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

Legalize It All

harpers.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 293 posts

Re: Legalize It All

#201

Post by dcposch »

WalterBright wrote: post #145
krylon wrote: post #3

We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course…

Laying it all on Nixon does not explain "Reefer Madness" (1936) nor every other country that criminalizes drugs with zeal.

Nor does it explain the original Prohibition, a single paragraph of law that created an explosion of organized crime, reclassified a tremendous percentage of American adults as lawbreakers, and filled prisons.

Prohibition is a timeless, recurring issue. I think it comes from something even more timeless: moral authoritarianism.

The urge felt by many people to force their neighbor to do things the Right Way.

The puritan dream that the world could be clean and harmonious and good if only Those People could be brought to heel.

Re: Legalize It All

#202

Post by [deleted] »

ZoeZoeBee wrote: post #195
r0fls wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically I believe we are a Democratic Republic, as we directly vote on laws within our states. Legal Marijuana, for instance, was chosen by the Citizens of my state, Oregon; not by elected politicians.

We're really a Federal Republic, a collection of states where the citizens vote on their Representatives, who are then supposed to legislate under the guidelines of a Constitution which delegates power to various branches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_republic The citizens of Oregon do get to vote on Initiatives and Referendums, that is something which is relatively new to the state 1908, and not the way sta…

[deleted]

Re: Legalize It All

#203

Post by grecy »

shmerl wrote: post #46
narrator wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing I find interesting (INTERESTING, not necessarily moral or otherwise) about China is that when they want to do something controversial they are open and straight forward about it. They openly attack and arrest groups that they find disruptive to the social order. In America, the leadership has to invent all sorts of crafty subterfuge to accomplish their goals of persecuting and imprisoning groups that they c…

Why is that interesting that dictatorship doesn't hesitate to openly attack dissent? That's actually expected from it.

You missed the point entirely.

The interesting part isn't how China behaves, it's that the US - supposedly on a higher level than China - behaves much the same way, it just tries really hard to cover it up.

Re: Legalize It All

#204

Post by GreaterFool »

The problem with law is that it is easy to write, hard to get rid of. We refactor old code all the time (hopefully!) but law, once written, lingers on for hundreds of years...

Re: Legalize It All

#205

Post by zo1 »

qbit wrote: post #167
rayiner wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ability to "modulate [your] . . . mind" is why so many people (80-90% when it comes to drugs besides marijuana), oppose drug legalization. Human society has barely learned to cope with the range of neurological behavior naturally present in the population. It's not unreasonable to be afraid of what might happen when you throw new chemicals into the mix. It's important to remember that most people think the opposi…

> And as long as we live in a democracy, they're entitled to structure their society as they see fit. I strongly disagree. There are certain human rights that should not be able to be voted away in a democracy. I believe that the right to modulate our own minds as we see fit belongs in this category.

You must be confusing "natural rights" with the perverse definition we currently have of "rights", which are "positive" rather than "negative". Something as simple as freedom from forced labour is still not fully adhered to even in the US.

Have a look at the Wikipedia page for some more info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Re: Legalize It All

#206

Post by dang »

samstave wrote: post #191

I'm literally convinced you're a paid government shill. Edit: this is with at least three years of input from user rayiner, there is literally no fucking way that you cannot read this comment history from the time the account was created to now and not see that this is a shill for the narrative that the government wants you to hear.

> I'm literally convinced you're a paid government shill.

Sam! You can't do this here! Please don't do it here anymore!

All: Insinuations of astroturfing or shillage without evidence are not ok on HN.

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11333552 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Legalize It All

#207

Post by [deleted] »

samstave wrote: post #191

I'm literally convinced you're a paid government shill. Edit: this is with at least three years of input from user rayiner, there is literally no fucking way that you cannot read this comment history from the time the account was created to now and not see that this is a shill for the narrative that the government wants you to hear.

[deleted]

Re: Legalize It All

#208

Post by Trundle »

mdpopescu wrote: post #200
Trundle wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wheat is not a good comparison because it's mostly not consumer facing. Consumers care for more things in their purchases than just the raw good. Your alcohol example IS a good example. Consumers aren't just buying a beverage that intoxicates them that doesn't taste terrible. They pay a premium for brand, image, and to a large extent placebo quality. The cost of manufacturing for most alcoholic beverages has little t…

Er... did you just say "people don't buy based primarily on price"? Because that contradicts pretty much everybody else... (Yes, brands have an influence, people buy Vertu phones, but Walmart has a lot more customers.)

Just reviewed my message and no, I don't believe I did. Do let me know if I missed it though!

Re: Legalize It All

#209

Post by rorykoehler »

stegosaurus wrote: post #154

The idea that the Western world (at least, my country, the UK) uses laws to criminalize groups of people seems about as old as time itself to me. We don't punish drug use because we care about people taking drugs. We punish drug use because we want to eliminate the influence of 'junkies' on society. We don't punish radical views because we disagree with them. We punish radical views because we want to eliminate their…

>We punish drug use because we want to eliminate the influence of 'junkies' on society. & >They are about trying to remove 'scary' individuals.

It's not so clear cut. It's more about having the ability to selectively remove them if and when they become a nuisance. Consider GW Bush for example. Coke fiend but establishment, ends up becoming US president. Is he not a junkie? Did he not have a huge influence on society including societies beyond his immediate society?

The law is about power not morality. Morality is the thin veil used to present the tool of coercion that is the legal system to the masses.

Re: Legalize It All

#210

Post by sooheon »

mdpopescu wrote: post #200
Trundle wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wheat is not a good comparison because it's mostly not consumer facing. Consumers care for more things in their purchases than just the raw good. Your alcohol example IS a good example. Consumers aren't just buying a beverage that intoxicates them that doesn't taste terrible. They pay a premium for brand, image, and to a large extent placebo quality. The cost of manufacturing for most alcoholic beverages has little t…

Er... did you just say "people don't buy based primarily on price"? Because that contradicts pretty much everybody else... (Yes, brands have an influence, people buy Vertu phones, but Walmart has a lot more customers.)

No, he and you and I and everyone else knows that all things being equal, price determines purchasing decisions. He just also went on to list how in many ways, all things are not held equal.
Post reply on HN