Top medical experts say we should decriminalize all drugs (2016) • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by tertius » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 2:31 PM UTC

rublev wrote: post #240

coleifer wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dope costs money. When you've got a habit and no job, how are you going to pay? People steal to support their habits. Little children have their childhood stolen because their parents were addicts. People crash cars and kill people. That's why drugs are illegal.

Video games costs money. When you've got a habit and no job, how are you going to pay? People steal to support their habits. Little children have their childhood stolen because their parents were always gaming. People crash cars and kill people because their attention is on their little screen. That's why video games should be illegal. You can do this with literally anything.

> You can do this with literally anything.

Yes you can. But the evidence shows that crime related to supporting a drug habit actually exists compared to a Facebook habit.

Addiction comes in many flavors. Gaming addiction don't add substances to your body that your body cannot produce and regulate by itself.

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

#262

Post by ythn » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 2:33 PM UTC

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…

> Drugs are a health problem, not a criminal problem.

Well, I would say they are both.

They are a health problem because of the addiction factors. They are a criminal problem because of what people are willing to do to get drugs when they run out of money.

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

#263

Post by jasonmaydie » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 2:33 PM UTC

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.

Well then let us drive, sell food and perform medical treatments without licenses too. Your argument is far too simplistic

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

#264

Post by tertius » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 2:37 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #118

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…

While science is in theory "perfect", unfortunately the people doing the science are still just flawed, imperfect humans. Even scientists who have no malicious intent can still have their work influenced by unconscious biases if they aren't careful. Given that, I think "consensus" is a useful term. It suggests that a strong supermajority of scientists have findings that agree with something, and with that chorus of a…

> Even scientists who have no malicious intent can still have their work influenced by unconscious biases if they aren't careful.

There are more obvious things that influence scientists without malicious intent.

- Money. - Internal politics. I.e. not wanting to go against major players or "consensus." - The need to publish or forego money.

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

#265

Post by jandrese » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 2:38 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #128

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another context for the same words: Vietnam could be considered the war on drugs. If what I've read is correct, US soldiers were given amphetamine pills "like candy".

A huge proportion of US soldiers (20% according to some sources) also used heroin while in Vietnam, giving rise to one of the more interesting studies of addiction related to heroin [1] that also taught us a great deal about how to kick addictions and change behaviors (the short of it being that a change of environment makes breaking habits far easier) [1] http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/01/02/14443179.…

It really shouldn't be a surprise that if someone's life is so shitty that they feel they need to do Heroin to escape it, then putting them through a grueling recovery process and then sending them back to their shitty life with no prospects is tremendously counterproductive.

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

#266

Post by tertius » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 2:39 PM UTC

spaceseaman wrote: post #55

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…

I don't know. I think the phrase still has a quite a bit of usefulness. The point is to communicate to the public that many people whose job it is to research such a thing agree. I also disagree that consensus has any implication with democracy. It's a word used for general agreement, and in my experience democracies are rarely in agreement. How else would you tell people that most scientists agree on a position? Als…

What is the margin of error for democracies?

What is the margin of error for "scientific consensus"?

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

#267

Post by watty » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 2:39 PM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #52

mc32 wrote: 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…

I don't understand - why would cheap/free drugs prevent gun battles, car break ins or OD'ing?

As far as I'm aware, junkies still need money to eat/sleep/drink and very few have a reliable source of income. All gun battles aren't over drugs, and would still occur. And not all overdoses are caused by tainted drugs.

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

#268

Post by posixplz » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 2:41 PM UTC

coleifer wrote: post #250

rublev wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Video games costs money. When you've got a habit and no job, how are you going to pay? People steal to support their habits. Little children have their childhood stolen because their parents were always gaming. People crash cars and kill people because their attention is on their little screen. That's why video games should be illegal. You can do this with literally anything.

That's patently absurd. You're not likely to see a gamer out there ripping and robbing to support a habit. Do people get addicted to games? Food? Sex? Whatever? Yeah sure. But by far drugs lead to more crime.

Drugs do not lead to crime. Desperation and opportunity, the need to survive, with a lack of morality, all directly lead to crime. Drugs do not make people commit crimes. Emotions, those mental states, do however. What we need, as a country, society, and human race is to recognize the importance of treatment of the mind above all else. Reduce suffering. Sure, there will always be a degree of sadness in life, we should as an intelligent species, strive to end mental and physical suffering.

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

#269

Post by tertius » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 2:42 PM UTC

II2II wrote: post #247

While I support the decriminalizing of drugs, I also have to question how effective it would be if all drugs were decriminalized and became highly regulated. Example 1: prescription drugs are highly regulated, yet their legal availability has not stopped criminal activities surrounding the illegal trade. Legalizing may solve some social issues relating to the war on drugs, but not all. Example 2: alcohol is legal, ea…

> do we really want to regulate self-harm?

In the worst cases we do: Euthanasia.

Drinking under 21: We do.

Marijuana use under 25: We should.

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

#270

Post by GatorD42 » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 2:44 PM UTC

opo wrote: post #62

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…

>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-…

The Ehrlichman quote is controversial for more than the reason you cite. Baum claims Ehrlichman said that in 1994 while he was researching for a book he published in 1996 about the drug war. He didn't include the quote in that book, but instead published it in 2012 and again in 2016, after Ehrlichman had died (in 1999).

I hate the drug war and I think it's stupid, but I don't think people should use that quote for evidence of anything. I think it was either made up or taken completely out of context, and obviously Ehrlichman isn't around to contest it. It encapsulates liberal conspiracy theories about the drug war far too perfectly, it's as if a Breitbart reporter claimd an Al Gore staffer who had died "admitted" liberals all knew global warming was a hoax and pushed it just to increase taxes and punish Republican leaning businesses with harsh regulations.

I don't know if this is a reputable site but the basic story about timeline of the quote is not disputed as far as I know: http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/720681