11–20 of 545 posts
So it’s apparent that many governments around the world are unwilling to take a similar approach to drug use. But could Google, Apple, Facebook et al provide services there? Create functionality to aid in harm reduction and addiction outreach? What would those things really look like, and would those companies actually leverage their access to billions of people to help with drug abuse?
If you want a summary...
Portugal overcame an opioid epidemic through an "enormous cultural shift, and a change in how the country viewed drugs, addiction – and itself... The official policy of decriminalisation made it far easier for a broad range of services (health, psychiatry, employment, housing etc) that had been struggling to pool their resources and expertise, to work together more effectively to serve their communities."
"Massive international cultural shifts in thinking about drugs and addiction are needed to make way for decriminalisation and legalisation globally. In the US, the White House has remained reluctant to address... but... one has to want the change in order to make it."
I'm interested to hear ideas on how other countries can come to be less reluctant and want to change if anyone has any.
So it’s apparent that many governments around the world are unwilling to take a similar approach to drug use. But could Google, Apple, Facebook et al provide services there? Create functionality to aid in harm reduction and addiction outreach? What would those things really look like, and would those companies actually leverage their access to billions of people to help with drug abuse?
It's obviously quite a good deal for politicians. They get political victories by whipping a minority that can't fight back, and by stirring up angst among the ignorant. They also fuel the prison industrial complex, which I increasingly believe is a thing.
My two cents.
So it’s apparent that many governments around the world are unwilling to take a similar approach to drug use. But could Google, Apple, Facebook et al provide services there? Create functionality to aid in harm reduction and addiction outreach? What would those things really look like, and would those companies actually leverage their access to billions of people to help with drug abuse?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair That's about it really. There are a whole lot of people across the world whose salaries depend on an unending drug war.
PS: modernizing it:
It is difficult to get someone to understand something, when their salary, lifestyle or belief-system depends upon them not understanding it.
So it’s apparent that many governments around the world are unwilling to take a similar approach to drug use. But could Google, Apple, Facebook et al provide services there? Create functionality to aid in harm reduction and addiction outreach? What would those things really look like, and would those companies actually leverage their access to billions of people to help with drug abuse?
While in this case I would agree with the action, I think it's kind of a dangerous thing to want our giant corporations undermining our government and laws, and imposing their own values in our society.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair That's about it really. There are a whole lot of people across the world whose salaries depend on an unending drug war.
In a republic, people are only paid to enforce restrictive drug policy because the people want them to.
Most people look at the issue in simple terms. "Drugs are bad, so keep them away from people". Legalization is a counterintuitive way to lower incidence of use and addiction, it will take a lot to convince people it is good for society.
Edit: Blaming public support for restrictive drug policy on "media" and "politicians" puts the cart before the horse.
Society often moves down the path of least resistance. Tough drug policy is appealing to people because it sounds logical. Therefore the elements of society that depend on the acceptance of the people - politicians, media, etc - also accept it and tow the line.
Influencers do not exist in a vacuum. They are influenced by the prevailing mood just like everyone else.
This is great. But I sometimes wonder if the people who advocate for "x worked for y, so it is best practice and every should do it" appreciate situation complexities and cultural differences?
TFA touches on this, and I'd suggest that any in-depth, thoughtfully written piece on this subject would necessarily consider the complexities and cultural differences from one place to another -- especially if they're considering the question 'Why isn't this happening / why doesn't this work elsewhere?'.
But often the answer to that question is well understood (the HN comments now - half an hour in - are somewhere on the cynical to pragmatic part of the spectrum) and also understood is why the problem is difficult, if not intractable. Apropos, from TFA:
"But if conservative, isolationist, Catholic Portugal could transform into a country where same-sex marriage and abortion are legal, and where drug use is decriminalised, a broader shift in attitudes seems possible elsewhere."
This is an optimistic sentiment from a social attitudes POV, but misses the financial incentives within the USA (for example) of retaining the current arrangement.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair That's about it really. There are a whole lot of people across the world whose salaries depend on an unending drug war.
Thank the gods someone else knows this quote. It explains a great deal about the sources of cognitive dissonance of wealth entitlement and conservative ideology: fundamental dishonesty in regards to the plight of other people and willful ignorance about existential survival issues like climate change. PS: modernizing it: It is difficult to get someone to understand something, when their salary, lifestyle or belief-sy…
I've always believed power and wealth interact with human nature at a lower level than ideology (to use a bit of a software metaphor). Relating Sinclair's observation to a particular contemporary political group or hot-button issue misses the forest for the trees.