Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kofi Annan on Why It's Time to Legalize Drugs

spiegel.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 376 posts

Re: Kofi Annan on Why It's Time to Legalize Drugs

#271

Post by droffel »

frogpelt wrote: post #268

Forget questions of legality. Stop and ask this question: Why do we as a society need more and more and MORE mind-altering substances to cope with life? Seriously. Is society headed in the right direction if almost everyone needs some type of external chemical influence just to get through the week? I already have an answer.

> Stop and ask this question: Why do we as a society need more and more and MORE mind-altering substances to cope with life?

Citation needed.

> Is society headed in the right direction if almost everyone needs some type of external chemical influence just to get through the week?

Who are you to decide what the "right direction" is, for anyone but yourself? Right vs Wrong is a moral judgement, not a legal one. No one should have the right to tell me what I (or anyone else) can put into my body. On a similar note, I think assisted suicide should be legal as well, but that's a discussion for another day.

Re: Kofi Annan on Why It's Time to Legalize Drugs

#272

Post by dionidium »

rayiner wrote: post #210
soneca wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The history said, in this case, that money and power did not win the dispute, not that their influence does not exist or should be considered negligible. So, if in the case of drugs, society moral standards, money and power are all at the same side; what's the chance of grassroot movement changing the laws? That question was not rethorical, but giving my own answer, I think the path is changing the perceptio…

You're ignoring a morally significant dimension to the problem. Nobody becomes a drug addict by accident. They choose to do drugs and take the risk not just of bodily harm, but of becoming unable to support their families and becoming a burden on society. And your suggestion is that society should spend money to treat them of an illness that was their fault to begin with. I happen to agree with you that treatment, no…

"Nobody becomes a drug addict by accident" is a remarkably ignorant way to describe the process of addiction.

Re: Kofi Annan on Why It's Time to Legalize Drugs

#273

Post by [deleted] »

DanBC wrote: post #262
wfo wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The propaganda was not particularly effective while aimed at children since its primary vehicle was tying opposition of drug use as a way to signal and support racism which was a particular societal trait the children had not yet learned. Opposition of drug use was a way to express racism without actually expressing it once it became taboo following the civil rights era. The racism strategy was a much more powerful a…

The illegality of drugs means that criminal organisations use the manufacture and supply of drugs as one way to make money. Terrorist organisations need to smuggle things into and out of their target country (weapons, money, people) and so they have expertise that they can use to smuggle drugs. This link between terrorist groups and drugs is not new. Even groups who are strongly anti-drugs end up having connections t…

[deleted]

Re: Kofi Annan on Why It's Time to Legalize Drugs

#274

Post by EdHominem »

rayiner wrote: post #210
soneca wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The history said, in this case, that money and power did not win the dispute, not that their influence does not exist or should be considered negligible. So, if in the case of drugs, society moral standards, money and power are all at the same side; what's the chance of grassroot movement changing the laws? That question was not rethorical, but giving my own answer, I think the path is changing the perceptio…

You're ignoring a morally significant dimension to the problem. Nobody becomes a drug addict by accident. They choose to do drugs and take the risk not just of bodily harm, but of becoming unable to support their families and becoming a burden on society. And your suggestion is that society should spend money to treat them of an illness that was their fault to begin with. I happen to agree with you that treatment, no…

> Nobody becomes a drug addict by accident.

Not true. Many people reasonably take the pills their doctor gives them and end up with an addiction.

> That poses another moral question: if drugs are harmful and addictive, why can't society ban people from selling them

Because you can't. It failed. It's not a moral question. In fact, that's specifically the problem.

> but voters aren't driven by cost-benefit analysis.

So, what of it? We should keep doing things we know don't work because the uninformed don't understand?

Re: Kofi Annan on Why It's Time to Legalize Drugs

#275

Post by seany »

atemerev wrote: post #200
Kenji wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drug use being legal is an intermediary step, but pointless if possession and trade of drugs is illegal. Since you aways have to obtain and possess drugs in order to comsume them, drugs are still illegal. I don't even know based on what law this organization can administer clean drugs. But yes, Switzerland is doing a better job at fighting drug crime than a lot of other countries.

This is handled quite elegantly here. Possession of drugs remains illegal indeed (we are not talking about marijuana here — this is about "hard" drugs). But you can come to one of Quai9 centres and there are drugs available directly from the government (I am not sure whether for free or for nominal price — perhaps the latter), all of Swiss pharmaceutical quality. Heroin is definitely available (the personnel will try…

You can own ammo there. Range practice ammo given out in support of the militia requirements can't leave the range.

Re: Kofi Annan on Why It's Time to Legalize Drugs

#276

Post by filoeleven »

robmcm wrote: post #20

It will be interesting to see what happens when we reach a position where virtual drugs are possible, or virtual reality can be as addictive and detrimental to ones life as being addicted to chemicals. Can you ban math(s)?

We have already had a virtual drug in widespread use since the 1940s: television. You can hook TV watchers up to scanners to see just how much it alters their brain patterns. Its effects aren't even subtle when it comes to their physical behavior either, it's just so culturally accepted to be "couch surfing" as to be perceived as normal.

If tens of millions of people took a pill and sat basically unmoving for upwards of three hours each day, experiencing the lightshow generated by their own mind in concert with the pill, the squares would be in an uproar!

Re: Kofi Annan on Why It's Time to Legalize Drugs

#277

Post by Torgo »

droffel wrote: post #270
Torgo wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we should legalize organized crime instead of drugs. The logic is about the same.

How are legalizing drugs and legalizing crime in any way analogous? Legalizing crime doesn't even make sense, by definition.

Extralegal mobs that keep out drug dealers.

Re: Kofi Annan on Why It's Time to Legalize Drugs

#278

Post by linkregister »

ghayes wrote: post #164
rayiner wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government persists with the drug war because Americans have a moral opposition to drug use: http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2014/study-public-fe... . When I was a kid in the 1990's, 70-80% of polled adults wanted to make even marijuana illegal. For drugs aside from marijuana, that's still the case. Your alternate theories about money and control directly contradict the history of prohibition. Did you kno…

I feel you're right that, at the end of the day, prohibition has been based on public opinion. That said, the government does benefit from reasons OP mentioned, and thus politicians may be likely to push an agenda that strongly supports a war on drugs when speaking to constituents, rather than having an open conversation about the pros and cons of decriminalization.

I think you're conflating the motives of agencies within the Executive branch with members of the legislature.

While it may be possible (for the sake of argument) that the DEA and CIA are extremely self-interested in the status quo, I fail to see the link to a career politician, who answers to corporate and private donors and sometimes constituents.

A congressman and an agency head have orthogonal goals and are accountable to vastly different interests.

Re: Kofi Annan on Why It's Time to Legalize Drugs

#279

Post by alvarosm »

jernfrost wrote: post #219
adrianm wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is virtually drug free? In that case, Wikipedia could use your help cleaning up this and many related articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade_in_China Don't forget to cite your sources! They're sticklers about that sort of thing.

> how China became drug free after Britain made China into the biggest dope user through the Opium wars. I referring to the period following the opium ban. I believe this was the 50s, not the present day. We are also comparing to an insanely high level were the claims was that 90% of inhabitants of certain provinces were users.

If you're referring to the 1850s that's simply false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_opium_in_China#/med...

If you're referring to the decades since the 1950s, under a communist regime the Chinese obviously had better things to worry about (like surviving, finding a meal or looking commie enough not to be singled out by their own children and 're-educated' in some hellish camp).

Re: Kofi Annan on Why It's Time to Legalize Drugs

#280

Post by dragonwriter »

logicrook wrote: post #264
cichli wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Nobody becomes a drug addict by accident." If I choose to take drugs without the intention of becoming addicted, and I become addicted, then yes, I became addicted by accident. Even if I was aware of the risks of becoming addicted. Much like how if I decide to drive my car without the intention of hitting anyone, then if I hit someone, it is deemed an accident. Even if I was aware of the risks of hitting someone wit…

The analogy is "I decide to drive my car" while drunk "then I hit someone". In which case you are responsible. There is no accident. It's all a question of probabilities and risk. The probability to hit someone while driving normally are pretty weak, and the consequences fairly low in normal circumstances (i.e. while you respect every law). When drunk, the probabilities go through the roof, as well as how damaging th…

> The analogy is "I decide to drive my car" while drunk "then I hit someone".

That's an analogy, but so is just driving. There is a risk of being presented with a situation in which you cannot avoid hitting someone every time you drive (the risk is significantly greater if you drink, but it is present irrespective.) If knowing that a risk exists with an action is sufficient to make it "not an accident" if the risk materializes when you have chosen to take the action, even when you have no intention for the risk to materialize, and even the contrary intention, then there is no such thing as an "accidental" collision -- whether with a pedestrian or another vehicle -- while driving.

If that principle, OTOH, is invalid and it is possible to have an accidental collision when driving, then the principle cannot be invoked to argue that no one becomes addicted to drugs accidentally.

Post reply on HN