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

Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 252 posts

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#221

Post by fyrabanks »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #204
tokenadult wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why the campaigns against alcohol have been so unsuccessful. Alcohol is very easy to manufacture in secret.

And, by the way, can easily yield the poisonous methanol variation accidentally. This wasn't uncommon during prohibition, and many people were harmed, blinded, or killed, by drinking it. This is a very close parallel to what we see in the (failed) War on (some) Drugs, where many people are harmed by overdoses because the products wind up tainted, or aren't produced to any uniform potency.

Methanol poisoning was an deliberate act by the government during Prohibition. https://www.vox.com/2014/8/8/5975605/alcohol-prohibition-poi...

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#222

Post by fredkbloggs »

talmand wrote: post #107
juliangregorian wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this so difficult for some people to process? We have very well regulated markets for cigarettes, alcohol, prescription drugs... why would this be any different? And even if we moved to state-sponsored rehab, do you have any idea how much money is squandered on the "war"? I don't hear these aforementioned fiscal conservatives complaining about that.

I imagine that when you have generations of people that have been told all their lives by authority that "this" is bad, it's rather difficult to change a mindset to "this" isn't so bad now and we wish to raise revenues with it. If a fiscal conservative isn't complaining about the cost of the drug war at this point, I would conclude they aren't a fiscal conservative.

Legalisation (we'll leave the exact definition unspecified here, because it doesn't matter) neither asks nor requires anyone to change their opinions of recreational drug use. Regulating and taxing an activity do not constitute an endorsement of it; more fundamentally, this attitude inverts the foundation of American law by asserting that only those things of which the government approves should be lawful. The legalisation argument is not that recreational drug use is "not so bad". It is that the marginal harm caused by prohibition (by a large number of vectors) is greater than the marginal harm it prevents (the harm done to or by some number of people not using recreational drugs who otherwise would). The reality is that every schoolchild has been repeatedly informed of the effects and risks of the various recreational drugs on the market. It is literally easier to graduate high school illiterate than to avoid learning about recreational drugs. Those who choose to become first-time users despite prohibition do so as informed citizens. There is no evidence that prohibition discourages any great number of would-be users, though it would be naive to insist that it discourages no one. Neither do economic incentives: witness the millions of dollars lost every year by professional athletes who are penalised for violations of their employers' anti-drug policies, which are stricter even than legal prohibition. The objective is not, and should not be, to encourage recreational drug use but to limit the harm done to and by recreational drug users, and to limit their number through education and, where appropriate, rehabilitation of addicts. Neither does legalisation imply that recreational drug users who commit crimes or do other harm while under the influence will not be held responsible for their actions. Consuming alcohol is legal; drunk driving is not. Being high is no excuse for crime today and would be no excuse under the policy regime of legalisation.

Accepting legalisation as a superior alternative simply doesn't require the mental leap you're suggesting. It should appeal to most people, regardless of their overall political views.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#223

Post by pstuart »

notsony wrote: post #203
pstuart wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So there was a court case in 1991 but average joe would not have known about it or cared about it. Compare that to the daily news headlines and social media discussion that exists today.

The average joe cares about sports and celebrities. What's your point? Or are you just a homophobic troll?

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#224

Post by jobu »

PaulAJ wrote: post #156
simonh wrote: post #26

I'm surprised they don't also cite the first war against drugs (actualy, a drug) - prohibition. Exactly the same scenario played out then as is, hopefully, coming to it's inevitable conclusion now in the 'western hemisphere'. If the same thing is starting up again in the East, it's going to be a bloody and chaotic few decades to come before the same lesson gets learned the third time over. Fortunately we do have a la…

I know its a side point, but I gather that smokers actually cost the UK NHS less than non-smokers, because smokers tend to die younger and faster than non-smokers. The people who cost the NHS a lot are the healthy, clean living people who survive into their 80s and 90s needing more and more healthcare as they go.

This appears to be what you're talking about: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9359212/Obese-an...

The research was done by a think-tank called The Institute of Economic Affairs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Economic_Affairs ). Unfortunately I can't find the actual research information behind their study, but I did find they were paid by tobacco companies for doing it - http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jun/01/thinktanks-bi...

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#225

Post by digi_owl »

ukigumo wrote: post #128
transfire wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I Heart Portugal. It is my understanding that Portugal couldn't go as far as they would have liked due to trade agreements with the U.S. Do you know if that is true?

From what I can remember, the original plan had some provisions for "assisted usage rooms" where trained personal would help guarantee that needles were clean and offer assistance to reduce ODs, but this never made it into the law because. I can't be sue if US political influence had any weight on the final legislation, I mean, it would not be unheard of but on the other hand it would not be a matter of public record…

Heh, can't forget when the second such room opened in Oslo. It was situated closer to the wealthy side of the city, and almost right away did they have people show up driving expensive cars and wearing expensive clothes.

In essence these were high up people in the Norwegian business world, coming to set a needle between their toes or snort a line in privacy before going off to make a multi-million deal or party.

After that it seemed all talk about such rooms became very hush hush...

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#226

Post by Lawtonfogle »

Nursie wrote: post #201
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 action…

>> some people will say some drugs are so bad that they deserve to be stopped in and of themselves They will indeed. And to them I say "good luck with that!" I agree with the sentiment there, nobody should be encouraging the use of heroin, for example. But we've tried banning it and it hasn't actually helped all that much. I think it's time to admit that's failed and investigate what we can do, with a close eye on th…

But there are other forms of bans that could be tried. Ban production and selling but not purchasing. Or ban purchasing, but massively change the penalty to something more help. Even keeping all our current bans in place and just redoing prison to be about rehabilitation instead of retribution could result in a positive change.

Part of the problem isn't even the bans, but the money being made off of the war that leads to things like prisons lobbying for three strike rules and other horrendous laws.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#227

Post by jahewson »

peteretep wrote: post #53
simonh wrote: post #26

I'm surprised they don't also cite the first war against drugs (actualy, a drug) - prohibition. Exactly the same scenario played out then as is, hopefully, coming to it's inevitable conclusion now in the 'western hemisphere'. If the same thing is starting up again in the East, it's going to be a bloody and chaotic few decades to come before the same lesson gets learned the third time over. Fortunately we do have a la…

> 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.

I don't know about that; it was a war for a legalised drug trade rather than against it. It's notable that the Chinese tried to enforce a total ban on the trade and to execute domestic traders, which resembles modern (failing) drug policy. The similarities probably end there though, as modern drug cartels and the British Empire are very different entities.

It's also worth remembering that America was selling opium to China too, and that John Quincy Adams spoke in favour of the opium wars from a "free trade" stance.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#228

Post by humanrebar »

cpursley wrote: post #79

Looks like Rand Paul, a Republican surprisingly, is the only candidate running from either side is taking the correct stance on the "War on Drugs". http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Rand_Paul_Drugs.htm

> Looks like Rand Paul, a Republican surprisingly

Sounds like you need to get to know more Republicans.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#229

Post by Nursie »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #226
Nursie wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> some people will say some drugs are so bad that they deserve to be stopped in and of themselves They will indeed. And to them I say "good luck with that!" I agree with the sentiment there, nobody should be encouraging the use of heroin, for example. But we've tried banning it and it hasn't actually helped all that much. I think it's time to admit that's failed and investigate what we can do, with a close eye on th…

But there are other forms of bans that could be tried. Ban production and selling but not purchasing. Or ban purchasing, but massively change the penalty to something more help. Even keeping all our current bans in place and just redoing prison to be about rehabilitation instead of retribution could result in a positive change. Part of the problem isn't even the bans, but the money being made off of the war that lead…

I would agree that we should look at it from an evidence base and if those options look lile the best ones then that's great.

The thing that winds me up the most is the prevalent attitude of kneejerk banning of anything of everything, damn the consequences and fuck the evidence.

Re: Illegal drugs: The wars don’t work

#230

Post by panglott »

Retra wrote: post #112
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…

I don't think it's a baseless stereotype. I'm in the same position as you, for instance, and if drugs or drug laws come up in a conversation, I'd agree with you. But whenever I am part of a conversation like that, somebody inevitably makes it into a conspiracy fueled crusade -- like it is simply the most important political issue in the world -- and that person is most often a stoner. One who insists on being the lou…

Stereotypes are a form of knowledge. They are just a really low-grade form of knowledge. That's why they're frequently confused with ignorance ;)
Post reply on HN