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

331–340 of 377 posts

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

#331

Post by Ajedi32 »

amigoingtodie wrote: post #320
Ajedi32 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

And as a result, more addictive drugs are more likely to be illegal, whereas less addictive ones are less likely to be illegal. What's not to understand?

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

#332

Post by sethrin »

merpnderp wrote: post #237
sneak wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the United States criminalized alcohol, usage went up.

Citation needed. First that seems incredibly hard to measure. Second I doubt many people tried that hard to measure. And third, access to alcohol during prohibition was never reduced by much. It just created a bunch of gangsters and violence.

It is hard to measure, but yes, people did try, both at the time and in more recent eras. To some degree the end of the first World War was a confounding factor, but the bulk of the sources I've seen support the parent's claims. The real effect of Prohibition was to change the quality of the alcohol consumed, for the worse (and even more unfortunately, one of the darker episodes of Prohibition involved the US Government deliberately poisoning alcohol). So, a quick search pulled up this[0] as a reference, but I'm sure that you can follow your interests to other results as you deem meet.

[0] http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm

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

#333

Post by Ajedi32 »

soundwave106 wrote: post #324
Ajedi32 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Mmm, no. Marijuana is used habitually by some, but withdrawal syndromes are hardly as severe as alcohol or tobacco. Hallucinogens are not atypically used habitually either (some of the dissociatives might be habit forming but from what I understand habitual use of the serotogenics is pretty rare). Most of these substances you are describing are older; from what I see, I'm afraid the narcotic regulation of more "tradi…

> Obviously the ill effects of narcotics (such as addiction) are the driving force behind these prohibitions, but in my opinion a fair bit of the current "scheduled hierarchy" of narcotics is not really based on medical science.

Sounds to me like we're in agreement. I'm not sure why you started your comment with "Mmm, no." The laws aren't perfectly consistent on which side of the line they place different substances on (for a variety of historical reasons), but the underlying reason as to why drugs are illegal in the first place is (quite obviously) because of their addictive nature.

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

#335

Post by elchief »

blubb-fish wrote: post #82

Here in Germany politicians are still stating that Cannabis is a gateway drug, causes psychosis and makes stupid. They will even actively lie and twist statistics. My theory for why many politicians - especially from the right-wing - are so opposed is b/c they didn't like their weed smoking and long-haired fellow students. It's a Pavlov thing. Like many people dislike golf (justly so in my humble opinion) b/c they di…

More than half of British Columbians have tried marijuana. Less than one percent have tried Opiates. Not the best gateway...

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

#336

Post by baki »

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 not health problem, the life is a health problem. Drug usage not= addiction or toxicomania, as alkohol usage is not necessarily cause health problems. There is a wide range of alcohol users, from sometimes a glass of wine to hardcore alcoholism. The humans are the problems, not the drugs. Drugs could be good or bad, depend on the usage.

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

#337

Post by ringaroundthetx »

danschumann wrote: post #334

The way to "win" the drug war, is the way you win in capitalism. COMPETITION!!! No one would go to illegal drug gangs if they could go to 7-11(or similar).

Out of curiosity, what goods and services will people in that line of business switch to?

Will they exploit inefficiencies in other drugs markets that the state hasn't caught on to yet? And just accept the diminishing returns before switching to the next drugs?

Will they try other lines of business, like computer hacking syndicates?

Or they all magically disappear, or be cut off from appearing because there is simply no unskilled labor + high margin + low overhead business line remaining?

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

#338

Post by burger_moon »

What about other drugs like steroids and growth hormones? Those are schedule 2 drugs which can be prescribed but have no addictive properties. Testosterone is something your [male] body produces but even if you have a low free T count doctors often still won't prescribe it, and since you cannot buy it legally most men live out their lives feeling the negative affects of this.

Of course the focus is always on weed, opiates, and other common hallucinogenic drugs, but what about all the other drugs that aren't.

What is the reason for those to be illegal? I legitimately don't know the reasons because even the reasons for 'harmful' drugs causes lots of debate such as the comment thread here shows.

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

#339

Post by redblacktree »

burger_moon wrote: post #338

What about other drugs like steroids and growth hormones? Those are schedule 2 drugs which can be prescribed but have no addictive properties. Testosterone is something your [male] body produces but even if you have a low free T count doctors often still won't prescribe it, and since you cannot buy it legally most men live out their lives feeling the negative affects of this. Of course the focus is always on weed, op…

Steroids are drugs of abuse by athletes seeking better performance in their sports. That is the reason why it's scheduled, despite low addictive potential.

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

#340

Post by jhayward »

ytNumbers wrote: post #313
lightbyte wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Two logical fallacies; First, "use" does not equate to addiction by any means. The vast majority of people who try "addictive" drugs do not proceed to addiction or even regular use. Second, the costs to society are predominantly those imposed by society. The violence of the drug trade, the lives ruined by a drug arrest or conviction, the families broken up by incarceration of young men are all self-inflicted by society. Just having to deal with the ravages of addiction would be a welcome relief from all those things.
Post reply on HN