Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 126 posts

Re: Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

#21

Post by jbooth »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #12
param wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> You can own it and use it, but you can't produce it, sell it or distribute it. Maybe the government believes in the spontaneous generation of drugs? I am sure the point is for the Govt. to prosecute the producer, not the consumer. This is similar to some countries outlawing 'consumption' of prostitution services, but not offering of such services.

That's something I've never understood. How come the drug buyer is the victim, and so is the sex seller ?

I wouldn't call the drug buyer the "victim", just "harmless in almost all cases". Drug users don't typically commit violent crimes unless they're a junkie in search of a fix (very small minority). Most of the violence, theft and other law breaking comes from the people trying to make a business of it.

Regarding the sex seller being the victim, well, it turns out that many times she is.

Re: Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

#22

Post by Qz »

ErrantX wrote: post #14

I'm slowly coming round to this as a good idea - at least to trial. If you have the requisite support (like in Portugal) to go with it and are not just decriminalizing possession alone then it should work well. The only problem I have is that it might encourage the use of drugs; which is potentially dangerous for people. Worth a trial for sure.

Might encourage some people, and yet might encourage more to seek treatment. Risk/reward, have to do the math to figure out if it's worth it.

Re: Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

#23

Post by Qz »

mey wrote: post #18
CWuestefeld wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I strongly support your conclusion in this case, I'm infuriated every time I hear a call for a policy change based on "common sense". As far as I can tell, this is just a euphemism for "I am unable to articulate a rational basis for my position", or even "I refuse to let the actual evidence interfere with my position".

Here is my understanding on why decriminalization of drugs is beneficial. First, legitimate competition from suppliers would drive down costs, forcing high risk/high reward illegal operations from other countries out of the market. How can a Mexican drug cartel compete against grand-ma and her backyard? Secondly, what is the violent side of drug activitey? Again my understanding is that it's mostly revolved around pr…

First, legitimate competition from suppliers would drive down costs, forcing high risk/high reward illegal operations from other countries out of the market. How can a Mexican drug cartel compete against grand-ma and her backyard?

Secondly, what is the violent side of drug activitey? Again my understanding is that it's mostly revolved around protecting/hiding illegal production, and moving the drugs to a dealer. If you eliminate that supply chain, that vector of violent activity would be cut off.

You've got this all mixed up. The violence is the competition. Drug violence is rarely about cartels vs cops -- more often it's cartels vs cartels and dealers vs dealers.

Re: Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

#25

Post by protomyth »

mey wrote: post #18
CWuestefeld wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I strongly support your conclusion in this case, I'm infuriated every time I hear a call for a policy change based on "common sense". As far as I can tell, this is just a euphemism for "I am unable to articulate a rational basis for my position", or even "I refuse to let the actual evidence interfere with my position".

Here is my understanding on why decriminalization of drugs is beneficial. First, legitimate competition from suppliers would drive down costs, forcing high risk/high reward illegal operations from other countries out of the market. How can a Mexican drug cartel compete against grand-ma and her backyard? Secondly, what is the violent side of drug activitey? Again my understanding is that it's mostly revolved around pr…

Some of the current drugs out there need to stay illegal. Not because they get you high, but because they are toxic.

I do believe, if some form of decriminalization happens, we really need to up the penalty for crimes committed while under the influence. Maybe assume premeditation. I should point out I believe the same thing about alcohol. Killing someone while drunk should be considered premeditated.

Re: Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

#26

Post by protomyth »

philk wrote: post #6
jamesbressi wrote: post #5

Does the findings in this article surprise anyone? No? Good. I'm not a hippy, but let's get over this b.s. "War on Drugs" and begin to use our common sense when dealing with social issues and impeding on natural rights.

Unfortunately common sense is often electoral suicide.

Isn't calling something "common sense" when it isn't the common belief kinda against the definition?

Re: Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

#27

Post by kolektiv »

Qz wrote: post #23
mey wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is my understanding on why decriminalization of drugs is beneficial. First, legitimate competition from suppliers would drive down costs, forcing high risk/high reward illegal operations from other countries out of the market. How can a Mexican drug cartel compete against grand-ma and her backyard? Secondly, what is the violent side of drug activitey? Again my understanding is that it's mostly revolved around pr…

First, legitimate competition from suppliers would drive down costs, forcing high risk/high reward illegal operations from other countries out of the market. How can a Mexican drug cartel compete against grand-ma and her backyard? Secondly, what is the violent side of drug activitey? Again my understanding is that it's mostly revolved around protecting/hiding illegal production, and moving the drugs to a dealer. If y…

Well, that's perhaps true but the broader point still stands. Legalised drugs companies don't tend to have the same violent tendencies. Glaxo-Smithkline don't tend to have violent gun battles with Bayer over who gets to supply prescription meds to a 'hood.

Also, although that may be the violence most prominent in the US, there's plenty of police/army vs. drug cartel violent crime in other countries.

edit: typo.

Re: Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

#28

Post by b-man »

Qz wrote: post #20
yummyfajitas wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's something I've never understood. How come the drug buyer is the victim, and so is the sex seller ?

When you learn how many of the women in prostitution are forced into that work by sex traffickers or sheer poverty, it's not hard to understand. The sex 'seller' often isn't the one who gets the money.

Not really related to the article, but do you have any data on forced prostitution?

It is a common argument, and I don't deny the existence of it, but I never saw any real research on the fact, besides watching this documentary[1], which did not presented much research on the subject in a global basis.

[1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/slaves/

Re: Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

#30

Post by yummyfajitas »

Qz wrote: post #20
yummyfajitas wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's something I've never understood. How come the drug buyer is the victim, and so is the sex seller ?

When you learn how many of the women in prostitution are forced into that work by sex traffickers or sheer poverty, it's not hard to understand. The sex 'seller' often isn't the one who gets the money.

The law I was questioning assumes every single prostitute is a victim, including the ones who are not enslaved. It also assumes every single drug seller is not a victim, even the ones who are enslaved.

If the real issue is enslavement, why not just carve out a general exception in criminal law to acts which you are performing against your will? I.e., if you rob a bank because your wife/children are being held hostage, the person holding your wife hostage is criminally liable for that act.

(I'd actually be very surprised if this exception doesn't already exist.)

Post reply on HN