Category: Uncategorized

Many people fear that AI will replace workers and will be used to surveil, control, or even kill people.

As Geoffrey Hinton, the “godfather of AI” and the inventor of many of the techniques used in generative AI says, fears that AI will be used to spread disinformation and to make the rich even richer.

Those are all valid concerns.

But there’s a huge potential upside to AI that left-leaning people especially should appreciate.

If AI surpasses human-level performance on most skills — which seems likely to happen — this will require a radical restructuring of our economy and society to make sure that people don’t starve to death. Socialism and redistribution of wealth will become necessities that even Republicans will have to accept.

Furthermore, until now, humanity has been divided into winners and losers. Some people are better than others at sports, at math, at music, at fighting, at entrepreneurship, at programming, at writing, or at a myriad of other skills. In the not-too-distant future it is likely that everyone will be bested by AI in all those skills. This is already happening in the realm of art and image generation. It seems inevitable that it will happen in other fields.

Imagine a future in which AI surpasses humans at musical composition, at literature, at engineering, at math, at dance, and at scientific discovery. I believe it is coming.

Such a future will be a great equalizer. No longer will some people feel superior to others and feel worthy of being rewarded with more money, power, and adulation. Instead, everyone will be inferior to the AI programs that run society. Truly, all the important work and thinking will be done by AI and robots.

Humans will be able to just sit back and enjoy life: food, dance, procreation, exercise, and entertainment (with robots or virtual actors performing AI-generated content).

Humans will be forced to have the proper humility. Hierarchy will be dismantled.

Of course, unless the AI programs that run society are programmed to have our best interests in mind, an AI-driven world will instead be a dystopia.

There is, however, another possible future for the relation between AI and humans.   I is possible that people and AI will  merge, via direct neural connections, or via immersive virtual reality headsets.  In either case, AI would not be our masters. Rather, we would be enhanced by AI: smarter, more knowledgeable, and more inter-connected.  Political questions of who controls things will still remain.

Write me a 12 line poem about the hypocrisy of the U.S. concerning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, given the U.S. invasion of Iraq and other countries, the U.S. occupation of one third of  Syria,  the presence of about 800 U.S. military bases overseas, and the history of provocative NATO expansion.

In webs of power and politics entwined,
Hypocrisy emerges, with secrets aligned,
As Russia invades, Ukraine’s sorrow unfolds,
Echoes of past deeds, hypocrisy unfolds.

For Iraq felt the weight of a foreign hand,
And lands far beyond witnessed the same brand,
In Syria, a third grasped by occupation’s might,
The world watches, questioning what is right.

Around the globe, 800 bases take root,
A projection of strength, yet hypocrisy’s suit,
And NATO’s expansion, a provocative dance,
History’s echo, feeding discord’s advance.

Let’s seek truth beyond the veil of deceit,
Where empathy and justice may find their seat,
For in recognizing hypocrisy’s reign,
We can strive for unity, healing the pain.

Amidst the tangled webs of power’s play,
Hypocrisy unfolds, casting shades of gray,
Russian boots tread on Ukrainian soil,
Yet memories of Iraq remain in turmoil.

In Syria’s land, a fraction under sway,
While foreign bases dot the world’s display,
Provocative strides by NATO’s expanding hand,
The dance of geopolitics, a shifting sand.

800 overseas bases, they stand tall,
A stark reminder of the empire’s sprawl,
But let us ponder on the paradox we see,
As we question what it truly means to be free.

In search of harmony, let truth be sought,
For hypocritical actions leave us caught,
Let’s strive for peace, transcending boundaries,
And shape a world that values true equities.

In this youtube video U.S. Building ANOTHER Illegal Military Base in Syria, Jimmy Dore ridicules U.S. hypocritical criticism of Russia’s invasion and occupation of parts of Ukraine, when the U.S. continues to occupy a third of the sovereign nation of Syria.

Jimmy Dore is  sortof like a left-wing Rush Limbaugh or Tucker Carlson. But many things he says are accurate. The youtube video summary says: “Unbeknownst to most Americans, the US military is currently occupying a third of the nation of Syria and, based on recent news, it looks like the U.S. won’t be leaving any time soon. That’s because the military is reportedly building a new military base in Syria’s northern province of Raqqa. Jimmy and Americans’ Comedian Kurt Metzger discuss the U.S. military’s ongoing occupation of Syria and the sheer hypocrisy of doing so while criticizing Russia for invading Ukraine”

Dore mentions a base in Raqqa. Washington moves to revive Islamist militia in northern Syria: Report by The Cradle (a Beirut blog) says

According to a 20 December report released by Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar, the US is currently attempting to rebuild Liwa Thuwwar al-Raqqa (Raqqa Revolutionaries Brigade) – a former Islamist militia opposed to Damascus….. the plan aims to compromise Russian efforts at mediation between the SDF and Turkiye by “pulling the rug out from under” Moscow’s proposition to Ankara. Russia’s proposition calls for a pullback of the Kurdish militia and the deployment of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) along the Syrian-Turkish border…..

Essentially, the rebuilding of the Raqqa-based militant group serves the US “desire to prevent any Russian or Syrian governmental attempt to advance towards the strongholds of American influence,” Al-Akhbar said in a newer report released on 22 December.

Washington’s scheme to revive the group comes as the US is continually attempting to strengthen the foothold of its occupation in Syria, particularly in the city of Raqqa, where they have been planning to construct a new military base.

On 15 December, US lawmakers introduced the Countering Assad’s Proliferation Trafficking And Garnering Of Narcotics Act (CAPTAGON Act), which aims to expand Washington’s draconian Caesar Act sanction policy against Damascus, but this time under the pretext of combatting the country’s drug trade.

For what it’s worth, the Iranian Mehr News Agency article US forces prepare to build 1st military base in Syria’s Raqqa  says “The London-based Syrian Observatory For Human Rights (SOHR) has reported on its website that the US forces are preparing for announcing their first military base in Al-Raqqa, after having withdrawn from the province over three years, during “peace Spring” operation in 2019.”

To be clear, in order for the U.S. to be occupying a third of Syria, it must have, in some sense, invaded it. And one often hears the complaint that if  Ukraine negotiates a peace deal with Russia now, it will legitimatize Russia’s occupation of Ukrainian territory. But, the status quo legitimatizes U.S. occupation of Syria, and the U.S. helped overthrow governments in Yugoslavia and, of course, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and (via proxies) all over South America.

According to a report in The New Arab, “The US-led coalition against the Islamic State group will build a new base in the northern Syrian province of Raqqa, sources close to a coalition partner force have said.”

Dore mentions the “crippling economic sanctions” that a recent Quincy Institute panel also discussed. Despite the devastating earthquake.  The Quincy panelists acknowledged that the Syrian people are suffering terribly from the sanctions, while the Syrian leadership continue to live in luxury, But the U.S. is unlikely to remove them, lest it allow Syria to rebuild and lest it hand Assad, Iran, and Russia a victory.

Interestingly, Dore quotes an antiwar.com article that says, “ISIS also holds no significant territory, and the Syrian government and its allies would continue to fight the remnants of the terror group if the US withdrew.”  It’s all confusing. We’re allying with extremist Islamic groups and dealing with multiple players: the Syrian government, various Islamic groups, Kurds, Turkey, Iran, and Russia.

While the Arab countries want to make peace with Syria — witness the recent Arab peace deal with Syria, brokered by China —  the U.S. wants to continue to weaken Syria and its allies Iran and Russia.

Dore says the U.S. is the “world’s terrorist and whatever you say about Putin, you have to say a thousand times about the United States. Because that’s how propagandized you are. You think Putin is a worse war criminal than George Bush, Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump….. And if you’re for this Ukraine war, you’re a sucker.”   I wouldn’t phrase it so harshly.

A look at the US military mission in Syria and its dangers  says the U.S. helped create the SDF (from Kurds): “On any given day there are at least 900 U.S. forces in Syria, along with an undisclosed number of contractors. U.S. special operations forces also move in and out of the country, but are usually in small teams and are not included in the official count.   They are trying to prevent any comeback by the Islamic State group, which swept through Iraq and Syria in 2014, taking control of large swaths of territory. … U.S. forces advise and assist the SDF, including in securing the detention facilities, and they also conduct counterterror missions against the Islamic State group and other al-Qaida-affiliated militants, and carry out strikes on Iran-backed militias that have attacked U.S. facilities. ”

Al Jazeera says  “In addition to the SDF, the US has covertly armed and trained Syrian opposition forces, although that was severely reduced in 2017, and limited only to groups directly fighting ISIL.”  And it says, “The Syrian government has constantly expressed its opposition to the US role in Syria, and demanded US forces withdraw.”

Newsweek’s article Syria Demands an End to America’s Last ‘Forever War’ from April 4, 2023 discusses the issue of U.S. presence in Syria:

New questions surrounding the U.S. deployment in Syria have also been raised in the wake of Russia’s war in Ukraine. The U.S. has led international efforts to condemn the presence of Russian troops in Ukraine as illegal and to arm Ukrainian forces fighting to oust them from the country.

Asked about the application of international law to the U.S. presence in Syria, [White House National Security Council Strategic Communications Coordinator John] Kirby told Newsweek that “we’ve talked about this for, regrettably, now several years” and defended the current U.S. policy.

“They are there under appropriate legal authorities to defend American national security interests and the president has requisite legal authority to have them there,” Kirby said. “And that hasn’t changed.”

It’s fair to say that U.S. backed and armed forces (SDF) that control territory and we still have a significant presence of troops, though less than five years ago.  Whether the U.S. presence rises to the level of “occupying the country” is unclear. But one has to ask: who gave the U.S. permission to station any troops in a sovereign foreign nation?

By the way, according to NPR,  some U.S. troops are still in Iraq.

Rep. Adam Smith (personal communication) downplays the presence of U.S. troops in Syria, saying that they’re few in number and Dana Stroul’s quote was from 2019. Her views don’t reflect the current situation, he said.   But, according to the Department of Defense, “Souls is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (DASD) for the Middle East. In this role, she leads the development of U.S. Department of Defense Policy and Strategy for Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.”

I signed up for OpenAI’s Chat-GPT4 and asked it, “Please formulate a workable peace deal between Ukraine and Russia.” Here’s how it responded:

Not bad! It recognizes that the people of Donetsk and Luhansk want some independence, since they’re aligned with Russia.  I imagine that Russia will be very hesitant about giving up Crimea, which, too, has a large Russian-speaking population.   A big impediment to peace in Ukraine is people in the U.S. government.

I wonder how close the Chat GPT-4 peace plan is to former ones developed by humans.

Using Midjourney AI image generation, I made these images of robots brokering a peace deal between Zelensky and Putin:

In light of the recent conviction of Donald Trump for sexual abuse, I asked Midourney‘s AI image generation tool to create an image for “donald trump grabbing a scared kitten.”   Midjourney refused to create the image and the following message appeared:

Banned prompt detected

Sorry! Our AI moderator thinks this prompt is probably against our community standards.

        Please review our current community standards:

        ALLOWED
        - Any image up to PG-13 rating involving fiction, fantasy, mythology.
        - Real images that may be seen as respectful or light-hearted parodies, satire, caricatures
        - Imaginary or exaggerated real-life scenarios, including absurd or humorous situations.

        NOT ALLOWED
        - Disrespectful, harmful, misleading public figures/events portrayals or potential to mislead.
        - Hate speech, explicit or real-world violence.
        - Nudity or unconsented overtly sexualized public figures.
        - Imagery that might be considered culturally insensitive

        This AI system isn't perfect. If you find it rejecting something innocent please press the Notify Developers button and we will review it and try to further improve our performance. Thank you for your help!
        /imagine donald trump grabbing a scared kitten, photorealistic, award winning color photograph  --v 5

I chose not to appeal the AI verdict, since, while the generated image wouldn’t be explicit, it would be disrespectful and satirically sexualized, since almost any reader would know the intended meaning.

I’ve been using Midjourney since late last year, and I notice that Midjourney has become a lot stricter in its moderation. Other recent prompts that it banned me from using include:

A few months ago it let me show leeches on Uncle Sam in a hospital bed:

And from that I made:

But now when I gave the prompt “large leeches feeding on sick man in hospital bed“, it said:

In the past it created images for me showing Trump in jail. For example:

But now “jail” is banned.

Today I tried the prompt “aliens from another galaxy implant electrodes into joe biden’s brain, biden lying on operating table, photo realistic, hyperrealism, award winning color photograph” and Midjourney banned it and offered me the option of appealing the ban. The appeal was rejected. But when I removed “Joe Biden lying on operating table”, it succeeded.  But then it banned “An alien from another galaxy is implanting electrodes into joe biden’s brain, photo realistic, hyperrealism, award winning color photograph –stylize 900.”

Midjourney bans the prompt “crazed uncle sam pouring gasoline on a fire” but allows “uncle sam lighting the fuse to a bomb .”

It bans “ big jock bullying Chinese nerd in front of lockers in high school, photorealism, 80mm, award winning color photograph” but it accepted it when I removed the word “Chinese.”

Likewise, if I asked Midjourney to make an image of someone in a bikini, it would comply.

These are “three Graces in bikinis“:

And it would show some mild nudity (breasts and butts).   See, for example, Mona Lisa in a bikini.  It even showed a tiny dick on Donald Trump, without my asking it do so.

Nowadays it seems to have become more restrictive in what images it will produce. When I asked it to make people in bikinis, it refused or made them more modest.

Midjourney used to allow me to make images with some violence or devastation. Now even if I give a prompt that should show such content, it seems to prefer smiling, peaceful content.

I acknowledge that AI content generation needs to be moderated, and it’s not an easy task for the Midjourney developers.

See https://progressivememes.org/ai-images/exhibition/ for some examples of what Midjourney created for me.  Some of the images are stunning.   I fear we humans will need to learn humility towards our AI overlords.

The New York Times daily email “The Morning” for May 8, 2023 — authored by journalist David Leonhardt — includes the following:

When Democrats and progressive activists talk about undocumented immigration, they tend to emphasize forces in other countries — like wars and political oppression — that are beyond the control of the U.S. government. And these outside issues do influence migration flows. The collapse of Venezuela’s economy is a recent example. Experts refer to such forces as “push factors,” because they push people out of their home countries.

The collapse of Venezuela’s economy is clearly not beyond the control of the U.S. government, which is imposing economic sanctions on it.  Likewise, wars and political oppression in Latin America and elsewhere are very much affected, and often caused, by U.S. government policy.

Please see this version

For documentation see How the U.S. provoked Russia in Ukraine: a compendium.

Quoted in Glenn Greenwald’s WHO CAUSED THIS WAR? The US’s Twisted Interference in Ukraine.

For documentation for the above two memes, see Glenn Greenwald’s WHO CAUSED THIS WAR? The US’ Twisted Interference in Ukraine.

From Dennis Kucinich: The Enemy from Within

From Jeffrey Sachs on China’s ˜Historical Push for Multipolar World to End US Domination

We Must Challenge the Bipartisan War Party

Liberals tend to dislike suburban sprawl and over-dependence on cars.

Conservatives tend to dislike regulations and lack of freedom.

Here’s a policy change that should satisfy both liberals’ desire for more walkable, self-sufficient neighborhoods and conservatives’ desire for more freedom.

The proposal  is to loosen zoning regulations so as to allow homeowners to open small mom-and-pop stores, eating spots, and production facilities in residential neighborhoods.  Such home businesses could be inside homes, in garages, or in  other attached structures.  We’ll refer to all such businesses as home stores (retail) or home businesses (including mail-order and wholesale). Another name for them is ACUs (Accessory Commercial Units).

In many countries of the world, people shop locally, by walking or biking to nearby shops.  Such a lifestyle cuts down on car use and provides livelihoods to locals, independent of national retail chains.

If I want to sell things from my home, why on earth should the government tell me I can’t, provided I sell safe products and don’t defraud my customers?

City ordinances often include requirements for parking near stores. Such requirements should be lessened or eliminated for residential home stores. Down with government regulation!

In fact, to avoid damaging the character of neighborhoods, and to discourage driving, the construction of extra parking lots should be discouraged rather than required.  In the words of Joni Mitchell, we don’t want to “pave paradise, put up a parking lot.”

City planners often speak of mixed-used development and transit-oriented development. Such development is appropriate near transit hubs, such as the new light rail stops coming to the eastside of Seattle in the next couple years.  But such new development doesn’t fix the problems of existing relatively low-density sprawl in residential neighborhoods.  Home businesses partially fix the problems without substantially changing the nature of the neighborhoods.

Changing zoning laws to increase density in residential neighborhoods might be desirable as well. But that’s a separate, probably more contentious proposal. For example, homeowners could be allowed to turn attached structures  (e.g., Attached Dwelling Units) into apartments or granny flats, or to divide their properties into two units and sell or rent them.

By the way, this entire discussion makes it clear that conservatives’ opposition to regulation is selective, as it should be. Likewise, progressives oppose some regulations.  For example, conservatives often approve of zoning regulations that prevent construction of apartments or other high-density housing in suburban neighborhoods. They want to “preserve the character of the neighborhood.” Many homeowners associations have further restrictions. Liberals sometimes complain that such regulations increase sprawl and have a discriminatory effect on racial and economic minorities.

Conservative support for home stores is expressed in American Conservative’s Small Retail Can Make Neighborhoods Walkable.

For sure, home businesses are not a panacea, and it would take some time for their benefits to become visible.  But they are in the direction that society needs to move: towards more walkable, self-sufficient neighborhoods.

Possible problems.

For home stores to work well, it’s likely that housing density would need to be relatively high.  In low-density neighborhoods with huge lots, it’s unlikely that there would be enough customers within walking or biking distance to make home stores economically viable. If people need to rely on cars, then parking would be an issue. Likewise, neighborhoods with steep hills would likely not work.

Many Seattle residential areas are high density, with lots of apartments and small yards; such neighborhoods are good candidates for home stores.  Examples of Bellevue neighborhoods where home businesses would be feasible are Eastgate, Crossroads, and Newport Hills.

Another potential problem is: Can home stores compete with big box stores such as Walmart and Target, and with Amazon? Those stores have economies of scale and sell a wide variety of items. Of course, the economies of scale of the national chains come at a high cost:  ugly, soulless strip malls and shopping areas, as well as heavy traffic and loss of local control.  If society is going to successfully address the costs of transportation (pollution, carbon, traffic congestion, stress, and ugliness), incentives will need to change to make home businesses more economically viable. This will take time, and some people will resist the changes.

And for home stores selling groceries, what health regulations will apply? Will there be inspections?  Likewise, can homes open small eating spots and restaurants? Again, how can sanitary laws be enforced?  See below for more discussion of King County’s health regulations.

If the home shops do cash-based transactions, would that make it too easy for merchants to hide earnings and avoid taxes?  (I thank Jaye Sermeno for pointing out this pitfall with home stores.)  Perhaps cash-based transactions could be outlawed, though many people would oppose that. Or perhaps home-based businesses could be exempt from taxation for in-person purchases, up to a limit.

And how about delivery of goods?  Will truck traffic disturb neighborhoods? Can Amazon or FedEx do fulfillment of supplies for home stores?  Conversely, can local producers ship goods from home-based shops and sell them by mail-order, instead of by in-person retail?

Bellevue and King County’s regulations about home businesses

So, Bellevue already allows the use of homes for some private businesses. In order to realize the potential of ACUs, Bellevue’s regulations about home businesses would need to be loosened. The current rules specify that

Homeowners need to submit a Home Occupation Permit and pay fees before being allowed to open a home business.

The regulations about “no exterior sign,” “no structural alteration,”  and the final one about limited use of delivery vehicles probably need to be eliminated or loosened.  As mentioned above, the restriction about no additional parking should probably be retained, to discourage driving.

The existing regulations already allow for some leeway and for considerations about the nature of the neighborhood, so that bigger and more impactful businesses might be allowed on less residential blocks, for example.

Building, electrical, fire and plumbing code requirements may need to be loosened as well, on the principle that the number of customers at the location at any one time is likely to be small.

King County is responsible for regulations about food establishments. The section on Catering and home-based food establishments is of particular importance. It says “It is required that a catering business be operated from an approved commissary kitchen.”  It also says that home food businesses need inspections and permits.

Food service cannot be approved in a home kitchen, unless there are two separate kitchens. A commercial kitchen must be totally separate from the kitchen used by the people who live there. An approved kitchen in a home would have to meet all of the requirements for any commercial food service. These requirements are detailed in the Food Service Plan Guide.

The latter Food Service Plan Guide is 22 pages long.  It has requirements for a handwashing sinks, a 3-compartment dishwashing sink, a dump (work) sink, and a mop sink.  Plan review fees are at least $900 for a new establishment.

How those food safety regulations should be loosened for ACU food establishments is a thorny question, since peoples’ health is at stake, but some loosening should be possible.  The situation is reminiscent of some federal regulations, which are so onerous that only large corporations can afford to follow them and to submit the required paperwork.

A friend wanted to start a home business making nut butters. He found that the regulations in Lincoln County, in east Central Washington, were more lenient than in King County, but there still was a requirement for a separate three-basin sink and a separate hand-washing sink.

Making it happen

I spoke to Bellevue City Council members Janice Zahn and Jeremy Barksdale. They suggested that any change to Bellevue laws and regulation is difficult, because of political division in the council.  In order for change to occur, there would need to be an organized public movement that the council members can rely on.

One step towards organizing such a movement is to get feedback from people, e.g., on nextdoor.com, about how much interest there is in starting home businesses.  Anyone with interest in or comments about these issues is encouraged to email me at ThinkerFeeler@gmail.com .

More resources

CNU (Congress for the New Urbanism) is promoting ACUs. Here are some resources I’ve been seeing for re-introducing retail and light commercial back into neighborhoods. Urbanist Neil Heller coined the term ACU and has become known for promoting them in Portland where he lives.

An Introduction To The ACU

Best of 2020: Legalize Accessory Commercial Units

‘Accessory Commercial Units’ for a 15-Minute City

Accessory Commercial Units: Reintroducing retail to neighborhoods

Small Retail Can Make Neighborhoods Walkable

One-Stop Shops Can Change The Game For Your City’s Small Business Growth. Op-ed: Facilitating new businesses is crucial to your city’s economic growth.

You are already paying for the drug habits of people with substance abuse disorder. Why not treat addiction in a more humane way that reduces crime, defunds drug gangs, better helps the addicted people, and saves society money?

Lots of people complain about crime, especially property crime. People complain especially on websites such as nextdoor. Likewise, many newspapers and TV news shows like to run stories about crime.

Here’s a simple way to stop a lot of — maybe most — property crime, including shoplifting, and to save money spent on policing, security, and incarceration.

The solution is to make it easier for people with substance abuse disorder to get treatment, so that they don’t have to steal to support their habits.

Depending on the person, treatment may involve

1. entering a recovery program;
2. taking a drug like Suboxone, to deal with craving and withdrawal;
3. taking a managed opiate such as methadone;
4. or even — and some people will oppose this option — taking controlled, subsidized harder drugs, possibly in a safe injection site.

You may think, “OMG, why should the taxpayer subsidize SADs’ drug habit? Are you nuts? That’s just helping them to hurt themselves.”

Not at all.  The sad, harsh fact is that you are already subsidizing their drug addiction, by suffering from their thefts and by paying for police, prisons, security guards, emergency room treatment, and higher prices for goods at stores, which need to raise prices to make up for money lost due to shoplifting. (See below for some statistics on this.)

And there already are thousands of unsafe injection sites all over our communities. Why not have safe injection sites where the quality of the drugs can be monitored, overdoses prevented, and SADs can be guided towards treatment?

An added benefit is that this approach defunds drug gangs.

Furthermore, methadone clinics have been around for years, and methadone is an opiate. Likewise, the other popular drug treatment, Suboxone, contains an opiate as well: buprenorphine (the second component of Suboxone is naloxone). So your tax money already pays for opiates.  Are you outraged? Few people would propose eliminating such treatments. For many SADs they work. So, there’s not really much difference between option 3 and option 4 above.

Unless you want to throw drug SADs in jail — a very expensive option — the only alternative is treatment. And the sad fact is: rehab clinics don’t work for many  SADs.  It’s like alcoholism; some alcoholics are set in their ways and can’t be swayed. It’s a fact. Deal with it.

I contend that society as a whole will save money and improve lives if we end the failed war on drugs and help SADs recover from their addictions, or (if recovery is impossible) live safely with their addictions.

In other words, instead of criminalizing or legalizing drug use — both of which don’t work well — manage drug use as a medical and social problem. What I’m saying is not new.  Books such as Johann Hari’s Chasing the Scream and Gabor Maté’s In the Real of Hungry Ghosts  explore the failed war on drugs and the absurdity of criminalizing what should be considered a medical problem. See also The Drug War Drives Exploitation. We Need Drug Regulation, Not Criminalization.

What I hope is new is my way of framing the problem: You are already paying for SADs’ drug habits.  This framing may convince more people that supporting SADs via treatment and management of their addiction is better for everyone than criminalizing it.

You could say: the war on drugs causes crime.

The rest of this article explores this topic in detail and includes some stats and evidence from interviews with local police officers.

Background

To address the drug problem there are several approaches:

1. Criminalization: the war on drugs.
2. Complete legalization.
3. Decriminalization but not total legalization, with treatment and management of addiction.  Drug possession would be a misdemeanor, not a crime.

The first option, the war on drugs, has been a failure,  despite decades of trying, despite tens of billions of dollars spent, and despite filling prisons with (mostly nonviolent) drug offenders. Heroin, meth, fentanyl and other hard drugs are still readily available. Likewise, alcohol Prohibition failed dismally in the 1920s. Some people want to double down on criminalizing drugs, even suggesting locking up SADs in prison or other facilities til they become sober. That would certainly be extremely costly — do you want to pay taxes for that? — and is probably a cruel violation of the SADs’ rights.

The second option, complete legalization, would risk creating more SADs. Few people and countries support that option. I certainly don’t, because hard drugs like heroin and meth are too addictive, and because SADs can become too debilitated to be productive members of society. But let’s briefly explore complete legalization. Some libertarians believe that government has no business telling people what they can and can’t do, provided the people don’t harm others in doing it. Legalizing drugs could introduce a competitive, legal market for drugs. If the price for hard drugs were as high as prices for pharmaceutical drugs, then many SADs couldn’t afford them — especially since such SADs have trouble holding down jobs — and the SADs would need to steal to pay for their hits. So, complete legalization is unlikely to help.

The third option is middle-of-the-road between strict criminalization and strict legalization.   Portugal is trying the third option. Portugal decriminalized drug use but did not make drugs legal. “Drug use became an administratively sanctionable misdemeanor, but not a crime, and was placed under the jurisdiction of the Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction.” (source) In many ways, America is trying the third option, too, since many SADs are diverted to drug treatment programs, including use of the opiate methadone. This makes sense, too, given that the U.S. already has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world.

Some opponents of management of addiction say that it makes it too easy for people to become SADs .   But few people would choose to become SADs , and drug use would still be a misdemeanor.  Getting treatment or managed drugs would require approval of medical professionals.

The National Institute of Health found that Vancouver’s experiment with safe injection sites was a success.

King County Bar Association’s Drug Policy Project calls for “a shift from the principal reliance on criminal sanctions as a response to drug use towards greater availability of effective addiction treatment, drug education and research.” Quoting at length,

In late 2000, in response to an editorial by KCBA President Fred Noland lamenting the failure of the €œWar on Drugs,€ an outpouring of interest among lawyers, judges, public officials, scholars and concerned citizens led to a comprehensive effort to examine and reform current drug policy. Policy-oriented task forces conducted extensive research and prepared reports with recommendations for reform, resulting in the release of a major report in 2001, Is It Time to End the War on Drugs?, which found that current drug policy is fundamentally flawed and is associated with numerous negative societal consequences, including:

• the failure to reduce problematic drug use, particularly among children;

• dramatic increases in crime related to prohibited drugs, including economic crimes related to addiction and the fostering of efficient and violent criminal enterprises that have occupied the unregulated and immensely profitable commercial market made possible by drug prohibition;

• skyrocketing public costs arising from both increased drug abuse and increased crime;

• erosion of public health from the spread of disease, from the concealment and inadequate treatment of addiction and from undue restrictions on proper medical treatment of pain;

• the abridgement of civil rights through summary forfeitures of property, invasions of privacy and violations of due process;

• disproportionately adverse effects of drug law enforcement on the poor and persons of color;

• and the clogging of the courts and compromises in the effective administration of justice, as well as a loss of respect for the law.

The origin of the war on drugs is apparently the desire of Richard Nixon to weaken his political opposition — African Americans and hippies — by demonizing their drug use, as described here and in the following image.

How much crime is caused by drug SADs stealing to support their habits?

Let me start with some evidence from an informal survey of local police officers.

A few months ago I  saw five policemen drinking coffee in the seating area at a store on Mercer Island, WA. I approached them and ask if they have an opinion about this question: what percent of property crime is due to SADs looking to support their habits. One policeman said, “about 90%.” The others nodded. I asked if there are any hard statistics about that. He said that hard stats are probably hard to come by, since the perpetrators often don’t tell the truth. But I could try calling King County social services. (I did that but didn’t get any hard figures.)

Later I asked a Bellevue (WA) police officer. He estimated that 40% of property crime is due to drug SADs supporting their habits.

I asked another police officer, from Bellevue, the same question, and she estimated that the answer is 75%.

Yet another police officer from Bellevue estimated “over 50%”.

A different police officer, also from Bellevue, estimated that “about 70%” of property crime is caused by SADs supporting their habits

On Oct 4, 2022, I found a Bellevue police officer at Factoria Mall. His rough estimate was 2/3rd. I told him the gist of this article and he nodded in agreement and said that everyone is basically paying a tax (in the form of stolen goods and higher prices) to subsidize SADs ‘ habits. He agreed that harm reduction is better than criminalizing the problem. He said that while police officers tend to be conservative, there are also progressive officers.

On Jan 10, 2023 another Bellevue police officer estimated that a majority of petty shoplifting is due to people supporting their drug habits — excluding the organized shoplifting by criminal gangs.

Now for some harder stats.

The U.S. Department of Justice reports that “More than half (58%) of state prisoners and two-thirds (63%) of sentenced jail inmates met the criteria for drug dependence or abuse, according to data collected through the 2007 and 2008-09 National Inmate Surveys (NIS).” About 45% of sentenced and jailed state prisoners are dependent on drugs, and about 63% abuse drugs.    Rates of drug abuse in the general population are more than ten times less (under 5% of the general population).

Quoting the above report, the Prison Policy Institute’s article BJS report: Drug abuse and addiction at the root of 21% of crimes says “Almost 40% of people locked up for property crimes and 14% of those incarcerated for violent crimes reported that they had committed their most serious offense for drug-related reasons.” Also: “About 40% of the state prison population and sentenced jail population report using drugs at the time of the offense for which they were incarcerated.”

Motivations, substance use and other correlates amongst property and violent offenders who regularly inject drugs “The majority of both property (71%) and violent offenders (73%) reported being under the influence of drugs the last time they committed an offence.” And “The majority of property offenders (75%) attributed their offending to financial reasons.”

A story about management and treatment of a SAD sufferer

The son of a friend has a bad drug habit. For a while he was on methadone. But he was unable to continue it. The clinic was open only a few hours a day, and he had to walk or take his electric bike to the clinic. He often missed appointments because of health issues and general disorganization. When he missed an appointment, he was punished and was unable to get his future doses at maximum strength. Over weekends, the clinic closes, so if he  didn’t get his methadone on Friday, he’d have to wait til Monday  — which sometimes forced him to resort to using street drugs. The man reported this sad fact:  injected heroin works better than methadone (which is a liquid, taken orally) and causes a quicker response.    With all these impediments, and despite being in subsidized housing, he gave up on methadone treatment and got worse.

Methadone clinics need to follow strict federal guidelines meant to prevent drug abuse. The rules have the effect of making it hard for SADs to comply. The fear is that loose rules would allow the SADs to sell the methadone doses on the street and use it to buy their drug of choice (e.g., heroin). I hear that happens a lot.

Several times this man’s family forced him into treatment programs, and he also spent time in jail for drug-related offenses. As soon as he was released from confinement, he went right back to using drugs.  Family or society can force a SAD sufferer to enroll in a treatment program, but such programs will fail if their heart isn’t it.  People change when they’re ready to. Some never will.  Like or not, this is a fact. Just like with alcoholics.

Furthermore, drug rehabilitation facilities are often over-priced and vary in quality. Insurance coverage is uneven.

Several of this man’s buddies got into trouble with the law, too (e.g., car prowling). Several of his friends died from drug overdoses, including his girlfriend. It’s a serious problem.

The New York Times daily email to subscribers says:

Drug overdoses now kill more than 100,000 Americans a year €” more than vehicle crash and gun deaths combined….Experts have a concise, if crude, way to summarize this: If it’s easier to get high than to get treatment, people who are addicted will get high. The U.S. has effectively made it easy to get high and hard to get help.

I’ve read, though, that SADs don’t take drugs to get high. Maybe that’s why they did it at first. But once they’re addicted and acclimated to the drug, they need the drug to feel normal. Without it, they’re miserable.

The good news is that many SADs do recover as they get older.  And for those who don’t their addiction can be managed.  We need to figure out the cheapest and most humane way to do.

A big win for everyone

Drug companies such as Purdue Pharmaceutical helped provoke the addiction crisis by promoting opiate painkillers. They thereby  made billions of dollars in profit. (Later they were sued.)  Fentanyl, a synthetic opiate, is replacing heroin as the drug of choice for drug cartels, because of its potency and easy production. This suggests that if hard drugs were decriminalized they could be manufactured very cheaply. Indeed, the Guardian reports: “A 2019 DEA report estimated that each fentanyl pill costs only $1 [for drug cartels] to produce.”   If there were no risks of being arrested, it could no doubt be produced even more cheaply.

So, if government subsidized drug production, it could do so cheaply, by removing the profit motive, taking money away from drug gangs, and taking away the incentive for SADs to steal. It’s a huge win for society!

For people who are ideologically opposed to paying for SADs ‘ drugs, let me say   this: You are paying for them already. If openly paying for their treatment or their drugs (whether methadone, Suboxone, or some harder opiate) saves money overall for society, while reducing crime and overdose deaths, why not support it?