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

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

#411

Post by Retric » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 2:58 PM UTC

mantas wrote: post #278

Retric wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technocracy implies the people in power are experts. That has never and likely will never happen. People gain power by being good at politics and or inheriting it. Neither of those measures technical skill. At most you can look at countries who listen to relevant experts, which very much includes the United States. Though again on a sliding scale and always secondary to maintaining power for the in groups. Really if…

Well known technocrats frequently raise because of being good on politics/charisma/etc, rather than their technical skill which sometime can be average at best. On top of that, pure and legitimate technocrats frequently are so deep in their fields they don't notice side effects to other fields. Politics are about making the whole system work, not about advancing one single field. It's easy to optimise a society for a…

The economic drain of welfare spending is often overestimated. The IRS for example shifts a lot of money from A > B, but it does not cost a lot of money to do that shift. Mostly what changes is who is allocating resources, not the total number of resources to allocate.

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

#412

Post by AnthonyMouse » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 3:02 PM UTC

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…

> For example, it's fairly well established that the less guns there are, the less gun crime there is

But that's just a talking point. It's like saying if there are less silver cars, there are less car accidents involving silver cars. That doesn't tell you anything about whether it makes sense to ban silver cars. You can insert literally anything into that sentence and it's still true. If there is less food, less people will get food poisoning. If there is less water, less people will drown in water.

It doesn't prove anything, it's just sophistry. We obviously shouldn't ban water, which implies the question of whether we should ban guns is more complicated than that.

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

#413

Post by Helmet » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 3:04 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #405

Helmet wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, many of us do. The vast majority of US gun-owners are not criminals, and the social problems that gun ownership seems to correlate with can be argued, debated, and squared away with "other" strong correlations, so the debate is certainly not settled. Both the American Revolutionary and Civil War have only hardened my position on the importance of gun ownership. There is a fundamental ideological divide between u…

The civil war?

The Civil War was, essentially, fought to preserve the institution of slavery. The period after the Civil War was marked by incredible violence against blacks by the KKK and racist whites and white mobs.

Blacks protected themselves, their families and their communities through armed resistance. They could finally "shoot back". In fact, some of the earliest gun control measures were taken up TO KEEP GUNS AWAY FROM BLACKS, so that they could not resist against the atrocities of slavery.

It isn't talked about because white liberal academic elites are so hostile to guns, but armed resistance and guns were a central part of the civil rights movement.

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

#414

Post by saladeen » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 3:06 PM UTC

rusk wrote: post #323

saladeen wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These topics transcend political identity. Yup, that's why you had to go with 'hurrrrr Trump!'

Didn't 'hurrrr' anything. His indiscretions are widely known. As are Bill Clinton's.

You're avoiding my point. But that's ok.

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

#415

Post by andrenth » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 3:07 PM UTC

alkonaut wrote: post #377

andrenth wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> why doesn't this happen anywhere else

I think this is a misguided perception:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/...

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from...

But anyway, thanks for the thoughtful conversation!

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

#416

Post by vertex-four » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 3:08 PM UTC

owebmaster wrote: post #399

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and now its evolved again. So what?

Who say so? That is exactly the problem. Some people think it evolved and some don't. Are people willing to go to war because of this? It is interesting. The American Civil War was because of slavery and never again it was accepted world-wide so it might happen again.

Some people think it's evolved and some don't, but that's a very good reason to get the Government out of the business of regulating what is a marriage and what isn't - otherwise you're forcing one social group's beliefs on another group.

My getting married - according to my definition of married - doesn't affect you in any way, shape, or form, so why would the Government prevent me from doing so?

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

#417

Post by mikeash » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 3:09 PM UTC

Helmet wrote: post #403

dalbasal wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is certainly debatable. Americans seem used to the idea, but to the uninitiated the idea of building armed insurrection into the governing system seems pretty mad.

How is it mad? Government's are capable committing atrocities of unprecedented scale against their own citizenry. I wonder if the Russian Kulaks could have organized an armed resistance, or perhaps the Chinese peasants during Maosism. Also, I recommend to you the fascinating history of the African-American tradition of arms in the US. Black's used firearms to defend their families and communities against KKK and whit…

Both the Russians and Chinese had big civil wars in which the governments you mention eventually came into power. The question of armed resistance isn’t a hypothetical. It was tried and it failed.

The notion of gun rights as essential to defending against tyranny is inherently self-defeating. If all it takes to defeat gun owners is passing some laws making them illegal, won’t a tyrant do that before they start with other forms of oppression? If gun control works, tyrants will use it too. If it doesn’t then you don’t have to worry about it.

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

#418

Post by mmjaa » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 3:11 PM UTC

lpa22 wrote: post #147

mmjaa wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Less Handguns, less handgun crime. (More violent knife crime, though. This goes ignored by the anti-gun nuts.)

I hope you are either being sarcastic or are you actually equating a knife with an AR-15?

I'm not equating anything with anything, you are. I'm just saying that banning guns doesn't solve the violence problem - it just makes it less politically sensitive, since guns can be used from a distance and invoke all kinds of militaristic responses - whereas grandma's kitchen knife is a 'nice' kind of weapon, since .. you know .. its harder to kill masses of people with it.

But the crime still rolls on, regardless. Knives don't kill people - violent maniacs kill people. They also injure, maim, disfigure and disable people.

And the UK is no good at dealing with insane maniacs, just because they banned guns.

I'd much rather defend myself with a gun against a knife-wielding maniac than, you know .. get my shit all cut up to hell.

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

#419

Post by cellshade » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 3:12 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #344

gozur88 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That said - gun show loophole is just that - a loophole. Should be fixed. The "gun show loophole" is a misnomer. It's not a loophole. It's simply the case in most states in the US for private sales you're allowed to sell your gun to another person without checking with the federal government first, something that's not true of dealers.

"It's not a loophole. It's simply [describes something that anyone can see is a loophole]."

It was an explicit compromise that was added in order to pass the original national background check legislation. A loophole is generally something unintended which this was not.

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

#420

Post by mikeash » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 3:12 PM UTC

moduspol wrote: post #383

Singapore's radical drug policy has worked pretty well, too [1] [2]. Why hasn't the world copied that? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singap... [2] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-24428567

Haven’t they? I thought a lot of countries had draconian anti-drug policies like that.