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

221–230 of 252 posts

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

#221

Post by masonic »

briffle wrote: post #162
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.

In my state, they keep trying to ban 'assault style weapons' even though almost all gun crime and suicides are handguns... The last time they tried to define what an assault style weapon was, my Ruger 10/22 would have counted as one...

Even some 19th century rifles were banned in the Feinstein/Clinton ban of 1994-2004.

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

#222

Post by masonic »

Retric wrote: post #159
AdrianB1 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

  People with guns are significantly *more likely* and capable to commit crimes
That is not at all what that paper actually says.

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

#223

Post by masonic »

sbov wrote: post #43
lostmymind66 wrote: post #17

Because Portugal doesn't have countries like Mexico bordering it that will use the legal drug trade to further fund cartel violence and control over the country. Corruption is already so rampant, they need to fix their problems before we should ever think about legalizing all drugs. We already have an Opioid crises in the US..and this is with legal drugs. Lawmakers are already starting to blame the legal drug dealers…

Legalizing drugs is the best thing the US could do with respect to the cartels. Not only would it reduce profits, it would give producers an arbiter to go to when there are disputes rather than forcing them to rely on their own version of justice.

California's legalization has shown this to be untrue. Cartel grows in public lands have exploded as the legal market provides general cover for grow and transport activities. There is an estimated 16 times as much cannabis grown in CA than traverses the legal markets... and that excludes imports.

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

#224

Post by AdrianB1 »

Retric wrote: post #206
AdrianB1 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you are genuinely concerned about bears a hunting knife is almost worthless vs a can of bear mace. Hand guns fit between them, but are vastly less useful than most assume. https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jwm... As to why people might be cautious, I would say it’s completely rational behavior. A linebacker is more physically dangerous than a baby and people react to them differently. Becomi…

I never suggested that a hunting knife or an ax is of any use in a bear encounter, not even a handgun is of any value in a boar encounter, I just enumerated some things that are tools, are commonly open carried in the woods and are scary for some people.

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

#225

Post by maxheadroom »

alkonaut wrote: post #129
1024core wrote: post #2

> Why hasn’t the world copied it? Because there's too much money* to be made in keeping the status quo. * I use the terms "money" and "power" to mean the same here.

How do illegal drugs convert to “money” and “power”? (Apart from the US where opiate manufacturers are big lobbyists and some weed could both strip you of your right to vote and put you in a for-profit prison. The US is an outlier here)

>...and some weed could both strip you of your right to vote and put you in a for-profit prison.

The repercussions are far more egregious than that:

The right to vote can be stripped for life[0]. After you've "paid your dues" to society, you will find it hard, if not impossible, to find employment again (also known as having a felony on your record [e.g.: felony possession]); which some states are now recognising is a form of cruel and unusual punishment[1].

To be fair, American society is trending better towards being less militant about justice but it still has quite a long way to go.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_rights_due_to_convicti...

[1] - https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Pennsylvania-automatical...

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

#226

Post by microcolonel »

zkomp wrote: post #215
microcolonel wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The war on drugs is and has always been racist, it is targeting minorities and filling prisons. How it is precieved is a different thing.

> The war on drugs is and has always been racist, it is targeting minorities and filling prisons. How it is precieved is a different thing.

You're missing the point: do today's voters tend to think of it that way? In my opinion, no, they do not.

So if you go around arguing that the war on drugs is racist, or exclusively for the benefit of prisons, a lot of people know it isn't racist for them, and that they don't agree because they have an interest in prisons, and you will not change their mind.

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

#227

Post by microcolonel »

4ntonius8lock wrote: post #211
microcolonel wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The people who designed the war on drugs, did so with a target. It is to this day blatantly targeting certain communities, for example, sentencing guidelines between crack and cocaine. Your logic is faulty: If you follow your line of thinking making the Kippah illegal would be fine since the 'vast majority of us' wouldn't have any trouble abiding by the new law. Oh, you did put in a condition: as long as enforcement…

As I said, I'm not saying the law is just, I'm saying that most people don't support because they intend to perpetrate your perceived injustice.

The vast majority of people are not moustache-twirling villains who think that drug laws should be enforced in the way they are, for the particular purpose of punishing the downtrodden or profiting prisons at any cost; so when your argument revolves around that, the people who know they don't support it for that reason are not going to be convinced.

You're arguing against the cynical, bigoted schemers who influenced the law, not the people who've accepted it for the public messaging (which has been, beyond a certain point, not recognizable as racist); and those ordinary people are the voters who decide elections.

This is not the world of John Lennon's Imagine; where bad things only happen because people choose to be evil, and everything can be solved by choosing not to be evil.

Ordinary people do the wrong thing because they've been convinced by faulty or incomplete arguments, or they've ignored the arguments altogether. Ordinary people do the wrong thing because they are wrong.

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

#228

Post by Retric »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #224
Retric wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are genuinely concerned about bears a hunting knife is almost worthless vs a can of bear mace. Hand guns fit between them, but are vastly less useful than most assume. https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jwm... As to why people might be cautious, I would say it’s completely rational behavior. A linebacker is more physically dangerous than a baby and people react to them differently. Becomi…

I never suggested that a hunting knife or an ax is of any use in a bear encounter, not even a handgun is of any value in a boar encounter, I just enumerated some things that are tools, are commonly open carried in the woods and are scary for some people.

Uhh, what did you mean by “having to go anywhere without any weapon (guns are banned) is very scary” ?

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

#229

Post by Retric »

masonic wrote: post #222
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 guns are significantly *more likely* and capable to commit crimes That is not at all what that paper actually says.

“The results of this study suggest that a decrease in prevalence of firearms has the potential to decrease violent crime in the United States.” and it’s including quotes like that the common saying “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” should be amended to “guns don’t kill people, they just make it real easy.”

Also, “In 2008, 67% of all homicides involved the use of a handgun, shotgun, rifle, and other firearms (Vito & Maahs, 2012).” Which is much higher than their normal prevalence among the general population. “Azrael, barnett, and Miller (2004) estimated that about 40% of households in the United States own at least one firearm.” With 67% being much larger than 40%.

In what what does that disagree with what I said?

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

#230

Post by brokenkebab »

phil248 wrote: post #195
brokenkebab wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

rather success rates based on the tool/method used.

This interpretation doesn't lead us anywhere too. The most popular method to commit suicide world-wide (hanging) has near 100% effectiveness.

Post reply on HN