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

Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 545 posts

Re: Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

#241

Post by alkonaut »

ueushzvzis wrote: post #210
alkonaut wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This does not follow. If the ban didn't actually lessen the number of handguns, then we don't have the left hand side of the implication! These are two things: ban on handguns -> less handguns less handguns -> fewer deaths Someone argued that the second is true, and you seem to refute it by saying the first isn't. So maybe you aren't talking about the same thing. I'm going to argue that the second thing isn't contr…

Fewer guns does not equal fewer deaths in the developed world. You are doing exactly what you claim to be against. Cherry picking data to suit your narrative.

> Fewer guns does not equal fewer deaths in the developed world

I didn't argue against cherry picking (which I'm also against) I was arguing against the parent opposing something entirely different than the post he was responding to. I divided the implication into two.

The guns-to-deaths implication isn't clear cut either, but less so than the laws-to-guns one.

My argument is that this is mostly cultural, which is why it's so hard to measure. The reason being that gun culture both creates a cliate of many guns, but also the other way around (many guns means people are more likely to use/buy guns). Comparable societies (such as US vs rest of western world).

By "more guns" I include not just more guns sold/owned but "more guns in circulation" i.e. number of guns on streets, in cars, in bedside tables, as opposed to in gun safes.

A lot of countries with lots of guns have mostly locked up rifles and very few handguns. That blurs these statistics.

Re: Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

#242

Post by malydok »

WalterBright wrote: post #91

It's the sunk cost fallacy. When you've invested enormous amounts of treasure, careers, political capital, conventional wisdom, etc., in having a position, it is very, very hard to say "oops, that's all a big mistake, my bad!" It's much easier to double down on it.

Especially in politics where keeping ones opinions is perceived as a sign of virtue, no matter how wrong these opinions are.

Re: Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

#243

Post by bbot23 »

alkonaut wrote: post #166
andrenth wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> less handguns = less deaths. This does not follow. Take Brazil for example. 60k homicides per year, and guns are pretty much forbidden. Of course, criminals don’t seem to care.

> This does not follow. If the ban didn't actually lessen the number of handguns, then we don't have the left hand side of the implication! These are two things: ban on handguns -> less handguns less handguns -> fewer deaths Someone argued that the second is true, and you seem to refute it by saying the first isn't. So maybe you aren't talking about the same thing. I'm going to argue that the second thing isn't contr…

Your implication fails in the real world in the same way that banning, demonizing, and siphoning drugs out of the country has failed. Yes, stricter laws, a buy-back policy and a generational shift will most definitely lower the current amount of guns in circulation in a given society. But just like with drugs, and sadly with a lot of gun-strict cities in the US, it has no bearing on the subsequent widening of the illegal gun pipeline. Not to mention the ever-present lack of a generational shift among current and potential illegal gun owners.

It's interesting to me that a lot progressive, popular armchair analysis of the issue advocates for strict gun laws, and at the same time advocates for loose drug laws. What are the inherent differences between both problems that most people use to reconcile the cognitive dissonance?

Re: Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

#244

Post by isolli »

lanevorockz wrote: post #233

The reason why it works in Portugal is because the country is in a rolling crisis, they can't afford expensive drugs. Also, with most of the young people leaving they were left with a very Cristian and traditional country. I find it really absurd when newspapers attribute societal changes to single policies. The guard is so intellectually dishonest.

Except the article precisely says that the change cannot be attributed to this single policy:

> Portugal’s remarkable recovery, and the fact that it has held steady through several changes in government – including conservative leaders who would have preferred to return to the US-style war on drugs – could not have happened without an enormous cultural shift, and a change in how the country viewed drugs, addiction – and itself. In many ways, the law was merely a reflection of transformations that were already happening in clinics, in pharmacies and around kitchen tables across the country.

Intellectual dishonesty seems to be on your side, this time.

Re: Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

#245

Post by toomanybeersies »

adventured wrote: post #171
Richs99 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 600% increase in what was a tiny number to start with is not a "crime wave"

~500 acid attacks annually in London, growing as rapidly as it has been the last three years, is not a tiny number nor a trivial matter. London has a lot of knife crime. A 24% increase in such a short amount of time is not a tiny increase in that either.

So from 80, to 500, in a population of almost 9 million?

That's not to mention that we need to look at numbers in a long term trend, looking at 1 or 2 years of data doesn't show the full story.

Re: Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

#246

Post by danmaz74 »

bonestamp2 wrote: post #126
nkurz wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I rarely downvote clear and well-written comments just because I disagree with them, but feel I need to make an exception here. Your "1" is true, but you prefaced it by claiming that it was one of the "major things" the parent was missing. I'm pretty sure he wasn't missing this, as indicated by the sentence "This uptick has been benign because its been limited to Marijuana". Number "2" adds useful distinctions regard…

We should never downvote a comment just because we disagree with it. We should only downvote comments that don't contribute to the discussion. If someone is blatantly wrong, their information could be a common misconception that needs to be addressed and seen by everyone. Comments we disagree with are most often very good additions to the discussion and should be upvoted, even if they're factually inaccurate but ther…

I used to think like you, but I had to change my mind many years ago. There are opinions you don't agree with - and those shouldn't be downvoted - and there are blatant lies or idiocies at the "the World is flat" level, often put forward by trolls.

Arguing with those is a total waste of time, and one reason why HN is so good is that they get downvoted to oblivion in no time.

Re: Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

#247

Post by andrenth »

alkonaut wrote: post #166
andrenth wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> less handguns = less deaths. This does not follow. Take Brazil for example. 60k homicides per year, and guns are pretty much forbidden. Of course, criminals don’t seem to care.

> This does not follow. If the ban didn't actually lessen the number of handguns, then we don't have the left hand side of the implication! These are two things: ban on handguns -> less handguns less handguns -> fewer deaths Someone argued that the second is true, and you seem to refute it by saying the first isn't. So maybe you aren't talking about the same thing. I'm going to argue that the second thing isn't contr…

A law to ban guns will lead to less guns... but only in the hands of people who care about laws.

Re: Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

#248

Post by Retric »

Banthum wrote: post #223
jonathanstrange wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My 2 cent (classical armchair analysis): It seems to me that some of these discussions are mostly dominated by irrationality. This is particularly recognizable in the US, but also occurs in Europe to a degree that varies from topic to topic and country to country. I believe there are two major factors at play. First, certain topics concern taboos that are still strong even in secularized societies. To these belong an…

>most problems could be solved by experts Implicit here is that when you say "experts", you mean people who share your terminal values and general way of thinking. Your post makes it seem like you're having trouble stepping out of your value system to consider opposing views. Consider your quote here: "certain topics concern taboos that are still strong even in secularized societies. To these belong anything concerni…

Technocracy implies the people in power are experts. That has never and likely will never happen. People gain power by being good at politics and or inheriting it. Neither of those measures technical skill.

At most you can look at countries who listen to relevant experts, which very much includes the United States. Though again on a sliding scale and always secondary to maintaining power for the in groups.

Really if you look at the worst leaders of all time none of them are Technocrats. Joseph Stalin pure politician>Revolutionary , Hitler - Artist>Soldier>Politician. Pol pot failed out, built roads in Croatia then became a revolutionary. Mao Zedong > Politician/Revolutionary. Augusto Pinochet > Military. Leopold II of Belgium > Prince > King.

Karl Marx for example may have qualified and is tied to Socialism, but never gained power.

Re: Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

#249

Post by LV-426 »

adventured wrote: post #120
matthewmacleod wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not misleading in the least It’s possible for something to be both true and misleading - the 70% figure makes the situation sound worse than it really is, IMO.

> the 70% figure makes the situation sound worse than it really is, IMO. The situation is bad, IMO, when the majority of European nations don't allow gay marriage. It's a grotesque travesty.

Of all the things to grind an axe about "European nations", this is a pretty strange one, considering European countries have absolutely always led the way on this issue, providing limited rights to same-sex couples in the 1970s, same-sex civil unions in the 1980s, and full same-sex marriages half a generation before the US Supreme Court finally got around to removing bans in the USA a mere two years ago. What was that about a grotesque travesty?

> the majority of European nations don't allow gay marriage

The majority of American nations don't either.

Re: Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

#250

Post by 627467 »

andrewstuart wrote: post #41

Portugal’s policy is deeply flawed because it does not legalize the sale of all drugs, only the consumption. When selling is legal is when organized crime leaves the picture, taxes can be collected, product is clean and measured and of quality. Both sides of the equation are important to legalize, doing one without the other means huge problems remain.

"deeply flawed"? Maybe legalizing distribution returns other benefits, but this article (and other from past years) and reality seem to indicate that the benefit of decriminalizing drug consumption (ownership of small quantities) is higher than criminalizing it.
Post reply on HN