Interesting piece, although the first two points (in particular) address an argument that it never really crossed my mind to make (I'm not really very active or engaged with the drug-legalization movement, so I have no idea what kind of rhetoric they're putting out with regards to drug-legalization ending racism or whatever).
The third point is probably the most salient to me (tho I couldn't help but arch my eyebrows a bit at the assertion that the state regulating and taxing drugs would be "libertarian-capitalist's wet dream"), since I think it (rightly) points out that even if drugs are legalized then there's large, corporate structural apparatus which is going to co-opt a lot of the newly legal industry, which will have disproportionately negative effects on poorer, minority communities.
[Sidenote: I do think it's interesting that the concerns of "people of color" in this article apparently don't extend to the kind of low-grade border war which is taking place right now in the American southwest (and the accompanying racist laws being enacted as a response). I do think this particular situation is one which seems like legalization of drugs would probably have pretty immediate, positive consequences for poorer minority communities in that region.]
I think that it's still sort of obviously true that at least decriminalizing drugs (maybe as opposed to actual legalization) is a step in the right direction. Actually, it might be an ideal direction. But broader changes are going to come from more fundamental shifts than just taking some drug law off the books (I read the "about" and the author of the article is a self-described anarchist, so I imagine we have fairly compatible beliefs in terms of what larger systemic changes may be needed).
Re: Drugs
Posted: 11 May 2010, 1:14pm
by Flex
Anyways, I'm mostly contemptuous of the drug legalization movement, largely for the lack of community outreach outlined in that article.
Bunch of rich white hippies panhandling in front of their SUVs and telling the government to legalize this shit so they don't have to do business with scary minorities.
Re: Drugs
Posted: 11 May 2010, 1:43pm
by eumaas
Busy day. Rest assured, I will be replying to your insightful comments at some point...
Re: Drugs
Posted: 12 May 2010, 10:50am
by eumaas
Flex wrote:Interesting piece, although the first two points (in particular) address an argument that it never really crossed my mind to make (I'm not really very active or engaged with the drug-legalization movement, so I have no idea what kind of rhetoric they're putting out with regards to drug-legalization ending racism or whatever).
The third point is probably the most salient to me (tho I couldn't help but arch my eyebrows a bit at the assertion that the state regulating and taxing drugs would be "libertarian-capitalist's wet dream"), since I think it (rightly) points out that even if drugs are legalized then there's large, corporate structural apparatus which is going to co-opt a lot of the newly legal industry, which will have disproportionately negative effects on poorer, minority communities.
[Sidenote: I do think it's interesting that the concerns of "people of color" in this article apparently don't extend to the kind of low-grade border war which is taking place right now in the American southwest (and the accompanying racist laws being enacted as a response). I do think this particular situation is one which seems like legalization of drugs would probably have pretty immediate, positive consequences for poorer minority communities in that region.]
I think that it's still sort of obviously true that at least decriminalizing drugs (maybe as opposed to actual legalization) is a step in the right direction. Actually, it might be an ideal direction. But broader changes are going to come from more fundamental shifts than just taking some drug law off the books (I read the "about" and the author of the article is a self-described anarchist, so I imagine we have fairly compatible beliefs in terms of what larger systemic changes may be needed).
I agree with your criticisms of the piece. The interesting part for me was the broader idea that certain progressive moves, without being contextualized into a greater structure of change, can be detrimental. I think Carson raises this point in that if you cut welfare first, a lot of people would be fucked--the order in which you proceed matters because you have to build the alternative institutions to take over these particular roles the state has forcibly appropriated for itself.
Re: Drugs
Posted: 12 May 2010, 11:35am
by Wolter
eumaas wrote: I think Carson raises this point in that if you cut welfare first, a lot of people would be fucked--the order in which you proceed matters because you have to build the alternative institutions to take over these particular roles the state has forcibly appropriated for itself.
Exactly. If people are using a rusty and rickety scaffolding to cling to the side of a building, it's immensely more useful to first build a better scaffolding for them to step over to than to tear down the old one and hope they're able to dig their fingernails into the wall.
This extended metaphor brought to you by "the guy working in a building undergoing facade repairs."
Re: Drugs
Posted: 12 May 2010, 11:53am
by rcs
Wolter wrote:This extended metaphor brought to you by "the guy working in a building undergoing facade repairs."
that made me laugh
Re: Drugs
Posted: 12 May 2010, 1:35pm
by Kory
rcs wrote:
Wolter wrote:This extended metaphor brought to you by "the guy working in a building undergoing facade repairs."
Just wait until those satirists get a load of my drug-sniffing dog who only seems to find drugs on people who look at me crosseyed...all by himself. Your "satire" won't be admissible in court then, asshole.
Fun fact: The D.A.R.E. officer at my high school was busted for embezzlement. But he was clearly just a bad apple. Isolated incident; the program works. I SAID, THE PROGRAM IS SOLID.[*draws tazer*]
From these nice people http://www.release.org.uk/nice-people-take-drugs
