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

Top medical experts say we should decriminalize all drugs (2016)

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 377 posts

Re: Top medical experts say we should decriminalize all drugs (2016)

#131

Post by tomp »

alexasmyths wrote: post #98
ekianjo wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But it will increase usage. Not necessarily. When people really want something they will eventually find a way to get it anyway, it's not because you criminalize it that its usage drops. Just like IP infringement has not significantly dropped since they can put people in jail for it.

"Not necessarily. When people really want something they will eventually find a way to get it anyway," No, not true at all. Supply and Demand. The 'cost' of doing drugs in society right now is pretty dam high. Social stigma, the possibility of going to jail, various professional licences lost. The 'free market price' of synthetic heroin and other drugs would be as cheap as sugar. Walk down to the local store and buy…

> The 'cost' of doing drugs in society right now is pretty dam high. Social stigma, the possibility of going to jail, various professional licences lost.

Is it? I've never heard of anyone who wanted to try drugs and was unable to get them. Maybe it's different in the US, but in Europe, you can always find a supplier.

Re: Top medical experts say we should decriminalize all drugs (2016)

#132

Post by DanBC »

leksak wrote: post #35

> decriminalization of all nonviolent drug use and possession What is meant by nonviolent drug use?

You can't be a criminal gang that murders people to smuggle the drugs into the country.

You can't be a criminal gang that forces modern slaves to grow cannabis in squat houses.

You can't be a criminal gang that uses violence to control a street corner.

Re: Top medical experts say we should decriminalize all drugs (2016)

#133

Post by majewsky »

lqdc13 wrote: post #110
lagadu wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most notorious large-scale, well studied example of complete decriminalization, Portugal, shows the opposite to be true[0]. [0] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decr...

That's not true. Usage increased[0,1]. - Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1% [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20110725093536/http://www.idt.…

Does "lifetime use" mean "percentage of people who ever tried it"? If so, I can totally see that. When stuff is legal, more people are going to try it.

However, using it once or a few times is nowhere near being addicted. And all the other bullet points in your source [0] look pretty great:

- Increased uptake of treatment

- Reduction in new HIV diagnoses amongst drug users

- Reduction in drug related deaths

- Drug use among adolescents (13-15 yrs) and "problematic" users declined

- Decreased street value of most illicit drugs, some significantly

Re: Top medical experts say we should decriminalize all drugs (2016)

#134

Post by kobeya »

mythrwy wrote: post #51
fsloth wrote: post #5

Finally. I hope this will signal a turning point on this insane approach to national health in all countries. Drugs are a health problem, not a criminal problem. Lone experts have been fired in western countries when they have expressed this common sense sentiments alone [0]. I hope this groups fares better. Nixon started the war on drugs anyway as a mean to attack left and black activists [1]. Any previous legislati…

Almost every post about drugs on HN has the obligatory bit about Nixon starting the war on drugs. It's like a Shibboleth or something. Nixon probably tried to make political hay out of it sure, but the war against intoxicants has been going on probably since people started using intoxicants. No shortage of earlier historical examples. At most Nixon is a chapter in the ongoing saga. So please, for all that is holy, st…

> Shibboleth

I don't know what that is. Should I?

Re: Top medical experts say we should decriminalize all drugs (2016)

#135

Post by kelnos »

ghettoimp wrote: post #84
Retra wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Violence isn't the only crime one can commit on drugs. Neglect and carelessness can also be criminal acts in some circumstances.

Agreed. Gah... it's such a mess. I totally get the argument that the drug war is insane---it creates a black market, fuels organized crime, puts harmless folks in jails, unfairly targets minorities, and so on. And I generally agree that people should be able to do what they want to their own selves. And yet, drugs are clearly bad, and I fear that legalizing them is a hugely normalizing move. I do like to drink, but i…

> And yet, drugs are clearly bad

No, they aren't. There's a spectrum. Some are bad all the time, some are bad if they're abused. And I'd like to look at it the other way: some are great if not abused. Are we going to continue throw that away because abuse is possible?

> They provide excuses about why they need it and explanations of what it does for them. As an outsider, it seems like total and complete bullshit, and I don't want any part of it.

That is of course your choice, and I have a ton of respect for you for setting your own boundaries and sticking to them, as so many people have trouble doing that (myself included, sometimes!). But at the same time, I and others have different boundaries, and people like you need to stop trying to legislate what those "must" be.

I'm sick of people being told how to live their lives, especially in cases where doing so doesn't harm others. But guess what: sometimes people will harm others, and so you deal with that. Assault is already illegal, whether you're high or not. Maybe penalties for assault should be higher if under the influence of a drug, but that in no way means the drug itself must be made illegal.

I saw a cited stat in this thread somewhere that 1.1M people in the US were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in a recent year. That seems like a lot until you read that 111M people admitted to driving under the influence, whether they were caught or not. I'm not sure what percentage of the 1.1M arrested hurt or killed someone, but even if it was every single one, that's still less than 1% of the total. Also not sure how many of those 111M hurt anyone, but one can expect that to be a pretty small number since alcohol-related car crashes don't often go unnoticed by the police. So it's not even true that people who drive drunk hurt people even a decent percent of the time, let alone a majority. I'm certainly not in favor of legalizing drunk driving, but it's a fine example of how hysteria and fear campaigns make problems seem much larger than they are. I think that's a fine example: alcohol itself isn't illegal, but if you do certain potentially-harmful things while under the influence of it, penalties are higher.

Assuming humanity survives another 100 years, my guess is our current attitude toward drugs will be one of those things that our future counterparts will find crazy, and shake their heads ruefully at those silly primitive past humans.

Re: Top medical experts say we should decriminalize all drugs (2016)

#136

Post by majewsky »

RobertoG wrote: post #125
machiaweliczny wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extensive use of cannabis has such effects from my observations. While at University I knew some people who were smoking weed everyday and they exposed psychosis, acted weird and were lazy. Maybe it's from some other substances that could be mixed with it...

I have observed that people that I knew many years ago and that use weed daily, now have psychological problems. I know it's not a scientific study, but it have changed my mind. Years ago I though that weed was mostly inoffensive. Interestingly, I heard an expert to comment that the weed of now it's not the weed of then, but many times more powerful because the plants have been selected for it.

> I have observed that people that I knew many years ago and that use weed daily, now have psychological problems.

That observation, by itself, does not say anything about what's cause and what's effect. It may very well be that cannabis causes all these things. It may also be that the sort of people who have psychological problems are drawn towards smoking weed either because of these psychological problems (i.e. seeing cannabis use as a relief for mental stress) or because of a common cause of both desire for cannabis and psychological problems.

I'm not saying which is true (not an expert on the subject), just that you cannot deduce it from your observation.

Re: Top medical experts say we should decriminalize all drugs (2016)

#137

Post by majewsky »

microcolonel wrote: post #32
jeffdavis wrote: post #28

"scientific consensus" I am very troubled by this phrase -- it's almost an oxymoron. Science is not democratic, and scientists aren't anointed arbiters of facts. Anyone can be a scientist simply by following the scientific method and collecting data in good faith; and a lone outsider with new data can challenge 100 years of "consensus". Obviously they are subject to challenges themselves, or if it's unlikely enough t…

Yeah, as much as I agree with the policy position, I detest the "scientific consensus" speak. It's exactly the slimy approach to engaging the public which has made something as straightforward as climate change controversial.

The thing that made climate change controversial is the interests (and deep pockets) of the fossil energy lobby. Science communication can be improved, but you can't reasonably blame it for this.

Re: Top medical experts say we should decriminalize all drugs (2016)

#138

Post by lqdc13 »

piva00 wrote: post #119
lqdc13 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. Usage increased[0,1]. - Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1% [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20110725093536/http://www.idt.…

Lifetime usage is a different metric than "repeated usage", people can be more curious about it and try but not necessarily stick to using them. Even more when you have policies in place for education and harm reduction.

You're right[0] but it looks like it depends on age group[1,2].

[0] https://kek.gg/i/6vgYNF.png

[1] https://kek.gg/i/7-w6PD.png

[2] https://kek.gg/i/3Jn4G6.png

Re: Top medical experts say we should decriminalize all drugs (2016)

#139

Post by enord »

fsloth wrote: post #5

Finally. I hope this will signal a turning point on this insane approach to national health in all countries. Drugs are a health problem, not a criminal problem. Lone experts have been fired in western countries when they have expressed this common sense sentiments alone [0]. I hope this groups fares better. Nixon started the war on drugs anyway as a mean to attack left and black activists [1]. Any previous legislati…

I think we passed the turning point some years ago when the medical community decided that harm reduction is more important than patient compliance. As long as doctors insist, the rest of society will come around eventually.

Of course, it took 40+ years of people literally dying in the streets before doctors began "washing their hands" (i.e. prescribing opiates to addicts, particularily non-compliant addicts who take additional drugs).

Re: Top medical experts say we should decriminalize all drugs (2016)

#140

Post by kobeya »

shakna wrote: post #20
ars wrote: post #7

And not just recreational drugs. All drugs. We trust people to manage their own life, this includes medicine. Maybe insurance won't pay for it without a Dr, but if someone wants to self pay, that's their choice.

There's a whole class of drugs guaranteed to kill your child during pregnancy, and another where the interactions may seriously harm the child. Another where two relatively harmless drugs, when interacting, can produce the previous results. It isn't acceptable to just put the risk on the average, uneducated person, who is easily swayed by the way media portrays something. We have experts for a reason, which is to gui…

So have prescriptions and pharmacies. That's a separate argument from decriminalizion.
Post reply on HN