Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health • Hacker News Board

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#71

Post by Shivetya » Sat, Nov 07, 2020, 5:05 PM UTC

gravypod wrote: post #4

Could this be a situation where politicians have faulty data and use that to guide how they act? I would have assumed that a majority of these states - and my home state of NJ - would be very anti-drug but these votes with >60% in favor of legalization show that significant portions of America think drug-related activities are not "immoral" or "wrong" and should not be criminalized. If you had asked me a few years ag…

Well, no.

What it tells us is the people are leaning one way and politicians on both sides aren't. Mainly because for the most part with the war on drugs the politicians are listening to the police and sheriff unions which in some states have incredible political power.

For what its worth, the voters of the US also rejected giving politicians more tax powers, prevented the reinstatement of preferential college admissions, and of course clamped down on politicians selectively deciding who is a contractor and who is not.

A big win all around for the voters and a rebuff to politicians - where they were allowed to vote. Some states either don't allow it or make it too hard to get anything out there.

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#72

Post by ratww » Sat, Nov 07, 2020, 5:05 PM UTC

supernova87a wrote: post #38

I'm not sure why people aren't being just a little more cautious about ballot measures like in Oregon where even heroin and such hard drugs are now decriminalized. This deserves a little more consideration about the unintended side effects of this policy, don't you think? I look at the massive illegal drug manufacturing interests (countries, cartels) who spend vast sums on getting illegal drugs to our shores. It cann…

What about discussing the unintended consequences of the War on Drugs so far? It is undeniable that as an experiment it was a complete failure and a money pit, but it's also an enabler of police brutality, cause of massive disfranchisement, contributor to public health issues, and a war on freedom in general. This is just an alternative, which is being tried in other countries and with other drugs, and so far it seems to be a better solution.

Those cartels you mention profit billions from the existence of a War on Drugs, and I'm pretty sure the last thing they want is the government meddling in their business.

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#73

Post by gravypod » Sat, Nov 07, 2020, 5:06 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #61

gravypod wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure if that's the only thing people voted for when they wanted to be hard on drugs. As you can see in this comment thread (on an extremely left-leaning site) we have some people who think drug use is immoral. One of the sister comments says "I believe it's wrong". Definitely some section of the population wanted to use this as a way to bully minorities but another section of the population was convinced "…

I think drug use is immoral, especially in a society with a welfare system. (That’s the basis for anti-drug attitudes in places like Sweden.) I’m against harsh drug laws because I think they’re create a lot of problems in criminal justice and are abused against Black communities.

What is your opinion of Alcohol, lower grade stimulates (Caffeine), and pre-processed unnatural addictive substances (pure sugar)?

If you are on welfare should you be prohibited from drinking alcohol? What about eating low nutritional value fast foods?

Obesity and alcoholism is far more rampant than most drugs used in the war on drugs. In America ~40% of our population was obese in 2016 [0], ~25% of people drank >5 drinks in 1 day over the past year [1], >50% of America drinks coffee daily and of that group 50% report "severe head aches" that last 2 to 5 days when attempting to stop. Meanwhile cannabis usage is around ~12% of the population [3] and I've not been able to find unrefuted studies of it's negative effects while for obesity, alcoholism, and caffeine there's some compelling work out there linking these to interesting population statics.

It's medicine so it's not actually science or iron clad but from a risk & pervasiveness perspective do you think introducing legislation on these substances is warranted?

[0] - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2018/021.pdf

[1] - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm

[2] - https://healthresearchfunding.org/shocking-caffeine-addictio...

[3] - https://news.gallup.com/poll/284135/percentage-americans-smo...

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#74

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Nov 07, 2020, 5:07 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #61

gravypod wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure if that's the only thing people voted for when they wanted to be hard on drugs. As you can see in this comment thread (on an extremely left-leaning site) we have some people who think drug use is immoral. One of the sister comments says "I believe it's wrong". Definitely some section of the population wanted to use this as a way to bully minorities but another section of the population was convinced "…

I think drug use is immoral, especially in a society with a welfare system. (That’s the basis for anti-drug attitudes in places like Sweden.) I’m against harsh drug laws because I think they’re create a lot of problems in criminal justice and are abused against Black communities.

[deleted]

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#75

Post by asdff » Sat, Nov 07, 2020, 5:07 PM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #63

lotsofpulp wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe now that politicians see that people are very against drug laws we'll see some of them renege on their hard anti-drug stances. The purpose of existing drug laws, especially marijuana, is to give police a reason to harass and discriminate against certain populations.

Well, and taxes, too, as has been the case with distilling alcohol since before marijuana became an issue. The government gets pissed if they don't get their cut. Way more fires would be caused by illicit stills blowing up if it was actually about safety.

Taxes are a red herring. You can grow tax free in every legal state. Enough to have pounds a year.

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#76

Post by viraptor » Sat, Nov 07, 2020, 5:07 PM UTC

supernova87a wrote: post #38

I'm not sure why people aren't being just a little more cautious about ballot measures like in Oregon where even heroin and such hard drugs are now decriminalized. This deserves a little more consideration about the unintended side effects of this policy, don't you think? I look at the massive illegal drug manufacturing interests (countries, cartels) who spend vast sums on getting illegal drugs to our shores. It cann…

> It cannot just be a pure good thing that we make this ok now, can it?

This is not what this law does. It doesn't allow for drug dealing and production. The part about manufacturing and importing did not change and nobody said it's ok.

What changed is that once you're found in possession of a tiny amount you won't go to jail, but instead will have access to more health/addiction services.

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#77

Post by cbozeman » Sat, Nov 07, 2020, 5:08 PM UTC

intricatedetail wrote: post #44

ericmay wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea but you can also say criminalization has worked extremely well. Singapore for example. What I worry about here is another instance of treating symptoms instead of causes. Why do people feel like they need to use drugs like heroin? > The law provides a lot of additional funding to mental health and substance abuse programs, which could actually help people in those situations. So if I want healthcare I should get…

Can you write more about Singapore? My view is that when drug laws are very harsh, then people will less likely admit to use and dealers will use more precautions. Since drug use is mostly estimated based on surveys and police report you may see the policy effective on paper, but the reality may be far different. It is a natural instinct to use drugs akin to listening to music or having sex for pleasure. If you ban m…

Singapore is largely homogeneous, is wealthy (for the area) with an average income of $9200 USD, has excellent health care that covers all citizens, is a geographically small nation state, has extremely low unemployment (even now, at 4.38%) and has a small population (5.7 million).

You don't need to do drugs if everything in your life is going well.

I saw this with my best friend during his divorce. We spent a lot of time together, often I'd go see him everyday after he got off work. Some days he'd drink two bottles of wine and a six pack.

Now his divorce has been finalized for several months, he rarely drinks.

Turns out when your life isn't in shambles, you don't need a chemical means to cope.

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#78

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Nov 07, 2020, 5:09 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#79

Post by rjknight » Sat, Nov 07, 2020, 5:10 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #60

loeg wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP's comment can of course be read more correctly as "the purpose of existing drug laws (in the US) , ..."

Canada had very harsh drug laws too (at least for hard drugs). And so did much of Europe. Did all those countries also create those laws to harass certain populations?

In many cases yes: European attitudes towards the lower classes are often similar to (though not as extreme as) racist attitudes in the US.

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#80

Post by Sargos » Sat, Nov 07, 2020, 5:11 PM UTC

supernova87a wrote: post #38

I'm not sure why people aren't being just a little more cautious about ballot measures like in Oregon where even heroin and such hard drugs are now decriminalized. This deserves a little more consideration about the unintended side effects of this policy, don't you think? I look at the massive illegal drug manufacturing interests (countries, cartels) who spend vast sums on getting illegal drugs to our shores. It cann…

You're right, it should have been full legalization so that only regulated producers make the drugs which makes them much safer for the populace and hurts and possibly shuts down the violent cartels. The problem is that it needs to be done in steps or some people who are afraid of change will get too worried that society is going to crumble and so they fight to keep the violence in place.