Hacker News Reader

Comment by alamortsubite | Hacker News Reader

I feel like Ehrlichman admitting the war on drugs was just a pretext for marginalizing Blacks and progressives should have been the end of it. But no, and that's already 25 years ago:

In a 1994 interview published in Harper's Magazine, Nixon adviser John Ehrlichman suggested racial animus was among the motives shaping the drug war.

"We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the [Vietnam] War or Black," Ehrlichman said. "But by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities."

View on HN

I think the obvious answer often overlooked is that a lot of people are simply still totally fine marginalizing Blacks, Latinos, progressives, and other minorities.

And a lot more people are fine with "Law and Order" without really thinking about what that means - among other things it means 'I don't want to see or deal with other people's problems'. It's a really easy position to have until other people's problems become your problems, or your family's problems and they can't get out of a bad situation.

They know exactly what is meant by Law and Order, and who that entails the state force apparatus harassing.

I think you're possibly ascribing more awareness to a lot of people than they actually have. I'm not sure the thought goes much past wanting to feel safe against something that they were taught was evil early on and never questioned.

It's worth noting that quote was actually first published 5 years ago, and its veracity is in dispute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman#Drug_war_quote

I do believe the War on Drugs has been a terrible policy, doing disproportionate harm to Blacks and other marginalized people. I'm not convinced that was the intent by most of those who supported its creation and sustained it.

So many people have cried wolf about the evils of either the government, or previous generations that this quote genuinely shocked me. I too would think that something like this would and should have more weight.

It seems weird to say that is the reason

In most states (including CA) the percent of minorities in jail for weapons offenses is as disproportionate to the population as drug offenses. And today in states like CA - 50% more people are in jail for weapons charges than drug charges.

Is the reason that drug laws/weapons laws exist to disenfranchise people? Or is a true problem in society that in theory would be good to address - and powerful people are indifferent to people who end up in jail.

Drugs can literally rewire your brain so that you feel an overriding urge to go out and find them. So a lot of low level drug offenders(mere possession) I feel sorry for.

What's the argument for weapons violations? If weapons laws are designed to disenfranchise people, then shouldn't Europe have way more disenfranchisement than Americans?

I'm not saying weapons charges were meant to disenfranchise people.

I am saying the conclusion that drug charges were put in place to disenfranchise people is a bit silly. There were other reasons (even if they were panic reasons) to ban drugs.

For me, the slogan in the 90s that I remember was 'think of the children'[1]. People are so often swayed on emotion and the thinking of 'well if we just save one child, it would have been worth it', ignoring all the opportunity costs.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMpiL-JU4jM [1999]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com