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

Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 252 posts

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#81

Post by coldpie »

dublinben wrote: post #75
baldfat wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my fear. The "War on Drug" really is a health issue, but most people I know that are against the war basically want to smoke more and more pot and/or Libertarians and the reply to stop the war is not and we can help more people.

Does it really matter why someone is against the current failed policies? There are any number of paths that could lead someone to desire change, and none is more legitimate than any other.

I think your parent commenter's point was, the implied other half to ending the drug war is replacing that policy with another one. What policy does it get replaced with? Just a free-for-all market that a crazy literal libertarian would like? Some sort of regulation similar to our current legal drug market? What about rehabilitation programs? How would those be implemented and what would they cost? Suddenly you've got fiscal conservatives on your back.

Ending the drug war is good, but what do we replace it with?

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#82

Post by DanBC »

gadders wrote: post #19
Osiris wrote: post #2

While I do not condone the use of mind altering substances, I believe that the externalities of the illegal drug trade are far worse than what the drugs do to the users (e.g., the number of murders is Mexico is currently unknown and is somewhere between 20k and 250k a year). A second argument in favor of regulation over an outright ban is personal liberty. Our social contract is about protecting ourselves from each o…

>>Our social contract is about protecting ourselves from each other, not from ourselves. Drug use that negatively impacts the lives of someone other than the user should be illegal I kind of agree with you there, but where do you factor in healthcare and other costs that need to paid by all due to addicition? How should they pay for their treatment?

Prisons are fantastically expensive. Just by diverting people out of the criminal justice system you save a bunch of cash that you can use for health care.

People engage in stupid stuff every day. We provide treatment for the jaywalker who didn't look before they crossed the road; we provide treatment for the clumsy window cleaner who falls off a ladder; we provide treatment for the school children injured in poorly supervised school sports; we provide treatment to people who've smoke tobacco; we provide treatment to people who are addicted to alcohol (and also the drunk people who fall over); we provide treatment to obese people; so providing treatment to people addicted to drugs fits in with providing treatment to people who've made all those other unwise choices.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#83

Post by bonesmoses »

cpursley wrote: post #79

Looks like Rand Paul, a Republican surprisingly, is the only candidate running from either side is taking the correct stance on the "War on Drugs". http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Rand_Paul_Drugs.htm

Tell that to Bernie Sanders:

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htm

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#84

Post by dalke »

coldpie wrote: post #81
dublinben wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it really matter why someone is against the current failed policies? There are any number of paths that could lead someone to desire change, and none is more legitimate than any other.

I think your parent commenter's point was, the implied other half to ending the drug war is replacing that policy with another one. What policy does it get replaced with? Just a free-for-all market that a crazy literal libertarian would like? Some sort of regulation similar to our current legal drug market? What about rehabilitation programs? How would those be implemented and what would they cost? Suddenly you've go…

As a first approximation, replace it with the system in Portugal. That's how ukigumo kicked off this thread.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#85

Post by aquadrop »

Zak wrote: post #55
aquadrop wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reality steps in and it's bad. In Russia drug addicts were (and still are, to lesser extent) responsible for very large if not largest portion of crime, especially burglary and theft. It is a major problem, it is there and you can't go around it. And usage isn't punishable here, only distribution. So, don't dismiss parent comment so easily. 'Caffeine and alcohol are drugs' - yes, alcohol comes hand in hand with theft…

In Russia drug addicts were (and still are, to lesser extent) responsible for very large if not largest portion of crime, especially burglary and theft. And usage isn't punishable here, only distribution. So, don't dismiss parent comment so easily. This would likely not be the case if cocaine cost about the same, or even ten times as much as sugar. The high price of drugs is a direct result of laws against their prod…

I don't know, making hard drugs easily available in the country with large number of people living in poverty could end up not too good... I think we should dig history more on that, China and opium comes to mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_opium_in_China

I agree that war on drugs can't be won because of economical reasons, though.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#86

Post by saiya-jin »

peteretep wrote: post #57
simplexion wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why the campaigns against alcohol have been so unsuccessful. It is amazing that so many people have no issue with losing control mentally under the influence of alcohol and those same people think it is scary that I would like to try LSD.

Normal alcohol dosage doesn't lead to massive loss of control

Alcohol is drug like any other. I guess everybody seen some people get aggressive even on moderate alcohol high. Tobacco is probably the worst drug ever consumed by man, considering amount of death and suffering it causes...

None of drugs are a blessing to mankind, but to consider A OK and even promote it, and destroy people's lives and promote drug cartels for B, where many times B is not more harmful then A is... stupid. And we as society want to evolve and get better, right?

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#87

Post by calibraxis »

baldfat wrote: post #52
ukigumo wrote: post #31

It's not often that I have the opportunity to feel proud of the legislators in my home country, but Portugal has been on the leading edge of drug prevention and rehabilitation since we moved from a "war on drugs" to a program of health risk prevention and removed the weight of criminal charges and proceedings from the equation. Some interesting articles below: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/03/portugal-drug-de…

This is my fear. The "War on Drug" really is a health issue, but most people I know that are against the war basically want to smoke more and more pot and/or Libertarians and the reply to stop the war is not and we can help more people.

Unfortunately, the "war on drugs" is really a social control issue. Look at what it's successful at, and what it doesn't care about being successful at.

Experiment 1: Imagine what you'd think if an enemy nation had a "war on drugs" with similar results. (Highest incarceration in the world, strangling/shooting even children of a formerly enslaved ethnic minority in broad daylight, etc.)

Experiment 2: Ask yourself if you think that politicians systematically use rhetoric to basically lie about a policy's true intentions. (Without necessarily being aware of lying; powerful interests may support oblivious people who act properly.)

Experiment 3: If the "war on drugs" were really about health, what policies would be implemented? (No need to assume a supernaturally effective government; just one which makes reasonable errors but moves towards accomplishing the goal. For example, consider three policy types: prevention, treatment and punishment. How would you rate them in terms of priority, given abundant studies of their effectiveness and cost?)

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#88

Post by Nursie »

aquadrop wrote: post #80
Nursie wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> In Russia drug addicts were (and still are, to lesser extent) responsible for very large if not largest portion of crime, especially burglary and theft ... So, don't dismiss parent comment so easily. My issues with the parent comment are not that addicts never steal, it's the ignorance of lumping all drug use into the same category and then saying 'drugs' make you steal. It's the same in the UK - addicts of one so…

>> However the proportion of drug users who are addicts is small and the proportion of addicts that steal is small so saying that drugs and theft Probably we have different view on who is a drug addict. Hard drugs addicts (like heroin, ketamin, etc) have very large criminality involvement, because those drugs make them fall very fast. >> Again, a tiny proportion of drinkers may cause a problem Maybe small proportion…

>> Probably we have different view on who is a drug addict.

Maybe we have. One of the reasons I was hacked off at the first comment on this was that it's not even talking about addicts - "drug use goes hand in hand with theft". This is just not true.

>> Hard drugs addicts (like heroin, ketamin, etc) have very large criminality involvement, because those drugs make them fall very fast.

I've never heard of anyone stealing to support their Ketamine habit either!?! K causes various bladder problems, and while it does seem to be a little addictive isn't really very high up the scale I don't think.

>> Maybe small proportion of drinkers, but huge proportion of _drunk_ people cause problems.

I will defer to your knowledge. I know we have problems with alcohol in the UK but I get the impression Russia is more familiar with this problem! I agree actually, that decreasing use of alcohol in our societies would probably be a really positive thing. And that it would be next to impossible. Perhaps if everyone had access to some cannabis they might not bother so much? (I'm only half-kidding there).

In general I don't think addiction is a good thing, and I don't think anyone should be encouraged to take drugs of any sort, let alone the really nasty ones. I'm very pro-legalisation but that doesn't mean I want to hide the damage drugs do to people and to society.

I just think it's way off-mark to say "all drug users are thieves" !!

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#89

Post by pessimizer »

maccard wrote: post #51
tyho wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There seems to be some sort of taboo on getting high for whatever reason. I have asked a few people opposed to drugs why they were opposed to drugs and their answers were mostly health related i.e. Cannabis gives you psychosis so you shouldn’t smoke it. I then ask if, hypothetically, there was a drug developed which produces intense happiness for one hour but had no side effects, caused no long term damage and was to…

> There seems to be some sort of taboo on getting high for whatever reason. My two problems with this is - 1) A number of people who recreationally use the substances keep telling me "You've gotta try this" - Its none of your business what I decide I want to take or not take. (Note this also applies to alcohol) The second issue is the real reason - There's not a problem with the majority of these drugs in their pure…

>My two problems with this is - 1) A number of people who recreationally use the substances keep telling me "You've gotta try this" - Its none of your business what I decide I want to take or not take. (Note this also applies to alcohol)

Does it also apply to board games, computer languages and wood varnish? Why not?

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#90

Post by dalke »

jmadsen wrote: post #78
rayiner wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that the vast majority of people use alcohol. That was really a situation where the minority managed to impose its social mores on the majority. Drug users are in contrast a distinct minority group.

I question how genuinely accurate that is. Drug use _started_ as illegal, and so many who have experimented and might have continued to casually use instead later on shied away. Alcohol started as a perfectly normal thing (until modern times, beer was considered a safer drink than water and no one ever considered restricting it to _anyone_) So, I'm not saying you are wrong - only that "Drug users are in contrast a di…

"Drug use _started_ as illegal"

Sherlock Holmes was portrayed as a regular cocaine user, and occasional user of morphine.

At the time in Britain these were legal.

BTW, the "beer was considered a safer drink than water" appears to be a modern myth. See http://leslefts.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-great-medieval-wate... for a summary. It may be that beer was considered more fortifying than water.

Post reply on HN