
now buy your heroin at CVS instead of back alley Joe doesn't make you less
vulnerable to addiction. Maybe they aren't in prison for doing drugs anymore,
but they still might be in prison for robbing CVS to feed their addiction.

Drug users are victims of their own poor choices. To say otherwise is to say
people don't have free will.

~~~
cmdrfred
drug user != drug addict. To continue down the thread of logic, any alcohol
user is a 'victim(s) of their own poor choices' as well.

I say make it all legal, and tax it proportionate to the cost of running
enough rehabilitation centers nationally that any American can get treatment
if they so wish (and include alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs under
that same mandate). This is really a problem that solves itself.

~~~
ythl
> I say make it legal, and tax it proportionate to the cost of running enough
> rehabilitation centers nationally that any American can get treatment if
> they so wish.

Seems like a pipe dream. Tax the drugs too much and you'll just create a black
market and/or encourage addicts to commit crimes to obtain the drug. Tax it
too little and it won't cover the costs of rehab.

~~~
onetwotree
There's no black market for cigarettes or alcohol though. Tax heroin at 50%
and it'll still be cheaper than it is on the street. The fact that these goods
are cheap to produce but highly inelastic means that the government can make a
killing taxing them without introducing a black market.

~~~
narrowrail
>There's no black market for cigarettes

Are you sure about that?

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/06/25/why-t...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/06/25/why-
the-massive-black-market-trade-in-cigarettes-affects-you-even-if-you-dont-
smoke/)

"In New York, a Black Market For Illegal Cigarettes Thrives"
[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1040938577857473793](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1040938577857473793)

------
ChuckMcM
_It was then that the epiphany dawned. “Every year the police get better at
catching drug gangs, and the gangsters’ most effective way of fighting back is
upping the use of fear and intimidation against potential informants. The most
efficient way to stop people grassing them up is to be terrifying. In other
words, organised crime groups were getting nastier and nastier as a direct
result of what I was doing.”_

This is always the outcome of a proxy disagreement, and something I heard
referred to as the 'witnesses dilemma' (as a sort of pun on the prisoner's
dilemma). If you testify your life might get better, but other people will
make your life harder. If you don't testify your life will stay at its current
level of hardness.

------
seibelj
Last time I commented on something similar to this[0], the downvotes came in
strong and some physician told me I was out of my mind to want drugs
legalized. I guess an article that makes the same argument more effectively
keeps all the drug warriors from commenting.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12067684](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12067684)

------
tcj_phx
In many ways Alcohol is worse than all the 'illegal' plant-based substances
that people use to self-medicate.

When I met a new friend, I said to myself 'this woman is high as a kite',
because she fluttered from topic to topic like a butterfly. On that first
encounter she told me about going to the Methadone clinic every day. At that
point she'd been going for about a month.

Little by little she invited me into her life, and I learned that she really
was self-medicating with the street pharmacy too. They'd told her that
methadone helps with 'all cravings'. She was good for about 8 days, then she
wrecked her car and had to move back in with her mother... Thenceforth she
resumed using cocaine too.

In summer 2015, she used Methadone for her opiate addiction, heroin on the
days that she didn't make it to the methadone clinic before they closed,
cocaine for her depression, and alcohol for her anxiety.

By August 2015, with my help, she came to appreciate that she 'wished she
wasn't a drug addict.' The internet told me that the best way to quit opiates
is cold-turkey, which is how she'd done it previously.

But she'd trained her brain to run on Acetate (the energy-rich breakdown
products of ethanol), and became psychotic when the alcohol went away. This is
a well-known complication of excessive alcohol use. [1]

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance-
induced_psychosis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance-induced_psychosis)

Her mother called the mental health crisis team, who took her to the hospital.
Even though they found cocaine in her bloodwork, they treated her with 'anti-
psychotics'. These drugs were originally known as sedatives, and do not in any
way fix problems for the person they're given to.

Even though they knew her psychosis was the result of substances, my friend
got trapped with a court order to take whatever drugs her psychiatrists think
are appropriate. Anti-psychotics (and benzodiazepines) are bad drugs that make
people's mental problems worse. She stabilizes while in their facilities
because she's mostly sober. They let her out, and she turns to her old friends
provided by the street pharmacy to try to feel better, and before long has to
go back to the mental hospital.

I can tell when she's used cocaine (which she says doesn't 'work' anymore) -
it takes a couple hours for her to mostly recover. Methamphetamine makes her
psychotic for 3-4 days. In my opinion, stimulants provided by plants are much
safer than synthetic amphetamines.

Last week I filed a petition with the court to ask them to investigate her
court-ordered treatment, which I do not believe has complied with the
requirements of the law.

I also contacted the local chapter of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties
Union) to see if they can lend some assistance. We have the right to refuse
medical treatment, unless a psychiatrist thinks you have a 'persistent mental
disorder', then you have to take whatever psychotropic drugs the psychiatrist
thinks you should take.

tl/dr: The drug problem would be easy to turn into a manageable public health
issue if not for modus operandi of the mental health industry, which thinks
"palliative care" is the best they can offer.

(There's a psychiatrist who comments on some of these HN stories. I think it'd
be really easy to turn the field into an effective, helpful profession. But
they'd have to acknowledge the psychotropic pharmacopeia is mostly defective,
and start over from scratch. There is much resistance to progress.)

~~~
filoeleven
I wrote a comment in another story[0] about ibogaine, a psychedelic that is
reportedly being used very successfully to treat addiction. If you haven't
heard of it, you may want to investigate it since you are clearly doing a lot
for your friend. In short, it stops heroin withdrawal symptoms upon ingestion,
and with a single guided treatment plus a week of time at the center, it can
effectively cure an addiction. It's theorized that in addition to the
neurochemistry involved in soothing the nervous system, the fact that it's a
psychedelic tends to help the patient face the underlying cause of the
addiction, giving them the tools to treat it instead of papering it over with
drugs.

[0][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12213623](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12213623)

~~~
tcj_phx
Thanks for commenting here, and for your link. She's had plenty of experiences
with psychedelics (including bad trips), so I don't know that it'd be
appropriate for her individual needs at this time.

Right now she's gotten through the withdrawal part of her opiate addiction.
She's only been relapsing because the psychiatric medications they force her
to take don't help her feel better.

I think she needs help with fixing her metabolism... There are some good
therapies that I'd use, if I had access.

------
EGreg
Here is his counterpart in the USA:

[http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W8yYJ_oV6xk](http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W8yYJ_oV6xk)

------
cloudjacker
He probably runs Alphabay now

