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

Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 545 posts

Re: Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

#371

Post by andrenth »

ceejayoz wrote: post #339
andrenth wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia also had reduced number of gun-unrelated deaths. In fact the percent reduction in those cases was larger than the reduction of gun deaths. So the stricter gun laws can't be considered the sole explanation for fewer deaths.

There's been a world-wide reduction in crime since the 1970s. It's very possible to isolate the impact of Australia's gun laws by comparing to other similar countries that didn't implement a major gun ban at the time.

Has that been done? I think it would be quite hard to provide any meaningful comparison between countries, because the results would be clouded by many other factors that can influence them.

Re: Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

#372

Post by swarnie_ »

lr4444lr wrote: post #368

Thailand's policy of granting the police shoot-to-kill license against street pushers in the early years of the new millennium worked also. Why don't we copy that too, if lower metrics around overdoses and infections are sufficient motivation to make "radical" decisions?

Something about law, trial, human rights, western democracy. Pick any of the above and expand to prevent kill squads on the streets.

Rodrigo Duterte is proving why that method is terrible in 2017.

Re: Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

#373

Post by [deleted] »

danmaz74 wrote: post #246
bonestamp2 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should never downvote a comment just because we disagree with it. We should only downvote comments that don't contribute to the discussion. If someone is blatantly wrong, their information could be a common misconception that needs to be addressed and seen by everyone. Comments we disagree with are most often very good additions to the discussion and should be upvoted, even if they're factually inaccurate but ther…

I used to think like you, but I had to change my mind many years ago. There are opinions you don't agree with - and those shouldn't be downvoted - and there are blatant lies or idiocies at the "the World is flat" level, often put forward by trolls. Arguing with those is a total waste of time, and one reason why HN is so good is that they get downvoted to oblivion in no time.

[deleted]

Re: Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

#374

Post by galobtter »

wildmusings wrote: post #363
galobtter wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1464837 "drug-related pathologies — such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage — have decreased dramatically. Drug policy experts attribute those positive trends to the enhanced ability of the Portuguese government to offer treatment programs to its citizens — enhancements made possible, for numerous reasons, by decriminalization." from the g…

It's a very important goal, but if you believe that drug use itself is corrosive to the culture and prosperity of a people, you might prioritize overall drug use. Let's take a hypothetical. Do you prefer a society where 30% have drug problems damaging themselves and their families, but there are very few overdose deaths and diseases among that 30%? Or one in which only 5% have drug problems, but there many more death…

I don't think that has happened here though. The drug use rate in portugal is still extremely low - 2% compared to 5-10% elsewhere in the EU

Re: Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

#375

Post by jacobr1 »

wslh wrote: post #315
jonathanstrange wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My 2 cent (classical armchair analysis): It seems to me that some of these discussions are mostly dominated by irrationality. This is particularly recognizable in the US, but also occurs in Europe to a degree that varies from topic to topic and country to country. I believe there are two major factors at play. First, certain topics concern taboos that are still strong even in secularized societies. To these belong an…

> It seems to me that some of these discussions are mostly dominated by irrationality. I have another theory: people are very conservative and rational (with all its limitations) at the society level, doesn't matter if they came from the left or right, deep changes in society have unexpected consequences. It didn't happen with same marriage laws but can happen in many other sectors.

That is the classic Burkean view.

Re: Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

#376

Post by petecox »

major505 wrote: post #285

Each country needs to have its own thing. In Brazil for example, a measure like this wold not have any impact because we do not have control over our borders. Take smoking for example. Even if tabacco its alowed, its really expensive to buy legalized cigarrets. So peoplo just smoke cheap ones, that enter from Paraguai border, with no quality control, and brougth in Brazil by organized crime, or even produced in cland…

> we do not have control over our borders.

Arguably, Portugal doesn't have much control either. They can control their ports but there are no checks of anyone entering from Spain by car and airport security isn't as tight in passport-free Europe as would be intercontinental flights.

Re: Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

#377

Post by alkonaut »

andrenth wrote: post #367
alkonaut wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't talking about guns in general, I was talking about "illegal guns" (with some definition of illegal). They can be illegal because they are stolen, because they aren't allowed to be owned by people in general (such as an anti aircraft missile) or because the owner doesn't qualify to own it for some other reason - perhaps because of previous convictions in weapons related crimes etc. Let's just say that regardl…

I don't think we're in complete disagreement. I'd just to comment on two points: > but on the other hand the chance that someone has a semi auto high velocity gun at a church service in the first place is almost zero Indeed, but w.r.t gun restrictions, I don't see this guy thinking "Going for a spree kill today... oh wait, guns are forbidden! Guess I'll stay home and watch something on Netflix instead". My point bein…

> Indeed, but w.r.t gun restrictions, I don't see this guy thinking "Going for a spree kill today... oh wait, guns are forbidden! Guess I'll stay home and watch something on Netflix instead". My point being, someone with the intention to kill will find a way to get a gun, with or without gun ownership restrictions.

I think the problem here is: what makes a person even think about the concept of a mass shooting? What makes it even enter someones head? This is obviously very hard to provide any facts on, but I think it's an athmosphere in society. If you are wronged/crazy/whatever - why are guns even a thought? Or put another way: why doesn't this happen anywhere else - regardless of gun concentration? It has to be either genetic, environmental (lead in the water??), or cultural. There is no fourth option. And I don't think it's genetic. I think people are just as evil and crazy all around the world, but elsewhere people are much less likely to be mass shooters regardless of whether they have guns.

So I completely agree - the problem isn't that the individual criminal had a gun. The problem is that guns permeate society in such a profound way that guns are the go-to idea in so many situations. And that can either be seen as good/inevitable/bad - but it's certainly "different".

Similar thing: why does a fight escalate to a shooting? Why does someone being stopped by a police car escalate to shooting (regardless of whether the driver had a gun)? Because one person (for example the police officer) was afraid the other might have a gun, so pulled a gun. Now you have potentially dangerous situation, regardless of whether the driver had a gun (doubly so if he does, obviosly). Fear is the big driver.

I think perhaps I can express my opinion on why fewer guns is good this way: for shootings to stop, you need to get the gun out of the peoples heads not out of their hands. But you can't just magically make people belive that no one has a gun so they don't need one. You can't magically make police officers calmly approach any vehicle in any neighborhood without worrying that there might be a gun in the vehicle. For that to happen you have to actually lower the odds of there being a gun there.

> I don't know in which country you live

Sweden. And my opinions on most things political assume "stable/functioning/non-corrupt public institutions". I think things can be very different if you aren't so lucky.

Re: Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

#378

Post by drderidder »

haggy wrote: post #293
toomanybeersies wrote: post #50

This scenario doesn't just happen with drug policy, but with practically any divisive policy discussion. People will debate something that is done elsewhere, and ignore completely that it's done elsewhere. Gay marriage is a prime example, as it's something that has been legalised in a lot of countries now. Every time a country goes through the process of debating whether to legalise gay marriage, there's a bunch of p…

I would love to see hard statistical evidence that less guns = less deaths. The problem with your hypothesis (because without proof, that's all that your comment is) is that less guns in the hands of innocent people is a recipe for disaster. I live in the US and we see the exact opposite of what you claim. We typically see higher death rates of innocent people in states with very strict gun regulation (Chicago for ex…

This argument is trotted out every time the gun violence issue comes up, but there's no veracity to it. The data is freely available. It's been several years since I did this but I plotted gun ownership vs gun deaths per 100k population, by US state, from publicly available databases, and they correlate exactly. More guns = more gun deaths, full stop. It's not a matter of the data not being there to show this, it's more a matter of a really strong cognitive bias that prevents people from being willing to even consider the evidence that doesn't support their preconceptions.

[edit] the graph came out looking like this https://twitter.com/73rhodes/status/915604039873769472

Re: Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

#379

Post by irishsultan »

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #356
saladeen wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP asked about relation of gun laws vs death numbers. You are pretending to answer that, but you weasel in the change from 'general violence' to 'gun violence'. Of course if guns are more easily available, there will be more gun violence, but that's not what GP asked.

I believe the less deaths part is really meant as gun deaths. Do you honestly think that he wants information about less guns leading to lower cardiac arrests? Or perhaps less motor vehicle accidents involving death? There is only one type of death that is in context in a discussion about firearms, death caused by firearms.

This may seem obvious to you, but it certainly isn't to me.

You are right that natural deaths are unlikely to be affected, but it's entirely possible for other kinds of death to be affected (e.g. if I can't shoot you I may stab you to death). The appropriate category to compare would be violent deaths.

Re: Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

#380

Post by belorn »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #191
toomanybeersies wrote: post #50

This scenario doesn't just happen with drug policy, but with practically any divisive policy discussion. People will debate something that is done elsewhere, and ignore completely that it's done elsewhere. Gay marriage is a prime example, as it's something that has been legalised in a lot of countries now. Every time a country goes through the process of debating whether to legalise gay marriage, there's a bunch of p…

My 2 cent (classical armchair analysis): It seems to me that some of these discussions are mostly dominated by irrationality. This is particularly recognizable in the US, but also occurs in Europe to a degree that varies from topic to topic and country to country. I believe there are two major factors at play. First, certain topics concern taboos that are still strong even in secularized societies. To these belong an…

> amok runs with guns

This is the problem when discussing political issues like gun control. Gun related crimes has shown correlation with gun ownership laws. Gun accidents is naturally correlated to gun ownership. Mass public shootings however do not when adjusted for the population, but it draws so much political attention so it always get put into the discussion regardless if it match the data.

Gun accidents is also a rather weak-ish argument for gun control. Accidental deaths and injured caused by guns is statistically unusual, and no where near the top for the population in general or kids specifically. As famously noted in the book freakonomics, swimming pools comes in a big second place directly after Motor vehicle accidents in accidental deaths. The best argument in my view being made for gun control based on accidents is a moral one, in that even some accidents is bad enough when the owners don't have any reason to own a gun.

Which leaves us with the parent comment and gun related crimes. Assault and robberies. Those are where gun control seems to have the strongest connection with the data, and where it would do the most good. People on the lower end of the social economical ladder getting shot by other people on the lower end of the social economical ladder. It is not flashy, its not a winning political platform, but its where the data points to. I would not call it irrationality, but rather human fallibility in focusing on the rare and extreme and not see the common.

Post reply on HN