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

Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 126 posts

Re: Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

#91

Post by CWuestefeld »

protomyth wrote: post #87
sgrove wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Killing someone while drunk should be considered premeditated. Are you suggesting that in 100% of the cases where killing someone (and I assume this includes manslaughter) is premeditated? Because if you are not, then it should not be considered premeditated. That's dishonest. Simply give the judge some additional window to affect sentencing for a set of crimes committed while intoxicated. If you want to punish somet…

I really don't think its "dishonest". No, I am not say 100% cases of killing someone are premeditated. Accidents happen. Bad things go wrong in worse ways. That being said, I believe if you knowing impair your ability to make judgements and then kill or injure someone, you made a conscious decision. Now, if you frame this in some "mandatory minimum" debate, I am definitely not going there. I still believe judges need…

What makes you think they don't?

I have a good friend who was smart enough not to get into the drunk guy's car (leaving a fraternity party) and followed on his own. Thus, he was the first person on the scene after the accident. He wound up being a witness against the driver in a homicide trial.

So at least in the State of New York, you can be tried for manslaughter when your drunk driving results in someone's death.

Re: Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

#92

Post by endtime »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #88
endtime wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think the laws themselves are faulty, then argue against their merit. But arguments of the form "if we removed laws, less laws would get broken" have always seemed somewhat vacuous to me. Edit: Given the downvotes, I'd love to have a discussion with someone who disagrees.

Well, here's one aspect. Start with the facts that this is supposed to be a free nation, a republic with representational democracy, putatively making our own laws. Now consider that a large fraction of the population is in prison for these very crimes, more so than anywhere else in this world. This should suggest (although not prove) that the government is imposing its own will, overriding the wishes of the people w…

I understand your argument, but I don't think it's correct. In a democracy, there is no theoretical reason why 49% of the population wouldn't end up in jail. I certainly don't think this would be a good thing, but pure, untainted democracy does nothing to prevent it. You say "if more than half of the drivers exceeded the speed limit, well then, that's pretty much the same thing as having a referendum with a majority of voters saying that the speed limit is too low", but that's really a straw man, because nowhere near half of all Americans are in prison.

And in our case, those in prison are not drawn uniformly from the American population. Prisoners are disproportionately from a minority (intended in the "not majority" sense, not in the skin color sense, though I suppose in this case either applies) subculture, and unfortunately, that subculture glorifies many types of criminal behavior, most of which I imagine you wouldn't favor legalizing.

Again, it's perfectly valid to say that drug laws are wrong and here's why, and that if your ideas were implemented, incarceration rates would be much lower, and that this would be a good thing. All I'm disagreeing with is the general notion that saying laws should be abolished simply because doing so would lower crime rates isn't persuasive. I mean, we could get rid of all the laws, and then the incarceration rate would be zero, but something tells me you wouldn't like that.

Re: Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

#93

Post by wtn »

mey wrote: post #18
CWuestefeld wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I strongly support your conclusion in this case, I'm infuriated every time I hear a call for a policy change based on "common sense". As far as I can tell, this is just a euphemism for "I am unable to articulate a rational basis for my position", or even "I refuse to let the actual evidence interfere with my position".

Here is my understanding on why decriminalization of drugs is beneficial. First, legitimate competition from suppliers would drive down costs, forcing high risk/high reward illegal operations from other countries out of the market. How can a Mexican drug cartel compete against grand-ma and her backyard? Secondly, what is the violent side of drug activitey? Again my understanding is that it's mostly revolved around pr…

It won't be beneficial for Mexico. If the US decriminalizes, the cartels will lose revenue streams and will commit more kidnappings to maintain their livelihood. The state will descend further into chaos.

Re: Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

#94

Post by gwern »

wtn wrote: post #93
mey wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is my understanding on why decriminalization of drugs is beneficial. First, legitimate competition from suppliers would drive down costs, forcing high risk/high reward illegal operations from other countries out of the market. How can a Mexican drug cartel compete against grand-ma and her backyard? Secondly, what is the violent side of drug activitey? Again my understanding is that it's mostly revolved around pr…

It won't be beneficial for Mexico. If the US decriminalizes, the cartels will lose revenue streams and will commit more kidnappings to maintain their livelihood. The state will descend further into chaos.

So, if we continue to support the gang's revenue stream, then they will wax wealthy and powerful and continue murdering with impunity. If we eliminate the gangs' revenue stream, they will commit more kidnappings, murder, and further chaos.

Apparently, Mexico is screwed either way. Let's at least screw Mexico in a way which might help someone else.

Re: Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

#95

Post by lukifer »

jrockway wrote: post #66
CWuestefeld wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I strongly support your conclusion in this case, I'm infuriated every time I hear a call for a policy change based on "common sense". As far as I can tell, this is just a euphemism for "I am unable to articulate a rational basis for my position", or even "I refuse to let the actual evidence interfere with my position".

Surely locking someone in a cage for possessing a non-toxic plant goes against "common sense".

Common sense is what tells you that the world is flat.

In this context (and in most others), what we actually should be thinking of is the scientific method, with a little basic human decency.

Re: Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

#96

Post by unavailable »

Rod wrote: post #46
iaskwhy wrote: post #13

I'm from Portugal. There's something important missing from the article which might be useful to explain why there were so many people using drugs in Portugal. Before 1975, the country was under a dictatorship and drug use was obviously low. Then there was a revolution and people were free to the outside world's culture. On the years following the revolution, young adults were pretty much amazed by all the things you…

I am also from Portugal. After reading your post, I was wondering whether we lived in the same country. I suspect I am from a generation younger than yours, which may explain a lot. According to your rationale, oppressive regimes lead to increased drug abuse. Well, Spain also had a dictatorship for decades. The entire "Eastern Europe" lived under Soviet oppression for decades, too. The USSR didn't have a sexual revol…

USSR et al have never needed drugs other than alcohol, which is still abused today in incredible volumes - please look for numbers yourself. Still, plenty of poppy crops were destroyed after 1985. Hemp was and still is popular in the southern parts of the Soviet bloc.

Re: Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

#97

Post by nandemo »

jrockway wrote: post #66
CWuestefeld wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I strongly support your conclusion in this case, I'm infuriated every time I hear a call for a policy change based on "common sense". As far as I can tell, this is just a euphemism for "I am unable to articulate a rational basis for my position", or even "I refuse to let the actual evidence interfere with my position".

Surely locking someone in a cage for possessing a non-toxic plant goes against "common sense".

What do you mean, "non-toxic"? Hemp is toxic.

But then, so is alcohol, tobacco and other legal drugs.

Re: Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

#98

Post by protomyth »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #91
protomyth wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't think its "dishonest". No, I am not say 100% cases of killing someone are premeditated. Accidents happen. Bad things go wrong in worse ways. That being said, I believe if you knowing impair your ability to make judgements and then kill or injure someone, you made a conscious decision. Now, if you frame this in some "mandatory minimum" debate, I am definitely not going there. I still believe judges need…

What makes you think they don't? I have a good friend who was smart enough not to get into the drunk guy's car (leaving a fraternity party) and followed on his own. Thus, he was the first person on the scene after the accident. He wound up being a witness against the driver in a homicide trial. So at least in the State of New York, you can be tried for manslaughter when your drunk driving results in someone's death.

Depends on the state. Some have stricter laws, but I have seen enough cases of repeats and lax state laws.

Re: Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

#99

Post by jawngee »

nandemo wrote: post #97
jrockway wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely locking someone in a cage for possessing a non-toxic plant goes against "common sense".

What do you mean, "non-toxic"? Hemp is toxic. But then, so is alcohol, tobacco and other legal drugs.

Citation on marijuana's toxicity?

I guess everything is toxic to a certain degree, even water is toxic if you swallow enough of it.

Re: Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

#100

Post by chbarts »

protomyth wrote: post #89
chbarts wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Killing someone while drunk should be considered premeditated. I agree. > Some of the current drugs out there need to stay illegal. Not because they get you high, but because they are toxic. OK, I'll replace 'toxic' with 'potentially more addictive and dangerous than weed, alcohol, and nicotine' (Tobacco is damned addictive but it doesn't seem to cause antisocial behaviors.), because otherwise what you said makes n…

I was actually talking about the chemical mixes that are actually toxic / poison that are being brewed in trailers in the rural areas or kitchens in apartment complexes. I wasn't writing about addictiveness. I wasn't contradicting your historical analysis.

> I was actually talking about the chemical mixes that are actually toxic / poison that are being brewed in trailers in the rural areas or kitchens in apartment complexes. I wasn't writing about addictiveness.

Right. Well, legalization will help that as it is, in fact, illegal for a legitimate company to sell some unknown poison when it is claiming to sell drugs of a given composition and purity. Also, meth labs as we now know them will become economically impossible if it's possible to get meth legally: They are the perfect, absolutely perfect example of the kind of high-risk/high-reward behavior that is only worthwhile if you have gigantic margins subsidized by the DEA and local police.

Post reply on HN