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

Top medical experts say we should decriminalize all drugs (2016)

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 377 posts

Re: Top medical experts say we should decriminalize all drugs (2016)

#251

Post by coleifer »

tetrep wrote: post #219
coleifer wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dope costs money. When you've got a habit and no job, how are you going to pay? People steal to support their habits. Little children have their childhood stolen because their parents were addicts. People crash cars and kill people. That's why drugs are illegal.

Just like gambling, alcohol, opiates, etc? Besides the wealth of extremely addictive substances (and activities) that are legal (some regulated), there's also at least one illegal drug that you're never going to be (chemically) addicted to: LSD. The "we're protecting you" logic behind making arbitrary drugs illegal is nonsense. It's even more weakened by the fact that at least a few of the illegal drugs with "no medi…

Alcohol is illegal here until you're 21, and then there are rules like no driving after drinking. We even tried to make it illegal but it wasn't tenable. Gambling is also illegal or very regulated in my state. And opiates are a controlled substance, you can't get them without an Rx.

I think we're talking at cross-purposes. I'm talking about the ravages of drug addiction on society. It's not about protecting you, it's about protecting society from you.

Re: Top medical experts say we should decriminalize all drugs (2016)

#252

Post by chewz »

II2II wrote: post #241
chewz wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. But Protestant Work Ethic doesn't make sense anymore when work is scarce and there are millions of unemployed without any prospects. So how do you avoid revolution and keep voters happy? Legalize drugs, supply computer games and VR, provide UBI.

Which may be a good reason to not legalize drugs. My meager understanding of the issue is that happy people are less likely to grow dependent upon drugs. (Don't take this the wrong way. I support legalizing drugs. The social costs of the war on drugs are to high to believe that there is a net benefit.)

I have been trying to be sarcastic. Sorry.

I do not support legalizing drugs, decriminalization yes.

I am afraid that capitalism and greed, lobbying and 'free market' will be given a chance to make big profits from it. And put more people into addiction in result.

Re: Top medical experts say we should decriminalize all drugs (2016)

#255

Post by Ygg2 »

stickfigure wrote: post #52
mc32 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll agree with consumption not being punishable but a medically treatable issue. Misditribution (illegal distribution) of controlled dugs (not over the counter) should be punishable --whether they be doctors who knowingly over prescribe or black market sellers (drug dealers).

You cannot avoid the nasty social effects of drug prohibition (crime, violence, contamination, etc) without making distribution legal. If you want to live in a world without homeless junkies breaking into your car, or a world without running gun battles in the street, or a world without your wayward kids accidentally ODing on their next batch, you need drugs like cocaine and heroin to be sold openly and affordably at…

On the other hand, would we want to see Cocaine and Heroin marketed to young audiences in the same way Cigars are?

Re: Top medical experts say we should decriminalize all drugs (2016)

#256

Post by [deleted] »

jwilk wrote: post #150
kobeya wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Shibboleth I don't know what that is. Should I?

From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shibboleth : 1. A word, especially seen as a test, to distinguish someone as belonging to a particular nation, class, profession etc. 2. A common or longstanding belief, custom, or catchphrase associated with a particular group, especially one with little current meaning or truth.

[deleted]

Re: Top medical experts say we should decriminalize all drugs (2016)

#258

Post by kobeya »

jwilk wrote: post #150
kobeya wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Shibboleth I don't know what that is. Should I?

From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shibboleth : 1. A word, especially seen as a test, to distinguish someone as belonging to a particular nation, class, profession etc. 2. A common or longstanding belief, custom, or catchphrase associated with a particular group, especially one with little current meaning or truth.

Thanks!

Re: Top medical experts say we should decriminalize all drugs (2016)

#259

Post by kolbe »

abakker wrote: post #236
shihching wrote: post #226

Perverse, plentiful incentives to addict and sell -- or invest in the manufacturer who does so -- act quicker than panels of doctors, and dodge responsibility too easily. Living long lives as a beacons of philanthropic humanism on top of your legal drug empire (or profits gained through accompanying ownership) counteracts much stigma accrued from the deaths of your customers. > On Tuesday [July 17, 2017], OxyContin m…

A bit ad hominem, right? Do we complain about Alfred Nobel having invented dynamite, which has been used to kill people?Pain medicine especially seems like a place where we can't rush to judgement. Even if he acted badly, the drug has done good for some people. Billionaires acting philanthropically is probably better than them not acting that way.

(a) The marginal benefit to pain assistance over heroin/morphine is almost nothing. Certainly not tens of billions of dollars of marginal improvement.

(b) It's only an ad hom if there's an argument being made, and that argument is something other than "that guy is an asshole."

Re: Top medical experts say we should decriminalize all drugs (2016)

#260

Post by TallGuyShort »

grondilu wrote: post #207
OscarCunningham wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the problem with blowing up the dam is that there's a large amount of water behind it that will flood out dangerously if they blow up the dam. I guess? So what's the analogy here? You think there's a large amount of potential drug users who will suddenly start abusing as soon as drugs are legalised?

> You think there's a large amount of potential drug users who will suddenly start abusing as soon as drugs are legalised? The opiod crisis already is quite severe. And yet most opioids are illegal. I doubt making them legal will decrease usage. Also, if they were legal, big pharma companies would see them as business opportunities. Things could get ugly fast.

I'm not following any of the logic here. Big pharma companies are already making a killing on a significant portion of the opioid addiction epidemic. They're legally (but perhaps irresponsibly) prescribed by a doctor, and either become abused by the intended patient or subsequently depart from those legal channels.

The opioid crisis isn't the only crisis. America hovers around being the 1st or 2nd worst incarceration rate in the world, and it's predominantly non-violent drug offenses. Friend of mine just lost a job offer they had provisionally because of a tiny marijuana possession charge from years ago, and that's happened to them over and over again.

If your best argument in favor of continuing to ruin people lives over something so petty is "big pharma will make money off of opioids", I call bullshit.

edit: I would also argue that in your analogy, there is almost no water built up behind that dam, and getting rid of the dam would hardly be noticeable downstream. We can't even keep drugs out of prisons very well. I live in a town that hasn't had a single case of violent crime in 13 years, and yet I know exactly where I could go and buy some heroin right this very minute if I wanted to. I know where in the Bay Area I could buy some meth if I wanted to. And these are locations that have been repeatedly raided by the cops, but the selling of drugs at those locations doesn't stop, because someone else who recently finished their sentence will just take over while the person who got busted servers theirs. I was in a concert venue last night with cops, and weed, everywhere. Freaking out about the weed, but no one caring about people having 6 or 7 beers and then getting in their cars to drive home drunk at 1am. The dam makes zero sense to me.

Post reply on HN