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

311–320 of 377 posts

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

#311

Post by abtinf »

jeffdavis wrote: post #28

"scientific consensus" I am very troubled by this phrase -- it's almost an oxymoron. Science is not democratic, and scientists aren't anointed arbiters of facts. Anyone can be a scientist simply by following the scientific method and collecting data in good faith; and a lone outsider with new data can challenge 100 years of "consensus". Obviously they are subject to challenges themselves, or if it's unlikely enough t…

Anytime "scientific consensus" comes up, I think of the "Aliens Cause Global Warming" essay by Michael Crichton: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers...

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

#312

Post by pharrington »

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…

You'd also need to ban drug advertisements.

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

#313

Post by ytNumbers »

lightbyte wrote: post #285
justonepost wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on your goal. If it's to reduce mortality, yes, decriminalize is good. But it will increase usage.

Why does it matter if usage is increased?

There are often negative consequences for society when someone becomes a drug addict. There are the costs to society at the macro level. And, of course, there's the devastation suffered by families.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervention_(TV_series)

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

#314

Post by soundwave106 »

coleifer wrote: post #250
rublev wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Video games 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 always gaming. People crash cars and kill people because their attention is on their little screen. That's why video games should be illegal. You can do this with literally anything.

That's patently absurd. You're not likely to see a gamer out there ripping and robbing to support a habit. Do people get addicted to games? Food? Sex? Whatever? Yeah sure. But by far drugs lead to more crime.

Replace "video games" with "gambling" and you absolutely have people out there "ripping and robbing" to support a gambling habit.

Yet, in a large amount of places, some form of gambling is indeed legal (usually heavily regulated of course, but legal nonetheless).

In several nations (or states), there's even a form of completely legal, state sponsored gambling (with often ridiculously lower odds compared to private gambling offerings).

The issue here is that the "treatment" might be worse than the "disease". The vast majority of narcotic users (and gamblers) actually are responsible in how they use the narcotic (play the game). And illegal drug (or gambling) enterprises are also associated with an uptick in crime. Such is why the original "Prohibition" (of alcohol in the US) failed in the first place.

It doesn't help that current governments often tend to treat even simple possession of certain narcotics as a fully-fledged crime. As opposed to not caring except in the case of addiction, where it is at that point a medical problem. (Even the United States' old alcohol prohibition did not outlaw possession or consumption.)

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

#315

Post by lerpa »

microcolonel wrote: post #32
jeffdavis wrote: post #28

"scientific consensus" I am very troubled by this phrase -- it's almost an oxymoron. Science is not democratic, and scientists aren't anointed arbiters of facts. Anyone can be a scientist simply by following the scientific method and collecting data in good faith; and a lone outsider with new data can challenge 100 years of "consensus". Obviously they are subject to challenges themselves, or if it's unlikely enough t…

Yeah, as much as I agree with the policy position, I detest the "scientific consensus" speak. It's exactly the slimy approach to engaging the public which has made something as straightforward as climate change controversial.

> as much as I agree with the policy position

So do I. But that is irrelevant.

> I detest the "scientific consensus" speak

Same here, specially when implying that health researchers talking not about their actual results but about the _opinions_ they have of what should be the law and what shouldn't, are in some way scientific.

Research and policies are not the same things.

.

Otherwise next you'll see things like "Researchers find most animals kill each other mercilessly, so we should decriminalize murder."

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

#316

Post by Veelox »

Keronk wrote: post #218
nafey wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow really explains why China bans drugs. This kind of reductive reasoning is a mere rationalization of a complex socio-political issue.

Well China does have a history with this sort of thing. The Opium wars lead to what China calls the century of humiliation which is still a defining characteristic in their global outlook. More info here : https://youtu.be/xD1nDGeiSAs

I think the comment about China was a way to highlight that a country with no Christian back ground (and thus no history of a Protestant Work Ethic) bans drugs. It is a round about way of point out that the PWE is not the only reason drugs are illegal.

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

#317

Post by BearGoesChirp »

fsloth wrote: post #5

Finally. I hope this will signal a turning point on this insane approach to national health in all countries. Drugs are a health problem, not a criminal problem. Lone experts have been fired in western countries when they have expressed this common sense sentiments alone [0]. I hope this groups fares better. Nixon started the war on drugs anyway as a mean to attack left and black activists [1]. Any previous legislati…

>Drugs are a health problem, not a criminal problem.

I fully support legalizing drugs. That being said, if today you buy drugs that are being smuggled by the cartel, then your are contributing to the wrong they do. Buying cartel tainted drugs is a criminal matter because it finances massive violence.

I draw a comparison to other material that is illegal to posses because it supports harmful production and distribution. Today, there are laws that prevent making such material legally (for example, drawings or computer generated images). But the laws, while I think more harmful than good, does not excuse a person from acquiring material that was produced or distributed harmfully. In the same way, I think drug laws are more harmful, but their existence does not justify someone who pays money to the cartel. Now, if you are growing your own pot or buying it from someone who grew it themselves, I don't see a problem.

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

#318

Post by BearGoesChirp »

jeffdavis wrote: post #28

"scientific consensus" I am very troubled by this phrase -- it's almost an oxymoron. Science is not democratic, and scientists aren't anointed arbiters of facts. Anyone can be a scientist simply by following the scientific method and collecting data in good faith; and a lone outsider with new data can challenge 100 years of "consensus". Obviously they are subject to challenges themselves, or if it's unlikely enough t…

>Anyone can be a scientist simply by following the scientific method and collecting data in good faith;

That's like saying anyone can be a classic car collector by buying classic cars. It ignores people who are missing certain prerequisites. Many people do not have the resources (namely money) to do so. Many scientific experiments have a large cost to produce, and cannot be done by the average person. Many do not have the time to reach the level of knowledge needed to apply the statistics correctly.

And science is driven by consensus. It doesn't make it right, but it does make it science. If 85% of science think X, then that is what is presented as science. It may take a generation before the majority of scientist move on to Y and that becomes science. Thankfully the consensus changes faster than that in most cases. A lone outsider who is ignored won't change anything. The beauty is that scientists tend to look at the new data and give it fair weight, and respond accordingly. Even then most don't buy into it immediately but wait for replication.

And I've found in some fields (namely soft sciences), things are far less driven by even new data, with many scientist making the data fit the theory (seems easier to do with research on people than research on inanimate matter/energy).

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

#319

Post by mateo411 »

BearGoesChirp wrote: post #317
fsloth wrote: post #5

Finally. I hope this will signal a turning point on this insane approach to national health in all countries. Drugs are a health problem, not a criminal problem. Lone experts have been fired in western countries when they have expressed this common sense sentiments alone [0]. I hope this groups fares better. Nixon started the war on drugs anyway as a mean to attack left and black activists [1]. Any previous legislati…

>Drugs are a health problem, not a criminal problem. I fully support legalizing drugs. That being said, if today you buy drugs that are being smuggled by the cartel, then your are contributing to the wrong they do. Buying cartel tainted drugs is a criminal matter because it finances massive violence. I draw a comparison to other material that is illegal to posses because it supports harmful production and distributio…

Here is a crazy thought experiment.

What if the government rationed drugs and gave them out for free? The price for black market drugs would go down, which would change the economics of smuggling drugs and selling drugs in the US. The government could track consumption of drugs and help people who are chronic addicts.

What would happen to the amount of drugs consumed in the US? If consumption would greatly increase, then this policy probably would do more harm than good. We would have many more addicts in the US. If consumption stayed the same, then this policy might make sense. It would greatly disincentivize the distribution of drugs and could be used to move addicts into treatment programs.

This policy is probably not politically viable in the US.

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

#320

Post by amigoingtodie »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #305
amigoingtodie wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You claim drugs are illegal because they are addictive, then admit that alcohol and tobacco are addictive, yet not illegal. Furthermore, marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 drug by the DEA, making it illegal at the federal level (no known medical uses), which based on your reasoning, would indicate it to be addictive. Yet, prescription opiates, which people are overdosing daily, is legal. And, you spelled 'wrong'…

That's a needlessly pedantic interpretation of my comment. As I clearly explained with my comparison between alcohol and heroin, the point is it's a matter of degree. Less addictive substances are less likely to be banned, whereas more addictive substances are more likely to be banned. That's why tobacco isn't banned, but heroin is. I would have thought that was obvious to everyone. Apparently not. (And yes, obviousl…

I must not understand "The reason drugs are illegal is because they are addictive."
Post reply on HN