Why did Nixon start the War on Drugs? Why did subsequent US Presidents continue and expand it?

To prevent black people from demolishing more cities by stunting their population growth.

because it makes money for everyone but the citizens.

higher drug prices because illegal nature of the market

pharmaceuticals get more money since no plants people can grow and consume.

private prisons. prison supply companies. police supply companies. guns and ammo companies. all get increased sales.

politicians get more campaign donations from lobbyists.

foreign countries get aid bucks to fight the cartels.

more law enforcement hired.

Private prisons is so retarded. Who thought that was gonna be a good idea in a free market economy?

Because of the "WE'VE GOTTA BE TOUGH ON CRIME GRRRRR" meme. The sad part is that it's an effective political tactic. If you disagree with it then they just say that you're "SOFT ON CRIME".

I've spoken to cops who want the stance to be tougher on crime.
Assumedly it makes their job more workable. But also to me that implies that it's a system they believe would work. I'm not sure what to believe anymore, but I sure don't want some dude busting in my place with cuffs and a gun juat because I'm punching cones.

Honestly I don't want a cop's job to be easy. It should be hard. It should require things like nuance and restraint.

Tough to be use nuance on a meth head.

Song time that explains it perfectly. Not Nixon, but is about drugs as a whole.

To create stronger US economics through slave labor.

youtube.com/watch?v=6lIqNjC1RKU

To go after Negro activists (heroin) and white anti-war activists (pot). A part of Nixon's cabinet stated this decades later. Thought this was common knowledge.

Good album bruz.

Except drugs aren't crime, unless you make them crime.
Maybe we could get tough on actual violent criminals if we stopped wasting our time fighting a war on chemicals and plants.

AnCaps, probably

the selling point was that the state got charged a fixed price for each prisoner.

The Warren Court and various other liberal "reforms" made it very difficult for the police to do their jobs effectively, which combined with several other factors (which is a controversial topic in and of itself) led to exploding crime rates throughout the 1960's.

The drug war largely started by Nixon and intensified by Reagan didn't do much to curtail drug use (which was really only a secondary objective) but it did lead to mass incarceration, which lead in turn (again, combined with other factors) to a massive reduction in crime rates that the vast majority of 4channers should thank their lucky stars for.

Progressive and libertarian memes aside most people involved in the drug trade tend to not be valuable, upstanding members of society, and if socially disintegrating, Third World-tier inner cities give you lemons, sometimes the courts have to make lemonade.

>which lead in turn (again, combined with other factors) to a massive reduction in crime rates

I think it's mostly unleaded gasoline and abortion.

I'm really not sure that incarcerating non-violent offenders does anything to effect crime rates.

It's not that controversial among actual experts: the reason for rising crime rates is demographics. People commit the most crime when they are in their later teens and 20s, and, due to the baby boom, there were more of those people during this time. Think about it. The baby boom was from the mid 40s to early 60s. That's means the first baby boomers would be reaching young adulthood in the early 60s, which is when crime started to rise, and the last of them would be leaving their twenties in early 90s, which is when crime started to fall.

Of course this explanation isn't popular because it can't be used as a political talking point. But it's the only one that makes sense, when you realize that, like the baby boom, the rise in crime occurred in basically every Western country, not just the US, regardless of what policies they adopted in various areas.

As apposed to if the state ran them in which...it would cost more per prisoner?
I see.

>I'm really not sure that incarcerating non-violent offenders does anything to effect crime rates
It probably increases it, because they get hardened into career criminals in the toxic environments that are American prisons

I'd have to guess it's roughly even.

On one hand.

>young black man that isn't on the streets

on the other hand

>diminished economic prospects as far as real work
>con college

>young black man that isn't on the streets
There might not be the need to go out and be all gangster if homeboys could just buy what they wanted through licensed (and taxable) businesses.
I don't mean to say illegal businesses would just stop. Just that offering convenience could help.

Well, most of the really heavy gang activity is in areas with super-high rates of black male unemployment.

Like, most crack dealers would actually view McDonalds as a step up the food chain.

I honestly think some kind of "stop being a nigger" fund that keeps them occupied would be cheaper than prisons and more effective.

Read about Economies of scale

The cost per prisoner could be divided in variable costs like food, clothing, etc and in fixed costs like the actual prisons. If your prisons can't take any more prisoners, the cost per prisoner gets higher because you need to build expensive infrastructure.

If you look at state run prisons in some countries, they are overcrowded. You fix this "supply" problem by letting the private market manage all this stuff and the government doesn't need to worry about anything.

Now, if the government were efficient, competent fucks they could perfectly run prisons without problems.

So all the costs in bureaucracy and inefficiency combined with all the regular costs of a prisoner, could make the average cost per prisoner to be higher in a state run system than in a free market one

> the reason for rising crime rates is demographics.

It has little to do with "youth" demographics and a lot to do with certain unmentionable ones in polite society, I'll give you that. And don't blame it on "poverty" either.

The Baby Boomers cohorts were nowhere near large enough to be the major cause of the crime rates that exploded between the placid 1950's and the drop in crime rates that occurred in the 1990's.

To give a specific example here's what happened to New York City while it had a stable, even slightly declining population. This is also so the height of "The Bronx is Burning"/liberal Republican John Lindsey era.

disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm

Your proportions simply don't work.

isteve.blogspot.com/2007/07/lead-poisoning-and-great-1960s-freakout.html

Steve Sailer demolished the lead hypothesis.

> I'm really not sure that incarcerating non-violent offenders does anything to effect crime rates.

Because the kind of people that sell drugs for a living (and no I'm not about some suburban teenager that sells a few grams a week for pocket money) are often involved in various other sorts of crime as a matter of course.

>I honestly think some kind of "stop being a nigger" fund that keeps them occupied would be cheaper than prisons and more effective.
Explain, if you could. I thought this was the intent of welfare, no?

Well, in the US, we have workfare, which means that you have to either have a job, or be seeking a job to get dosh.

Unemployment benefits eventually run out after a couple years.

The current system is more designed to keep kids from outright starving than reducing poverty.

My thinking is, some kind of make-work program for knee-grows in problem areas.

Like

>if you maintain a 3.0 GPA or higher, we'll give you a bunch of money for spinning rims

I call bullshit. The militarization of the police force, the incarceration of small time drug offenders and the gun culture were a breeding ground for crime. A more sensible approach to the drug problem that treats it as the social problem it is would have spared america a lot of trouble. For fucks sake no other developed country is even remotely as crime ridden.

youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1cdfEC-8k

>gun culture

Hey, guns are fucking great.

Are you some kind of communist?

Nope i am actually trying to get a few myself (much harder here in germany).

Fact of the day though:

If you have a culture that harshly penalizes small time offenders basically forcing them to lead a life of crime combined with a really weak social systems guns for everbody are a rather bad idea. Look at the canucks they have shitton of guns too but not the same problems. Blaming it on the guns alone is stupid but in the larger scheme of things they are a part of the problem.

I dunno, Mexico and Brazil have the same social problems and harsh gun laws, and they're shittier than we are.

I think if people want to kill each other, they usually find a way.

>I dunno, Mexico and Brazil have the same social problems

Not true at all. Mexico has the narco cartells which are feed by american drug money and american guns. Their economic and social power is so large that they are seriously undermining the state.

And Brazil...come on dude. America has the means to actually get its shit together because it still is a first world nation. Brazil is just a developing country/shithole that shouldn't be the country the US orientates itself on.

Well, there are specific things that are correlated with crime, that the US has more of than Europe, and Latin America has more of than the US.

>poverty rates
>wealth inequality
>uneducated people
>ethnic diversity

Like, we're no El Salvador, but compared to most of Western Europe, we have a significantly higher population of desperate, poorly integrated people.

Look at childhood poverty rates in particular, that shit's horrifying.

>poverty rates
>wealth inequality
>uneducated people
>ethnic diversity

Well thats the shit causing the crime true. But is it really wise to have guns easily available in a society with these kind of problems? Best way would be to make these problems less significant i guess.

See, I've been trying to figure this out myself for a number of years.

I can name a nogunz, low crime country, Japan.

I can name a nogunz, high crime country, Mexico

I can name a hazgunz low crime country, Switzerland

I can name a hazgunz high crime country, Serbia.

I've also compared countries before and after massive changes in gun laws.

Australia banned all the good shit after Port Arthur, whereas as late as the 80s, you could mail order AKs.

As far as I can tell, it didn't do much.

I can't find an example of a country where crime skyrocketed after gun bans either

So I think the end result is that the number of crimes prevented by gun laws is roughly equal to the number of crimes caused by them. If it skews one way or the other, I have yet to find it.

Like, you don't want to kick in a guys door in Texas. It just doesn't end well.

On paper Australia's gun crime went down. Although gun crime was already pretty low, so statistically I guess the data is questionable.

However, it was (and remains) an overwhelmingly popular social policy.
Anyway, not disputing your post. Just saying.

Well, it went down, eventually.

But not in the period immediately after the ban.

The US, during the same time period, expanded concealed carry to like 40 states and bought a shit load of guns. Their crime went down by a substantially larger amount than Australia's did. Meanwhile in Britain, they banned guns and crime went up.

That's the difficulty here, you can't compare other countries to one another because it's apples and oranges, and if a given effect takes longer than ten years to happen, it's undetectable.

All I know is that New Orleans is one of my favorite places on earth, but I wouldn't want to live there without a gun.

That makes sense, very well put.

Wouldn't the argument be that it takes time for weapons to fall out of circulation though? Therefore, you see gun crime reduce after 10 years because Gazza's hidden AK wasn't actually removed from the community until 2008?

I'm kind of presuming that if somebody is able to hide a gun for a period of years, they're also going to spend a substantial amount of effort to get a new one.

In Europe, as far as I can tell, the Balkans and homemade crap are the main source of guns.

Mexico got lucky, because they border Guatemala, and both the US and USSR pumped large amounts of small arms into that country during the civil war there.

So presumably the Mexicans would just start moving in guns along with the dope, and or you'd see a lot of people using knives, baseball bats, and zip guns to kill people.

See, if the number of deaths prevented by guns is the same as the number of deaths caused by guns, it's an equilibrium.

Again, it's impossible to measure this, because you can't tell when a burglar or a mugger decided "fuck that" and backed down from a situation that would have killed someone.

Another thing I've been wondering about is whether a gun ban would reduce deaths from organized crime at the cost of increasing deaths from random crimes like burglaries, muggings, rapes.

Because I'd rather the average homicide in my country be a crack dealer shooting another crack dealer than an old lady getting murdered for her social security check.

Yeah that's a fair call, what are the stats on civilian gun ownership preventing crime though?

>what are the stats on civilian gun ownership preventing crime though?

I actually tried to look this up for an assignment in high school.

It's a hard statistic to get.

Because you have different organizations tracking defensive gun usages, but the definition of a defensive gun use ranges from somebody shooting and killing a person in self defense to "this .38 in my purse makes me feel safe around those darkies at the supermarket." If I recall correctly, the US has around 800 fatal self defense shootings a year by civilians, and another 1,000 by cops.

Certainly, surveys of felons seem to bear out the idea that they were scared that a potential victim could have a gun, and home invasions are more common as a percentage of burglaries in Britain than in the US.

>Gun culture
>No civilized country

I won't go /pol/ on you, but 15 to 20 cities in the US are drivers of violent crime. They aren't mainly in Idaho, Wyoming, and Texas either where everyone is armed to the teeth.

Look at FBI statistics breaking down perpetration of violent crime by various traits.

>Look at the canucks they have shitton of guns too but not the same problems.

You Europeans are cute.

Naive and cute.

Canada also has a lower proportion and quantity of a certain confounding variable.

It was a social issue that won votes with Nervous Women.

Drugs and drug culture were associated with Bad People, and women were scared of Bad People, so he went in on the war on drugs.

The more intense pressure on the black market drove up prices and offered incentives to the underground economy, which flourished as a result, and likewise the flourishing underground economy created a flourishing above board (and state backed) economy in enforcing anti-drug laws. Thus the spiral begins.

>if you maintain a 3.0 GPA or higher, we'll give you a bunch of money for spinning rims
You'd need total control of the kids, strict ones like Catholic dormitories or something. Otherwise, they would just cheat.

They work. Generally better than State Prisons too.

We have them in my country and they, like in the U.S., were of much higher quality (and lower in cost) than state institutions.

Of course, when your business model relies on prisoners to put in the prisons, you're financial lobbying is going to go towards people who will find ways to put people in prison.

It was like back in ye olden days when they had For-Rent-Chain-Gangs;

>Damn, these Not-Quite-Slaves are making us a killing!

>We don't have enough to rent out this week!

>Let's go arrest some homeless people for vagrancy!

>But you can't lock them up for vagrancy?

>Don't worry, we'll find a judge who needs a new extension on his mansion and he'll help us out with that!

>Canada also has a lower proportion and quantity of a certain confounding variable.
I wonder about that. How do black communities behave in Western Europe? Say, England, France, Portugal, etc.?

The unleaded meme and abortion are probably true, but mass incarceration has been shown to work, although for some people the reasoning is fairly morally dubious;

Essentially young men are the core of violent offenders, and the longer sentences (not so much the quantity of people locked up) meant they were getting released closer to, or after, the real danger zone period for criminal offenders.

>Non violent offenders

Like Abortion - It's not so much the offenses, but the sorts of people who are in jail for those crimes - Young, poor, often minorities. Who are usually the demographic of violent offenders.

It's a convenient excuse for militarizing the police, keeping certain neighborhoods (re: Black and Minority) fractured and intimidated,and fueling the prison industrial complex.

Poorly, and in the same manner as the U.S.

We have a current example in Australia. Black African migrants who have been migrating here over the last 20 years now have the highest incarceration rate in the country (by nationality).

I *think* we have a much more lenient justice system than the U.S. and I know we have a much more generous social welfare system.

But refugee communities (the Vietnamese in the 1980's and the Lebanese in the 1990's) have always had large criminal problems. The number of Vietnamese criminals has completely evaporated.

Anyway, I can't WHY all of that happens, just how it is at the moment.

>The number of Vietnamese criminals has completely evaporated.
I'd like to see some stats to back that one up ma man.

What about Indonesian refugees?

Indonesian refugees?
I'd wager there are more Indonesian students than refugees in Australia.

Can you really compare black communities in the US to first and second generation immigrants?

They don't even get a mention in the incarcerated by nationality database (however, they are now 2nd and 3rd generation migrants).

There are no statistics kept on offenders by race in Australia (so that skews a lot of the data).

We don't have any.

I don't know. He was asking about overseas black communities in Western Europe.

They have a different background (recently arrived migrants or children of migrants, no previous history of racial oppression etc etc)

Okay so there are no/very few Vietnamese Nationals in Australian prisons at the moment?

Out of interest, can I have a look at the sources you're referring to?

>Okay so there are no/very few Vietnamese Nationals in Australian prisons at the moment?

I'm 100% sure there are, just not at as high a level as other nationalities at the moment.

Here's a stats source (though as I said, not very helpful if you're looking for much detail).

abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by Subject/4517.0~2014~Main Features~Key findings~1

It's also nearly 2 years old now.

Oh, there was this though;

>The greatest number of overseas-born prisoners with a most serious offence/charge of illicit drug offences came from Vietnam (479 prisoners).

A couple of things I'm going to pull you up on.

Firstly, the number of Vietnamese criminals in Australian jails has not 'dried up'. It's 479 people. It doesn't show up on the imprisonment rate graph because there are a lot of Vietnamese-born people in Australia.

Next, the number of Sudanese born prisoners is 131. No other African nations rate a mention. Note that this is less than the number of Vietnamese incarcerated.

Finally, the total number of prisoners in Australia is 33,791. My math is really bad, but I can definitely say that's a really small percentage. Your implication that Africans don't integrate well and therefore are incarcerated often is not supported well by data. Is it a concern for the Sudanese community though? Yes i believe the data would support that.

What we can see from these statistics however, are that incarceration numbers country-wide have risen by 10,000 over 10 years. This is a statistic you can gravitate towards and ask 'why'. Population increase? Ineffective social policy following the Howard era? Interesting.

Sidebar, Indigenous incarceration rates are obviously also concerning, but that's not really relevant to this thread.

It honestly depends. I'm not sure if this was recent, but Jamaicans are in second place for most crime in England, only the Polish beat them.

telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1563890/Foreigners-commit-fifth-of-crime-in-London.html

Found it. Then again this was 2007, so things have to be outdated now.

It's interesting to note that anti-Polish hate crimes have gone up since Brexit recently.

>To give a specific example here's what happened to New York City while it had a stable, even slightly declining population
That really doesn't counter his point at all. The point isn't the size of the population, but the proportion of certain age groups in the populace

The classic American response, whenever an aspect of their country is criticized, is to immediately blame it on the niggers. Usually combined with some ignorant statements implying other countries don't have ethnic diversity.

>>Tough to be use nuance on a meth head.
especially when you believe to be special because some libertarians has chosen to gives your rights and some salary

because drugs are for pussies and faggots.

realistically, the penalties in the US for drugs are nothing compared to most modern countries. In Singapore if you even have a single poppy seed on you, you can get arrested and get jail time.
If anything the US isn't hard enough.

I didn't know the Philippine president posts on Veeky Forums

They're a bunch of hippie asshats.

So my grandma could be a heroin mule.

Nice source lol

I interpret this to mean that, depending on the society people are raised in, they will act differently.
In a country where survival is a struggle, people will do whatever it takes to survive > violent crime.
In countries with good social policies that allow people to live without existential fear, they don't need to act like animals to get by.

Yeah, I don't know why that going public didn't make more of a splash.

The same reason Qing China went to war with opium pushers. Drugs and civil society don't mix.

>inb4 DUDE LIKE FREE YOUR MIND AND SHIT MAN

black people vote democrat

its the same reason democrats are anti-felony disenfranchisement and pro-amnesty

there's no strong ideals or principles to these people, just votes

war on drugs has nothing to do with conservatism

its neo-conservatism which is authoritarian

conservatives believe in small gov

But the drugs are happening anyways, and most modern cases of legalization lead to drastic reductions in overdose and addiction, without increasing the overall use of drugs.
Both of these trends don't hold across all drugs and all countries, but the overall picture is becoming more clear. Read about Netherlands, Portugal, Australia, etc.

Because I'm on a drug that enhances my focus right now, here's a source.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1464837

>Drugs and civil society don't mix.

Apparently they do, because drugs are common usage in every Western society.

What the hell do you think anti-depressants, alcohol, Ritalin, Valium and painkillers are?

Don't forget that the CIA introduced crack cocaine directly to black neighbourhoods to fund their illegal operations overseas.
Except China wasn't the one who introduced the drugs... that was the British.

It was pretty smart really. Lock-up the dem voters.

Nixon wanted to veterans to recuperate, his war are drugs had a rehabilitation component which does not earn it's credit.

Yeah cause other people want that shit.

Go take a free helicopter ride. Nixon sempai was too sparing.

Yes, but remember you're looking at totals and not rates.

As a percentage of the population the Sudanese outstrip the Vietnamese. Of course that is skewed by the fact that many people of Vietnamese ethnicity in Australian jails are now born in Australia, whereas the Sudanese are more likely to be first generation migrants.

The CIA never introduced crack cocaine to ghettoes. Blacks did that themselves. The relationship is far more subtle than the picture people paint.

There was more degrees of separation than rappers portray the circumstances. Also you're more racist than /pol/ if you think blacks aren't intuitive enough to uncover freebasing cocaine all by themselves.

I don't want a free helicopter ride.

Right, but that doesn't give credence to your insinuations.

The Sudanese as a population are the only African nation represented by the data. Given that Sudanese-born Australians probably lived through a civil war, it's not exactly surprising that they would have a propensity towards violent crime. But that's a social issue, not a 'black people are bad and don't integrate well' issue.
And then in terms of the overall data, 131 people is such a small percentile of the entire prison population that it could be an outlier.

Australias murder rate decreaced by 50% over the past 30 years.

Americas murder rate also decreased 50% over those 30 years.

No guns doesn't seem to do much to explain the decrease in crime, but demographics do.