How the war on drugs creates violence • Hacker News Board

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#111

Post by ptaipale » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 12:13 PM UTC

wz1000 wrote: post #45

ptaipale wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So why the Big Pharma isn't lobbying for ending the war on drugs? Because the stuff used as illegal drugs is actually dangerous to health, and pharma industry selling that stuff -- even if completely pure and legitimate -- would be disastrous for their public image, and profits. The public will want separate recreational drug companies (but even then there will be "revelations" that Big Pharma is "secretly" produci…

> Because the stuff used as illegal drugs is actually dangerous to health Recreational drugs are not inherently any more dangerous than the chemicals produced for medicinal use. They are the same kind of thing, recreational drugs just happen to be used for, well, recreation. Some recreational chemicals are even less dangerous than drugs you can get OTC. For example, LSD has a stellar safety record. There are no recor…

> Recreational drugs are not inherently any more dangerous than the chemicals produced for medicinal use.

That is true, but the general public creates its view on perceptions. Recreational drugs are frowned upon in many societies. In some (often primitive) societies the same substances may even be revered. But much of the world is very averse to psychoactive drugs in the popular opinion.

Same is true for other chemicals in our environment, too. For instance, it is common that people (even the same people) have a negative attitude towards a company that sells alcohol for human consumption (recreational use for intoxication) and a positive attitude towards a company that sells alcohol for use as fuel (biofuel, a renewable source of energy).

(And it is also common that people approve of drinking alcohol but do not approve of smoking marijuana, regardless of legality. And vice versa.)

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#112

Post by talmand » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 2:08 PM UTC

ethbro wrote: post #97

talmand wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In those cases, a government destroying drug crops is not about saving lives, it's about money. Illegal drug cartels do not pay taxes, tobacco plantations in Virginia do.

This sounds like another argument for marijuana plantations in Virginia.

That concept has already started in the US. One of the reasons? Tax revenue.

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#113

Post by mindslight » Thu, Oct 22, 2015, 3:53 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #109

mindslight wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not really refuting his point. It ultimately comes down to the concept of personal responsibility. Drinking does not absolve one of their subsequent actions and choices, regardless of their subsequent "mental state". Any choice to have an "unsound mind" was made while of sound mind, and thus responsibility for all results lie with the person themselves. Being mentally impaired doesn't magically transform someo…

There's an article I linked to in another comment subthread, it deals in details with this issue - in particular, when we should talk about personal responsibility and when just call it an illness. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10424645

I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive. In the article you linked, the husband is right for making it clear that it is Sandy's problem, the doctor is also right for recommending medical treatment, and Sandy is right for seeking the doctor for help solving her problem.

What isn't right is things such as the doctor telling Sandy that obesity is "primary genetic". Even if the statement is scientifically correct in a narrow context, it functions to absolve Sandy of responsibility for solving her own problem - whether it be by dieting, seeing additional doctors, exercising, or all of the above. Heck, telling her husband "I am fine with my weight" is in this same category of self-actualization, although she must accept others' inevitable reactions.

As for my comment, I certainly wasn't meaning to advocate "personal responsibility" in the sense of "let them suffer". In aggregate, addiction should be addressed as a public health problem. But that doesn't mean we should absolve the individuals of responsibility for their own actions because their brain has been chemically altered. This is what I was getting at, because that junk reasoning is used to justify inebriated behavior as nobody's fault, which is then used to justify a sweeping bans on altering one's mental state.

Re: How the war on drugs creates violence

#114

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 3:18 PM UTC

ethbro wrote: post #98

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Dangerous" is too vague to be useful. There's plenty of legal, commercially produced opioids and opiates. Those have been well studied and have a variety of adverse reactions if not used delicately. However, they're perceived as "medicine" or "useful drugs" and hence do not have the same stigma.

If "dangerous" is too vague, then "untested" is valid. You can absolutely get me on board with the "DEA/FDA limit testing of illegal substances" rebuttal, but you can't say the variety of illegal substances have been as well tested through customer dosage as something that currently goes to market.

I think the biggest advantage Big Pharma would have over the cartels and fly-by-night drug makers is that legitimate companies are held accountable to quality and safety standards, therefore you can be sure that you're buying a drug produced following a proper process and contains only what it's supposed to. A lot of deaths from (illegal) drug use is caused by impurities and not by the drug itself, and illicit actors don't have incentives to reduce them.