THREAD. As we hit an unprecedented 100,000 drug overdose deaths, I answer the following question in this thread on the "War on Drugs": are punishment bureaucrats incompetent at achieving their goals, or are they pursuing goals that are different from what they tell us publicly?
After over 40 years, the drug war has:
-Cost more than $1 trillion
-Caused over 50 million people to be caged (almost all of them poor), including over 20 million for marijuana
-Caused an estimated hundreds of millions of police stops that meet legal definition of kidnapping.
The drug war has:
-Caused tens of millions of years in prison
-Separated tens of millions of children from their parents
-Cost tens of millions of people their education, houses, and ability to make a living
-Caused millions of square acres of pristine land to be spray-poisoned
The drug war has:
-Cost tens of millions of people their right to vote
- Killed hundreds of thousands in the militarized drug wars and U.S.-led murder in Latin America
-Led to militarization and widespread surveillance by local police and federal agents of every U.S. city.
The drug war has:
-Deprived hundreds of millions of people low cost, sustainable treatments for a wide range of illnesses
-Cost millions of people billions of dollars in wealth from police civil forfeiture seizures of their property.
-Led to mass spread of infectious disease
The vast majority of these horrific consequences were inflicted on people for personal use of certain substances, an exercise of bodily autonomy that other countries have protected and that this country protects (and allows profit) for harmful substances like alcohol and tobacco.
All of this was done in ways that dramatically increased the racial disparities in every facet of life, and almost all of it targeted the poorest people in our society. Students at boarding schools and ivy league universities use drugs without fear. Laws weren't meant for them.
For all of these costs, drug use either did not go down or increased during the "War on Drugs," and teenagers are using dangerous drugs at twice the rate that they did in the 1980s. Overdose deaths are at all time high. nytimes.com/2021/11/17/hea…
Government bureaucrats know all of these statistics, and yet the "War on Drugs" continues in every city and town, every single day. Why would sophisticated people pursue strategies that are so counterproductive and destructive to their stated goals?
The only reasonable conclusion is that the “War on Drugs” is not about flourishing communities and ending drug use. It's about profit, racism, surveillance, and social control. Seen this way, the system is actually quite efficient and effective.
I’ll leave you with a quote from one of Nixon’s top advisors explaining their decision to launch the “War on Drugs.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD. One of the moments that changed my career was my first day as a public defender in D.C.'s juvenile court. When I walked into the courtroom, which is closed to the public, all the little children were fully shackled in metal chains on their wrists, waists, and feet.
I saw 9-year-olds, 11-year-olds, children with intellectual disabilities, children who had suffered profound abuse--all shackled for hours. But what shocked me most: no one had objected in years. The government officials had become desensitized to everyday brutality.
I asked the judge what she would have done if she came home from a concert and found that the babysitter had shackled her children to a table for hours. She'd probably prosecute the babysitter for child cruelty. Indiscriminate child-shackling is clearly unconstitutional.
THREAD. Something important is happening in U.S. media that I think is getting insufficient attention, and the controversy around the Los Angeles Times refusing to endorse Kamala Harris amidst her support of an ongoing genocide gets at it.
As background, a lot of uproar ensued in mainstream media circles after @nikasoonshiong’s thread stated that she supported the decision of the paper owned by her father to refuse to endorse Harris and adding that, for her, genocide is a red line:
The mainstream media is, absurdly, attempting to equate WaPo’s refusal to endorse Harris with LA Times, even though they were done for different reasons. Subscriber numbers show normal people get that, with WaPo losing far more readers. Reasons matter:
Thread. Today’s front page in the New York Times is a good lesson in two of the most important tactics in propaganda.
First, notice the euphemism “pragmatism.” The idea that people who support enormous injustice and terrible policies are “pragmatic” is one of the most subtly ideological and dangerous characteristics of corporate news. This trope is used for decades.
People become unable to distinguish between someone who supports lofty values but who is wisely playing 4D chess by pretending not to support them for years versus someone who actually doesn’t support, say, universal health care, social security, peace, economic equality, etc
THREAD. Something very weird is going on at ProPublica. It's hard to tell whether a few well-meaning people are getting lost or whether there is a Copaganda sleeper cell inside the non-profit newsroom.
First, ProPublica is a public charity supposedly dedicated to "Investigative Journalism in the Public Interest." But in recent years, its reporters have peddled some of the most nefarious copaganda: fearmongering about not enough spending on prosecution supposedly causing crime.
In 2022, ProPublica journalist Alec MacGillis published one of the most shoddy articles of the post-George Floyd, early pandemic era. He claimed "the cause" of "the" violent crime "wave" were court backlogs. I explained how incoherent/dangerous this was: equalityalec.substack.com/p/when-good-jo…
A problem in our society is that people fail to draw inferences from facts. For example, it requires depravity to do what the Democratic Michigan Attorney General just did—make up a lie for the purpose of deceiving ordinary people on one of the most important topics of our time.
But the way the lie is reported and discussed by many people is not a serious effort to grapple with what it means for a person to intentionally try to distort other people’s experience of our world in support of violence and inequality.
A rule of thumb is to think hard about what kind of person thinks to themselves: I’m going to use my access to mass media to lie right now. And think about what kinds of reasons they have for the lie and who benefits—and tragically, whose lives are on the line because of it.
THREAD. One persistent form of propaganda is the refusal of corporate media to report critical context about judges when it reports on legal cases. Today's reporting on the TikTok case is a good example.
The entire New York Times article on the TikTok case is based on the supposed skepticism of two federal judges to TikTok's arguments, but the paper omits they are two of the most right-wing judges in the appellate judiciary, appointed by Trump and Reagan. nytimes.com/2024/09/16/tec…
The paper hides the political backgrounds and prior controversial positions and rulings of the two judges. It's as if "the law" is something neutral, that it doesn't matter who the judges are or who appoints them, that this is not a space where power is contested, etc.