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

Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 660 posts

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

#631

Post by themitigating »

cudgy wrote: post #546
themitigating wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't forget that, I didn't mention it because we're discussing the government of Portugal, California, and government services being cut. I can't tell if this is some weird whataboutism like "yeah maybe the republicans but how about them companies, since they're also bad that kinda shows that everyone is, really no point in getting mad at Republicans right?"

I guess your not used to people agreeing with you.

You're not agreeing with me, you're offering up another opinion unrelated to what I said.

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

#632

Post by K0balt »

tiffanyg wrote: post #586
K0balt wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should, I agree. But not everyone wants to participate. I believe life is wonderful and precious… but it is , by default, misery. If you do nothing (the default condition) to sustain or improve your existence, you will be miserable. That is the never ending tyranny of imperative action. That is the fundamental nature of life, and not everyone is up for it. And that’s ok.

As another commenter noted, you're making lots of assumptions. For example, your mindset sounds, to me, entirely "modern 'western'". I would suggest that the fundamental issue with your assumptions is a blurring of the lines when it comes to the objective and subjective. Specifically, nature and certain realms of human existence ARE objectively "harsh", unforgiving, uncomfortable, etc. However, that does not mean tha…

I didn’t mean to imply that living in harsh conditions is inherently miserable. I have lived in “natural” subsistence conditions in the Alaskan bush for extended periods of time, and while it was often acutely uncomfortable, it was not any kind of existential misery. Misery comes from unmanageable circumstances or personal outlook.

But, I agree with you that my off the cuff policy proposal has many flaws and would harm some people. I think it might do less harm than good, but without a good bit of (probably unethical) a/b testing I’m really not sure.

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

#633

Post by K0balt »

HumblyTossed wrote: post #574
K0balt wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should, I agree. But not everyone wants to participate. I believe life is wonderful and precious… but it is , by default, misery. If you do nothing (the default condition) to sustain or improve your existence, you will be miserable. That is the never ending tyranny of imperative action. That is the fundamental nature of life, and not everyone is up for it. And that’s ok.

>If you do nothing (the default condition) to sustain or improve your existence, you will be miserable. That is the never ending tyranny of imperative action. You're making LOTS of assumptions here.

Im pretty sure you are correct, but I’m struggling with imagining situations where the statement “If you do nothing (the default condition) to sustain or improve your existence, you will be miserable. “ does not apply.

I would be genuinely greatful if you could provide me with realistic examples of where this statement is incorrect.

The only ones I can think of are ones where someone else does the sustenance and improvement of your existence, like in the case of being a child or a ward of the state, perhaps? Also obviously where you are paying others to do so, but there you have actually caused this to happen and therefore are “doing” it.

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

#634

Post by peoplefromibiza »

DropInIn wrote: post #618
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 partic…

> 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. Holy hell active misrepresentation much? Or is your reading comprehension just that poor? You even quoted it yet didnt actually read it? > So long as they are viewed as degenerates unwilling to engage in basic care VIEWED AS That's not remotely the same as…

> Holy hell active misrepresentation much? Or is your reading comprehension just that poor?

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

> VIEWED AS

Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put *asterisks* around it and it will get italicized.

I am a non native English speaker, but you are honestly trying to have a fight on something that it's not there.

Never said you called them degenerates, but that not all of them are (implying that some of them are), and that the emphasis on the "viewed as degenerates" is superfluous because no one pointed that out in this conversation.

Moreover, they are not viewed as unwilling, they are unwilling or we would not be talking about it.

I'll explain once again: they are not simply "viewed as degenerates unwilling to" they are obviously unwilling, some of them are clearly degenerates and all of them engage in some kind of anti social behaviour, mostly against their family members, which makes them outcasts.

Or the issue we are discussing would not exist!

> Be better.

Never been better, thanks.

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

#635

Post by P_I_Staker »

galfarragem wrote: post #627
P_I_Staker wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're talking about sounds just like the eb and flow of drug markets everywhere. So the policy did nothing either way? Far fewer people were incarcerated? That seems like a net positive and smashing success to me. Portugals policies were a success. It's blatantly true.

Despite the law, hardly ever (if ever), anyone was incarcerated because of consuming drugs. Addicts always were jailed because of petty crime. Police couldn't manage to enforce it so government just ditched it. Like I said before, politicians always take positive results as their own but their influence here was negligible. I was there living next door, the cycle just passed. Now it's coming back and the policies are…

I'm not romanticizing anything, I'm just sick of the never ending cycle of locking people in cages. I've been to other countries with severe property crimes issues, and they can be awful at times to lose things, but people mostly doing okay. (btw, this is backed by violent crime stats)

So you have some people not having a thing, and compare it to torturing millions (hundreds of thousands?) of innocent people.

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

#636

Post by pyrados »

shuckles wrote: post #394
pmoriarty wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should start taxing wealth, as many of the wealthiest people have a tiny income in proportion to their wealth.

Wealth taxes* are economically inefficient, impossible to administer, and have little popular support. Consider this: a land value tax is the best (and only good) type of wealth tax, and the people of California hated it so much they voted it out on the ballot! * Outside of LVT.

This is true, however it was still a property tax (appreciation of course is due to land but the disincentive on improvements is still there), it was poorly administered (long periods between assessments) and it was during the extreme inflation of the 70's.

This is definitely an issue with levying LVT at fairly low rates. Granted, at the time it was relatively high but it wasn't high enough. The 'ideal' LVT would bring down the price of land -considerably-, close to $0. The fact that land still has a large selling price means it is still largely financed with loans, and sensitive to interest rate adjustments.

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

#637

Post by DropInIn »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #634
DropInIn wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Holy hell active misrepresentation much? Or is your reading comprehension just that poor? You even quoted it yet didnt actually read it? > So long as they are viewed as degenerates unwilling to engage in basic care VIEWED AS That's not remotely the same as…

> Holy hell active misrepresentation much? Or is your reading comprehension just that poor? Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. > VIEWED AS Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put *asterisks* around it and it will get italicized. I am a non native English speaker,…

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Yea effing exactly. That's what You did not do

> Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized.

Italics would have been useless with YOU since you have such poor language comprehension, as evidenced by your attempt to use a rule against me that you initially and then repeatedly violated.

Now for the rest of your bs:

You're a hateful bigot hiding behind low effort shit talk.

I'm not being mean or hyperbolic, that s exactly what you are.

I see no value in continuing to engage with someone who plays games with the truth and refuses to engage in good faith.

May you live in the world as you would have it, so long as you live as the least advantaged.

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

#638

Post by Aerroon »

99_00 wrote: post #617
Aerroon wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My complaint is: why can't I just buy the asthma inhaler without any kind of subsidy? I know I have asthma, I know how to use an inhaler, but I'm simply not allowed to. Instead I just have to hope for the best when breathing gets difficult.

You don't know that you have asthma because you haven't been diagnosed by a doctor.

>You don't know that you have asthma because you haven't been diagnosed by a doctor.

Sure I do. A doctor has told me as much on at least two different occasions. Once when I was a young child and again later.

But because I lost my insurance I didn't get treatment in-between, so I have to get rediagnosed. Jim other words, I'm just going to be relying on caffeine when breathing gets hard.

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

#639

Post by Aerroon »

defrost wrote: post #630
Aerroon wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My complaint is: why can't I just buy the asthma inhaler without any kind of subsidy? I know I have asthma, I know how to use an inhaler, but I'm simply not allowed to. Instead I just have to hope for the best when breathing gets difficult.

The deal in Australia (public health service) is that depending upon the level of severity of a persons asthma doctors want to physically check on patients every three to six months .. if you've been prescribed certain kinds of treatment you get months long "refill prescriptions" that ultimately have to be renewed by a doctor (although I believe that pharmacists can extend arefill prescription if you tell them why yo…

Regardless what the intent is, the outcome is that I'm relying on caffeine and sleeping in a semi-seated position when breathing gets too difficult. Luckily, this is rare because I know to avoid aerobic exercise and being in dusty rooms. I'm sure I'm not the only one either. And for people in my situation it essentially means that relief for these issues doesn't exist.

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

#640

Post by isaacremuant »

gretch wrote: post #610
standardUser wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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.

Ban alcohol then, because I'd rather sit next to sober people than those who aren't.

Ban videogames too. And walking around with hockey sticks.

What a absurdly basic argument. And you thought it was poignant?

Post reply on HN