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

151–160 of 377 posts

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

#151

Post by lima »

blubb-fish wrote: post #82

Here in Germany politicians are still stating that Cannabis is a gateway drug, causes psychosis and makes stupid. They will even actively lie and twist statistics. My theory for why many politicians - especially from the right-wing - are so opposed is b/c they didn't like their weed smoking and long-haired fellow students. It's a Pavlov thing. Like many people dislike golf (justly so in my humble opinion) b/c they di…

I'm strongly in favor of legalization, but I still believe Cannabis is dangerous (just like alcohol, tobacco and countless other legal drugs are).

It's a well known fact that it can trigger psychosis in susceptible persons and I have even witnessed it happen to a close friend.

It also had hugely detrimental effects on some of my weed-smoking friends, to the point that I no longer want to spend time with them since it affected their personality. I also know people who smoke it daily without any (visible) negative effects whatsoever..

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

#152

Post by blubb-fish »

lima wrote: post #151
blubb-fish wrote: post #82

Here in Germany politicians are still stating that Cannabis is a gateway drug, causes psychosis and makes stupid. They will even actively lie and twist statistics. My theory for why many politicians - especially from the right-wing - are so opposed is b/c they didn't like their weed smoking and long-haired fellow students. It's a Pavlov thing. Like many people dislike golf (justly so in my humble opinion) b/c they di…

I'm strongly in favor of legalization, but I still believe Cannabis is dangerous (just like alcohol, tobacco and countless other legal drugs are). It's a well known fact that it can trigger psychosis in susceptible persons and I have even witnessed it happen to a close friend. It also had hugely detrimental effects on some of my weed-smoking friends, to the point that I no longer want to spend time with them since it…

it definitely should be used in moderation.

regarding psychosis - if you compare weed consumption with number of schizophrenic diagnoses then the idea that weed causes schizophrenia can be easily falsified.

but - of course - any psycho active substance can and will impair the mind of somebody consuming it irresponsibly.

a lot of people micro dose weed - less than 0.05g per consumption unit - that's not going to cause any issues.

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

#153

Post by vidarh »

DanBC wrote: post #142
shakna wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Which country are you talking about? This treatment plan for a person with borderlinePD is likely to cause harm. > where the psychologist practices Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (as CBT is the only government-approved therapy), which has no affect CBT is a short form therapy, normally about 8 weeks. Do not use brief psychological interventions of less than 3 months. https://www.nice.org.uk/donotdo/do-not-use-brief-psy…

I don't know whether you or the person you're replying to is more correct, but it doesn't change their point: That these decisions are not something the average person should be making for themselves. If anything, your disagreement kind of makes the point even clearer.

Maybe there might be an argument for people to be able to choose to obtain drugs like the ones mentioned by GP, but not without some kind of control-mechanism to at a bare minimum ensure they have been presented with the risks and have given some level of demonstration that they understand them.

E.g. I quite like the mechanism now in place for online pharmacies in the UK, where you can buy prescription drugs like Viagra, or OTC but restricted products like Daktacort (combination anti-fungal and steroids), but need to convince a doctor (for the former) or pharmacist (for the latter) in writing that you've at least bothered to read what they've written about the drugs (since nothing stops you from just faking the symptoms, but you at least need to describe relevant symptoms free-form semi-coherently, or they'll do additional checks before selling to you).

It has weaknesses, and certainly won't stop people from abusing abusable drugs, but it at least makes it possible to pick up on the most idiotic attempts at misusing drugs they don't even understand.

Alternatively, I've used PushDoctor a couple of times - a UK service that connects you with an actual GP via video chat; the last time it took me 10 minutes from I scheduled an appointment until I'd uploaded pictures of a rash, had a conversation with the GP and had the prescription passed to a local pharmacy electronically; even if one were to consider taking away their "gatekeeper" role in terms of letting them deny treatments they don't think are necessary, I don't think it'd be unreasonable to still at least require a consultation like that for the most dangerous drugs to give an opportunity to at least inform.

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

#154

Post by avip »

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…

Strict hard science is not applicable for vague questions s.a "should drugs usage be legal". We are not going to conduct a series of controlled experiments.

We're left with a collection of statistical observations, polluted by various uncontrolled externals ("this is Portugal", "that is Netherlands").

The only sensible way to reconcile the different outcomes in a manner the mob can understand is using the annoying term "scientific consensus"

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

#155

Post by kgwgk »

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.

> people can be more curious about it and try but not necessarily stick to using them

Yeah, it's not like they are addictive or anything.

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

#156

Post by yodsanklai »

anythingnonidin wrote: post #21

Some reasons for decriminalization of use and possession, summarized: (i.e., removing criminal penalties or making it no jail time possible, but not government supplied) - War on drugs has failed. Criminalization has consequences on community - in many cases, most of the negative effects come from the criminalization, not the drug. - Consensual crimes that don’t harm others shouldn’t be crimes. - Drug prohibition doe…

I think you're missing the most important reason. As an informed adult, I should be free to grow and smoke (or vaporize) weed in the privacy of my home because I don't hurt anyone.

Freedom should be the default and interdiction should come with very good reasons (and not the other way around).

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

#157

Post by vidarh »

microcolonel wrote: post #29
rectang wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main reason we won't get decriminalization is moral panic. :( But if we did... There are still better and worse ways to make drugs available. Same as with alcohol, addicts doing high volume are where the money is -- and it's better to design regimes that prevent commercial actors from abusing vulnerable populations. Mark Kleiman has a lot of great stuff to say on the subject.

> and it's better to design regimes that prevent commercial actors from abusing vulnerable populations. Unless we're looking to apply the law inconsistently based on some arbitrary prejudice of "vulnerability", this would seem to be basically what we're already doing. Any decriminalization approach which criminalizes access for addicts almost defeats the purpose according to your own rubric.

Consider that some countries have state monopoly stores for wine and stronger alcoholic drinks, and most no longer allow advertising for alcohol.

Similarly, consider the option of regulations like those in place for pharmacies in some countries, that e.g. requires the pharmacist to ensure you are aware of certain risks, but doesn't prevent you from buying.

Consider the way some countries now requires tobacco to be out of view and with health warnings all over or no branding.

In other words: There are mechanisms you can put in place that legalizes drugs fully, but still heavily restricts commercial entities ability to try to take advantage of peoples weaknesses.

Personally I believe even drugs like heroin should be legal, on the basis of harm reduction, but at the same time, I don't see a problem with e.g. restricting where it can be sold and ensuring that it's sold in plain packaging, no advertising is allowed, and to e.g. have a pharmacist inform you of the risks before selling it. I don't think that threshold will be high enough to make people go to a dealer, but it may still reduce abuse.

In the UK there are restrictions on how many pills of paracetamol (acetaminophen) and ibuprofen you can buy at a time, for example. In pharmacies you can buy up to 32 of each at a time, while elsewhere only up to 16 of each at a time. Those restrictions were put in place because of overdose deaths, and they appear to have saved hundreds of lives so far, while being lenient enough not to drive anyone to a black market.

So while I think we should be allowed to buy pretty much whatever drugs we want, we can combine that with making it sufficiently unattractive that you're not buying them on a whim.

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

#158

Post by closeparen »

anythingnonidin wrote: post #21

Some reasons for decriminalization of use and possession, summarized: (i.e., removing criminal penalties or making it no jail time possible, but not government supplied) - War on drugs has failed. Criminalization has consequences on community - in many cases, most of the negative effects come from the criminalization, not the drug. - Consensual crimes that don’t harm others shouldn’t be crimes. - Drug prohibition doe…

>Criminalization has consequences on community

Mass addiction has consequences on community.

> Consensual crimes that don’t harm others shouldn’t be crimes

People who self-destruct rarely do so in a vacuum. The community, and specifically their families, are harmed. Just look at what addiction as a public health crisis is doing to the places ravaged by opioid abuse.

> Drug war enforcement costs a ton

A drugged out, non-productive population costs a ton.

I'm for decriminalization because we've had enough time to determine that prison and lifelong unemployability (via criminal records) cause massive damage while not actually serving as deterrents. Still in favor of using force to reduce the prevalence of life-wrecking drugs, i.e. mandatory treatment, but it has to be less life-wrecking than the drug.

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

#159

Post by RobertoG »

majewsky wrote: post #136
RobertoG wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. se…

Something, of course, subjective, that makes me think in causality is that you can appreciate changes that are not present in other people with mental problems.

Just to be clear, I'm talking about heavy users here, not occasional users.

I don't think is a so strange prior to have. After all, heavy use of almost anything, have secondary effects.

I understand, this is an observation, not an experiment.

Anyway, as a follower of Bayes, I have updated my probabilities.

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

#160

Post by pjc50 »

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…

> think tanks

I'm not sure what you think a think tank is, but they're basically either (a) PR organisations, especially the ones with opaque funding or (b) some guy with a letterhead and skill at getting articles published. They certainly aren't impartial in any way.

I'd much prefer my policy research to be done by civil service bodies which might at least nominally be impartial.

I don't think it's feasible to impose a boundary between science and politics. If scientists think that something is both true and important, then why should they not speak up about it? Especially if they believe that doing so will save lives.

Post reply on HN