Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

161–170 of 377 posts

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

#161
post #117
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Agreed. >...Nixon started the war on drugs anyway as a mean to attack left and black activists This point is a little controversial, in, as far as I know, we have to take Ehrlichman's word on this. https://www.quora.com/Is-John-Ehrlichman-a-credible-source-…

As a follow-up, even though Nixon expanded treatment shouldn't we still blame him for the rhetorics that aggravated the "war on drugs" for the rest of the planet? It's after Nixon "war on drugs" stance that we begin to see harsher and harsher penalties for possession, criminalisation of usage (and this still applies here in Sweden, it's not only illegal to buy, sell or possess drugs but also to take them, if it's det…

why does it have to about who we 'blame'? Why not go back to the CIA and how they wanted to undermine the social & political revolutions of the 60s & 70s? why not go back to 'reefer madness' and the how it was based almost solely in fear and racism, or how William Randolph Hearst's paper & publishing 'empire' was threatened by hemp? does any of that matter? Not really.

We have a problem now that we need to fix. We don't need to dwell in the past or blame people. We're more knowledgeable now - so we need to use that knowledge to fix the problems - or at least work with / around them to the betterment of people.

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

#162

"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…

> "scientific consensus"

> I am very troubled by this phrase -- it's almost an oxymoron.

Yes, so if scientists do reach consensus, it must mean something special, and you better take note.

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

#163
post #110
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.…

'lifetime use' could have also increased due to people not being afraid to admit past use after decriminalization. Was there a control for that?

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

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we leave the Rx system as is, in that we still let pharmacists do their job and protect their mainstream normal patients and give good standard of care, but any party drugs where there is already a clandestine market become OTC. i.e. if you want some weird medicine for some weird thing that no one else wants, you'll have to go through the steps to get a Rx for it. But it won't be hard to get. Because once add…

I just wish we could do away with having to get the prescription in the first place and have the pharmacist be the gatekeeper. You keep a medical history on file so they can quickly figure out if the medication you want is likely to cause complications. Then I don't have to leave work and meet with my doctor every few weeks/months to get another prescription which I then have to take to the drug store and wait to get…

In the UK we now have at least three alternatives (other than "grey market" import; most prescription drugs outside of narcotics can be legally imported to the UK for personal use):

For OTC drugs with restrictions, online pharmacies can sell subject to asking you sufficient questions (and potentially doing a followup call if you answers raises questions). This covers drugs like steroid creams and the like which may have risks, but are usually ok.

For prescription drugs, online pharmacies can likewise sell to you if they have you fill in a questionnaire and a qualified GP agrees to write a prescription for you. This is increasingly done for low risk but prescription only drugs like Viagra.

The mechanisms above are simple enough that even though buying from e.g. companies shipping from Indian manufacturers is trivial in the UK, I'll prefer UK online pharmacies when possible as the extra hassle is minimal and they're better regulated.

Alternatively there's a service called Push Doctor (I've got no connection to them other than being a satisfied user) that lets you have an actual conversation with a doctor over a video chat (+ text chat and ability to upload images) after which they can issue you a prescription that gets sent electronically to the nearest pharmacy. I've tried it twice - once I got seen within an hour, the other time in less than 10 minutes, and the prescriptions were ready within half an hour in both cases, so I could just wait for a text message and go pick it up when it was ready.

It's a fantastic service - the only downside is it's private only, and while the consultations aren't expensive (28 pounds or 20/month), for more expensive prescriptions it's not great as you'd be paying full price for the drugs (but you do have the option of e.g. use them for diagnosis and go see your GP to get an NHS prescription if they think you need anything expensive, so you at least avoid having to visit your GP for minor things); I'd love to see this service get a deal with the NHS...

With the above setup there's very little reason to take risks as the barriers are low enough for most people to have very little reason to circumvent them.

I do agree with you though that for most drugs delegating it to a pharmacist would probably provide a good enough barrier - at least in the UK, and I suspect most other places too, they're well educated. When it isn't we should ask why. E.g. are doctors looking for signs of any issues? If those issues are simple enough and there's low enough abuse potential, then either let pharmacists do it or standardize a questionnaire.

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

#165
post #117
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Agreed. >...Nixon started the war on drugs anyway as a mean to attack left and black activists This point is a little controversial, in, as far as I know, we have to take Ehrlichman's word on this. https://www.quora.com/Is-John-Ehrlichman-a-credible-source-…

As a follow-up, even though Nixon expanded treatment shouldn't we still blame him for the rhetorics that aggravated the "war on drugs" for the rest of the planet? It's after Nixon "war on drugs" stance that we begin to see harsher and harsher penalties for possession, criminalisation of usage (and this still applies here in Sweden, it's not only illegal to buy, sell or possess drugs but also to take them, if it's det…

[deleted]

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

#166

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…

Cannibis can cause psychosis in some people, just type "cannabis psychosis" into google scholar.

The common rebuttal against this is "those people were vulnerable to psychosis from the get-go", but what does that mean when, without cannabis use, those persons might have gone their whole lives without a psychotic episode?

Edit: if you carefully read my post you might notice I'm not saying cannabis should be illegal.

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

#167
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

That's not how it works. There are many potential triggers for psychosis in general (and schizophrenia in particular), and there are reputable studies which show that cannabis consumption is one of them.

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

I think it's safe to say that even responsible use can have negative effects for some people.

Likewise, the claim that micro dosing is not going to cause issues at all is unfounded and dangerous. We simply don't know enough about it to make such claims (enabling scientific research is a big argument for legalization!).

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

#168
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll agree with consumption not being punishable but a medically treatable issue. Misditribution (illegal distribution) of controlled dugs (not over the counter) should be punishable --whether they be doctors who knowingly over prescribe or black market sellers (drug dealers).

You cannot avoid the nasty social effects of drug prohibition (crime, violence, contamination, etc) without making distribution legal. If you want to live in a world without homeless junkies breaking into your car, or a world without running gun battles in the street, or a world without your wayward kids accidentally ODing on their next batch, you need drugs like cocaine and heroin to be sold openly and affordably at…

"Help the addict but punish the dealer" is the Portugal drug policy though, and it's proven effective enough.

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

#169
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a follow-up, even though Nixon expanded treatment shouldn't we still blame him for the rhetorics that aggravated the "war on drugs" for the rest of the planet? It's after Nixon "war on drugs" stance that we begin to see harsher and harsher penalties for possession, criminalisation of usage (and this still applies here in Sweden, it's not only illegal to buy, sell or possess drugs but also to take them, if it's det…

why does it have to about who we 'blame'? Why not go back to the CIA and how they wanted to undermine the social & political revolutions of the 60s & 70s? why not go back to 'reefer madness' and the how it was based almost solely in fear and racism, or how William Randolph Hearst's paper & publishing 'empire' was threatened by hemp? does any of that matter? Not really. We have a problem now that we need to fix. We do…

I don't think that any reasonable person at any point thought that blaming is a solution.

It's just important to direct blame so we can understand history and how events unfolded from that point, there are people and policies to blame and a chain reaction of events which culminated in our current situation, not necessarily we're dwelling in the past pointing fingers and then feeling good that something was solved.

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

#170
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What scientific results are you googling exactly? Everything I can find shows a strong consensus that coffee has positive effects across the board. This seems like a good summary: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/upshot/more-consensus-on-... Highlight from that article: >There have been two meta-analyses published within the last year or so. The first reviewed 20 studies, including almost a million people, and the…

Well, at least anecdotally regular caffeine (several cups per day) intake messes up your energy level, sleep patterns, etc. And if you mess with your adrenal glands, there could be subtle and long-lasting effects on your energy and mood.

That's a high intake, though.

A cup of day has solely positive effects, as far as I can tell from reading the research.

All things in moderation and moderation in all things.

Post reply on HN