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

171–180 of 252 posts

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#171

Post by mc32 »

Nursie wrote: post #169
mc32 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have also been a supporter of legalizing MJ and light drugs, but I'd never go far and say the same for hard drugs. I knew people in HS who got hooked on hard stuff and it ended terribly for more than I care to think about.

How were they helped by the drugs being illegal? I know this is a little bit of a canard and what people really mean is "I don't want to see more people go that way", but it strikes me that there is a need to separate these two things - 1. Some drugs, particularly opiates, are a bad thing to get into. 2. Therefore banning them and criminalising use is the right thing to do and the best way to stop more bad stuff. Per…

I definitely agree with the treatment centers. Professionals should be able to treat addicts with the best methods possible and we should not have laws getting in the way of those treatments. Still not sold on decriminalizing any "recreational" distribution. Small use possession yes.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#172

Post by yavi »

kefka wrote: post #61
oska wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has often been pointed out that taking prohibited drugs is a victimless crime. Your examples of theft, burglary, robbery and fraud are not.

And many of our jobs are in automation research and implementation. Our work puts dozens, if not thousands of people out of work. When driverless vehicles are finalized, that work will put millions of people out of a job. Is it a crime? No. But it sure very negatively impacts people. Why not illegalize implementation of automation?

I think you're drawing a false parallel, and I hope you're not serious. An action which has a victim is not necessarily a crime, and an action which is deemed a crime does not necessarily have a victim. Note that this is a practical distinction, not an ideological one. In a pure ideological social-contract style system one could argue that the basic definition of a crime should be an action which infringes on the rights that we as a society agree to possess.

On a very basic level, illegalizing things because they 'negatively impact people' would bring capitalism to a grinding halt.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#173

Post by MichaelGG »

notsony wrote: post #143
panglott wrote: post #97

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…

Please define "equal marriage". Do you support the marriage between any two individuals? So a brother could marry their sister? Or a mother could marry their daughter? Do you support marriage involving polygamous relationships? Can three or four people can be married?

Yes, marriage, as far as it needs to be a government-sanctioned thing for wherever reason, should be a partnership of 2 or more consenting entities that are legally allowed to enter contracts. Like an LLC kind thing - the whole point, as far as government goes, is to provide asset management, is it not? Adding arbitrary restrictions is inelegant.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#174

Post by Shivetya »

joesmo wrote: 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…

It is definitely not a tool to continue a race war, racial program, etc, etc.

It is a tool of politicians much like the issues with pornography. It relies on fear, uncertainty, and doubt, with a big dose of apathy thrown in. The last is because the majority really doesn't care what happens to users because they do not themselves use these drugs. Images on TV, internet, and newspaper, reinforce the image of those who do as low lifes, malcontents, people you cross the street because of, and such.

Politicians love power with which comes money. Police love the job security and money. Prison systems love the job security and money. So any solution is going to involve taking the monetary rewards out of it to those who enforce it.

One example, instead of paying prisons by the number of people you penalize the system for repeat offenders. This would drive the implementation of more programs designed to get people off the drugs and also get them jobs training so that the job is more valuable than the drugs. Should it end up costing too much then the system needs to adjust what it jails people for which eventually would lead to the decriminalization of drugs.

Make it too expensive for those who currently profit off the situation as is and it will lead to a road where it can be fixed

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#175

Post by paulhauggis »

tajen wrote: post #166
paulhauggis wrote: post #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 distingui…

> 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. So companies are free to do as much advertising and marketing as they like to make drugs pervasive, and only the consumer is supposed to resist? It's a heavy penalty on everyone's brain cycles. In Europe we generally forbid ads, marketing and product placement for alcohol and tobacco. [edit:…

"I also believe that many of us aren't mature enough, and recreational first-time users should have to consciously unseal a sticker: "Upon consuming this drug, you are not allowed to work for x years, drive, or be treated for health", in addition to cancer/addition-related notices. I have no idea how to convey this message to users."

If you feel you aren't mature enough as a "first-time user", then maybe you shouldn't be using in the first place. Think of it like shooting a gun for the first time.

With more educated and mature people using drugs, it will make for a healthier society.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#176

Post by krakensden »

juliangregorian wrote: post #95
coldpie wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why is this so difficult for some people to process? We have very well regulated markets for cigarettes, alcohol, prescription drugs... why would this be any different? And even if we moved to state-sponsored rehab, do you have any idea how much money is squandered on the "war"? I don't hear these aforementioned fiscal conservatives complaining about that.

We do not have a successful prescription-drug model. There is a huge black market for those.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#177

Post by notsony »

intopieces wrote: post #148
notsony wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please define "equal marriage". Do you support the marriage between any two individuals? So a brother could marry their sister? Or a mother could marry their daughter? Do you support marriage involving polygamous relationships? Can three or four people can be married?

The parent comment to yours refers to same-sex marriage between two people. Please don't be disingenuous. There are no major organizations or groups of people advocating for the other situations you mentioned. You knew full well before you typed your comment what the person was talking about.

> There are no major organizations or groups of people advocating for the other situations you mentioned.

So you want to dismiss the ideas above because they belong to a minority and are not supported by the majority? Wow, you sound like a bigot.

Remember just a few years ago there were no major organizations or groups of people advocating for... same-sex marriage.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#178

Post by Nursie »

mc32 wrote: post #171
Nursie wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How were they helped by the drugs being illegal? I know this is a little bit of a canard and what people really mean is "I don't want to see more people go that way", but it strikes me that there is a need to separate these two things - 1. Some drugs, particularly opiates, are a bad thing to get into. 2. Therefore banning them and criminalising use is the right thing to do and the best way to stop more bad stuff. Per…

I definitely agree with the treatment centers. Professionals should be able to treat addicts with the best methods possible and we should not have laws getting in the way of those treatments. Still not sold on decriminalizing any "recreational" distribution. Small use possession yes.

Distribution maybe not, but possession certainly. Criminalising addiction hasn't gone very well for us so far.

--edit-- now realise we're not arguing!

I'm not sure, with heroin for instance, where recreation ends and addiction begins. By having it freely available (with a side-order of counselling and you have to take it on-site) we could reduce harm from bad needles, impure drugs etc etc. We would also reduce crime as nobody then needs to rob people to get their next fix - they can get it. In what little I've read about where this is the prevalent method (Switzerland) addicts are often able to function normally and even reduce usage quite rapidly, when the stress of finding the money and the contacts for the next hit is taken out of the equation.

It seems like a good thing to do, to me.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#179

Post by MichaelGG »

saiya-jin wrote: post #86
peteretep wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... s…

> None of drugs are a blessing to mankind

Great for you that you never needed medication. Meanwhile, millions of people do, and drugs, from mood stabilizers to opiates to psychedelics, directly and dramatically increase the quality of life for many people.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#180

Post by tajen »

saiya-jin wrote: post #86
peteretep wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... s…

> I guess everybody seen some people get aggressive on alcohol

I'm French and when I moved to Australia, I was surprised that people were violent under alcohol. The very broad generalization for me was that for some reason, anglosaxon people were violent under the effect of alcohol: Was it because boys were told that alcohol made them violent? According to the linked study, there is indeed a large difference of alcohol-related patterns per country. Hence, violence is partly cultural.

    Findings from survey research further suggest that alcohol’s contributing role 
    may be at least partly attributable to the perpetrator’s drinking pattern and 
    expectations about the effects of alcohol.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170096/
Post reply on HN