Batman and His Stance On Drugs

When he's not battling one of his many psychotic villains, one of the go-to "normal" criminals that writers like to show Batman fighting are drug dealers, as seen in numerous comics, Under The Red Hood, and The Dark Knight. I also recall a Superfriends PSA, which I would have linked on here, but I can't seem to find it on Youtube.

While it's justified for Batman to not want Scarecrow's fear toxin or Joker's laughing gas used or distributed to the public, where is he coming from in regards to fighting drugs?

Before anyone starts, this is NOT a thread complaining about drug laws. I'm keeping my opinions on the matter to myself and I invite everyone else to do the same. However, looking at Batman as a person, it seems very out of character for him to go out and fight drug dealers.

First off, it can't be because that drugs are against the law (for the purpose of this thread, I'm assuming Gotham's laws outlaw most drugs such as marijuana). Batman has been well documented as turning a blind eye towards most petty and minor crimes - preferring to focus on his supervillains, robberies, and major threats to Gotham. You never see him chase down a speeding driver or break up bar fights and he's totally willing to allow the Penguin to operate his little money laundering operation at the Iceberg Lounge provided that Cobblepott is quiet and gives him occasional info. And, of course, he always lets Catwoman go. Even barring that - he himself is a vigilante which, by its definition, is against the law.

Secondly, Batman has been shown to use drugs himself in multiple adaptations. In his early appearances he smoked a pipe and in Batman Begins, he used that blue flower to acheive a halluciantory effect. While these two aren't really accepeted as main continuity, even in the comics he was shown using Venom to enhance his crimefighting ability far before Bane even appeared. In fact, he became so addicted that he forced Alfred to lock him in the Batcave for a month so he could recover cold turkey.

So what I'm asking you all is why Batman fights drugs and why it is or isn't justified for him to do so.

In a place like Gotham there's only one group of people who sell the drugs. Big beefy and angry mafias and gangs.

Every penny that they make off selling drugs goes towards funding their other businesses, like weapons trafficking, slave trafficking, etc.

If you really want to hurt these groups of people you need to cut off their biggest source of income and let them bleed out. And oftentimes their biggest source of income is drug trafficking, usually followed by weapons trafficking.

edited 10th Jan '14 2:19:52 PM by LeGarcon

Batman's main enemy is against organised crime. Gangsters and criminal organisations are his main rogues up until supervillains start popping up and even after that he'll still find time to stop them in down times. The bulk of the TDK trilogy was Batman trying to put an end to organised crime and after the Dent act he basically goes into exile.

Organised crime is largely built around drug distribution. I don't know what Batman's personal stance is on drugs like cocaine or heroin but it can't be denied that distribution of drugs, at least under current US/Gotham laws has lead to a lot of gang related violence and murder. Whether or not Batman cares about a possession charge he definitely cares about putting people in who were responsible for homicides.

Since when does Batman turn a blind eye to petty crime? I just assumed the reason you don't see him arresting pimps and weed dealers is because it's both more important and more exciting to see him tackle a disfigured guy with a tommygun.

That's what I've always assumed. I know there have been those little Cold Opening bits where he's delivering flying scissor kicks to really petty crooks.

But he's just one dude in a bat outfit and can only be so many places at once. I'm sure some pickpocket got away because he's too busy battling a dude with a freeze ray.

Because they are criminals who occasionally shoot at each other and might just leave an 8 year old boy orphaned with no parents on accident?

Why wouldn't he fight drug dealers?

Batman seems to combat any crime that could potentially lead to violence. The drug dealing that we see him fight falls under that category.

The only times I've seen Batman turn a blind eye to any crime it's when: it's something he regularly commits while being Batman; he's decided to make an exception for a specific individual; that version of Gotham city is so corrupt it won't get dealt anyway.

It could be interesting to see a Batman like hero argue for legalization of drugs though; using the argument that there are worse crimes that need dealing with.

That kind of thing is more Green Arrow's shtick. Batman is pretty right wing on his stances, he wages a war on crime but has little interest in actually trying to deal with the factors that might have lead to that in the first place. We get the occasional scene about donating to charity or handing out Wayne Enterprises business cards to random poor people to get them off the street but you're not going to see him do much social crusading the way Oliver would.

True enough, but I was thinking of the often right wing police officers who would support legalisation because of their own experiences with the war on drugs. I actually had a more fleshed out idea in my mind which relied on the apparent clash of values, but it took form and evaporated within the space of a minute.

It depends on the version; Pre-Nu52 you had stories like 'A Day In the Life of Bruce Wayne' showing the daily life of Bruce as he fights crime both as Bruce Wayne and Batman. Batman: TAS and The Batman versions were big on helping Gotham via Wayne Enterprises. Come to think of it, the Bronze Age version was also doing just that; I read stories where he is taking kids on camping trips as Bruce Wayne (don't go there) and once took a group of kids on his Batmobile to teach them an environmental lesson.

So I would say more of than not, he is fights crime both as Batman and Bruce Wayne.

Batman's priorities are a combination of what the writers say they should be, along with whatever the current moral consensus of the readership accepts they should be. Originally, Batman, like most superheroes, was about some fortunate and skilled person beating the crap out of less-fortunate people who aren't playing by the rules of the society that made them less-fortunate. The government cut the funding for your device that would stop pollution? You grew up in poverty and learned to do petty crime before getting superpowers? You're disillusioned with the world and allowed a demonic entity to possess you? You were a scientist whose employer screwed you and your sick, frozen wife? TOO BAD.

If real-life consensus between the writers and readers is that the War on Drugs is the most important fight ever, then Batman will treat it as such. If the consensus is that drugs mean nothing compared to terrorism and corporate corruption, then that will be Batman's priority.

Keep in mind though, there are many unfortunate people that have been screwed over by the government who DON't commit violent crimes against each other.

Batman's deal shouldn't be that he cares about crime so much as crime that is hurting people. Especially innocent people.

He isn't about providing the guiding light and fixing the underlying causes. That's Superman's job. Batman is there to track down serial killers, stop gang wars, prevent gas attacks on hospitals, stop mobs hits on honest cops etc. He is ultimately the guy who responds to disasters rather than curing the underlying causes because ultimately he is much more effective at the former than the latter because well the latter is really damn hard and takes forever and certain shinier more publicly likable heroes are already on the case. Batman should look at all the heroes who are trying to cure societies woes at its source and say to himself "but what about all the people who die along the way? Who spends all their time concerning their well being? I can do that."

By all means in his Bruce Wayne personae he should be setting up daycares and community centers for low income families and encouraging counseling and all the other means by which you curb long term crime. But that is Bruce Wayne's job not Batman's. Batman is concerning himself with all the people who might get hurt in the 25 years or so it actually takes for the curative efforts to actually take hold.

edited 11th Jan '14 2:02:29 PM by Canid117

It's a bit simplistic to say that Batman should fight the symptoms and not the disease. In fact, seeing as how his arrival also created many costumed villains in his wake, he can arguably be said to have made the symptoms worse.

edited 11th Jan '14 2:18:00 PM by KingZeal

Technically speaking the writer made things worse. But Doylist explanations aside Batman keeps the symptoms in check and he should. Fighting the disease should be the work of Bruce Wayne. Batman can't set up a free day care that keeps poor children off the street and out of trouble. Batman can't run a network of counselors that keeps teenagers from turning to gangs. Batman can't run a political campaign that keeps a corrupt Mayoral candidate from winning office. Batman by his very nature is a responsive measure. He was created to break the iron hold of the mob on the city and he succeeded fairly well in that regard. The mob is still around to a degree but they do not run the city like they once did. Now his job is to prevent lesser criminals and costumed crazies who filled the power vacuum (with a more ostentatious form of crime but less dangerous overall) from hurting people until the treatment for the disease kicks in.

The problem is that the kinds of things that lowers long term crime like counseling infrastructure, good schools etc takes decades to have a noticeable impact. Comic-Book Time is whats to blame for making us think that Batman is ineffectual. To us Gotham has been a horrid hellhole with only incremental improvement for 40 years. In universe its been 5 to 10.

And is Batman really responsible for the costumed crazies? The only one he really maybe created was the Joker and that is a maybe and even if true was entirely on accident. Batman didn't give Mr Freeze's wife a disease. Batman didn't turn Poison Ivy into a plant person. Batman didn't turn Penguin into a poisonous little troll. Batman didn't inject the Riddler with OCD Narcissim juice. Batman didn't hypnotize Catwoman into having kleptomania. Batman didn't get Mad Hatter hooked on mind games and the Lolita fandom. All Batman did was bring down the mob which is exactly what needed to be done if the city was to improve.

Most of his arch enemies would still have taken to crime, even if he hadn't been there. Most of the Gotham Rogues' origins aren't actually directly tied to Batman- Killer Croc was born that way, Clayface would have stumped into the same chemicals all the same, Riddler actually began taking on the police before even learning Batman was real, Poison Ivy began her path to crime in Seattle, Bane would have just found himself someone else to fixate on in Peña Dura, Freeze would have been screwed by his employers all the same, and so on.

edited 11th Jan '14 2:48:54 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

Batman was about a privileged guy with a tragic back story beating up other privileged guys the common man wanted to beat up himself but was too scared or too resource lacking to. (quite a few of them "worked their way up" but only after they were ejected from the system on their own. Everyone told Capone he was a promising student, so he attack his teachers and joined a gang) He was basically Zoro of his time. Replace politicians and conquistadors who nobody can get rid of with mobsters nobody seems to be able to touch, a sword with a batarang, a horse with a car.

Batman's original enemies were essentially glorified drug dealers. On the other hand, people now buy their drugs (alcohol) legally.

So to answer the question about Batman's stance on drugs, Batman is outdated. Batman's reasons for being against drugs are now irrelevant and if he was allowed to continue to grow as a character his stance against them would have changed to "legalize stuff not as dangerous as alcohol or tobacco". (Weed, which can cause brain damage in minors, is less dangerous). But DC has tried to eat its pudding before its meat. Zoro was made for pre-union California and Batman for 1930s Illinois (uh...Gotham). Rather than upgrade the concept for a new era (00-10, fighting whatever other rich guy the common is too scared or too unable to punch in the face) it is trying to keep the same era concept even though it no longer exists. (The suit gangsters have been displaced sweat pants wearing gang bangers-which is again almost completely their own fault)

Movie writers can solve this by pretending the mob/mafia is still a big deal so Batman can still beat them up (such as the Christopher Nolan movies) but the weekly comic book writer is just going to substitute whatever current problem of Chicago's seems most punchable, when they do not feel like using Batman's large rogues gallery.

Speaking as someone who lives in Chicago's most murderous neighborhood, Batman would only be doing any good if he actually lived here instead of just visiting when his fists start itching.

Um...are you saying that the war on drugs isn't still a thing or that gangs and drug distribution networks don't exist anymore?

So Mexico has just been setting off fireworks really really enthusiastically the last few years?

Thats nice.

No, I am saying bootleggers and mobsters, Batman's original opponents, are gone. Yes, there are still drug dealers in Chicago, but they are of a much different breed. They do not own the police, businesses and politicians so there is not so much of "I wish somebody would just punch them" feeling.

It is practically the opposite, "That guy only got a fine for trying to have sex with an 13 year old but my cousin Juana is in jail for growing some cannabis?" There might still be some societal element the general population wishes a giant Bat randomly swoop down and eat but it is no longer substance pushers. (Except maybe Methamphetamine) It may not even be in Chicago (in the sense the Conquistadors and other Spanish interests no longer run California, thus it is hard to imagine what a modern Zoro would be doing there, unless you just ignored reality and acted like they never left)

Drugs aren't victimless crimes. I know you're probably thinking of the harmless pothead college student, but drugs really are bad. First off, as others have stated, the sale of drugs, even less harmful ones like weed, funds crime lords. Second is that hard drugs like cocaine and meth RUIN people's lives and often kill them from overdoses. It's no wonder Batman wouldn't tolerate them.

Assuming that was directed at me, I do not think of potheads as "harmless" or know of any currently enrolled. I just think it is silly for regular raids to be made a block away from me over weed when there are more dangerous criminals on that same street and the substance itself is less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol.

I am saying that Batman was specifically created to punch and throw boomerangs at people the police could not touch, even if they strolled around in broad daylight with charges they should have by rights been prosecuted for. I am saying the racketeers of old resembled that a lot more than anyone illegally selling stimulants or narcotics in modern day Illinois...so long as that was directed at me.

Fun fact. Those more dangerous criminals you are worried about? A good number of them probably sell weed as its a simple and lucrative business with a large customer base.

edited 11th Jan '14 8:01:22 PM by Canid117

I was referring to the topic questioning why Batman goes after "harmless" drug dealers.