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

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#181

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, May 01, 2015, 3:50 PM UTC

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?

> Please define "equal marriage".

Equal marriage is when the government doesn't discriminate by sex in who people are permitted to marry.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#182

Post by notsony » Fri, May 01, 2015, 3:51 PM UTC

jliptzin wrote: post #147

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?

He is clearly talking about same-sex marriage. And if you're trying to make a slippery slope argument against same-sex marriage, that's been done 1,000 times before and it hasn't served the "family values" crowd too well lately.

> He is clearly talking about same-sex marriage.

How do we know that? When did the word equality mean only heterosexual or homosexual couples?

It's a marketing myth that "gay marriage" is the same thing as "marriage equality". They are not the same, they are two very different things.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#183

Post by wavefunction » Fri, May 01, 2015, 3:52 PM UTC

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #163

chippy wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Several Asian countries very successfully waged "war" on opium usage, to the benefit of their societies. They killed you if you were caught with any. I'm not a prohibitionist, but we need to drop the lie that a war on drugs has even been tried in the West. Sentences for drug possession are typically avoidable and usually light. What has been done (same as back in alcohol prohibition days) is corrupt law enforcement r…

I think you're not being accurate when you claim that a "war on drugs" has not been prosecuted in the West. The cost to minority populations in the US and in countries where the drugs are produced has been enormous. Maybe you don't personally know anyone who has faced societally-imposed hardships due to drugs but the reality faced by many poor and minority people is quite stark and different than what you allege.

A young man here in Texas was facing LIFE in prison for selling marijuana infused brownies (as well as possession of cannabis oils). That's just one case.

And this:

>>What does work is very harsh and uniform punishment for users.

Paints you as a complete fool like the rest of the drug warriors.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#184

Post by Lawtonfogle » Fri, May 01, 2015, 3:52 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #131

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do we draw the line? Say you buy a drug that comes from a cartel that uses kidnapping, rape, and murder to hold their power. It is possible for the drug to have been produced safely, but it wasn't in this case and you are feeding the market. Is the government preventing the drug from being created relevant? What happens if, given a safe production option, those purchasing it do not do their due diligence in che…

>> Where do we draw the line? Always a tough question :) >> Say you buy a drug that comes from a cartel that uses kidnapping, rape, and murder to hold their power. It is possible for the drug to have been produced safely, but it wasn't in this case and you are feeding the market. There are indeed lots of moral questions here. As someone who tends to buy things that are free-range, organic, fair trade etc. I fully agr…

>The argument put forward above is that stopping the war on drugs just because we can't win is equivalent to stopping the 'war' on (for example) burglary.

I do agree that stopping the war on X differs greatly when X is something that deserves stopping in and of itself compared to when X is not inherently harmful, but closely tied to things that are (though I do think that different people will classify certain actions into other groups, for example some people will say some drugs are so bad that they deserve to be stopped in and of themselves).

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#185

Post by pstuart » Fri, May 01, 2015, 3:52 PM UTC

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?

Replying to your other comment here because it was too deep to respond.

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

Is 1991 a "few years ago"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Hawaii

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#186

Post by pgsandstrom » Fri, May 01, 2015, 3:53 PM UTC

ctolsen wrote: post #9

Anyone interested in the topic should read the LSE report on the Economics of Drug Policy. The facts are staggering, especially on the human and fiscal cost of internal displacement. I bet not many know that Colombia just a few years ago was only beat by Sudan in terms of internal refugees, and it's all due to the drug war. It also gives some perspective to the Western debate – we talk about decriminalisation and hea…

>and it's all due to the drug war.

How about the civil war with the farc guerrilla? That might be a bigger contribution than the drug war.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#187

Post by pstuart » Fri, May 01, 2015, 3:53 PM UTC

hackerboos wrote: post #104

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.

Growing opium in India to sell to the Chinese. They objected to their citizens becoming addicts (rightly so) so the British empire and East India Trading company turned their gunships on them and seized Hong Kong under the Treaty of Nanking. The Chinese, outgunned, had to surrender the terms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War

And the British have demonstrated how well they handle alcohol these days.

Edit: meow, oh the butthurt. Binge drinking apparently is a significant problem but is tolerated because "alcohol is not a drug"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10825449/Britain...

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#188

Post by notsony » Fri, May 01, 2015, 3:54 PM UTC

MichaelGG wrote: post #173

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?

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.

This. Why can't more people see it the way you have described? True marriage equality does not discriminate.

As it stands, the campaign for "marriage equality" is deceptive and has only been concerned with marriage between homosexuals - other minority groups be damned!

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#189

Post by paulhauggis » Fri, May 01, 2015, 3:54 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #162

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…

>> -Businesses should be able to fire someone for being under the influence of any mind-altering substance. Pretty sure they already can, you do not come into work drunk, for example. >> -The individual should pay for all of their own issues, medical expenses, etc due to drug addiction. ... It's unfair for me ... You already pay lots and lots and lots and lots of money to drug-war enforcement efforts. The cost of hea…

"Pretty sure they already can, you do not come into work drunk, for example."

We don't have medical alcohol, so it's not the same thing.

"You already pay lots and lots and lots and lots of money to drug-war enforcement efforts. The cost of health problems related to drugs would be minimal compared to this."

The costs can't really be calculated at this point. We don't really know how many more or less people will need medical care after the legalization of many drugs. However, in my experience, it will most likely be many more than we estimate now.

"Lots of conservatives seem to want all the benefits of drug legalisation (reduced tax bills) without any responsibility (helping out your fellow man)."

That's not how taxes work. Yes, we will have have more taxes, but they will be spent on something..and we will always need more. The benefit is that our fellow man gets the option now of recreational drug use without going to jail.

"Further, those taxes help keep you safe. You want to be robbed by an addict or do you want to give a few cents to the free-heroin-for-addicts program that keeps them from committing crime and helps them become contributing members of society?"

I'm unclear why the reason I need to legalize drugs is to appease a criminal from not robbing me. It's answers like this that make me glad I have multiple guns at my disposal to protect my home and my family.

If heroin is as bad as you describe (creating addicted criminals that want to rob me), why again should it be legalized?

You aren't really making a good case, sorry.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#190

Post by MichaelGG » Fri, May 01, 2015, 3:55 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #162

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…

>> -Businesses should be able to fire someone for being under the influence of any mind-altering substance. Pretty sure they already can, you do not come into work drunk, for example. >> -The individual should pay for all of their own issues, medical expenses, etc due to drug addiction. ... It's unfair for me ... You already pay lots and lots and lots and lots of money to drug-war enforcement efforts. The cost of hea…

>> -Businesses should be able to fire someone for being under the influence of any mind-altering substance.

That's sorta special cased for alcohol, pot, etc. You'd have a hard time firing someone for being on Prozac, even though that's mind altering.

Drawing a line at "recreational" usage is bad, as it just reinforces the unfair power arbitrary doctors have over people's lives. Got money and can persuade your doctor into rx'ing what you want? OK, no problem! Poorer or marked "drug seeking"? Screw you then.