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

481–490 of 545 posts

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

#481

Post by throwawaymanbot »

joshuaheard wrote: post #468
IgorPartola wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

Pedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent girls, under the age of 13. Judge Moore is accused of relations with women ages 16 to 22, with one girl 14 years old. The age of consent to sex in Alabama is 16. Thus, Judge Moore is not a pedophile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore_sexual_abuse_allegat...

Except for that one girl that was 14 and thus underage of consent.

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

#482

Post by Zak »

optimuspaul wrote: post #432
pc86 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

You have to dig a little deeper. Swiss gun ownership is primarily guns owned by those in mandatory military service. The have guns, but most do not have ammunition with the guns. The majority of Swiss gun owners simply cannot shoot someone with their guns without first obtaining difficult to obtain ammunition. Looking at the numbers alone is not enough. Just like looking at the US numbers alone doesn't really tell th…

Ammunition is not difficult to obtain in Switzerland. Essentially anyone who can legally possess a gun can buy it from a gun store.

Government-issued ammunition is difficult to take home, but there's plenty of commercial ammunition that will work in the government-issued rifles.

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

#483

Post by nkurz »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #290
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…

This is not the right place for these kind of discussions, but since your critique is so specific and oddly ad hominem: Implicit here is that when you say "experts", you mean people who share your terminal values and general way of thinking. No, I'm really thinking about experts in the technical sense, based on instrumental rationality. Think of panels of domain experts from all political sides and how they can agree…

This is not the right place for these kind of discussions

To the contrary, this is an excellent place for this sort of discussion, and there are far too few of them here. Thanks for the excellent response.

When I'm talking about experts I'm literally talking about professors with a high reputation among their colleagues and a proven track record of 40 years of peer reviewed publication in their domain who converge in expert panels to come up with solutions to given problems

I'd guess that this is exactly the scenario that the parent was evisioning. I'd also guess that the parent doubts that these experts would be able to agree on a solution if they were actually ideologically diverse; and that if they did agree, it's unlikely that the solution would be workable and without unforeseen consequences.

since I haven't discussed any particular solutions we can ignore this issue

I think there is a legitimate fear that many "unsolved" problems remain that way not because of lack of technical knowledge but because of lack of agreement as to what a desirable solution would entail. Are there any particularly strong historical examples that you could point to where a technocratic approach has worked? Absence is not proof of absence, but it can be evidence, and a good example (future or historical) would make your argument much stronger.

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

#484

Post by Nursie »

vertex-four wrote: post #416
owebmaster wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some people think it's evolved and some don't, but that's a very good reason to get the Government out of the business of regulating what is a marriage and what isn't - otherwise you're forcing one social group's beliefs on another group. My getting married - according to my definition of married - doesn't affect you in any way, shape, or form, so why would the Government prevent me from doing so?

I have interacted with people online who seemed to genuinely think that the ability of a same-sex couple, that they have never met and never will, to get married would deeply affect the value of the ongoing relationship they had with their opposite-sex spouse.

I never did get to the bottom of how that was supposed to work.

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

#485

Post by viridian »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #191
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…

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…

>many US gun nuts really want to say is that the freedom of owning a gun outweighs the deaths by gun accidents and amok runs with guns, because freedom is such a high good and they like guns.

Thanks for dismissing myself, many of my friends, and many people who share my opinions, lord jonathanstrange. Such arguments aren't in bad faith at all, and quite the contrary, promote reasonable discussion where people are happy to take a verbal beating for their beliefs.

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

#486

Post by owebmaster »

Nursie wrote: post #330
owebmaster wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gay marriage is like plant-based/fake burgers. Some people will say it is burger, some will say it is not. I'm more inclined to say that it is a "fake marriage", but I have nothing to do with the relationship of any two-person out there.

Really not, it's just like marriage involving people of the same gender. There's no practical difference. Marriage has meant all sorts of things over the ages in various cultures.

> There's no practical difference.

There're a lot of practial differences and I can give you some:

- male/female couples might have offsprings

- Children change the amount of resources consumed and available

- States need to plan based on these numbers and their variation

- Married couples behave differently than single male and females both short and long-term which also affect governmental planning.

So there are a lot of reasons to say that's wrong to add a lot of noise to this only for the sake of calling it marriage.

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

#488

Post by collinmanderson »

chrisco255 wrote: post #384
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…

Not all policies, broadly applied, work in all cultures, economies, and environments. Ignoring the local context of a nation's unique situation is a recipe for disaster.

This.

From the article:

> It had become clear to a growing number of practitioners that the most effective response to addiction had to be personal, and rooted in communities. Treatment was still small-scale, local and largely ad hoc.

> after 10 years of running the CAT in Faro, Goulão was invited to help design and lead a national drug strategy.

It seems to me this is really important. You can't just decriminalize drugs on a national level and expect things to improve on their own. These CATs were around for over a decade and seemed a large part of the success.

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

#489

Post by Nursie »

owebmaster wrote: post #486
Nursie wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really not, it's just like marriage involving people of the same gender. There's no practical difference. Marriage has meant all sorts of things over the ages in various cultures.

> There's no practical difference. There're a lot of practial differences and I can give you some: - male/female couples might have offsprings - Children change the amount of resources consumed and available - States need to plan based on these numbers and their variation - Married couples behave differently than single male and females both short and long-term which also affect governmental planning. So there are a…

There's not even a single reason there, let alone many.

Older people get married past the age of childbirth, infertile or avowed child-free opposite-sex couples marry too.

The 'signal' is already hopelessy noisy and not fit for any sort of purpose. Plus, "we were using those numbers for something they are inherently unsuitable for" is no valid reason to continue discrimination.

At this point it really looks like you're grasping at straws to justify what is just a prejudice.

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

#490

Post by icc97 »

Zanta wrote: post #388
icc97 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The song "Let's push things forward" [0] by UK band The Streets is a great song that depicts some of the differences between drunk and stoned people. You need to listen to the song rather than just read the lyrics. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_Push_Things_Forward

I think you mean to refer to another track from that album, "The Irony of It All"

Bloody hell, you're quite right, I'd even double checked the lyrics and still got it wrong.
Post reply on HN