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

Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 304 posts

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#51

Post by bjt2n3904 »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #43
stickfigure wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If alcohol was as restricted as MDMA, we just might start calling alcohol a therapy tool. But right now anyone (of legal age) who wants it can order a glass of wine or two, so the people that benefit from it have it. Nobody thinks twice. You sound incredulous that psilocybin or mdma could be therapy tools. Are you a psychologist? Do you have any firsthand experience with these chemicals? Why are you skeptical?

The real distinction here is mechanism of action. Psilocybin helps fix psychoemotional problems in an enduring sense. You take one, or three, doses and your personality and self-understanding are permanently altered. Alcohol works acutely. So I totally agree the term therapeutic is an arbitrary label; all drugs have effects and thus can be therapeutic for condition X and deleterious for condition Y. But worth noting…

*Results may vary. Ask your doctor if taking permanent mind altering substances is right for you.

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#52

Post by bjt2n3904 »

wcoenen wrote: post #32
__s wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exhilaration and lasting euphoria, which in no way differs from the normal euphoria of the healthy person. You perceive an increase of self-control and possess more vitality and capacity for work. In other words, you are simply normal, and it is soon hard to believe you are under the influence of any drug. Long intensive physical work is performed without any fatigue. This result is enjoyed without any of the unpleas…

> Exhilaration and lasting euphoria, which... Context: this is quoting Sigmund Freud, who mistakenly believed the drug to be non-addictive.

Yow, that was so brilliant, it went right over my head. Well played.

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#53

Post by miles »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #5
gravypod wrote: post #4

Could this be a situation where politicians have faulty data and use that to guide how they act? I would have assumed that a majority of these states - and my home state of NJ - would be very anti-drug but these votes with >60% in favor of legalization show that significant portions of America think drug-related activities are not "immoral" or "wrong" and should not be criminalized. If you had asked me a few years ag…

> Maybe now that politicians see that people are very against drug laws we'll see some of them renege on their hard anti-drug stances. The purpose of existing drug laws, especially marijuana, is to give police a reason to harass and discriminate against certain populations.

> The purpose of existing drug laws, especially marijuana, is to give police a reason to harass and discriminate against certain populations.

Japan is largely homogenous and has very harsh drug penalties:

Japan drug law among world’s toughest, personal possession attracts five-year jail https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/international-b...

Why Japan Is So Strict About Drugs https://kotaku.com/why-japan-is-so-strict-about-drugs-183328...

Drug Laws in Japan: You'd Better Have a Prescription https://www.tofugu.com/japan/drug-laws-in-japan/

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#54

Post by eyelidlessness »

User23 wrote: post #30
pjc50 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amphetamines were originally marketed as diet pills. Valium (diazepam) was marketed as a stress reducer.

Amphetamine is used off-label for depression with some success.

And for people with dopamine deficiency (ADHD), it can present as both anxiety and depression besides the typically understood ADHD symptoms. Stimulants can certainly treat such cases of anxiety and depression (that was my primary reason for finally seeking a diagnosis).

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#55

Post by loeg »

miles wrote: post #53
lotsofpulp wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe now that politicians see that people are very against drug laws we'll see some of them renege on their hard anti-drug stances. The purpose of existing drug laws, especially marijuana, is to give police a reason to harass and discriminate against certain populations.

> The purpose of existing drug laws, especially marijuana, is to give police a reason to harass and discriminate against certain populations. Japan is largely homogenous and has very harsh drug penalties: Japan drug law among world’s toughest, personal possession attracts five-year jail https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/international-b... Why Japan Is So Strict About Drugs https://kotaku.com/why-japan-is-s…

GP's comment can of course be read more correctly as "the purpose of existing drug laws (in the US), ..."

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#56

Post by tyingq »

inglor_cz wrote: post #9
gravypod wrote: post #4

Could this be a situation where politicians have faulty data and use that to guide how they act? I would have assumed that a majority of these states - and my home state of NJ - would be very anti-drug but these votes with >60% in favor of legalization show that significant portions of America think drug-related activities are not "immoral" or "wrong" and should not be criminalized. If you had asked me a few years ag…

Even people who think that MJ is immoral or wrong may be against outright ban. It is not purpose of criminal justice to enforce virtue or morality per se, unless one believes in very strict interpretation of their religion (even religious police powers in Saudi Arabia were recently watered down). Victimless crimes will always wake some kind of unease in free-minded people. P.S.: Politicians may not always act on wish…

Agree. I'm a fan of decriminalizing all of it, even though I believe things like meth and heroin to be highly destructive. Negative legal consequences do very little to stop it. I'd rather the money go to something more productive.

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#57

Post by intricatedetail »

supernova87a wrote: post #38

I'm not sure why people aren't being just a little more cautious about ballot measures like in Oregon where even heroin and such hard drugs are now decriminalized. This deserves a little more consideration about the unintended side effects of this policy, don't you think? I look at the massive illegal drug manufacturing interests (countries, cartels) who spend vast sums on getting illegal drugs to our shores. It cann…

What do you want to discuss? People have natural urge to use drugs and there is nothing you can do about it apart from trying to educate and ensure drugs are as safe as possible. Banning drugs is an idea of the same sort like banning music or sex for pleasure. Cartels make money on drug supply, because there is mostly no one else people can buy drugs from.

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#58

Post by ggggtez »

gravypod wrote: post #25
lotsofpulp wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe now that politicians see that people are very against drug laws we'll see some of them renege on their hard anti-drug stances. The purpose of existing drug laws, especially marijuana, is to give police a reason to harass and discriminate against certain populations.

I'm not so sure if that's the only thing people voted for when they wanted to be hard on drugs. As you can see in this comment thread (on an extremely left-leaning site) we have some people who think drug use is immoral. One of the sister comments says "I believe it's wrong". Definitely some section of the population wanted to use this as a way to bully minorities but another section of the population was convinced "…

The war on drugs was tied specifically to anti-communist and anti-hippie movements. You can argue that black community was only one type of minority being policed.

Still, marijuana was given such disproportionate higher punishments largely because of it's adoption in black communities. No one thinks of alcohol as a narcotic or drug. The same was true before. But by lumping MJ in with heroin, they were able to convince people to think about them similarly. I recommend the propaganda film "Reefer Madness" for an example taken to the extreme, where science was discarded in favor of learning on people's existing moral apprehensions in order to get the desired ban.

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#59

Post by rayiner »

loeg wrote: post #55
miles wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The purpose of existing drug laws, especially marijuana, is to give police a reason to harass and discriminate against certain populations. Japan is largely homogenous and has very harsh drug penalties: Japan drug law among world’s toughest, personal possession attracts five-year jail https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/international-b... Why Japan Is So Strict About Drugs https://kotaku.com/why-japan-is-s…

GP's comment can of course be read more correctly as "the purpose of existing drug laws (in the US) , ..."

Sweden has harsh drug laws too. So does China. The point is that there are other reasons people favor drug laws, since many homogenous countries have them too.

Re: Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health

#60

Post by refurb »

loeg wrote: post #55
miles wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The purpose of existing drug laws, especially marijuana, is to give police a reason to harass and discriminate against certain populations. Japan is largely homogenous and has very harsh drug penalties: Japan drug law among world’s toughest, personal possession attracts five-year jail https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/international-b... Why Japan Is So Strict About Drugs https://kotaku.com/why-japan-is-s…

GP's comment can of course be read more correctly as "the purpose of existing drug laws (in the US) , ..."

Canada had very harsh drug laws too (at least for hard drugs). And so did much of Europe.

Did all those countries also create those laws to harass certain populations?

Post reply on HN