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

231–240 of 252 posts

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#231

Post by panglott »

mc32 wrote: post #164
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…

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.

Marijuana should definitely be legal, but I'm conflicted about opiates and cocaine. We can certainly establish a rational basis for banning them based on addictive potential, dependence, &c., if we put alcohol as the worst drug we're willing to tolerate within the law. OTOH, the basis for drug policy, I think, should be harm reduction.

The prospect of heroin corporations selling advertising dirt-cheap heroin on TV is not something I would welcome.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#232

Post by nostrebored »

juliangregorian wrote: post #119
talmand wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first time you black out, you know your own personal "maximum alcohol dosage". After that, scale back to find your "normal alcohol dosage" and act accordingly.

Interesting definition for the word "normal" you have there.

I think that not giving myself brain damage is normal. While I've never gotten blackout drunk, I've gotten close, and I know what the buildup to blacking out feels like, and I always stop drinking if I get that feeling. All of my friends do the same.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#233

Post by jqm »

Nursie wrote: post #144
jqm wrote: post #108

I'm against the drug war and for people's choice to decide what they want to put in their bodies. I'm also against waste, cruel treatment and general stupidity which are also reasons I oppose the drug war. That being said, I believe drug wars can work. China and opium a century ago and modern day Singapore come to mind. The reason the drug war isn't being won in the West is because it isn't being executed properly. S…

What's "properly"? I think (hope) the citizens of the USA and Europe would not put up with people being executed for what we currently consider quite minor offences. I guess in some ways you're right - if this was transformed to total warfare, with no mercy for anyone in any part of it, then it might be won, maybe. But the price is unacceptably high. (Oh, also, Singapore is one small island with one city on it and a…

Just responding to the title (which is not factual). I didn't even read the article.

Unacceptable prices and value judgements aside, drug wars _can_ be won and they have before.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#234

Post by talmand »

fredkbloggs wrote: post #222
talmand wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine that when you have generations of people that have been told all their lives by authority that "this" is bad, it's rather difficult to change a mindset to "this" isn't so bad now and we wish to raise revenues with it. If a fiscal conservative isn't complaining about the cost of the drug war at this point, I would conclude they aren't a fiscal conservative.

Legalisation (we'll leave the exact definition unspecified here, because it doesn't matter) neither asks nor requires anyone to change their opinions of recreational drug use. Regulating and taxing an activity do not constitute an endorsement of it; more fundamentally, this attitude inverts the foundation of American law by asserting that only those things of which the government approves should be lawful. The legali…

I appreciate the detailed statement you just made and cannot disagree, but I just can't say that most people would hold to that viewpoint even if you think they should.

But I think your point is a slightly different issue than the problem I was attempting to describe based on the original question.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#235

Post by zaccus »

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?

None of the above scenarios affect me in any way. If all parties are consenting adults, then I don't see what the issue is.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#236

Post by juliangregorian »

nostrebored wrote: post #232
juliangregorian wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting definition for the word "normal" you have there.

I think that not giving myself brain damage is normal. While I've never gotten blackout drunk, I've gotten close, and I know what the buildup to blacking out feels like, and I always stop drinking if I get that feeling. All of my friends do the same.

Being blackout drunk doesn't feel like anything. You just can't remember anything after a certain point the night before. And while I appreciate the moralizing, I don't hang out with those people anymore, but for a lot of people it is "normal" in the sense that it is what they do habitually and with the tacit approval of their social circle.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#237

Post by eric_h »

panglott wrote: post #231
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.

Marijuana should definitely be legal, but I'm conflicted about opiates and cocaine. We can certainly establish a rational basis for banning them based on addictive potential, dependence, &c., if we put alcohol as the worst drug we're willing to tolerate within the law. OTOH, the basis for drug policy, I think, should be harm reduction. The prospect of heroin corporations selling advertising dirt-cheap heroin on TV is…

Cigarettes are legal, but you can't advertise them on TV (in the US), I see no reason why we couldn't treat heroin the same way.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#238

Post by mc32 »

joesmo wrote: post #206
mc32 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about class. Look at drug incarceration in Africa, see who gets jailed. The same in any country. Who gets jailed for drugs offences? The poor blacks, Hispanics, whites, etc. Look who gets locked up for drugs offences in Russia. The poor. It's not race. Race is a byproduct.

It might be a byproduct outside the US, but it certainly isn't one inside the US, which is the point of my comment.

I don't think someone said, how do we suppress black people? Oh, let's criminalize drugs. I believe, as most things which go badly, they start out with good intentions, but it snowballs, and has unintended consequences.

In towns with black mayors or black police forces, judges, etc., people still believe that drugs are a scourge and anyone involved in it needs to be corrected. It's not a white conspiracy, it's people's genuine belief drugs add to undesirable behavior and want to lessen it. I think this attitude stems from people's religious upbringing, believing addiction is a fall from grace, some personal failure.

I think as a society we're beginning to realize that this infatuation with punishing addicts is counterproductive. And the real enemy is poverty.

If you address poverty and allow people to earn a decent wage, you'll have a better society, fewer social problems, more social cohesion and more bonhommie.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#239

Post by nostrebored »

juliangregorian wrote: post #236
nostrebored wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that not giving myself brain damage is normal. While I've never gotten blackout drunk, I've gotten close, and I know what the buildup to blacking out feels like, and I always stop drinking if I get that feeling. All of my friends do the same.

Being blackout drunk doesn't feel like anything. You just can't remember anything after a certain point the night before. And while I appreciate the moralizing, I don't hang out with those people anymore, but for a lot of people it is "normal" in the sense that it is what they do habitually and with the tacit approval of their social circle.

You're saying you can't tell when you're getting too drunk to function at all? I'm nearly positive that if I drink anymore past that point, that's when I'd be blackout drunk. I'm not moralizing, I'm saying that your normal does not match with my experience at all. I would also say that the approval of isolated subgroups does not constitute normalcy.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#240

Post by phaemon »

Osiris wrote: post #145
phaemon wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is with your use of the word "condone". I'm sure you meant it in the sense of "like", but it sounds as though you meant "give permission". I suspect the reply is basically saying, "I didn't ask your permission for anything." :-)

Merrian-Webster defines "condone" as "to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable". That's exactly how I meant it.

I almost typed "acceptable" in both the first and second usages, which is why I avoided it as equally ambiguous.

It's also worth noting that ~99.9% of the English speaking world doesn't have a copy of Merrian-Webster and, frankly, wouldn't care what it said even if they did. I'm no doubt biased, but the OED is a much better dictionary anyway, though I wish they'd reduce the prices on their personnal subscription: they'd get 100 times the number if they'd reduce the price by 1/10th!

Post reply on HN