Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work • Hacker News Board

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#241

Post by jmadsen » Fri, May 01, 2015, 11:36 PM UTC

dalke wrote: post #90

jmadsen wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As I stated, I was using America as the context, as I thought the parent post was. Our history with drugs and alcohol does not match all places, in all times.

More importantly, we are talking about people's _perceptions_ of these events and how they influence modern thought. Most of us are taught things like "the pilgrims served beer at the table instead of water". The reason for it, or whether or not it is even true, doesn't change that we all grow up thinking that "beer is no big deal - even the pilgrim's children drank it".

You could even extend that to Sherlock Holmes - it is subtle in the stories, but no one checks or cares if it was actually legal. We _are_ all left with the negative impression that he was a secret drug addict, who often disappeared for periods of time to indulge.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#242

Post by simplexion » Fri, May 01, 2015, 11:44 PM UTC

roymurdock wrote: post #154

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.

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.

There are lots of known risks of cancer from excess alcohol consumption. Not sure why you would think otherwise.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#243

Post by dalke » Sat, May 02, 2015, 12:33 AM UTC

jmadsen wrote: post #241

dalke wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

As I stated, I was using America as the context, as I thought the parent post was. Our history with drugs and alcohol does not match all places, in all times. More importantly, we are talking about people's _perceptions_ of these events and how they influence modern thought. Most of us are taught things like "the pilgrims served beer at the table instead of water". The reason for it, or whether or not it is even true…

When you start something with "I question how genuinely accurate that is" then it's not unreasonable to think that the question concerns historical accuracy, rather than people's perceptions.

I had never heard about the Pilgrims and beer thing.

What we learned about was how Coca Cola used to contain cocaine. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola#Coca_.E2.80.93_cocain... . "Coca-Cola once contained an estimated nine milligrams of cocaine per glass". It still imports coca leaves for flavoring.

I believe that is as well known as Pilgrims and their beer. While inaccurate, Google estimates 530,000 results for '"coca cola" cocaine' and 550,000 for 'pilgrims beer'.

On a purely timing note, the phrase "Drug use _started_ as illegal" is difficult to justify. Why was the non-medicinal use of certain compounds banned before there were users of the drug? How did the legislature know to ban them before there were any observed social consequences?

Only relatively recently has that been possible, as some proposed bans include "the sale of any chemical that might be used recreationally" and "any compound with any binding to any cannabinoid receptor" (quoted from http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jour... ). I believe the UK also has laws regarding molecules which are "similar to" prohibited drugs.

However, those are less than a generation old, and not part of people's perceptions.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#244

Post by peteretep » Sat, May 02, 2015, 2:11 AM UTC

chippy wrote: post #62

peteretep wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm surprised they don't also cite the first war > against drugs Being a British publication, presumably they'd consider the Opium Wars - where the Brits fought to be allowed to sell the Chinese junk - as the first drug war.

That was a war for drugs, rather than against them. It was also about fighting for another drug - tea. Tea and coffee also had quite a loud vocal support for prohibition against it in the UK.

    > That was a war for drugs

Not for the Chinese it wasn't

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#245

Post by peteretep » Sat, May 02, 2015, 5:54 AM UTC

vectorpush wrote: post #157

peteretep wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

    > Unlike most other drugs, alcohol intoxication greatly
    > increases the likelihood that you will consume more
    > alcohol

Unlike most other drugs? Your dealer may be ripping you off and selling you baby powder.

Try giving someone a 300ml dose of Everclear and see if their alcohol consumption increases after that. Now give someone a line of cocaine and tell them you have some more on you, and time how long it is before they suggest taking some more...

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#246

Post by simnim » Sat, May 02, 2015, 6:21 AM UTC

For the sake of sanity let's remember that sugar is at least as addictive as cocaine and heroin. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research-... It's probably even more addictive if 94% of lab rats prefer sugar over cocaine. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17668074

The majority of drug addicts are victims of abuse. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3051362 They need medical / mental health benefits. Drug addiction is clearly a medical issue. Let's treat it as such.

We didn't learn our lesson with Alcohol, so we repeated history with the war on drugs. Now we are failing to learn our lesson yet again.

Logic, reason, and education are not the driving factors for making drugs illegal. Fear, lack of education, politics, and deep misunderstanding are the true drivers of this insane ideology.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#247

Post by tmp-20150107 » Sat, May 02, 2015, 1:35 PM UTC

digi_owl wrote: post #225

ukigumo wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I can remember, the original plan had some provisions for "assisted usage rooms" where trained personal would help guarantee that needles were clean and offer assistance to reduce ODs, but this never made it into the law because. I can't be sue if US political influence had any weight on the final legislation, I mean, it would not be unheard of but on the other hand it would not be a matter of public record…

Heh, can't forget when the second such room opened in Oslo. It was situated closer to the wealthy side of the city, and almost right away did they have people show up driving expensive cars and wearing expensive clothes. In essence these were high up people in the Norwegian business world, coming to set a needle between their toes or snort a line in privacy before going off to make a multi-million deal or party. Afte…

> between their toes

This is not a thing. There are no large veins between the toes, and circulation in your feet is pretty poor anyway, not to mention hygiene and infection issues... There are some veins on the foot that can be used, but it's fucking painful and I wouldn't recommend it. If you use clean works and rotate injection sites regularly, there won't be any real visible marks. Not to mention that any needle marks are not going to be obvious to non users anyway.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#248

Post by juliangregorian » Mon, May 04, 2015, 3:38 PM UTC

nostrebored wrote: post #239

juliangregorian wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm afraid you might be too sheltered to have anything approaching an objective view on the matter.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#249

Post by Im_Talking » Tue, May 05, 2015, 4:26 AM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #135

[deleted]

So executing people year after year shows that the Singaporian system is working?? Doesn't it show the exact opposite since, you know, they have to continue to execute people? Wouldn't the success of their laws be validated if no one was executed showing that they had eradicated their drug problem?

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#250

Post by sneak » Tue, May 05, 2015, 10:23 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #7

sneak wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are you to condone what others do or don't do to their own bodies and minds? That's like not condoning execution-altering software. It's none of your business what I do with my hardware.

Don't attack people who are mostly on your side. Pro-legalisation needs all people - those who take drugs and those who think taking drugs is stupid - to pull together to work to their common goal - legalisation. The enemy is not someone who wants to legalise drugs but advises against taking those drugs. The enemy is the police state that imprisons people, at great expense, for very long times for drug crimes.

My side? Where did I align myself with a "side"?