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

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

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 304 posts

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

#261

Post by mythrwy »

imgabe wrote: post #252
mythrwy wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The war on drugs started for a single function" Really? China's banning of Opium was because of racism? There were real concerns about drugs (and alcohol see: prohibition). That is the main reason it happened. Disenfranchising minorities and hippies was likely only a side benefit for unscrupulous people.

This may be US-centric but when people talk about The War on Drugs™ they mean specifically the US campaign against drugs and the ensuing police-state. Yes, other countries at other times have also made drugs illegal, but the war on drugs refers to the US policy specifically.

Right I got that. My point is many nations ban drugs. In fact they pretty much all do at some level.

Meaning there are other reasons besides racism and thus that is likely not the primary reason like this silly "Nixon" comment I see on every post about drugs.

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

#262

Post by nine_k »

jimbob45 wrote: post #151
jaggednad wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What business is it of yours if your neighbor is doing heroin? We could get people off the streets if we gave them treatment. A drug addicts are sick; Locking them in jail shouldn’t be the answer

Easy to say when it’s not your neighbor. Come back to me when you’re letting your daughter walk home from school past the junkie house.

If junkies get their fix, it's literally the only thing they care about. It's them not being able to support their habit with a day job what makes them reckless and dangerous.

If junkies receive their fix from medical authorities, along with a treatment helping them to quit, they even have a hope to become in-addicted again.

Of course, arresting or maybe outright killing a junkie would instantly remove any threat to the neighbors. It just requires stopping to see the junkie as a human in need of help and start seeing the junkie as a violent criminal or even non-human. I wonder if such an approach is sort of dangerous for the society's mental health.

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

#263

Post by nine_k »

supernova87a wrote: post #94
viraptor wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

So, is your belief, or the belief of this measure, that completely decriminalizing possession and use will cause no change in demand? More people will not be tempted or trapped into using or trying drugs? Is that not a legitimate thing to question?

Portugal has this policy since 2001. No, demand hasn't skyrocketed.

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

#264

Post by jacobwilliamroy »

GuB-42 wrote: post #245
throwaway201103 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the draconian laws and mandatory sentences trace back to the late 1980s/early 1990s when crack cocaine hit. If you were too young to remember or not born yet, it was absolutely devastating. At least the equivalent of today's opioid crisis if not worse. Entire neighborhoods just fell apart. Politicians and voters freaked out and demanded harsh new drug laws and penalties. Lobbiest support from those who benef…

It looks like drug laws are bound to become a cycle. 1- Drugs are cool, and not really an issue, people take them mostly reasonably. 2- Hey, drugs can be addictive, that's when people stop being reasonable 3- Too many drug addicts, it is a real society problem 4- People demand strict laws, drugs are not cool anymore 5- Parents, who have seen the damage done by drugs support these drastic laws, and tell their kids how…

Legalization is more about judiciary reform, public health and allocation of resources. We've already been through this before with alcohol, where prohibition was prohibitively expensive, and basically created a completely unregulated market full of products so dangerous they regularly killed people. You can see a parallel with black-market cannabis, where there are basically no health and safety regulations or transparency. So black-market growers are free to use as much carcinogenic pesticide as they wish. On the production side, there is nothing stopping a manufacturer from distributing vape cartridges containing unsafe levels of ethanol, lead contaminated materials, bacterial and fungal contamination. So imagine we set up a system for licensing, independent inspections, regular testing, and Boom, suddenly the drug dealers are paying the state, instead of the state paying to hunt the drug dealers down and keep them alive incarcerated.

I am pretty much convinced that Reagan's war on drugs was mostly about destroying south american economies and exterminating or enslaving non-whites, rather than public health and safety. Because of that, I don't believe de-criminalization will lead to criminalization.

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

#265

Post by flukus »

ericmay wrote: post #23

I've mentioned this elsewhere, and I say this believing that substance abuse is a public health problem and not a criminal one, but: I'm not sure it's the best idea to give a bunch of people stuck living a lonely life in the suburbs, addicted to social media, and have to pay for their own healthcare, an easier path to hard drugs like heroin. There is no doubt in my mind that decriminalization will make these types of…

> There is no doubt in my mind that decriminalization will make these types of drugs easier to obtain.

I think you're vastly under estimating how easy they are to obtain now. You're probably only a few degrees away and know someone that knows someone already, if you don't then I bet you've got an idea on the sorts of people to ask. Once you've got contacts there's a massively redundant and decentralized supply chain that can deliver to your door quicker than amazon. This is especially true for more common (which varies by location) drugs.

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

#266

Post by aarondp »

refurb wrote: post #244
roenxi wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eugenics is a broad term. There are many aspects of eugenics that make horrific government policy, but are still pretty sensible ideas. Being a "eugenicist" isn't a black spot on her record. Looking at her wiki page [0] she supported people thinking about how large a family they could support and then making decisions to stay within that. That is a commendable philosophy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sa…

That explains why she wrote papers like "A Better Race Through Birth Control" By Margaret Sanger https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents...

Thanks fo the link that it made me awared.

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

#267

Post by mythrwy »

gotoeleven wrote: post #12
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #6

> Cannabis has been rebranded as a wellness panacea. Mushrooms and MDMA are making headlines as therapy tools, not party fuel. Man, these guys are late to the party. Alcohol works great for treating symptoms of stress, too! Can't be stressed, anxious, or depressed if I'm blitzed out of my mind!

Have you tried cocaine??? It's great!

Until it's gone.

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

#268

Post by roenxi »

refurb wrote: post #259
roenxi wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My alternative is you didn't understanding it. Throwing out block quotes does suggest you read the first two paragraphs. If you made your point using your own words instead of throwing titles and quotes out I'd have a better chance of understanding it, whatever it is. Again, when she says race she means "human race". And she's arguing for perfectly reasonable outcomes. Adjust for the fact that the language is 100 yea…

Her argument is that we use birth control to eliminate "undesirables" and it's basically a dog whistle for certain races. And you call that "perfectly reasonable outcomes"? Holy shit.

> and it's basically a dog whistle for certain races.

You think, in 1923, someone would feel a need to dance around the bush if they wanted to say nasty things about other races? The civil rights movement didn't even start until the 50s. Political correctness wasn't even a phrase before the 70s. If she meant black/Italian/Scottish/whoever she'd have said it.

She is probably talking about things like Down syndrome and people who are stupid. You don't have to like it, she may indeed be badly wrong on some points, but the problem with that is when governments start implementing forceful eugenics policies (a la the Nazis) and not the ideas themselves (and note she specifically argues against eugenics by statute). It seems likely that people will be choosing to genetically engineer their kids regardless if the option is available - how many parents would purposefully let their children have congenital issues if it could be avoided?

She is arguing for birth control - an issue which most people are very glad she and people like her won on. She makes a number of good points, and a couple of questionable but reasonable ones.

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

#269

Post by dillondoyle »

hourislate wrote: post #131
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…

The only data Politicians use is campaign donation data. When you have several different industries that rely on a steady flow of meat into the grinder (Prison, Police Unions, Lawyers, Probation Officers/Administrative, etc) and they give generous support and campaign donations , well you know why it has taken so long to end this useless "War on Drugs". Millions of Tax dollars were spent incarcerating people for havi…

They rely on polls. Very long and specific polls. This cycle a lot of us are looking at some seriously wrong polling. But that's how larger campaigns and politicians make decisions.

Marijuana legalization probably isn't polled unless it's on the ballot.

But politicians have rational incentive to move towards what is clearly popular. 60% is a landslide. There are definitely 'Mavericks' who hold strong to their beliefs or independence, but for the most part those who win follow their constituents rather than lead.

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

#270

Post by mtnGoat »

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…

I would argue no politician ever made it legal in the beginning. Afaik, all the states that legalized it did so through initiatives(ca, ak, or, wa, co), and then forced the changes on the state by voting for them.

I think the other states are getting on board because of the incredible new found tax revenue, and the stats showing crime didn't go up in those states. More states would certainly have legal pot by now, if they could decide who gets to get rich from it (ie: who gets the golden tickets to grow and sell). NY is a great example of how the politics of where the wealth will go has turned the process into a quagmire.

Post reply on HN