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

After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us?'

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 353 posts

Re: After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us?'

#341

Post by LorenPechtel »

iammisc wrote: post #295
LorenPechtel wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize the opioid deaths are because a certain drug maker encouraged docs to overprescribe? That left a lot of people hooked for no good reason. Now they've flipped and are underprescribing, leaving a lot of patients turning to the street for their pain control.

Doctors are professionals. Part of the reason they're allowed to prescribe is that they have supposedly taken courses and proven themselves to be of such sound judgement and knowledge that we can trust them to gatekeep extremely technical poisons. If you're telling me they can be so easily swayed by corporate messaging, and have been this way for a decade or longer, then we should scrap the apparently worthless MD de…

They overprescribed because they mistakenly believed the information provided by the drug company on the risks involved.

Now they underprescribe because of the DEA.

Re: After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us?'

#342

Post by reggieband »

callmeal wrote: post #152
reggieband wrote: post #115

I'm hazy on where I heard this justification, but I recall some argument that the rate of violent criminals who recreationally use drugs is very high. That is, if a violent criminal is caught walking down the street and is searched then there is a high probability that they will have some kind of illegal drug on them. The opposite isn't necessarily the case. That is, a drug user is not high probability to be a violen…

> "three strikes" policies has the effect of significantly reducing violent crime. That's not quite true. The three strikes policy had the effect of increasing violent crime. After all, if it's going to be their third strike, why would anyone go small? https://slate.com/business/2008/03/do-three-strikes-laws-mak...

That article and the effect they are suggesting aren't in contradiction to the initial justification. There are two different arguments.

1. Individuals are more likely to act more violently if they already have two strikes against them. This leads to a measurable statistical increase in the violence perpetrated by individuals who have two strikes against them in jurisdictions where three strikes policies exist compared to individuals who have two comparable crimes on their records in jurisdictions where there are no such policies.

2. The overall amount of violent crime in jurisdictions with three strike policies is lower than comparable jurisdictions where there are no such policies.

I see no incompatibility with these premises. That is, both can be true simultaneously. In fact, the evidence provided in the article you linked seems to suggest just that.

Re: After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us?'

#343

Post by vel0city »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #147
a2tech wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To borrow the quote from another post on this thread (which is still very valid): "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing…

I'm not trying to stir the pot when I ask this: How is a quote about how the Nixon administration having "black people as the enemy" around 1968-1971 still relevant in 2021 when the current administration's messaging is one of inclusion and equality?

Its not like every time there's a new president every single person in the government is fired and new people are rehired. Its also not like every policy/law gets shredded and entirely new policies get created overnight.

Having a new president is like a new captain giving orders on an incredibly massive ship. There's a ton of inertia going on, there's a lot of people below the captain that are still the people with the hands on the controls operating the boat. Plus, usually when you're in the middle of trying to steer the boat to port the captain gets replaced and starts commanding the boat turn to starboard.

Coupled this with the idea that its not really just a single ship, its a fleet of 50+ ships each with that same concept of a ton of inertia at play and not really a strict chain of command between the captains of each ship and the admiral of the fleet (imperium in imperio).

Re: After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us?'

#344

Post by crateless »

vkou wrote: post #301
tetranomiga wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Political change happens step by tiny step. No it doesn't, political change is simply impossible without massive financial backing, which is why policies that benefit the classes that don't have a lot of money have to jump through all those hoops you mentioned to eventually get the money behind it.

If political change is impossible without major financial backing, you should be able to tell me which billionaires sponsored the de-stigmatization, normalization, and legalization of homosexuality in the United States over the past 30-50 years.

> sponsored the de-stigmatization, normalization, and legalization of homosexuality in the United States over the past 30-50 years

Well, I wonder how to quantify all the "normalization" of homosexuality in tv shows/movies over the last 20 years or so (guesstimate) for example. Surely tv shows like Six feet under and culminating in Modern Family had a role to play though I wouldn't know how to put a dollar figure to it.

Re: After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us?'

#345

Post by smsm42 »

cactus2093 wrote: post #337
smsm42 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TBH, SF has so many reasons for "horrible outcomes" that I don't think putting it on the opiates' supposed legality is fair. I mean, that's the place where it's legal to rob Walgreens, I don't think opiates did that.

Why wouldn’t those things be related? I’m actually not sure how anyone knows this for sure, I haven’t seen the evidence first hand. But according to our board of supervisors 80% of the Walgreens robberies are tied to organized crime. The gangs get money and power from selling drugs that are decriminalized, and then find new ways to make more money like robbing stores. Also, the same line of thinking that doesn’t thin…

Well, on some level they are related, as you noted, by the ideological background that drives the belief system of the people managing SF. But, if we range their decisions by the amount of harm they are doing to the city, I don't think not jailing addicts would come on top. There were other places, where this strategy worked successfully - when combined with suitable addiction management programs and proper law enforcement in other areas. SF management, obviously, is unwilling to do that, but I would blame the whole complex of delusionary beliefs they hold rather than specific decriminalization decision.

Re: After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us?'

#346

Post by NaturalPhallacy »

MauranKilom wrote: post #249
NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #234

The war on the freedom to do drugs* It's no more a war on drugs than "gun control" is about controlling guns. "gun control" is actually citizen disarmament, because every law they pass exempts the police, military, and retired police. So its' not about guns, but who can have them . Both of these represent a propaganda technique known as 'framing': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences) When people th…

> When people think of it as "gun control" it presupposes the notion that guns are out of control when that isn't the issue. To clarify: Are you saying guns are not out of control, or guns being out of control is not an issue? Also, if you were to substitute "nukes" or "ebola vials" for "guns" in your argument, would it still stand? If not, where do you see the difference? (To be clear, I'm not convinced that your ar…

>Are you saying guns are not out of control, or guns being out of control is not an issue?

Guns are inanimate objects and thus are not capable of being out of control.

>Also, if you were to substitute "nukes" or "ebola vials" for "guns" in your argument, would it still stand?

Yes, no, and yes. Ebola is a living thing that can act independently once released. Even a nuke either explodes or doesn't.

The issue I'm trying to raise is not so much about guns, but the propaganda phrase used to promote citizen disarmament. The subject is accurately described as citizen disarmament, because of the exceptions included in every second amendment infringing law. They invariably exempt authority from the restrictions when the second amendment explicitly prohibits exactly this.

If every law they passed an tried to pass applied also to the military, police, and retired police then it would actually be "gun regulation". But it never does, so it is is not firearms regulation, but citizen (and only citizen) disarmament.

Re: After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us?'

#347

Post by iammisc »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #341
iammisc wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doctors are professionals. Part of the reason they're allowed to prescribe is that they have supposedly taken courses and proven themselves to be of such sound judgement and knowledge that we can trust them to gatekeep extremely technical poisons. If you're telling me they can be so easily swayed by corporate messaging, and have been this way for a decade or longer, then we should scrap the apparently worthless MD de…

They overprescribed because they mistakenly believed the information provided by the drug company on the risks involved. Now they underprescribe because of the DEA.

Scary that professionals trusted to make life/death decisions are so easily swayed.

Re: After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us?'

#348

Post by netizen-936824 »

lr4444lr wrote: post #335
netizen-936824 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't care about the airlines, they're increasing medical costs for the whole system. Obese people have a greater incidence of injury and illness than the non obese population. When the percentage of obese people increases, it furthers the strain on the medical system. This ends up increasing costs and wait times while decreasing quality of service.

You're not wrong, but causality is REALLY hard. What about the obese person who got that way from taking prescribed corticosteroids for a malady that was not his fault? What about people who got that way before they turned 18 because their parents fed them junk every day, and the window of puberty had closed? What about alcoholics who are compulsively drinking their calories? I know there are a lot of people who are…

I don't agree with criminalizing obesity, but I wanted to point out the serious strain it puts our system under. Far more than drug use. Perhaps we shod consider regulating foods and/or having harm reduction education around food and eating habits.

Re: After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us?'

#349

Post by lr4444lr »

netizen-936824 wrote: post #348
lr4444lr wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not wrong, but causality is REALLY hard. What about the obese person who got that way from taking prescribed corticosteroids for a malady that was not his fault? What about people who got that way before they turned 18 because their parents fed them junk every day, and the window of puberty had closed? What about alcoholics who are compulsively drinking their calories? I know there are a lot of people who are…

I don't agree with criminalizing obesity, but I wanted to point out the serious strain it puts our system under. Far more than drug use. Perhaps we shod consider regulating foods and/or having harm reduction education around food and eating habits.

You really want the intrusion of a government bureaucracy in your life telling you how much and which foodstuffs, that are perfectly safe when eaten in moderation, you can buy? Think for a while about how this can go wrong, and about what kind of agency you want over your body.

Re: After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us?'

#350

Post by LorenPechtel »

iammisc wrote: post #347
LorenPechtel wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They overprescribed because they mistakenly believed the information provided by the drug company on the risks involved. Now they underprescribe because of the DEA.

Scary that professionals trusted to make life/death decisions are so easily swayed.

When doing your job properly will cost you your career and perhaps your freedom don't expect them to do their job properly.
Post reply on HN