Are attitudes towards drugs becoming harder?

#1
A few years ago it used to be common to support the legalisation of all drugs, and many celebrities and public figures, such as Richard Branson, openly supported that position.

Now the Philippines has passed a law legalising the lynching of drug dealers and users, I've noticed that many people in the West wholeheartedly support what the Philippines is doing and many see it as a solution to the West's own problem with drug use.

The public perception of drug use in the West seems to have changed completely from a relatively tolerant view and general support for legalisation and government regulation to a view that all drug dealers and even users are scum and that they deserve to be executed.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,352
#2
A few years ago it used to be common to support the legalisation of all drugs, and many celebrities and public figures, such as Richard Branson, openly supported that position.

Now the Philippines has passed a law legalising the lynching of drug dealers and users, I've noticed that many people in the West wholeheartedly support what the Philippines is doing and many see it as a solution to the West's own problem with drug use.

The public perception of drug use in the West seems to have changed completely from a relatively tolerant view and general support for legalisation and government regulation to a view that all drug dealers and even users are scum and that they deserve to be executed.
No only a very small majority of people support extreme war on drugs. Just getting more press.

Most people haven't changed their minds at all.

Philippines has not passed any laws they just encourage people to break them and don't enforce them.,
 

Tulun

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
3,851
Western Eurasia
#3
i haven't noticed that drug laws became stricter in the West or even an increased demand for it. if some people cheering for the Philippine dude is probably the result of a general political trend of radicalization and a desire for authoritarian though guy politicians in a large segment of the societies... not necessary a desire for strict drug laws, rather a desire to get rid of X undesirables even by extrajudicial methods. and then you can insert whoever you wish on the place of X...
 
Apr 2016
1,646
United Kingdom
#4
A few years ago it used to be common to support the legalisation of all drugs, and many celebrities and public figures, such as Richard Branson, openly supported that position.

Now the Philippines has passed a law legalising the lynching of drug dealers and users, I've noticed that many people in the West wholeheartedly support what the Philippines is doing and many see it as a solution to the West's own problem with drug use.

The public perception of drug use in the West seems to have changed completely from a relatively tolerant view and general support for legalisation and government regulation to a view that all drug dealers and even users are scum and that they deserve to be executed.
I've noticed the opposite, at least when it comes to weed. People are increasingly likely to support legalisation, even in the US where drugs are typically seen as the ultimate evil. Other drugs get a harder rap, and lots of people began to think regulations should be tighter on 'legal highs,' but I see no appetite for Duterte's insanity.
 
Oct 2012
8,545
#5
It looks like we're almost certainly set to legalize marijuana for recreational use here in California come November and in a few other states as well, it's already legal in Colorado, Oregon, Washington and Alaska (the latter being a rather conservative state in general), so, no, I don't think attitudes are hardening, quite the opposite.

The Philippines is a different nation with different social and cultural norms, they have to address this issue in their own way. The people of the Philippines elected this president knowing what he intended to do, so respecting his right to carry out this campaign is simply a respecting of the will of the people of the Philippines, if they don't like it, they can overthrow him; it doesn't affect our national interests so it's not really our place to get involved, one way or the other.

There's not a general hardening of attitudes against drugs, that's more of a cultural issue, but there is a hardening of attitudes against liberalism; there is more tolerance in the world for using extra-judicial methods to advance policy. The old, nice way of doing things has been found to be ineffective at times and we're becoming more pragmatic about it, we're no longer as constrained by ideals as we used to be. Ideals are still valued, but we've come to realize that they can't be allowed to get in the way of being effective.
 
Apr 2016
1,646
United Kingdom
#6
There's not a general hardening of attitudes against drugs, that's more of a cultural issue, but there is a hardening of attitudes against liberalism; there is more tolerance in the world for using extra-judicial methods to advance policy. The old, nice way of doing things has been found to be ineffective at times and we're becoming more pragmatic about it, we're no longer as constrained by ideals as we used to be. Ideals are still valued, but we've come to realize that they can't be allowed to get in the way of being effective
Are we? So far Duterte is the only person who stands an outside chance of being applauded for such actions here, and can you point to any successful political candidate in all of the west that's achieved moderate success on a remotely-similar platform? If there is widespread appetite, it's yet to translate into appeal and power.

Another thing: I ask as a social libertarian with a conservative approach to problems, do not credit liberalism with the creation of trial by jury or the rule of law. Purely because those things are largely seen as good, and we don't want to give true liberals or the trend-chasing pseudo-left control junkies praise they don't deserve. Liberalism had nothing to do with the origins of either. Nor does conservatism oppose them. What you're championing is tyranny. Nothing more.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2012
1,561
U.S.A.
#7
If anything, attitudes are becoming softer on drugs. Here in PA we are set to begin medical marijuana (I believe it begins this month). We also have a HUGE meth and heroin problem. People are starting to advocate treating drug addiction as an illness rather than the old way of incarceration.
 
Apr 2016
1,646
United Kingdom
#8
People are starting to advocate treating drug addiction as an illness rather than the old way of incarceration
Whether it's one or the other seems a bit of a moot point: surely, by the time someone's addicted to drugs, their self-control is clinically gone. I am unsure why the debate is still centred on this 'criminality or disease' issue, when we know due to the nature of addiction these people ceased to have a choice a long time ago. Whatever we do, we should make sure it ethically chimes with the known facts.
 
Dec 2012
1,561
U.S.A.
#9
Whether it's one or the other seems a bit of a moot point: surely, by the time someone's addicted to drugs, their self-control is clinically gone. I am unsure why the debate is still centred on this 'criminality or disease' issue, when we know due to the nature of addiction these people ceased to have a choice a long time ago. Whatever we do, we should make sure it ethically chimes with the known facts.

So you're saying that a person can never give up their vice and be free of their addiction?
 
Oct 2012
8,545
#10
Are we? So far Duterte is the only person who stands an outside chance of being applauded for such actions here, and can you point to any successful political candidate in all of the west that's achieved moderate success on a remotely-similar platform? If there is widespread appetite, it's yet to translate into appeal and power.
The liberals are still in control, in the west at least, this much is true. But there has been a hardening of attitudes against them, they no longer enjoy an unchallenged position in our politics, where all viable candidates are liberal candidates, like they have since the end of the Second World War. They can no longer rely on illiberal policies raising popular outrage, unless those implementing those policies are already hated. I doubt we'll see things in the west taken to the same extreme as in the Philippines, but there's still a shift in attitude, at least amongst large segments of the population. Which is why I think many of us look at what's going on in the Philippines and say 'we may not want that here, but no need to get involved, let's just wait and see how it turns out.'

Another thing: I ask as a social libertarian with a conservative approach to problems, do not credit liberalism with the creation of trial by jury or the rule of law. Purely because those things are largely seen as good, and we don't want to give true liberals or the trend-chasing pseudo-left control junkies praise they don't deserve. Liberalism had nothing to do with the origins of either. Nor does conservatism oppose them. What you're championing is tyranny. Nothing more.
No, trial by jury has its basis in Germanic tribal custom and rule of law is hardly a modern innovation. But there are many modern, liberal notions that have been, over the last century, appended to traditional notions of the rule of law, such as human rights and 'international law', which many have lost enthusiasm for. And, in the common law tradition, there's also a tradition of creating a class of people called 'outlaws', either made so by their refusal to submit to the judicial process or through acts of rebellion or, at times, by bills of attainder; these people were declared to be outside the legal system, both no longer subject to it nor protected by it, they were subject to summary execution upon capture. Rule of law was always a concept applied within the confines of a community, those who broke from the community broke from the legal system as well. Though the notion of declaring some individuals outside of the law is consonant with the rule of law (in some cases, like rebellion, this is obvious), it might be a bit of a stretch to label drug dealers as bandits and/or rebels, that is to say outlaws without rights to avail themselves to the legal system, but only a bit of a stretch.
 

Similar History Discussions