Live data from Hacker News

Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

washingtonpost.com

601–610 of 660 posts

Re: Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

#601
post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, let's say you find a way to distribute the resources evenly between everybody. Haven't you solved poverty then? Then if you want to solve inequalities, do you think it's easier to start by solving inequalities between the poor people, or is it easier to start by taking money from those who are insanely rich for no good reason?

Step 1) Murder tens of millions of people for the cause. Step 2) ???? Step 3) Equality!

I said "prevent the ultra rich from getting even richer", and you understood "murder tens of millions of people for the cause".

That escalated quickly. I would be tempted to say that you completely, absolutely hallucinated the meaning of my words, but then... well English isn't my first language, so maybe that's on me.

Re: Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

#602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theres no need to guess, we can just look to before it was prohibited. And it was alcohol that was worse. Most people don't care to use it (heroin) at all let alone regularly. Opiates cause nausea and retching in most areas drug abuse levels.... Alcohol was far more popular and consistently harmful... Just ask the wives of the time what they'd rather thier husbands use....

Alcohol is a potential catalyst and not a cause in these situations. There are underlying problems with people's psyche that lead to abusive outcomes. Add in centuries of religion supporting and encouraging the beating of wives and children who don't submit it's no wonder we as a species ended up where we are. Even Ghandi who was teetotaler hit his wife. Point being, like anything, it's complex. Yes, alcohol is a fac…

No sh-t

The context was the impacts of X substance vs Y substance, right?

In all cases the actual cause is the underlying problems but it's the substance that (is perceived as) causes the manifestation that otherwise wouldn't occur, right?

So what purpose did your comment actually serve into he thread other than to derail an extant line of discourse?

Re: Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

#603

Every impact story photo is: "Beautiful place covered in dirty drug paraphernalia". It's the same train of thought when people here describe homelessness in big cities. "They're sleeping in our public spaces!" If you want undesirables to go away, you have to give them somewhere to go. A better life or at least a safe place. Moving them on solves nothing. As another comment reiterates, Portugal had a good start but th…

For some people having to actually see homeless people or drug users is the big problem, not the suffering caused.

Re: Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

#604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alcohol is a potential catalyst and not a cause in these situations. There are underlying problems with people's psyche that lead to abusive outcomes. Add in centuries of religion supporting and encouraging the beating of wives and children who don't submit it's no wonder we as a species ended up where we are. Even Ghandi who was teetotaler hit his wife. Point being, like anything, it's complex. Yes, alcohol is a fac…

No sh-t The context was the impacts of X substance vs Y substance, right? In all cases the actual cause is the underlying problems but it's the substance that (is perceived as) causes the manifestation that otherwise wouldn't occur, right? So what purpose did your comment actually serve into he thread other than to derail an extant line of discourse?

I suspect this is a case of under communication on both are parts.

What I saw, you ended on a very vague set of statements that I assume were supposed to support that you were saying.

"Alcohol was far more popular and consistently harmful..."

Implication of alcohol being more harmful without evidence to support the claim.

History tells us lots of stories. For example, just because the temperance movement existed doesn't mean anything other than a bunch of people got it in their head that alcohol was the devil's drink and caused all of society's ills.

You also ended with an appeal to emotion, "Just ask the wives..." Instead of again supporting your claim that alcohol is more damaging with evidence.

To be clear, I'm not saying alcohol is or isn't more damaging. I'm saying that there isn't any evidence in these comments (yours and others) to support a claim of "X being worse than Y".

Re: Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

#605
post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communists think that it possible to build communism by killing of «bad» (rich) people, until good people, liberated from burden of capitalism, will build communism. In their imagination, it's OK to kill 30% of population to build heaven for them.

Sounds like what I imagine when looking of a cliché about what people learn in the US. Are you from the US? And is it really what you're being taught there? Genuinely interested.

No, I born in the USSR.

Re: Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

#606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Perhaps those who've had family or friends killed by drunk driving or drunken homicide might have something else to say. A guy I used to date was rear-ended while waiting at a red light by someone who was texting while driving. It was an extremely serious wreck (the person who hit him did not brake at all, ge was so absorbed in his phone), and my ex was lucky to survive it. But people texting on their phones in publ…

Texting while driving isn't illegal in your country?

Of course it's illegal. So is drinking and driving.

But texting in public is legal, and having a beer in public is legal. Just because something is dangerous while driving doesn't mean it's harmful under all other circumstances.

Re: Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

#607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That being said, it's also obvious that a criminal isn't really a good authority on the justness of the crime they commit... How is that obvious? It's not at all obvious to me that, for example, MLK Jr was not an authority on the justice of civil disobedience because he himself practiced civil disobedience. If we disregard the opinions of people who think doing X is justified and therefore proceed to do X, then we b…

How is it not obvious that a legal transgressor would justify their transgression? The fact that bad people generally don't feel like bad people is a universal understanding of the human condition. Not interested in making comparisons to someone that you can't separate from a type of neo-sainthood. Anyhow, having an unpopular opinion isn't antisocial or illegal. Buying heroin is.

It's not a comparison. It's an analogy. This is actually a pretty important distinction because analogies are vital for illustrating concepts in a more concrete way; it's why we got drilled and tested on analogies again and again in school.

But let me try again without making an analogy:

Some percentage of people do X and therefore try to justify doing X.

But another percentage of people think X is justified and therefore do X.

You do not appear to make a distinction between these two cases. You lump the latter in with the former and then dismiss their views out of hand.

This is such bad logic that I am beginning to suspect that you are are actually being a hypocrite here: that you dislike drug users emotionally, and so you are trying extra hard to justify that dislike intellectually, even when it requires blatantly fallacious reasoning. (And, dammit, here I ended up making another analogy, albeit hopefully subtly enough that you don't accuse me of comparing you to a criminal.)

Re: Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

#608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that they are seen as members of the community rather than a blight, right? I don't know how it works in the US, but they are primarily people in need of care, like a person with a disease, they need to be cured before they can go back to the society and be part of it or they will return to segregate themselves and die alone sooner or later. Putting them behind 4 walls is exactly making them invisible, so that the…

So, before we can get funding for treatment we need public will, right? So long as they are viewed as degenerates unwilling to engage in basic care, there will never be the public will. And for some they wouldn't take the help even if it was available, because for a minority it is in fact a lifestyle choice. Given both those facts, the first step to getting public will for treatment is to minimize the negative percep…

> So, before we can get funding for treatment we need public will, right?

Again, that's a different problem entirely.

In my Country healthcare is public and funded by taxation.

We also have publicly funded damage reduction centers where they provide methadone to heroin addicts, problem is most of the time they do not show up voluntarily because of the stigma associated with it, secondly because those willingly participating are already in recover and take it to minimize the effects of abstinence. They are already on the path of healing.

> So long as they are viewed as degenerates unwilling to engage in basic care

They aren't all degenerates, you are putting emphasis on something no one ever said, but they are obviously unwilling or they would not need special treatments.

If they are able to take care of themselves, they don't need external help.

But only a very small minority is.

> A key is to not permit use in rooms but only at safe sites within the building

Which, again, as I've said before, is exactly why they do not need "4 walls with privacy"

Methadone is permitted only in person and they have to assume it in the facility that provides it under medical check, otherwise the first thing most of them would do is trade the methadone with something else.

> Rule violation would mean switching to a monitored room

That's the one thing that makes everything worse: basically it's an house arrest. We do not arrest as many addicts as in the US, but we still have jails full of people that used drugs that would be much better of somewhere else outside a cell (which basically is the 4 walls with privacy minus the drugs plus the suicide opportunity)

> The truth is we need to stop the problem before it starts and the only real way is to prevent traumas

We need to do both.

Re: Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

#609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Perhaps those who've had family or friends killed by drunk driving or drunken homicide might have something else to say. A guy I used to date was rear-ended while waiting at a red light by someone who was texting while driving. It was an extremely serious wreck (the person who hit him did not brake at all, ge was so absorbed in his phone), and my ex was lucky to survive it. But people texting on their phones in publ…

Yes, but these people thrive on inflicting sadistic "treatments" and "remedies" on everyone more vulnerable than themselves. They're not interested in responsible driving, they're just looking for any excuse for their sadism. Note that the discussion isn't even about dangerous driving, that's a complete tangent. It's about whether drug use _per se_ is criminalized. Not even legal, just whether the remedy for drug use…

That sure is what it looks like.

Re: Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

#610
post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if you walk down 1 block of a street and there's 3 people smoking crack. They aren't sleeping on the street, or breaking any other law, but they are high on crack. Do you think people feel safe on this street? Just because you personally may feel safe, consider that you may be personally blessed with youth and health. Does an elderly woman with a cane and a purse feel safe? People high on crack are unpredicta…

'People high on crack are unpredictable." Do you believe your own propaganda? That's the most simplistic, nonsensical, DARE-level logic I have seen in this comment thread yet.

Yeah I absolutely believe it. If you were riding a public bus, and you had the option of sitting next to 1) a person on crack or 2) a person not on crack, which do you choose?

Also, how about you present a counter position to the argument? Otherwise next time just type “u r dumb” and save yourself a couple of characters in typing.

Post reply on HN