Didn't intend to be patronizing. Not everyone has witnessed the problem with their own eyes. They're left with the cartoon version of crack, the version they witness on shows like Dave Chappelle. Do I really think locking people up is what solved that problem? Short answer NO, but does cutting out the supply help? Yes. And in conjunction with treatment programs it's/was a start.

The first two sentences in this comment add nothing to the discussion. Is this kind of thing ok on HN these days?

I felt the comment was talking down about the crack epidemic. It's probably a function of age and location, but for some people (such as those with a history in the hardest-hit cities) it isn't that distant, as if to be something you'd look up on Wikipedia because you've never heard of it. I don't think that's all too unreasonable.

Your comment, on the other hand, does nothing but say that my comment is worthless.

The community here has shifted it seems. Comments like mine that questioned the way in which we argue used to be encouraged.

I would say that playing to populist fears explains just about everything related to "tough on crime" politicians. It's also curious that the same "tough on crime" politicians seem for the most part surprisingly uninterested in the root causes of crime, such as poverty or lack of access to education.

Are you really sure that if there were no poverty and everyone had lots of education that there wouldn't be that kind of crime? Where are your real-world data to back up that idea?

Draw a map of drug-related violence. Draw a map of poverty. Same map?

No, actually, and you would readily observe that fact if you did just what you are suggesting that I do.

Correlation != causation. Come on - you're not even trying.