Time to end the war on drugs • Hacker News Board

Re: Time to end the war on drugs

#131

Post by geoffschmidt » Mon, Dec 26, 2011, 10:28 PM UTC

seanp2k2 wrote: post #117

chimeracoder wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should have been clearer - I was just trying to be concise to prove a point. And I'm making the assumption that we're comparing drugs of high quality in either category (because obviously drugs that are mixed with adulterants are going to have other problems). You seem to understand what's going on, but for anybody else who's curious: Adderall isn't methamphetamine. However, the methyl group doesn't change the way…

Thanks for your explanation. I know I like knowing /how/ drugs / medical treatments actually work, and I think many of the people on here also appreciate this. Doctors, in the US at least, are a bit less than helpful when you ask about this kind of stuff, and I've had more than one actually act offended when asked about how/why what they're prescribing works. I know that in IT, if a client asks us how something works…

It's a rare doctor that really knows -- in many cases, nobody really knows.

For example: How do SSRIs work? Statistically, they do "work," for certain values of work. We know that they result in more serotonin in the synapse. But we also know that that's not the reason they work, because that happens immediately but it usually takes a few weeks for the drug to actually work. Evidently they work by inducing some kind of structural change, but nobody knows what.. Nor do we need to know what to know that they're good drugs to prescribe in certain circumstances.

Meanwhile, many people want "reassurance" to be part of the product that they receive when they go to the doctor. If your doctor said, "these pill seem to sort of go with your symptoms in the massive table I have painstakingly memorized, nobody really knows what they do, try eating them", she would be providing a strictly worse product in many people's eyes than if she said "You have condition X. It happened because of Y. Take these pills and you'll be all right."

Re: Time to end the war on drugs

#132

Post by mixmastamyk » Mon, Dec 26, 2011, 10:34 PM UTC

The time was twenty years ago!

Re: Time to end the war on drugs

#133

Post by praptak » Mon, Dec 26, 2011, 10:46 PM UTC

I believe that the dominant policy is based on the "it is immoral, so it should be punished severely and to heck with the collateral damage" reasoning. It's irrational. Arguments based on reason will not work here. Yes, I'm a pessimist.

Re: Time to end the war on drugs

#134

Post by chris123 » Mon, Dec 26, 2011, 10:59 PM UTC

The "war" on "anything" is a sign that people (usually politicians and the business interests that support them) are using propaganda techniques to "shape" (they love that word) public opinion and legislation that will defend their status quo cash-cow and/or or channel new dollars their way. The "War on Terror" and "War on Drugs" are the biggies that come to mind.

Re: Time to end the war on drugs

#135

Post by gnaritas » Mon, Dec 26, 2011, 11:23 PM UTC

geden wrote: post #10

swombat wrote: post #2

Even coming from a respectable industry leader like Richard Branson, this will almost certainly be ignored. Here's an interesting question: what would end the war on drugs? Is it something that can be made to happen by sane, enterprising individuals?

It's simply a matter of education, access to knowledge. It's a slow process. Organised religion fizzled away when faced with widespread access to the facts (though two world wars surely helped).

> Organised religion fizzled away when faced with widespread access to the facts

Where? That's certainly not the case in America; access to facts does nothing more than make believers even more devout.

Re: Time to end the war on drugs

#136

Post by rdl » Mon, Dec 26, 2011, 11:38 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #109

rue wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Adderall/Desoxyn/Methamphetamine/"Speed" are a great example Small clarification: Adderall isn't methamphetamine, it's amphetamine. When discussing street drugs, for some value of safe, it is a considerably safer substance. (Real, lab-made methamphetamine, even abused, is naturally much less bad for you than the typical battery acid sold on the street, too.)

I should have been clearer - I was just trying to be concise to prove a point. And I'm making the assumption that we're comparing drugs of high quality in either category (because obviously drugs that are mixed with adulterants are going to have other problems). You seem to understand what's going on, but for anybody else who's curious: Adderall isn't methamphetamine. However, the methyl group doesn't change the way…

What's the advantage of vyvanse over dexedrine, except for renewed patent protection?

Re: Time to end the war on drugs

#137

Post by rdl » Mon, Dec 26, 2011, 11:40 PM UTC

torrenegra wrote: post #95

beardicus wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glyphosate == Roundup(TM). This is the most used herbicide in the US... certainly not banned. Regardless, I agree with your conclusion.

Thank you for the correction! You are right. I was thinking about the act of "aerial-spraying of drug producing crops". For Wikipedia: "In many cases the spraying is carried out by American contractors, such as DynCorp, using planes and helicopters to spray Roundup on coca plantations. Aerial spraying has been repeatedly condemned by human rights and environmental activists because of its affect on human populations…

Is there a Roundup-Ready coca plant?

Re: Time to end the war on drugs

#138

Post by lux » Tue, Dec 27, 2011, 12:01 AM UTC

themgt wrote: post #94

chimeracoder wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Drug use is a health-related issue, whether it is a doctor prescribing medications, a patient taking meds off-label, a person self-medicating, an addict, or some kind experimentation > We have a caricatured view of the drug addict -- the unwashed, illiterate, toothless junkie hiding out in a crack house. Yes, addiction ends up that way for some, but by and large addicts are middle-class, educated, and live in house…

I'd add as a third point, that among people who've used a relatively broad range of legal and illegal substances, alcohol and tobacco are widely considered two of the most disgusting, damaging, abuse-prone substances known to man

A critical point in exposing the blatant contradiction and corruption at the core of the "war on drugs" argument.

Re: Time to end the war on drugs

#139

Post by anamax » Tue, Dec 27, 2011, 12:24 AM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #37

Great article. I would like to further suggest we end the use of the word "war" in contexts that do not involve mandatory conscription and the deaths of large numbers of combatants until one side totally surrenders. (This implies there is a "side" to be able to surrender.) Politicians have so destroyed the word "war" that it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion about any use of violence by the state. Perhaps…

> Drug use is a health-related issue, whether it is a doctor prescribing medications, a patient taking meds off-label, a person self-medicating, an addict, or some kind experimentation. All of these situations are much more personal health concerns than public safety concerns.

Not so fast. "We" have decided that obesity is a public health issue that warrants all manner of intrusions.

I think agree with you about drug use but ....

Re: Time to end the war on drugs

#140

Post by _gd3l » Tue, Dec 27, 2011, 12:26 AM UTC

paulhauggis wrote: post #90

TheAmazingIdiot wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree wholeheartedly. Viewing drug usage as a medical problem and funding free treatment seems to be a no brainer. That pesky problem seems to go back to Congress. I can just imagine the headlines: "Senator Blabla wants to release druggies who solicit behind YOUR KIDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL!!!!" Citizens already appear to want harsher and harsher punishments for crimes. And then is the open question about what we do wit…

"I agree wholeheartedly. Viewing drug usage as a medical problem and funding free treatment seems to be a no brainer. That pesky problem seems to go back to Congress." How is drug usage a "medical" problem? It's a personal choice. Most addicts aren't born addicted and they make the choice to pick up that first joint. I don't want to make it easier to be a drug addict in this country. Especially at my expense.

> How is drug usage a "medical" problem?

Because it's the ingestion of mind-altering substances to achieve a certain goal. Most often this goal is inebriation for entertainment purposes, some times (especially in indigenous cultures) it's a spiritual goal.

> It's a personal choice.

Sure, many times it is. But I think more often than you'd realize it's less of a choice and more of a predisposition. I mean, if some people are born with allergies or giant feet or different colored eyes, would it be too crazy to assume that some people are more easily addicted to drugs?

> Most addicts aren't born addicted and they make the choice to pick up that first joint.

Just real quick, I think you mean joint as in marijuana joint. Marijuana is completely non-addictive physically, in any circumstance. Nor does it kill brain cells, etc. These are remnants of the hilarious Reefer Madness nonsense that the US unfortunately took part in.

> I don't want to make it easier to be a drug addict in this country. [...]

Then make drugs further decriminalized. Marijuana, for example, is not a gateway drug. Drug dealers are gateway drugs. Every drug dealer that I know, except one, doesn't just deal pot. They've got cocaine, saliva, mushrooms, ecstasy, et cetera et cetera. So instead of being able to just go to a safe environment and get some harmless little green stuff, many drug laws force benign drug-users to be around shady, scummy people with lots of other shady, scummy drugs on them.

> [...] Especially at my expense.

See the above comment, and recognize that your hard-earned tax dollars are being brilliantly spent on DEA sweeps of Marijuana dispensaries in California, for example; countless arrests are made and resources used over completely benign drugs. Massive, massive wars are being waged around the world that suck money into them faster than a black hole. I'm not a socialist myself and would agree that Person A having Person B take money from Person C to pay for his/her decisions is almost laughably dumb; but there are far, FAR more money-sucking endeavors in the US than drug addiction care/treatment. I'd take a socialistic addiction treatment plan over 3 million+ Dept. of Defense employees (that we know about), 216,000 "Department of Homeland Security" employees, massive military expenditures, and who-knows-how-many-millions of dollars spent annually "fighting" marijuana and other drugs.

Just my two cents. Sorry for the long post guys.