> 'Cause free labor's the cornerstone of US economics

it isn't

> 'Cause slavery was abolished, unless you are in prison; you think I am bullshittin', then read the 13th Amendment

This is true, they didn't listen when Kanye said it awkwardly, but it's been true the whole time.

> That's why they givin' drug offenders time in double digits

Maaaaybe sometimes, but if you come at it from that perspective you aren't going to convince enough people to change their minds.

The way it's been sold to the public is not from the perspective of benefitting prisons; so you need to address the argument that the public is given: that illicit drugs are so dangerous that the enforcement is worth it.

There are lots of countries without "reaganomics" or any private prisons, which are extremely strict and punitive when it comes to illicit drugs.

It looks like the law is going in the right direction though, the recent sentencing reform has been great, decriminalization (or at least, sentencing/institutions that do more good than harm) should be the next step, but it's not at the top of anyone's platform as far as I can tell.

Added: another story on Hacker News today, related to prison labour in a country which isn't the U.S. (I see absolutely nobody crying foul): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20427122

> so you need to address the argument that the public is given: that illicit drugs are so dangerous that the enforcement is worth it

Some people see the problem in the fact that Americans are and have historically been very comfortable benefiting from injustice and from things that are enforced 'on other people'.

Middle class young hippies were shocked when the system showed its teeth and banned a substance so that the movement could be targeted by the repression systems put in place... while that was the norm done toward people in bad neighborhoods.

Some people think the the answer is to get people to be more self aware of their position, especially hypocritical positions based on emotion that hurt others, and hopefully be more empathetic.

> Some people see the problem in the fact that Americans are and have historically been very comfortable benefiting from injustice and from things that are enforced 'on other people'.

The vast majority of people do not have trouble generally abiding by the provisions of the Controlled Substances Act; and while that doesn't mean it's just, but it does mean it's not crazy for ordinary people to think that others could abide by it as well.

Very few people are even familiar with the concept of the prison industrial complex, let alone explicitly motivated to vote by it.

> Middle class young hippies were shocked when the system showed its teeth and banned a substance so that the movement could be targeted by the repression systems put in place... while that was the norm done toward people in bad neighborhoods.

Just as gun control is no longer typically motivated by racism, the war on drugs is not today typically motivated (to the ordinary person) by a prejudice against hippies or hispanics.

If you argue against a point nobody is defending, you'll change nothing.

The people who designed the war on drugs, did so with a target. It is to this day blatantly targeting certain communities, for example, sentencing guidelines between crack and cocaine.

Your logic is faulty: If you follow your line of thinking making the Kippah illegal would be fine since the 'vast majority of us' wouldn't have any trouble abiding by the new law. Oh, you did put in a condition: as long as enforcement is 'perceived by the ordinary person' to be non-prejudice. I'm not sure why you put that condition into the logic, or how that changes the reality of the injustice... but ok.

As I said, I'm not saying the law is just, I'm saying that most people don't support because they intend to perpetrate your perceived injustice.

The vast majority of people are not moustache-twirling villains who think that drug laws should be enforced in the way they are, for the particular purpose of punishing the downtrodden or profiting prisons at any cost; so when your argument revolves around that, the people who know they don't support it for that reason are not going to be convinced.

You're arguing against the cynical, bigoted schemers who influenced the law, not the people who've accepted it for the public messaging (which has been, beyond a certain point, not recognizable as racist); and those ordinary people are the voters who decide elections.

This is not the world of John Lennon's Imagine; where bad things only happen because people choose to be evil, and everything can be solved by choosing not to be evil.

Ordinary people do the wrong thing because they've been convinced by faulty or incomplete arguments, or they've ignored the arguments altogether. Ordinary people do the wrong thing because they are wrong.

I'm really not sure what your point it is. You seem to be saying 'don't say the drug war is discriminatory', even though it is. You then present logic that seems very unsound (as highlighted by the kippah example)

But to answer you:

> ordinary people are the voters who decide elections

Which is why it is so important that the war on drugs is painted for what it is.

Voters today might not grasp it. But those voters will die off. New generations will come in.

> Ordinary people do the wrong thing because they are wrong

Absolutely! That is why it's important to highlight it is wrong. Even if THEY don't see it. Their children likely will. Some of them will.

The truth has strength.

It's like flat earthers. You don't highlight their inconsistencies to teach them. You highlight it because it is the truth. And the truth shines. People pick up on it... eventually. Slowly. Gradually. It's been happening for thousands of years.

I can't make you read what I had to say, but I think you are being very inflexible and I hope you'll go back and try.

If one isn't willing to read any argument from start to finish before comparing people to "flat earthers" and thinking that only "old people who are about to die" disagree with him, one will fail to convince anyone, young or old.

Many ordinary people are OK with the war on drugs because they believe that the enforcement is less dangerous than access to drugs. If you tell them it's racist or profit-driven, you get to be all smug to yourself; but they weren't in on it for racism or profit to begin with.

To a new Chinese immigrant who's just used to narcotics being extremely forbidden, because they consider them extremely dangerous (for good historical reason); your "enforcement of drug laws is racist and profit-driven" argument is immaterial, because even if they aren't racist or profiting from private prisons, they still think that narcotics prohibition is reasonable.

I'm happy you are arguing for drug law reform in the way you do.

I was just explaining a different way of arguing in favor of it. My way and the way of many people.

You do you. My post was very specific: 'some people see it this way'

P.S. I never said 'old people who are about to die'. I said a generation will die off (it could be mine), and new ones will come in. I was implying a long term view of things (as in, look at the difference in attitudes over 50 or even 100 years)

And I never compared you to a flat earth-er. I compared people who support the current drug legislation to flat earthers. Because both of them have mountains of evidence that point to the fact that they should change their perspective, yet don't do so in the face of such evidence.

How you argue in favor of reform is on you. How we do reform is open to debate. That we need it is a fact like the world is round. That I don't agree with arguing in the way you do does not mean I don't understand your perspective (appealing to people's self interest vs sense of right)

I respect it. My only intention was providing you with a different perspective.

The war on drugs is and has always been racist, it is targeting minorities and filling prisons. How it is precieved is a different thing.

> The war on drugs is and has always been racist, it is targeting minorities and filling prisons. How it is precieved is a different thing.

You're missing the point: do today's voters tend to think of it that way? In my opinion, no, they do not.

So if you go around arguing that the war on drugs is racist, or exclusively for the benefit of prisons, a lot of people know it isn't racist for them, and that they don't agree because they have an interest in prisons, and you will not change their mind.

When you talk to people there are three types:

1- Those that agree with you. 2- Those that don't and won't agree with you no matter what. 3- Those that don't have a well established opinion, yet.

Generally, I know group 1 and 2 are inmaterial. I tend to try and find those in group 3.

If you aren't going to accept that the world is round or other extremely self evident things... there's nothing I can do to make someone see it. Although by pointing out how ridiculous the flat world-ers are (or pro drug prohibitionists), I hope that maybe someone who is considering the flat world theory will see the other side.

Mostly stringent, crazy opinions are the loudest, so we need a sea of reason to counter act them.

I agree but it is how it always been. The war on drugs is called "war on drugs" not institutionalized rasism with a fancy spin to make people accept it...

That may be a big part of the reason in the US, but Germany for example isn't big on decriminalization either, and we don't have anything similar to the US prison complex. I think a large part over here is that people think it's wrong and they don't believe in the individual's right to make a choice they consider wrong. Worldwide it's probably a mix of the two: powerful interests profiteering from the status quo and politicians and parts of the voting population not valuing individual freedom that much.

This is what the article touched on. The culture has to shift to viewing drug addicts not as "druggies" but as someone with a problem who needs help. They changed the language they used to call them. Once this shift happened it's led the path to actually helping them instead of vilifying them.

That's certainly part of it, yeah. But even that is a view that removes drug-use as a valid choice. I certainly agree that those suffering from addiction need help, and we should provide it generously, but not everyone that uses drugs needs help. Similar to alcohol, which a lot (most?) people are able to enjoy responsibly. It seems that there's still the idea that you'd try mdma (or lots of other drugs) and will immediately find yourself in a downward spiral, completely out of control.

From some quick googling it looks to me like Germany isn't big on decriminalisation because they're already most of the way there:

> In 1994, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that drug addiction and the possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use were not crimes.

That only applied to Cannabis though, not to drugs in general, and it did not find that possession wasn't a crime, but that the state should not pursue indictments for personal use.