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

261–270 of 293 posts

Re: Legalize It All

#261

Post by mastax »

mtgx wrote: post #54
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…

Another "problem" with legalization is that then the government will have to accept that it has to treat those people who become addicts instead of just imprisoning them. But it's not willing to cover them under a Medicare-like healthcare system. Do you think the addicts will afford or could be covered under ACA?

You probably know this already, but treating these addicts would be vastly cheaper than imprisoning them. $31,286 per inmate [1] on average, much higher in some areas (NYC, LA).

[1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/nyregion/citys-annual-cost...

Re: Legalize It All

#262

Post by snsr »

tptacek wrote: post #254
snsr wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Human society has barely learned to cope with the range of neurological behavior naturally present in the population. Bullshit. > It's not unreasonable to be afraid of what might happen when you throw new chemicals into the mix. It is absolutely unreasonable. Moreover, it's really not your concern. > It's important to remember that most people think the opposite way as those on HN. They do not assume that new thing…

It is not appropriate for him to use "I" instead of "they" in an purely descriptive, non-normative, objectively-verifiable statement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

I may suck at grammar, but that doesn't change the fact that the 'objectively verifiable' nature of a position doesn't make said position correct. I think, in this case, that it's likely incorrect.

rayiner's claims, in this comment, are exceptionally broad, unfounded and, obviously, a personal opinion extrapolated and attributed to a larger group.

Re: Legalize It All

#263

Post by tptacek »

snsr wrote: post #262
tptacek wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not appropriate for him to use "I" instead of "they" in an purely descriptive, non-normative, objectively-verifiable statement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

I may suck at grammar, but that doesn't change the fact that the 'objectively verifiable' nature of a position doesn't make said position correct. I think, in this case, that it's likely incorrect. rayiner's claims, in this comment, are exceptionally broad, unfounded and, obviously, a personal opinion extrapolated and attributed to a larger group.

Non sequitur. He didn't say the position was correct; he said it was widely held. He is right. Your arguments, thus far, are incoherent.

Re: Legalize It All

#264

Post by stretchwithme »

We should be deciding such questions at the neighborhood level. There are always going to be those who don't want to be arounds drugs and those who do. We should be making it possible to have either kind of community and access either without having to travel to another city or state.

And penalties should be civil not criminal.

Re: Legalize It All

#265

Post by jessaustin »

samstave wrote: post #260
dang wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

How would you prefer that I make my opinion known of Rayiner and the narrative that person has maintained over the years we have both been on HN? I've literally been in discussions with Rayiner for years and at odds with their position, why am I not free to disagree with the message she puts forth?

HN is really picky about accusing even other HN users in general of being astroturfy. (Ask me how I know!) Accusing a specific user, as you've done in this case, is right out. You'll have better luck referring to other, non-HN sources or even humanity in general as e.g. "not disinterested".

Besides it's not really important that we know your opinion of 'rayiner. You've been around awhile; we have some idea. 'rayiner has been around longer, and through copious posting we know exactly what 'rayiner will say about any favorite topic. (One reason I always have "showdead" on is that occasionally someone will write an entertaining spot-on parody of a top contributor that gets instantly downvoted to oblivion.) 'rayiner is not shy about being a lawyer, so any suspicions about that can be harbored without mention. We can disagree with 'rayiner in many different ways without specifically violating the fairly lax norms of HN.

Re: Legalize It All

#266

Post by mordocai »

rayiner wrote: post #258
msandford wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why stop there, though? Why not college, and a PhD? I mean, we mandate that everyone in the US buy health insurance because if you're not paying into the system you're part of the problem. What limit is there to this power? Can we force women to be on birth control until they're married and/or have "enough" money and/or fulfill some other arbitrary criteria for having kids? Society -- statistically speaking -- has to…

Principle bends to pragmatism. It's illegal to kill other humans, except when it isn't (accidents, self-defense, military action, abortion). There's nothing straightforward about the lines we draw between when it's okay versus not okay to kill people. People are entitled to trade their labor freely, except when they aren't (minimum wage, child labor). Humans are social creatures; they are interdependent cogs in a mac…

The argument other people in the thread are giving though is that taking drugs SHOULD be one of those rights.

Re: Legalize It All

#267

Post by nutball »

mbrock wrote: post #189
charonn0 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are tons of self-taught people in IT What I'm getting at is that they still needed to be taught reading, math, etc. just to get to the point where they could teach themselves how to use technology. I don't think that piecemeal homeschooling can prepare most people to do that sort of thing. A quick glance at historic literacy rates in the US[1], particularly the meteoric rise in all demographics starting in th…

Anarchism is about questioning the legitimacy of any system based on power, with a tendency to be critical of authority. It is also a constructive tradition of discussing alternative ways based on voluntary association and freedom. I doubt many anarchists see it as strategically useful to dismantle systems of public education—but those systems certainly deserve critique, and anarchist perspectives are well-suited.

Every kid knows that school sucks. A prison for their minds and bodies.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-toward-the...

Re: Legalize It All

#268

Post by snsr »

tptacek wrote: post #263
snsr wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may suck at grammar, but that doesn't change the fact that the 'objectively verifiable' nature of a position doesn't make said position correct. I think, in this case, that it's likely incorrect. rayiner's claims, in this comment, are exceptionally broad, unfounded and, obviously, a personal opinion extrapolated and attributed to a larger group.

Non sequitur. He didn't say the position was correct ; he said it was widely held . He is right. Your arguments, thus far, are incoherent.

> He didn't say the position was correct; he said it was widely held. He is right. Your arguments, thus far, are incoherent.

Completely unsubstantiated.

Re: Legalize It All

#269

Post by xlm1717 »

rayiner wrote: post #150
md224 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone else get almost irrationally angry about this? I HATE that the freedom to modulate our own minds was taken away from us by these awful politicians for such terrible reasons. Not only has the War on Drugs ruined countless lives through incarceration and overdosing, but so many potentially helpful chemicals have been hidden away from society. It isn't just about getting "high"... it's about unleashing our f…

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…

>It's not unreasonable to be afraid of what might happen when you throw new chemicals into the mix.

The media helps this along by sensationalizing any erratic behavior done under the influence of new chemicals. Just look at the coverage bath salts got a few years ago.

It's not just new chemicals either. Stories pop up all the time speculating whether we're over-prescribing ritalin, benzos, antidepressants, pain killers and other mind altering legal drugs. The arguments against are overwhelmingly addiction, but there's also concerns over dementia, suicidal thoughts, and other mental disturbances.

We're already afraid of what happens with chemicals already in the mix, so it is reasonable to be afraid of what might happen with new chemicals.

Re: Legalize It All

#270

Post by ZoeZoeBee »

rayiner wrote: post #258
msandford wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why stop there, though? Why not college, and a PhD? I mean, we mandate that everyone in the US buy health insurance because if you're not paying into the system you're part of the problem. What limit is there to this power? Can we force women to be on birth control until they're married and/or have "enough" money and/or fulfill some other arbitrary criteria for having kids? Society -- statistically speaking -- has to…

Principle bends to pragmatism. It's illegal to kill other humans, except when it isn't (accidents, self-defense, military action, abortion). There's nothing straightforward about the lines we draw between when it's okay versus not okay to kill people. People are entitled to trade their labor freely, except when they aren't (minimum wage, child labor). Humans are social creatures; they are interdependent cogs in a mac…

Society has infringed upon the "fundamental right" of procreation numerous times. Forced Sterilizations have been used many times for a variety of reasons throughout the history of Western Civilization including the modern US, and "voluntary sterilizations" happen more often than they are discussed still to this day.
Post reply on HN