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

Portugal’s radical drugs policy is working (2017)

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 252 posts

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

#191

Post by weberc2 »

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.

Small world! That stop is only a few blocks away from me. There are shootings in uptown, but it’s almost always gang-related.

Carrying guns on the L is already illegal, so I don’t see any reason to be more afraid of states with more lax laws. Famously Chicago has high gun crime rates despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the country, so strictness of gun laws are probably not the best indicator of personal safety (I think this is a pretty uncontroversial argument, whatever your views on gun control).

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

#192

Post by olalonde »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #172
swiley wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, even as an American who grew up around lots of adults that carried: yes policemen (and anyone else) open carrying is scary and I personally dislike it.

For personal curiosity (that killed the cat): why is it scary? Growing up in a rural area with lots of bears and boars, having to go anywhere without any weapon (guns are banned) is very scary. A gun, a hunting knife or an ax are just tools to me, same as a screwdriver, a vacuum cleaner or a lighter.

Context is important. Someone carrying a hunting rifle in a rural area isn't that scary. Someone walking into a McDonald with a hand gun is.

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

#193

Post by SamPatt »

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.

Open carry seems less scary to me than concealed carry.

If you're advertising the fact you have a weapon you almost certainly aren't going to need to use it, whereas who knows which person might have a concealed weapon, and for what purpose?

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

#194

Post by Ensorceled »

daenz wrote: post #122
Ensorceled wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please explain how I’m being tone deaf? As someone with a Queer child, I’m flummoxed.

>we need to raise the visibility and openness of dealing with drug addiction, to come out of the closet so to speak Keep in mind you are talking about a social ailment to be corrected. It's tone deaf to LGBTQ community who has been considered a social ailment for a long time. If you avoid drawing analogies between mental/psychological illnesses and LGBTQ people, you will avoid coming off that way.

Ah, I see. It's the recreational drug use that must become open and accepted for us to be able to deal with the drug addiction part. That's the "radical drug policy" that Portugal is pursuing so I thought that would be clear.

But here's a suggestion: Stop policing the "tone" of allies, especially "tone" that only exists because of uncharitable interpretations, and focus on the enemies of the LGBTQ community. There are many enemies.

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

#195

Post by phil248 »

brokenkebab wrote: post #173
phil248 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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. There are two logical mistakes in this reasoning: first, there's an implicit equation "prohibited guns"="no guns", and it's obviously not true, and explicit statement that less guns - less murders, and even less suicides, which is provably false. Right now, I live in a country where having j…

The phrase "a world without guns" was a rhetorical shortcut to describe a nation where obtaining a firearm is significantly more difficult than in the United States.

I was also not talking about rates of suicide or murder, but rather success rates based on the tool/method used.

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

#196

Post by greglindahl »

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #141
greglindahl wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same-sex marriage rights were obtained in several states via a vote in the legislature. And Americans overwhelmingly support the US Constitution and court system. So "the people" were involved in both of those paths.

In some states, sure. But where I live in Indiana, the strongly Republican state hates gay people (government and much of the citizenry). Remember that one of the cases in northern Indiana was the 'Gay Cake lawsuit'. Our state only allowed gay marriage because SCOTUS ajudicated it so. Also, the decision also affected me directly because women could legally change their name in marriage for free. But men doing so (I a…

The point that I'm getting at is that even in states where a majority dislikes gay people, there's not much of a move to abolish the 14th Amendment. People complain about "activist judges", and there's been one significant recall (Iowa), but that's it.

FWIW California was about the same as Indiana in how marriage equality was achieved: a popular vote against followed by a court ruling for. It's popular now, but it wasn't at the time of the court ruling. It's extremely rare that minorities get 14th Amendment rights in a referendum.

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

#197

Post by Retric »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #171
Retric wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

People with penis are significantly more likely and capable of committing rape. They are everywhere!!! This is how your argument reads to me. Disclaimer: I live in a country with very strict gun control laws (East European, former Communist block. This is how they implemented it.)

I am talking about why people might be uncomfortable not nessisarily about changing the law.

I got plenty of negative responses as a tall and very strong young man. That bothered me even if I understood the reasons for it.

People react negatively to guns and physical fitness for rational reasons. I might like shooting and being physically strong, but that’s no reason to discount reality.

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

#198

Post by weberc2 »

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.

Because that’s what people mean by “gun violence” 99% of the time and the distinction is reflected in policy—you don’t ban large magazines and suppressors to reduce the suicide rate, after all.

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

#199

Post by andrei_says_ »

daenz wrote: post #31
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…

For obvious reasons, I think many people would be against the suggestion that if more people were suffering from life-destroying drug addiction, a turning point would be reached and the problem would be solved faster. Surely there is a way to push back the spread of drugs and addiction, without letting it overtake society first.

An excellent way to push against addiction is to address the reasons for addiction.

As Dr. Gabor Mate, who has spent a decade working with addiction and written extensively about it says: don’t ask why the addiction, ask why the pain.

Alcohol and other drugs are the means of addiction and in no way the cause of it.

I recommend Tim Ferris’ interview with Gabor Mate for a great honest look into the causes and mechanisms of addiction.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H9B5mYfBPlY

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

#200

Post by weberc2 »

the_gastropod wrote: post #178
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—…

Hmm.. Let's do some back of the napkin math, and see. 1. In 2013 (most recent data point I could find) in the US, 107,141 were injured or killed by a gunshot wound. [1] 2. There are currently 327 Million people living in the U.S. (0.033% of Americans are killed or injured by guns every year). 3. The median age of the U.S. population is 38.1. 38.1 * 107,141 = 4,082,072.1, or ~ 1.25% of the population. My statistic-fu…

As far as I can tell, you’re including suicides and attempted suicides, and you’re assuming that gun violence is evenly distributed across the population. If you live in rural America, you probably don’t know anyone who has been the victim of gun violence. If you live in an inner city, you likely know several.
Post reply on HN