Portugal’s radical drugs policy is working (2017) • Hacker News Board

Re: Portugal’s radical drugs policy is working (2017)

#151

Post by rolltiide » Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 8:38 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #62

rolltiide wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Up to 1% of THC which is useless, according to the total absense of peer reviewed clinical trials on CBD and also no fun. Europe would be perfect if literally anywhere got this sorted out Sure, the general lack of life ruining prison sentences is ok and a stark contrast from the US, Middle East and South East Asia. And further decriminalization is ok. But where are the gummies! The edibles! Recreational highs from a…

> But where are the gummies! The edibles! Amsterdam? I don't know if the culture compares, but there are edibles, and it certainly felt casual and relaxed to me when I visited.

Yeah thats there, I don't like the lack of consensus the Netherlands has towards it though. They just have coffee shops in some districts - notably Amsterdam - which only exist in some legal loophole, and its constantly under threat to snuff it out but then don't because tourism.

Its really strange to me because I think as a whole the EU gets so many civil rights correct, or there are places in the EU and European subcontinent you can go to get whatever you want legally. But the drug policies existing under extremely backwards logic.

Re: Portugal’s radical drugs policy is working (2017)

#152

Post by baby » Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 8:42 PM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #92

labster wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet most people in the USA know a victim of gun violence, yet we are unable to copy even a portion of the regulations used by a majority of our allies. There's also a point beyond which a problem is so endemic that people consider it the natural state of affairs.

Is this true? Almost no one in my social circles knows a victim of gun violence, and I live in one of the most violent cities in the country. Even if you count suicides (and you really shouldn’t), I would be surprised if this were true. I suspect most people in the country don’t know a victim or offender of gun violence, while they do know several law-abiding gun owners leading them to believe that inner city issues—…

I don't know anyone but in my first year living in the US someone got shot in my street and I could see the blood stain on the sidewalk. Chicago, uptown, near the L.

I have a friend who got a gun pointed at them too in Chicago (by a fake landlord).

I've also overheard people bragging that they were carrying guns in the L. I was freaking out. I will never visit any state with open carry.

Re: Portugal’s radical drugs policy is working (2017)

#153

Post by phil248 » Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 8:44 PM UTC

crunchyfrog wrote: post #101

I think drug addiction is really misunderstood and this leads to bad policy. The two popular narratives that drug addiction is a moral failing or a disease are both wrong. In some ways it is more simple than that: drug addiction is a coping mechanism. Most people who get addicted to drugs are using them to escape pain. This is occasionally physical but usually mental. It is memories of traumatic experiences or abuse,…

Using drugs to treat a physical addiction is first and foremost a "coping mechanism" for treating the physical addiction.

When a serious alcoholic is puking themselves nearly to death as they try and get sober, they aren't trying to escape some childhood trauma or "stress". They are trying to escape a physical addiction that has already dramatically altered their mind and body and may possibly kill them.

You may be confusing the cause of drug use with the consequences of repeatedly using addictive drugs. Eventually, the drug addiction replaces all other problems. It's not a representation of other problems.

Re: Portugal’s radical drugs policy is working (2017)

#154

Post by whatshisface » Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 8:46 PM UTC

phil248 wrote: post #150

weberc2 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this true? Almost no one in my social circles knows a victim of gun violence, and I live in one of the most violent cities in the country. Even if you count suicides (and you really shouldn’t), I would be surprised if this were true. I suspect most people in the country don’t know a victim or offender of gun violence, while they do know several law-abiding gun owners leading them to believe that inner city issues—…

Why would you arbitrarily exclude suicide from gun violence? Guns are a distinct problem because they make serious injury/death incredibly easy and simple. That's just as true for murder as it is for suicide, and in a world without guns both acts would have a far lower success rate.

Taking guns away from mentally healthy people who like them under the justification that you'll also be taking them away from suicidal people will never fly. If you don't like guns then the issue is whether you'd rather have one group of people who aren't you enjoying guns, or another group of people who aren't you being saved from themselves. If you do like guns, then you'd be guaranteed to not vote for any politician who was going to take away something you liked under the assumption that you might be a loony.

It's interesting how this falls in to the typically conservative "legislate the vice away" approach to social ills. Conservatives often want to take something that is causing harm to some people, and ban everyone from having it (drugs, alcohol prohibition, free love), under the argument that the light enjoyment of the many is not worth a few people having their lives ruined through lack of self-control. However because by a pure accident of history it's the rural voting block that is conservative and likes guns, it's typically-liberal people who want to legislate the vice away, arguing that the fun that a subculture is having is not worth the suicide deaths.

I think this is because people only apply the utility calculation to other people, but treat themselves like they have free will. Everyone thinks that they should be treated as if they can be responsible, but nobody wants to treat other people like they can be responsible.

Re: Portugal’s radical drugs policy is working (2017)

#155

Post by AdrianB1 » Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 8:52 PM UTC

baby wrote: post #152

weberc2 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this true? Almost no one in my social circles knows a victim of gun violence, and I live in one of the most violent cities in the country. Even if you count suicides (and you really shouldn’t), I would be surprised if this were true. I suspect most people in the country don’t know a victim or offender of gun violence, while they do know several law-abiding gun owners leading them to believe that inner city issues—…

I don't know anyone but in my first year living in the US someone got shot in my street and I could see the blood stain on the sidewalk. Chicago, uptown, near the L. I have a friend who got a gun pointed at them too in Chicago (by a fake landlord). I've also overheard people bragging that they were carrying guns in the L. I was freaking out. I will never visit any state with open carry.

What is so scary with open carry? We have policemen that open carry in every country, are they not scary? We are talking about humans with guns, not about Batmans and Jokers.

Re: Portugal’s radical drugs policy is working (2017)

#156

Post by daenz » Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 8:57 PM UTC

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #146

daenz wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Using the same method for drug reform is not tone deaf. Nobody is saying that using the same methods is tone deaf. Tone deafness is an insensitivity the nuances of marginalized groups. It's like saying we should fight systemic racism with the persistence of a field of laborers. The language is tone deaf to historical oppression. The message is right but the tone is way off. I'm trying to be polite about this, but ma…

As someone who is bisexual and remembers "GRID"(0), we have come a long way forward. And it's 100% true that people are 'out of sight and out of mind' until these things hit you upside your head. "Gay people are weird" is said, until your child is gay. And those ideas of curing 'gay' then go from something's that's OK to recognizing torture. What the parent commentor got right was that when things are taboo, solution…

>And I find your claim of "tone deafness" as a bad hack to shut down conversation you find uncomfortable or don't otherwise like. It's disingenous at best, and stops much needed communication between well-meaning parties.

If you go back and read my original post, I only dedicated one sentence to the tone deafness comment, and then addressed the other unrelated points they were making. I only elaborated on the tone deafness comment when I was specifically asked about it. So no, nobody is trying to shut down conversation and I would appreciate it if you not try to assign ill intent to my posts.

Re: Portugal’s radical drugs policy is working (2017)

#157

Post by api » Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 8:59 PM UTC

labster wrote: post #88

adamcharnock wrote: post #21

From what I hear (as someone now living in rural Portugal), a turning point came when most of the electorate knew someone suffering from a drug addiction. Be it a family member, partner, or friend - there came a point when the majority of people could not only see the problems caused by the epidemic, but could also empathise with those with addictions. As a result of this understanding/empathy, it was possible to pas…

And yet most people in the USA know a victim of gun violence, yet we are unable to copy even a portion of the regulations used by a majority of our allies. There's also a point beyond which a problem is so endemic that people consider it the natural state of affairs.

This isn't true. Unless you live in an extraordinarily high crime area or are a cop or into crime yourself you probably don't know a victim of gun violence. Mass shootings of unrelated civilians whether random or ideologically motivated grab headlines but are statistically rare and do not rank as a significant cause of death.

The gun violence problem would have to get at least a few orders of magnitude worse to approach the opiate problem. To kill as many people would take many mass shootings per day.

Re: Portugal’s radical drugs policy is working (2017)

#158

Post by AdrianB1 » Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 9:00 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #82

acpetrov wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source on racial/class distribution for lgbt? Would be interested to see it

Are you trolling? It would seem obvious that such things are distributed exactly the same no matter what ones social status or ethnic background is. It would be very surprising if it wasn't.

Science is not based on "obviousness" and "It would be very surprising if it wasn't." is not an argument, it is a confirmation that your are guessing. If someone has data, a point can be made, otherwise we can assume and "are you trolling" is not an appropriate reaction.

Re: Portugal’s radical drugs policy is working (2017)

#159

Post by Retric » Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 9:04 PM UTC

AdrianB1 wrote: post #155

baby wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know anyone but in my first year living in the US someone got shot in my street and I could see the blood stain on the sidewalk. Chicago, uptown, near the L. I have a friend who got a gun pointed at them too in Chicago (by a fake landlord). I've also overheard people bragging that they were carrying guns in the L. I was freaking out. I will never visit any state with open carry.

What is so scary with open carry? We have policemen that open carry in every country, are they not scary? We are talking about humans with guns, not about Batmans and Jokers.

People with guns are significantly more likely and capable to commit crimes. Open carry in many social circles is like walking around in prison tattoos.

Source: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_firearm_owner... As this study points out no database of US gun ownership exists, which makes these studies harder to carry out.

PS: Police are also a surprisingly violent group. Still unlikely to randomly shoot someone, but as a rational risk assessment they rate much higher than many groups like young kids.

Re: Portugal’s radical drugs policy is working (2017)

#160

Post by microcolonel » Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 9:05 PM UTC

4ntonius8lock wrote: post #110

microcolonel wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 'Cause free labor's the cornerstone of US economics it isn't > 'Cause slavery was abolished, unless you are in prison; you think I am bullshittin', then read the 13th Amendment This is true, they didn't listen when Kanye said it awkwardly, but it's been true the whole time. > That's why they givin' drug offenders time in double digits Maaaaybe sometimes, but if you come at it from that perspective you aren't going…

> so you need to address the argument that the public is given: that illicit drugs are so dangerous that the enforcement is worth it Some people see the problem in the fact that Americans are and have historically been very comfortable benefiting from injustice and from things that are enforced 'on other people'. Middle class young hippies were shocked when the system showed its teeth and banned a substance so that t…

> Some people see the problem in the fact that Americans are and have historically been very comfortable benefiting from injustice and from things that are enforced 'on other people'.

The vast majority of people do not have trouble generally abiding by the provisions of the Controlled Substances Act; and while that doesn't mean it's just, but it does mean it's not crazy for ordinary people to think that others could abide by it as well.

Very few people are even familiar with the concept of the prison industrial complex, let alone explicitly motivated to vote by it.

> Middle class young hippies were shocked when the system showed its teeth and banned a substance so that the movement could be targeted by the repression systems put in place... while that was the norm done toward people in bad neighborhoods.

Just as gun control is no longer typically motivated by racism, the war on drugs is not today typically motivated (to the ordinary person) by a prejudice against hippies or hispanics.

If you argue against a point nobody is defending, you'll change nothing.