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

391–400 of 545 posts

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

#391

Post by pc86 »

scotty79 wrote: post #326
dalbasal wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't live in the US, but I'm skeptical. There are a lot of places where civilian gun ownership causes problems, gun crime, etc. Some of the places where it does not cause big problems (eg Switzerland) have liberal gun laws and high ownership rates. There are examples where widespread gun ownership/availability causes exactly the kinds of is "problems" that (according to some) the American founders intended it to c…

Even Switzerland. From wiki about gun laws there: In 2016, the defence ministry estimated that 2 million privately owned guns are in circulation, which given a population of 8.3 million corresponds to a gun ownership rate of around 24 guns per 100 residents. This is roughly a quarter of the rate in the United States, and lower than that in the neighbouring countries of Germany, and Austria, but about the double of It…

Switzerland has a gun homicide rate of 0.50 per 100k population. The US rate is approximately 3.53 per 100k population.[0] So this begs the question, if the per capita gun ownership in Switzerland is 1/4th what it is in the US, why is gun homicide 1/7th? Are Americans just more homicidal than the Swiss?

Guns are certainly an issue but not the issue. If you cut American gun ownership by 75% you'd still have more per capita gun crime than Switzerland, why?

[0] Homicides, not all gun deaths. It's important to compare apples to apples.

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

#392

Post by IgorPartola »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #50

This scenario doesn't just happen with drug policy, but with practically any divisive policy discussion. People will debate something that is done elsewhere, and ignore completely that it's done elsewhere. Gay marriage is a prime example, as it's something that has been legalised in a lot of countries now. Every time a country goes through the process of debating whether to legalise gay marriage, there's a bunch of p…

I don’t know. Republicans had warned us that legalizing gay marriage would lead to widespread acceptance of pedophiles. And look now only a couple of years later the Republicans are fully supporting an alleged pedophile who is running for Senate. If you read that as more of a threat than a warning it all makes sense :)

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

#393

Post by Intermernet »

Angostura wrote: post #358
Banthum wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> secular (e.g. leftist) The two are nowhere near synonymous.

I think this comes about due to the fact that in the US there is a group defined as the "religious right". The simplistic opposite view is the "secular left" despite the religious / secular spectrum only being loosely related to the spectrum of political ideology. There is definitely a correlation, but it shouldn't be used as a basis of assumption regarding religiosity or political ideology.

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

#394

Post by kbutler »

sandworm101 wrote: post #329
toomanybeersies wrote: post #50

This scenario doesn't just happen with drug policy, but with practically any divisive policy discussion. People will debate something that is done elsewhere, and ignore completely that it's done elsewhere. Gay marriage is a prime example, as it's something that has been legalised in a lot of countries now. Every time a country goes through the process of debating whether to legalise gay marriage, there's a bunch of p…

But the sky has fallen. For these people the big evil is the thing they are fighting against. They dont want gay marriage not because of its impacts but because they dont want gay marriage. Full stop. They dont want to decriminalize drugs because they dont want them decriminalized. When an issue becomes so internalized, so tied to ones identity, it is impossible to change. We need to work on keeping people from ident…

This is a mischaracterization of people who disagree with you and inhibits finding common ground and working together.

Opponents of gay marriage want strong families with good environments to raise children.

Opponents of drug legalization want to prevent the individual and societal harm caused by drug use.

Viewing opponents with that perspective helps find more effective ways of working together.

It's also interesting that advocates for those "liberal" items want to get the government out of individual choices, which is the same goal cited by "conservatives" against centralized health care/education, etc.

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

#395

Post by ta98789878 »

dalbasal wrote: post #158
toomanybeersies wrote: post #50

This scenario doesn't just happen with drug policy, but with practically any divisive policy discussion. People will debate something that is done elsewhere, and ignore completely that it's done elsewhere. Gay marriage is a prime example, as it's something that has been legalised in a lot of countries now. Every time a country goes through the process of debating whether to legalise gay marriage, there's a bunch of p…

If you're going to look elsewhere, that opens up a new can of worms about what to consider or ignore. Take gun laws. Wildly divergent in law. Widely divergent in practice. wildly divergent in results. I agree that the debate often ignored existence proofs, but... It can be hard to take this a whole lot further. The Aussie gun example is used mostly because the narrative fits. The Tassie shooting leading to a buyback.…

It's frustrating to keep seeing people use the phrase "buyback" when they mean "confiscation". In the US, at any rate, a "buyback" is voluntary. For linguistic comparison, the taking of land by eminent domain includes compensation, but one certainly would not say the government "bought" the land.

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

#396

Post by JoeAltmaier »

owebmaster wrote: post #387
ambicapter wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes it fake?

As a social dynamics that evolved for safer copulation and procreation, what in 2 people bonding together looks like a marriage? You can pretend that they are just like every other couple (fake until 'we' make it?), but this is exactly what I call fake.

...and now its evolved again. So what?

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

#397

Post by dalbasal »

ta98789878 wrote: post #395
dalbasal wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to look elsewhere, that opens up a new can of worms about what to consider or ignore. Take gun laws. Wildly divergent in law. Widely divergent in practice. wildly divergent in results. I agree that the debate often ignored existence proofs, but... It can be hard to take this a whole lot further. The Aussie gun example is used mostly because the narrative fits. The Tassie shooting leading to a buyback.…

It's frustrating to keep seeing people use the phrase "buyback" when they mean "confiscation". In the US, at any rate, a "buyback" is voluntary. For linguistic comparison, the taking of land by eminent domain includes compensation, but one certainly would not say the government "bought" the land.

In Australia it was voluntary.

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

#398

Post by [deleted] »

wslh wrote: post #315
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…

> It seems to me that some of these discussions are mostly dominated by irrationality. I have another theory: people are very conservative and rational (with all its limitations) at the society level, doesn't matter if they came from the left or right, deep changes in society have unexpected consequences. It didn't happen with same marriage laws but can happen in many other sectors.

[deleted]

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

#399

Post by owebmaster »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #396
owebmaster wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a social dynamics that evolved for safer copulation and procreation, what in 2 people bonding together looks like a marriage? You can pretend that they are just like every other couple (fake until 'we' make it?), but this is exactly what I call fake.

...and now its evolved again. So what?

Who say so? That is exactly the problem. Some people think it evolved and some don't. Are people willing to go to war because of this? It is interesting. The American Civil War was because of slavery and never again it was accepted world-wide so it might happen again.

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

#400

Post by ta98789878 »

dalbasal wrote: post #397
ta98789878 wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's frustrating to keep seeing people use the phrase "buyback" when they mean "confiscation". In the US, at any rate, a "buyback" is voluntary. For linguistic comparison, the taking of land by eminent domain includes compensation, but one certainly would not say the government "bought" the land.

In Australia it was voluntary.

Classes of firearms were made illegal. Do you mean the newly illegal classes were grandfathered and those owned before the ban could be legally kept by their owners?
Post reply on HN