Live data from Hacker News

Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

economist.com

151–160 of 252 posts

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#151
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is essentially the stereotype of legalization activists, but it's not really true. I don't smoke pot, but have long been an advocate of legalization. It's so strange to me when people assume I do smoke because of this advocacy... I'm also a straight supporter of equal marriage, and a male supporter of pro-choice policies, &c., &c. People who want to use drugs are already using drugs. Marijuana legalization would…

I don't think it's a baseless stereotype. I'm in the same position as you, for instance, and if drugs or drug laws come up in a conversation, I'd agree with you. But whenever I am part of a conversation like that, somebody inevitably makes it into a conspiracy fueled crusade -- like it is simply the most important political issue in the world -- and that person is most often a stoner. One who insists on being the lou…

It's definitely not a baseless stereotype, but then again few truly are. It is however a stereotype that is pretty inaccurate and more readily accepted than it should be.

Your last statement alludes to other related stereotypes; that people who smoke cannabis are the kind of people who make this argument, or that people who smoke cannabis secretly only want to legalise it for the sake of their personal weed-greed.

This isn't targeted at you, I'm not saying that you believe these things.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#153
I'm all for drug legalization, however, this should also be a part of the laws:

-Businesses should be able to fire someone for being under the influence of any mind-altering substance. The CA proposition a few years back had a clause in there that made it very difficult. Calling addiction a "medical issue" makes it even worse because the differences between recreational use and addiction aren't that easy to distinguish. -The individual should pay for all of their own issues, medical expenses, etc due to drug addiction. Many of the advocates not only want legalization (because it's their choice, their body) but none of the consequences that come along with it (medical bills due to addiction). It's unfair for me, as an individual that chooses not to put those drugs into my body to also have rising medical costs that pay for the people that willingly ingest drugs. -Tort reform. We all know heroin is addictive and will cause many deaths and ruin many lives. If a company sells it and you choose to take it and die, your family shouldn't be able to sue the company or the government.

We still have cigarette lawsuits..and it's been known to cause cancer for 50+ years (it's even written on the box).

I think my overall issue is that advocates want all of the benefits (ability to use illegal drugs legally) yet also want society to pay for any of the negative effects that come along with it (death, addiction). You should have the choice to legally put anything in your body....but be responsible for anything negative that comes along with it. If you don't have the resources to deal with the consequences, you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#154
post #26

I'm surprised they don't also cite the first war against drugs (actualy, a drug) - prohibition. Exactly the same scenario played out then as is, hopefully, coming to it's inevitable conclusion now in the 'western hemisphere'. If the same thing is starting up again in the East, it's going to be a bloody and chaotic few decades to come before the same lesson gets learned the third time over. Fortunately we do have a la…

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.

It's the most socially acceptable drug (in fact many social situations almost force you to drink), and there's no (known) risk of cancer from abuse.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#155
post #146

The drug war is a civil war. It divides and breaks up society for horrific purposes. In the US, it's always been racism, a way for the government to put down people of races they could no longer legally murder or enslave. Some 'friendly casualties' in such a war will always be overlooked by any government. It's certainly no coincidence that the ramping up of the drug war by Nixon came only a few years after the passi…

No, I don't think it's a war of any kind. That's a label used by governments to get buy-in from the public. If it's war, it must be serious and we should fund it seriously.

This campaign against drugs is not racist in essence, but it is coincidental with race in some places. However, you'll see the same attitudes toward drugs in homogeneous countries as well as Africa, Latin america and Asia.

The policy against drugs comes from a fear it will make citizens beholden to something unproductive. That is drugged up people don't contribute to society and makes people lazy. It also means the government has less influence on these people. They provide unwanted drag.

On the other hand, if you want a docile population, do drug them up like they did during the opium wars in Asia.

I think any association with race is coincidental. That's to say we'd have had this policy in the US even if we had been 100% homogenous population. However, we do know the policies affected those population most susceptible to the effects of drug addiction. Poor people black and white. Appalachia is just as ravaged by drugs as any place in the us, trailer parks, etc. Poor people can't get treatment, they can't hide their addiction as easily, can't hire competent lawyers, etc.

It was never a war though. It was a bad policy. Just like the one child policy in China. It was not a war on families, it was terrible policy.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#156
post #26

I'm surprised they don't also cite the first war against drugs (actualy, a drug) - prohibition. Exactly the same scenario played out then as is, hopefully, coming to it's inevitable conclusion now in the 'western hemisphere'. If the same thing is starting up again in the East, it's going to be a bloody and chaotic few decades to come before the same lesson gets learned the third time over. Fortunately we do have a la…

I know its a side point, but I gather that smokers actually cost the UK NHS less than non-smokers, because smokers tend to die younger and faster than non-smokers. The people who cost the NHS a lot are the healthy, clean living people who survive into their 80s and 90s needing more and more healthcare as they go.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#157

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

Unlike most other drugs, alcohol intoxication greatly increases the likelihood that you will consume more alcohol, thus leading to a compounding cycle that can very quickly lead to an unintentional "massive loss of control". Unintentionally consuming more than a "normal dose" is perhaps the quintessential regret of habitual alcohol users.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#158

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.

It's the most socially acceptable drug (in fact many social situations almost force you to drink), and there's no (known) risk of cancer from abuse.

The risk of death (from overdose) is pretty significant compared to drugs such as marijuana

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#160

I'm all for drug legalization, however, this should also be a part of the laws: -Businesses should be able to fire someone for being under the influence of any mind-altering substance. The CA proposition a few years back had a clause in there that made it very difficult. Calling addiction a "medical issue" makes it even worse because the differences between recreational use and addiction aren't that easy to distingui…

>Businesses should be able to fire someone for being under the influence of any mind-altering substance.

TIFU by drinking coffee in the morning...

Post reply on HN