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

241–250 of 252 posts

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

#241

Post by yosito »

daenz wrote: post #109
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,…

>drug addiction is a coping mechanism. That's reductionist. The bigger picture is: why do some people end up with drug addiction as their coping mechanism, but others don't. Why aren't all abuse victims drug addicts? What separates the ones who fall down that hole and the ones who don't? Opportunity? If not opportunity, then what is that X factor? That's why you get to the larger questions of disease, responsibility,…

The answer to your question is that drugs are one of many possible coping mechanisms. One abuse victim copes with drugs, while another copes with Stockholm syndrome, and yet another with therapy. What separates the ones who fall down the hole from the ones who don't is a combination of opportunity, biology (people have different reactions to the same drugs), and choice. It's understandable that this leads people to questions of disease and moral failing. Questions of behavior and coping mechanisms require much more nuance.

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

#242

Post by microcolonel »

4ntonius8lock wrote: post #234
microcolonel wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

I'm really not sure what your point it is. You seem to be saying 'don't say the drug war is discriminatory', even though it is. You then present logic that seems very unsound (as highlighted by the kippah example) But to answer you: > ordinary people are the voters who decide elections Which is why it is so important that the war on drugs is painted for what it is. Voters today might not grasp it. But those voters wi…

I can't make you read what I had to say, but I think you are being very inflexible and I hope you'll go back and try.

If one isn't willing to read any argument from start to finish before comparing people to "flat earthers" and thinking that only "old people who are about to die" disagree with him, one will fail to convince anyone, young or old.

Many ordinary people are OK with the war on drugs because they believe that the enforcement is less dangerous than access to drugs. If you tell them it's racist or profit-driven, you get to be all smug to yourself; but they weren't in on it for racism or profit to begin with.

To a new Chinese immigrant who's just used to narcotics being extremely forbidden, because they consider them extremely dangerous (for good historical reason); your "enforcement of drug laws is racist and profit-driven" argument is immaterial, because even if they aren't racist or profiting from private prisons, they still think that narcotics prohibition is reasonable.

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

#243

Post by phil248 »

brokenkebab wrote: post #240
phil248 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, no, it does not. You're just making things up?

I think showing your knowledge would be better then this ad hominem.

It's pretty https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-...

well http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/statistics-most-letha...

documented https://jech.bmj.com/content/57/2/120

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18245314

I'm not sure why you get to declare a lie as a fact without evidence, and I'm the one who has to provide links to call that out?

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

#244

Post by baby »

SamPatt wrote: post #193
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.

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?

I guess that's what growing up in Europe (where you don't really see guns) did to me. If I would see someone carrying a gun in a grocery store I would run the hell out of there. I'm not risking my life.

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

#245

Post by baby »

weberc2 wrote: post #191
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.

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…

if you can go to another state and buy a gun, I don't see the point of these laws.

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

#246

Post by baby »

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.

Your sentence is just so surreal to read for a non-American. I think you got used to a different state of security, and your normal is dangerous to me.

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

#247

Post by wl »

olalonde wrote: post #186
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.

> We have policemen that open carry in every country, are they not scary? Yes they are scary and no, policemen do not open carry in every country (China, England, India, etc.). Also, policemen are professionally trained to handle them, have a clear purpose for carrying them and are less likely to be criminals.

> Also, policemen are professionally trained to handle them

I've gone shooting with plenty of cops. There's nothing special about police academy that qualifies you to handle a handgun. If anything, frequent recreational shooters are probably better than your average cop, who shoots once or twice a year to qualify.

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

#248

Post by brokenkebab »

phil248 wrote: post #243
brokenkebab wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think showing your knowledge would be better then this ad hominem.

It's pretty https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-... well http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/statistics-most-letha... documented https://jech.bmj.com/content/57/2/120 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18245314 I'm not sure why you get to declare a lie as a fact without evidence, and I'm the one who has to provide links to call that out?

No one of these links (at least in abstracts/conclusions) makes distinction between real suicide, and parasuicide e.g. a suicide attempt having being stopped/saved, or infliction of non-deadly self-harm as the main goal. One can't make a parasuicide attempt sending a bullet to one's head (although some people imitate jamming, or expect gun to be taken from their hands - but such incidents rarely registered in statistics), so gun is naturally an unusual choice for a parasuicidal person which easily explains e.g. that 7% difference in the last link. People serious about ending their lives with hanging take precautions against possibility of being discovered at the moment of the action, and suffocation is deadly (need a link to prove this?) There are cases when hanged can recover after significant time, but they are notably rare. And people serious about ending their lives usually follow culturally "normal", or easiest ways to commit suicide [1]. Which brings us to the beginning of the discussion: removing a tool of suicide doesn't affect number of deaths which is proved by absence of correlation between availability of guns, and suicide rates.

[1] Source: I was trained when volunteered in suicide prevention program.

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

#249

Post by baby »

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.

A gun is a tool to kill people I guess.

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

#250

Post by masonic »

Retric wrote: post #229
masonic wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 firearm…

None of it agrees with what you claimed. These are all different metrics you are trying to conflate into what you want them to say. Homicide is a tiny percentage of overall crime.

People who are legally eligible to own guns are far less likely to commit crimes because by definition felons, those illegally present, etc. are automatically excluded from that population.

Post reply on HN