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

#271

Post by bleepblorp » Sun, Nov 08, 2020, 5:25 AM 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…

> Could this be a situation where politicians have faulty data and use that to guide how they act?

I'm not aware of any data on this specifically with regard to drug control policy, but there is research from 2013 which reveals that American politicians vastly overestimate how conservative American voters are on multiple key issues.

See e.g.:

Primary source: https://www.vanderbilt.edu/csdi/miller-stokes/08_MillerStoke...

Further analysis: https://theprogressivecynic.com/2014/05/02/is-the-usa-center...

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

#272

Post by bnjms » Sun, Nov 08, 2020, 5:30 AM UTC

eyelidlessness wrote: post #54

User23 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amphetamine is used off-label for depression with some success.

And for people with dopamine deficiency (ADHD), it can present as both anxiety and depression besides the typically understood ADHD symptoms. Stimulants can certainly treat such cases of anxiety and depression (that was my primary reason for finally seeking a diagnosis).

Thanks for this. I was wondering if other people felt their anxiety pass with adderall and heard reports people get more anxious. Good to know less anxiety is a common response for some.

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

#273

Post by throwaway201103 » Sun, Nov 08, 2020, 5:57 AM UTC

post_below wrote: post #186

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…

What you're describing is the story the media told. The numbers don't support the kind of coverage it got at the time. When you add the race issues, which drove the narrative, policies and policing, there's really no comparison between the crack and opioid crises.

So even then we could not believe the media? Good to know. And sad to know.

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

#274

Post by therealx » Sun, Nov 08, 2020, 8:34 AM UTC

jariel wrote: post #217

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…

" legalization show that significant portions of America think drug-related activities are not "immoral" or "wrong" and should not be criminalized." Weed is not crack. Conscientious voters are not on the front lines of seeing the problems that drugs cause, just the opposite, are probably more likely to know people who go to Burning Man occasionally and who don't have a problem with a little bit of this or that now an…

I think the argument to that is, these things exist despite the ban on them, therefore the only people benefiting from the existing system are the supply side catels. If you disagree, to me, it's eseentially say that it's good that people are forced into treatment when they cant afford the drugs anymore, but that doesn't feel like a good way to push positive change.

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

#275

Post by franga2000 » Sun, Nov 08, 2020, 9:22 AM UTC

jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #264

GuB-42 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 trans…

Exactly! Many people don't realise that decriminalisation/legalisation is meant to reduce the drug problem, not "make it legal to be a junkie". The three main points I usually give to people are: - regulating production and distribution will make drugs safer for existing users, - the money from that regulation (taxes, fines...) will go towards education and rehabilitation, - the money and time cops save from not chasing after stoners will go towards catching actual criminals.

Add to that the potential medicinal benefits that will be better-studied and available to more people and there's really nothing to lose. DUI is still illegal, as is showing up to work high. Children will of course not be allowed anywhere near drugs and what grown adults do in their free time is really none of anyone else's business.

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

#276

Post by franga2000 » Sun, Nov 08, 2020, 9:24 AM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #201

TheSoftwareGuy wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do unions rely on “a steady flow of meat into the grinder?”

Police unions have a vested interest in ever increasing police department budgets that were driven in many ways by the war on drugs.

police unions - that makes sense. Since the comment didn't specify that, I was also quite confused for a bit

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

#277

Post by refurb » Sun, Nov 08, 2020, 9:52 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #268

refurb wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Mother of god. Stop defending her. Even planned parenthood dumped her over her racist views.

I want to see you defend this.

In a letter to Clarence Gable in 1939, Sanger wrote: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members" (Margaret Sanger commenting on the 'Negro Project' in a letter to Gamble, Dec. 10, 1939).

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

#278

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Nov 08, 2020, 10:19 AM UTC

leakybit wrote: post #231

BurningFrog wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most heroin deaths come from using illegal heroin with unknown strength and unknown contaminants. The typical death is from getting a new supply that's more concentrated than the old one, and accidentally dying from an overdose. The other two disasters that happen is that (1) the drug costs huge amounts of money, so you have to become a prostitute and/or burglar or (2) the legal system puts you in jail for 20 years.…

decriminalization is not legalization.

[deleted]

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

#279

Post by roenxi » Sun, Nov 08, 2020, 11:06 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #277

roenxi wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Mother of god. Stop defending her. Even planned parenthood dumped her over her racist views. I want to see you defend this. In a letter to Clarence Gable in 1939, Sanger wrote: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members" (Margaret Sanger commenting on the 'Negro…

You don't need to work to persuade me that people in the 1920s were racist. But that quote, in context, might easily be read as "we don't want them to think this [because it isn't true]".

I wouldn't be surprised if Sanger didn't like black people, but based on the evidence you're throwing out in dribs and drabs she expected them to stop having children because that would make them better off.

Let me ask you straight up: are you arguing that black people shouldn't have access to contraception and abortion? Because Sanger is basically arguing that black people (and indeed, all people) should have voluntary access to contraception and abortion, and that black doctors should be trained to provide them as services. Even if you doubt her motives, it is a struggle for me to see what the complaint is. Would that my enemies were so dedicated to giving me options.

Also, note that she is very direct and willing to use phrases like 'colored people' and 'negro population' when she is talking about black people. No dog whistles.

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

#280

Post by refurb » Sun, Nov 08, 2020, 11:51 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #279

refurb wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mother of god. Stop defending her. Even planned parenthood dumped her over her racist views. I want to see you defend this. In a letter to Clarence Gable in 1939, Sanger wrote: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members" (Margaret Sanger commenting on the 'Negro…

You don't need to work to persuade me that people in the 1920s were racist. But that quote, in context, might easily be read as "we don't want them to think this [because it isn't true]". I wouldn't be surprised if Sanger didn't like black people, but based on the evidence you're throwing out in dribs and drabs she expected them to stop having children because that would make them better off . Let me ask you straight…

You are doing everything in your power, including a vigorous waving of hands - "maybe she meant something else" - to defend a known racist eugenicist. What game are you playing here?

Planned Parenthood is doing it's best to create as much distance between itself and Sanger, yet you're here defending her. Why?