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

Steve Jobs, LSD and Drug Freedom

politics.salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 173 posts

Re: Steve Jobs, LSD and Drug Freedom

#141

Post by rick888 »

adamtmca wrote: post #76
rick888 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Illegal drug money is used to finance so much corruption and killing, that there seems to be little value in keeping them illegal, especially considering that everyone who wants to take drugs still does. If certain drugs do have harmful effects then at least the effects will be mostly limited to the people who take them." Mexico is already corrupt without the drugs. Making them legal will give the cartels even more…

Not to pile on, but: > Many people want government-run health care in the US. Legalizing illegal drugs will add to the already large amount of addicts. Do we really want more addicts in our hospitals? I also don't feel like I should be forced to pay for your poor life choices. Regular Drug users should immediately get a huge increase in healthcare costs. First, the fact that drugs are illegal has done nothing to make…

"Second, addiction is a public health issue, not a law and order issue. Do you know how expensive it is to imprison someone vs sending them to a rehab program? Take a look at Portugal - treating addiction like the health issue it is works and it's cheaper"

I looked, and I'm not surprised by the results:

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356/Mixed-Results-For-Po...

"Today, more users are in rehab, but drug use is on the rise, and reporter Keith O'Brien says the policy has made the problem worse."

"personal drug use over the course of their lifetime has gone up about 40 to 50 percent in the last decade."

Drug use is actually up...because there is no legal risk.

More from the article:

"They would meet with the person who had been picked up in possession of whatever drug it was and discuss the issue. These CDTs would then hand down various, sort of, not punishments, but treatments. Some people would, you know, be asked to enter counseling. Some people would be banned from, say, going to raves, if that's where they were doing their drugs; or banned from attending certain concerts or bars, if that's where they were doing drugs. And, you know, this is very controversial, even in Portugal, as you can imagine."

Do you really want the government telling you you can't go to a concert or rave?

I would really like to see the long-term numbers for Portugal. I predict they will be bankrupt within 15 years.

"I won't argue the premise but surely you would agree that a backed up court system beats DEA agents getting their heads blown off on a regular basis"

They still get their heads blown off for things like Vicodin (a legal form of heroin), so how will legalizing all drugs be any different?

"Take a look at Portugal - treating addiction like the health issue it is works and it's cheaper."

Re: Steve Jobs, LSD and Drug Freedom

#142

Post by rick888 »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #140
rick888 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I really don't see this as the most likely scenario. Why would it follow that legalization of a drug would lead to more addicts? Cigarettes are legal and addictive and I don't smoke them" Many people do because they are easily available in pretty much any 7-11 and gas station. "Legal doesn't imply uncontrolled and unfettered access by all" Then there will still be a black market and it still won't solve the issue at…

> Everyone that's pro-drug wants the government out of their lives, yet they are fine with increased taxes and regulations to support more and more social programs. Everyone? Well that's convenient. That people who agree on one issue would all also agree on several other unrelated issues. Very convenient indeed.

"That people who agree on one issue would all also agree on several other unrelated issues. Very convenient indeed."

No, they are hypocritical to say that they want the government out of their lives and then also want increased in more government control. You can't have it both ways, sorry.

Re: Steve Jobs, LSD and Drug Freedom

#143

Post by rick888 »

nate_meurer wrote: post #70
rick888 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Illegal drug money is used to finance so much corruption and killing, that there seems to be little value in keeping them illegal, especially considering that everyone who wants to take drugs still does. If certain drugs do have harmful effects then at least the effects will be mostly limited to the people who take them." Mexico is already corrupt without the drugs. Making them legal will give the cartels even more…

So there must be some really enormous cartels engaged in alcohol bootlegging, and "legally partnering up with companies in the US" in the process. Right?

"So there must be some really enormous cartels engaged in alcohol bootlegging, and "legally partnering up with companies in the US" in the process. Right"

The US isn't as corrupt as mexico. You don't have illegal alcohol cartels because the US has done its job at stamping them out years ago.

The cartels also have had many more years to build up their multi-million dollar businesses.

Re: Steve Jobs, LSD and Drug Freedom

#145

Post by nate_meurer »

rick888 wrote: post #143
nate_meurer wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So there must be some really enormous cartels engaged in alcohol bootlegging, and "legally partnering up with companies in the US" in the process. Right?

"So there must be some really enormous cartels engaged in alcohol bootlegging, and "legally partnering up with companies in the US" in the process. Right" The US isn't as corrupt as mexico. You don't have illegal alcohol cartels because the US has done its job at stamping them out years ago. The cartels also have had many more years to build up their multi-million dollar businesses.

Ah, silly me, I thought that the end of prohibition was the main reason for the drop in bootlegging. Boy, what a goofy assumption that was!

So, it's good to know that the cartels won't be "legally partnering up with companies in the US" due to the lower amount of corruption in the U.S. You evidently mis-spoke there, I guess.

Not sure what your last sentence is supposed to mean. Perhaps you mean to imply that the cartels' current cash-rich positions would cushion them from the crash in the prices of their product that would result from the end of drug prohibition. Again, just like what happened in the 30's, right? Surely, those cartels would take their cash and quickly adapt to the new economic climate, perhaps diversifying into real estate and banking. Then we'd really be screwed!

Please go on, rick888. I'm dying to hear more of your theories.

Re: Steve Jobs, LSD and Drug Freedom

#146

Post by tmeasday »

rick888 wrote: post #138
marquis wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Making them legal will give the cartels even more power because they will now be able to legally sell drugs in the US. Does Anheuser-Busch engage in lethal turf warfare in the manner of Al Capone? Yes, I agree that the cartels would move into legal territory but quite frankly, as someone who spends a lot of time in Mexico, the country would be happy to see the terror gone, jobs created and the tax benefits reaped. R…

"Does Anheuser-Busch engage in lethal turf warfare in the manner of Al Capone? Yes, I agree that the cartels would move into legal territory but quite frankly, as someone who spends a lot of time in Mexico, the country would be happy to see the terror gone, jobs created and the tax benefits reaped." It won't happen. Mexico's entire system is completely corrupt. Legalizing drugs won't fix the problem.

There are plenty of places in the world that are as corrupt or more corrupt than Mexico which don't have the same levels of violence.

Re: Steve Jobs, LSD and Drug Freedom

#147

Post by felipemnoa »

nate_meurer wrote: post #119
felipemnoa wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greed is not illegal and as long as you do not abuse it just like with alcohol, driving, etc. etc. You should be OK. You could say similar things about some drugs, some argue, unfortunately they are illegal, they can land you in jail, and they support a drug cartel. >>"Better safe than sorry" is a platitude that can be used against any activity that entails some degree of risk. But I wasn't using it for anything. I w…

Yes, I can see that you picked this specific case to apply your platitude. Feel free to pick any number of other cases as well, completely at random if you wish, and your argument will propel them all with equal force.

Wether it is or not a platitude is irrelevant, it doesn't devalue the advise. It is good advise to tell somebody that it is better to be safe than sorry not to use an illegal substance especially if doing so can land you in jail.

Re: Steve Jobs, LSD and Drug Freedom

#148

Post by nate_meurer »

rick888 wrote: post #136
dailyrorschach wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your welcome to believe that it is bad for you and that you don't want to do it, but I disagree that that should translate to you saying other people can't do something. We could easily replace pot with any number of substances, even legal psychoactive drugs. There are plenty of alcoholics in this world, does that mean that if I can enjoy alcohol occasionally and responsibly I shouldn't be able to? Many anxiety patie…

I see the drug overlords have again down-modded me for not being a troll and merely stating my opinion on the matter. "Your welcome to believe that it is bad for you and that you don't want to do it, but I disagree that that should translate to you saying other people can't do something." I'm fine with it as long as users of these drugs have to pay higher medical fees (if we ever have government-run health care). The…

And to be consistent, I'm sure you'll endorse higher medical fees (and abridged employment) for users of other, more dangerous substances such as alcohol, acetaminophen, and redundant girlfriends, to name but a few.

Re: Steve Jobs, LSD and Drug Freedom

#149

Post by [deleted] »

rick888 wrote: post #136
dailyrorschach wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your welcome to believe that it is bad for you and that you don't want to do it, but I disagree that that should translate to you saying other people can't do something. We could easily replace pot with any number of substances, even legal psychoactive drugs. There are plenty of alcoholics in this world, does that mean that if I can enjoy alcohol occasionally and responsibly I shouldn't be able to? Many anxiety patie…

I see the drug overlords have again down-modded me for not being a troll and merely stating my opinion on the matter. "Your welcome to believe that it is bad for you and that you don't want to do it, but I disagree that that should translate to you saying other people can't do something." I'm fine with it as long as users of these drugs have to pay higher medical fees (if we ever have government-run health care). The…

[deleted]

Re: Steve Jobs, LSD and Drug Freedom

#150

Post by cppsnob »

ldh wrote: post #84
cppsnob wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What fallacy is being committed here? Concluding that he wouldn't been the same successful person without doing LSD. There's no evidence of causation. That's the fallacy. I'm not sure why so many people are excited about this, it seems like a cheap pro-legalization play in light of his death.

> Concluding that he wouldn't been the same successful person without doing LSD. There's no evidence of causation. That's the fallacy. Who's making that conclusion? As far as I can tell, nobody's attributing his success entirely to LSD. I'm sure he'd have been successful without it. But a person is a product of their experiences, and he plainly states that LSD factored strongly into it. You can disbelieve him, but I…

> Who's making that conclusion?

Everyone who even brings up that he used LSD as a point of interest. At least that's the implication being made.

> that doesn't make the points being made any less valid.

No, the points are not valid. That's why we have a scientific method that proves causation.

It's the exact same fallacy that someone falls into with e.g. alternative medicine. A person's cancer went into remission while they were eating tree bark. They are free to believe it helped them, but that doesn't mean it's scientifically, or even remotely, the case. Taking their word for it doesn't make it true.

Post reply on HN