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

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

#541

Post by owebmaster » Fri, Dec 08, 2017, 5:54 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #445

owebmaster wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly! But... Why get so angry with people that loves meat burger and don't agree that "veggie burgers" are burgers? Unless they go out and attack veggie restaurants, they are not wrong. Moving this logic to social dynamics, if the majority of the population don't agree two person of the same sex forming a couple is a marriage, why get so angry at this? It is counterproductive as it helps the right wing join forces…

> Why get so angry with people that loves meat burger and don't agree that "veggie burgers" are burgers? Because said people are often trying to use the force of law to stop you calling your burger a burger. You can say what you like at home or even in public (and reveal your prejudices to the world), but when it comes to using the state to enforce inequality that's a different matter.

> Because said people are often trying to use the force of law to stop you calling your burger a burger.

This is the definition of society/democracy. Imagine if Scientology started change US laws?

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

#542

Post by viridian » Fri, Dec 08, 2017, 6:32 PM UTC

SirZimzim wrote: post #527

viridian wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 hap…

So how are you contradicting his argument? It looks like you are keeping in line with his gun nut stereotype by openly admitting that you like to stand there to take a beating for your beliefs. Similar to how you exposed yourself now except I'm not referring to your position on gun policy, I simply find no value added baiting like this to be a waste.

http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

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

#543

Post by drewmol » Fri, Dec 08, 2017, 8:06 PM UTC

meri_dian wrote: post #345

drewmol wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>puts the cart before the horse. to put the cart before the horse is an analogy for doing things in the wrong order.

Which is why I used it

It's fitting, I was trying to save some people from looking it up when the idiom is unfamiliar to them, thx!

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

#544

Post by bobdole1234 » Fri, Dec 08, 2017, 8:38 PM UTC

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…

Or you know, we could study the problem carefully and recognize that prohibition just leaves us with damaged families and social outcasts we can never reintegrate, and a permanent criminal subculture. Then instead focus on treatment and reintegration of the actual societal problems in a measurable way that avoids stigmatizing and alienating otherwise productive members of society.

And nobody needs absolute power to do that. They just need to discuss reasonably amongst themselves and decide on a course of measurable action and re-evaluate down the road to ensure the desired effect was reached.

But yeah, I suspect you don't listen well to reasonable arguments, likely because you're too busy pretending words can't be pinned to specific definitions for the purposes of productive discussion.

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

#545

Post by no-s » Sun, Dec 10, 2017, 2:27 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #507

Helmet wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep regurgitating this line of reasoning like it's some sort of profound "gotcha" logical trap. We worry because we do not wish for things to escalate. And I can assure you, they will escalate, as armed separatism would be inevitable.

I keep regurgitating it because nobody addresses it. If the reasoning was “don’t pass gun control, or you’ll have an armed insurrection” then that would make sense. But that’s never what gun advocates say. They always portray gun owners as somehow being simultaneously the final bulwark against a tyrannical government, and vulnerable to even mild gun control laws.

Hey, perhaps you have a mistaken impression - the existence of gun control advocates does not imply those who oppose them are "gun advocates". There do exist freedom and liberty advocates who would prefer to be law-abiding and do not appreciate gun control advocates constantly demanding and enacting a blizzard of laws expanding state authority to curtail freedom in the name of the public good. State authority is exercised with the implicit alternative of violence, so any proposed expansion of laws should be weighed accordingly. There exists historic precedent of a cause for action when a plethora of laws is enacted, each simple in object but collectively enabling state harassment of the law-abiding into giving up freedom to remain law-abiding. The success of such action to retain freedom in the face of state power is not guaranteed, so a reasonable free citizen will try to hedge in favor of retaining freedom without the need for armed insurrection.

A "mild" law will carry all that as an implicit potential consequence, so perhaps it should not be enacted, thus sparing us the possibility of having to deal with an lawfully empowered tyranny (tyranny is usually lawful, btw).