The War on Drugs is already longer than every other war in American history.
This is a debatable point, depending on how you define us being at war, but if you go with the traditional view point (Revoltuionary, 1812, Mexican, Civil, Spanish, Phillipines, World the First, World the Second, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan) it's true.
I don't consider the "War on Drugs" to be a war, any more than the "War on Poverty" or even the "War on Christmas." It's just a metaphor, not a real war.
I don't consider the "War on Drugs" to be a war, any more than the "War on Poverty" or even the "War on Christmas." It's just a metaphor, not a real war.
We didn't spend nearly as much money on the War on Poverty, and no money on the War on Christmas (which was I have a whole rant about that I'll wait until December to use). The War on Drugs doesn't have the same direct human costs as a traditional war, but it's still part of the military industrial complex.
I feel kind of squicky when people call something a "War on X." That phrase just rubs me the wrong way. I think I may have watched too many war documentaries, so that phrase feels like it's trivializing the whole thing.
Considering the many actual casualties of the war on drugs, plus the militarization of police forces, the associated retoric, and the use to fund other armed conflicts, I think not calling it a war, with everything that it implies, trivializes it even more.
We didn't spend nearly as much money on the War on Poverty, and no money on the War on Christmas (which was I have a whole rant about that I'll wait until December to use). The War on Drugs doesn't have the same direct human costs as a traditional war, but it's still part of the military industrial complex.
Well, I used the "War on Christmas" as an example of a fake war, though I may have over-dramatized things a bit here. I'm not quite exactly sure why the War on Drugs would fit in to the military industry complex as you claim, however, unless you consider the equipment purchased for the Coast Guard as contributing to the M-I complex.
I feel kind of squicky when people call something a "War on X." That phrase just rubs me the wrong way. I think I may have watched too many war documentaries, so that phrase feels like it's trivializing the whole thing.
Same here, which is why I don't like the "War on Drugs" moniker.
Considering the many actual casualties of the war on drugs, plus the militarization of police forces, the associated retoric, and the use to fund other armed conflicts, I think not calling it a war, with everything that it implies, trivializes it even more.
I wouldn't call our police forces militarized, although they have made some insanely questionable decisions in executing the so-called "War on Drugs" that have resulted in true tragedies involving innocents getting hurt and/or killed.
As far as using the "War on Drugs" to fund other armed conflicts, this gets into a complicated scenario since some of these conflicts are against various militant factions that, frankly, aren't very nice anyway, and who use drugs to help fund their operations, whether they be FARC in Columbia with cocaine or the Taliban in Afghanistan with opium/heroin.
Of course, the reason why these organizations can use illicit drugs to fund their operations is because they are illegal and therefore highly profitable on the black market. If there wasn't a profitable black market for illicit drugs, then we may have a different situation here.
That said, the current approaches to dealing with the problem of illicit drugs are certainly not helping and should be re-evaluated. I prefer a more "mandatory rehab for possession/usage" stance with criminal prosecution and penalties limited to those who attempt to sell the more dangerous drugs. Less dangerous drugs, like marijuana, should be a civil offense at most, if not outright legalized and regulated.
We didn't spend nearly as much money on the War on Poverty, and no money on the War on Christmas (which was I have a whole rant about that I'll wait until December to use). The War on Drugs doesn't have the same direct human costs as a traditional war, but it's still part of the military industrial complex.
Well, I used the "War on Christmas" as an example of a fake war, though I may have over-dramatized things a bit here. I'm not quite exactly sure why the War on Drugs would fit in to the military industry complex as you claim, however, unless you consider the equipment purchased for the Coast Guard as contributing to the M-I complex.
You do know how many Latin American interventions we've executed because of said War, right?
We didn't spend nearly as much money on the War on Poverty, and no money on the War on Christmas (which was I have a whole rant about that I'll wait until December to use). The War on Drugs doesn't have the same direct human costs as a traditional war, but it's still part of the military industrial complex.
Well, I used the "War on Christmas" as an example of a fake war, though I may have over-dramatized things a bit here. I'm not quite exactly sure why the War on Drugs would fit in to the military industry complex as you claim, however, unless you consider the equipment purchased for the Coast Guard as contributing to the M-I complex.
You do know how many Latin American interventions we've executed because of said War, right?
Those interventions, I'd argue, could be considered wars, I'll give you that. However, I may be splitting hairs here over whether interventions related due to the "War on Drugs" imply that the "War on Drugs" is a war in and of itself.
If you wouldn't call our police forces militarized you're fooling yourself or just not paying attention.
When I see our police forces armed with M-16s, driving Abrams battle tanks, and flying F-16s, then yeah, I'll think they're militarized. Hell, your average European police force is far more militarized than ours are -- they often have sub-machine guns as the standard-issue sidearm for all beat cops. My local cop doesn't carry an Uzi on a day-to-day basis.
Beat cops with SMGs? Cite - not because I disbelieve but because I'm curious...
I wish I could cite a specific webpage from a legitimate source, however, I cannot seem to find one. I can only mention my own personal experiences in visiting Europe. I mean, back in 2000, when things were going very well for their economy (at least relative to now), every cop assigned to patrolling the Athens, Greece subway was assigned a SMG. I also frequently saw airport police in Portugal this past summer armed with SMGs. Sadly, you'll just have to take my word for it as I can't find any evidence on the web to back me up.
Oh man, criminal justice stuff! That's what I have my degree in, actually. Like anything, it's as complicated as you can imagine. I really wish I had time to go into depth about it, because it's fascinating, but... I gotta work
Anyway, for reference.. Only the NYPD and LAPD really went paramilitary in any real sense. Most other police forces developed SWAT teams in response to the threat that the North Hollywood Shootout of 1997. You can argue that it was a bit of an overreaction, but at this point many of the smaller towns have cut funding severely to SWAT teams that went unused. In addition, in most cities SWAT teams aren't full time. They're cops that volunteer for SWAT duty, and receive extra training.
After September 11th, the NYPD made a large effort to have a bigger show of force to dissuade terrorist acts, but that's unrelated to the war on drugs. It's a side effect of the war on terror.
Anyway, some terms to look up to get you guys some better background information about policing in the 90's and 00's:
Community Policing Problem Oriented Policing Professional Model of Policing (Vollmer is the dude who championed that)
Also for some more fun read up on the Broken Windows theory.
I recall seeing a story about the DHS giving money to police departments and them using the grants to purchase surplus military equipment, but I don't remember enough about the story to find it with Google.
Ahh, yeah. Major cities have been big on the entire "Show of force" thing to try to discourage terrorism and reassure their population. Mostly the latter, actually.
The idea goes that if people see police out in force with weaponry, they're going to be reassured that no Israel-style acts of terrorism will be likely to occur on their home turf. It's not as much against crime as it is terrorism and a way to show that the police department is out doing stuff. A large complaint with the professional model of policing is that police really aren't visible, which they are trying to address by having more walking beats around. Also horse patrols and segway patrols and bike patrols.
Personally I think it's dumb, because people don't see an officer with an automatic weapon as protection as much as a threat, but that's the theory at least.
France does the same thing in major railway centers and around Paris, but it's not even police. It's usually the Foreign Legion with FAMAS assault rifles.
The behavior and attitude, especially in drug raids, speaks more to that militarization than the equipment. It doesn't particularly matter to me if cops are walking around with full-sized light machine guns and rocket launchers. What does matter is the siege mentality police are under regarding drugs, the way it is used aggressively against portions of the population, and the huge number of people who have been needlessly imprisoned or killed over it.
The War on Drugs is already longer than every other war in American history.
This is a debatable point, depending on how you define us being at war, but if you go with the traditional view point (Revoltuionary, 1812, Mexican, Civil, Spanish, Phillipines, World the First, World the Second, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan) it's true.
The War on Drugs is already longer than every other war in American history.
This is a debatable point, depending on how you define us being at war, but if you go with the traditional view point (Revoltuionary, 1812, Mexican, Civil, Spanish, Phillipines, World the First, World the Second, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan) it's true.
The War on Murder is longer.
But the Chaser's War on Everything is far funnier.
The behavior and attitude, especially in drug raids, speaks more to that militarization than the equipment. It doesn't particularly matter to me if cops are walking around with full-sized light machine guns and rocket launchers. What does matter is the siege mentality police are under regarding drugs, the way it is used aggressively against portions of the population, and the huge number of people who have been needlessly imprisoned or killed over it.
Of course, part of the reason for that behavior and attitude is because many of the drug kingpins, if you will, are at least as heavily armed with SMGs and the like. Of course, while this may be valid when busting the local Tony Montana wannabe, it is inappropriate and extreme overkill when going after the neighborhood pot dealer.
I fully support appropriate copyright reforms. I'm not confident that a neo-con version is what we're all looking for, but I'd definitely read over what they're proposing and make my decision based on the contents. The problems with copyright listed in that article, I agree with.
I think there ought to be companion reforms in the way content creators are compensated by publishers, but that's another issue, even if closely related.
To see politicians actually take a step in the right direction on copyright law is a breath of fresh air, considering the inexorable march towards stronger copyright law that has been ubiquitous for decades.
It will be interesting to see who is willing to come out in support of this.
Comments
As far as using the "War on Drugs" to fund other armed conflicts, this gets into a complicated scenario since some of these conflicts are against various militant factions that, frankly, aren't very nice anyway, and who use drugs to help fund their operations, whether they be FARC in Columbia with cocaine or the Taliban in Afghanistan with opium/heroin.
Of course, the reason why these organizations can use illicit drugs to fund their operations is because they are illegal and therefore highly profitable on the black market. If there wasn't a profitable black market for illicit drugs, then we may have a different situation here.
That said, the current approaches to dealing with the problem of illicit drugs are certainly not helping and should be re-evaluated. I prefer a more "mandatory rehab for possession/usage" stance with criminal prosecution and penalties limited to those who attempt to sell the more dangerous drugs. Less dangerous drugs, like marijuana, should be a civil offense at most, if not outright legalized and regulated.
Anyway, for reference.. Only the NYPD and LAPD really went paramilitary in any real sense. Most other police forces developed SWAT teams in response to the threat that the North Hollywood Shootout of 1997. You can argue that it was a bit of an overreaction, but at this point many of the smaller towns have cut funding severely to SWAT teams that went unused. In addition, in most cities SWAT teams aren't full time. They're cops that volunteer for SWAT duty, and receive extra training.
After September 11th, the NYPD made a large effort to have a bigger show of force to dissuade terrorist acts, but that's unrelated to the war on drugs. It's a side effect of the war on terror.
Anyway, some terms to look up to get you guys some better background information about policing in the 90's and 00's:
Community Policing
Problem Oriented Policing
Professional Model of Policing (Vollmer is the dude who championed that)
Also for some more fun read up on the Broken Windows theory.
The idea goes that if people see police out in force with weaponry, they're going to be reassured that no Israel-style acts of terrorism will be likely to occur on their home turf. It's not as much against crime as it is terrorism and a way to show that the police department is out doing stuff. A large complaint with the professional model of policing is that police really aren't visible, which they are trying to address by having more walking beats around. Also horse patrols and segway patrols and bike patrols.
Personally I think it's dumb, because people don't see an officer with an automatic weapon as protection as much as a threat, but that's the theory at least.
France does the same thing in major railway centers and around Paris, but it's not even police. It's usually the Foreign Legion with FAMAS assault rifles.
Will Democrats support?
I think there ought to be companion reforms in the way content creators are compensated by publishers, but that's another issue, even if closely related.
It will be interesting to see who is willing to come out in support of this.