Hacker News Reader

Comment by puranjay | Hacker News Reader

I always wonder what would happen to drug use if it was widely and easily available. Would usage drop because it wouldn't be "rebellious" to get drugs?

That was at least the motivation for a lot of younger drug users I know.

In my country (India), there is a region in the Himalayas - Kasaul - where marijuana grows in the wild. It is so easily accessible that you can literally pluck some on a walk through the forest.

You'd expect with such easy availability, the locals would be all addled on weed/hashish all the time. Yet, most locals tend to be non-users. Most users tend to be tourists and outsiders who come solely for the purportedly "best in the world" hashish

View on HN

Portugal decriminalised personal possession of drugs 15 years ago, which has given us some useful evidence. HIV infection rates and drug-related deaths have reduced significantly, and the prison population has reduced by over 50%. The proportion of people who have ever used drugs has increased slightly, but there has been a reduction in the number of regular drug users.

We don't really know what would happen in a laissez-faire system, but we can be fairly confident that a medicalised approach would have substantial positive effects.

https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civ...

But Japan and Hong Kong and many others still have far lower drug use and crime rates despite their very tough laws on drug use, when compared to Portugal.

The rational conclusion seems to be that whether drugs are legal, or decriminalized, are, at best, only part of what determines levels of drug use and drug-related crime.

The article states that research shows no correlation between severe drug penalties and usage levels.

There's a few people offering anecdotes to counter that, but obviously actual research wins, the difference between Portugal and Japan are therefore likely to be cultural differences outside of strict drug laws.

> cultural differences outside of strict drug laws

It's also worth noting that a culture that discourages drug use would likely be more accepting of strict drug control laws.

Japan and Hong Kong are culturally very different from Portugal, which makes comparison to Portugal difficult.

Something interesting to consider is alcohol use in Japan vs. elsewhere: http://www.cmaj.ca/content/167/4/388.1.full

China, too, have a far lower drug use rate. Not sure for Japan and Hk, but for China I think there are two main reasons. One, she was "locked in turmoil" during the 70s and the 80s, so did not get the influence from this period. Two, most young people are busy making their life, and have actually good hope to have a much better life than their parents (which is not that difficult).

China has a problem with Ketamine addiction, not helped by whole villages that mass produce the drug. There was a good documentary about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxXvTi3QRwA

With over 1B people you can bet China has drug problems too. You just don't hear about it because there's no free press there.

See: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/world/despite-a-crackdo...

China and HK have long histories of drug use and opium was widely used there prior to 1949. The Opium Wars were fought in China.

China certainly has drug problems, but it is not like in West: i'd have to search carefully to find one French guy of my generation or below that never tried hash. In China most Chinese I know never tried. It's just not the fashion yet. Only a very thin slice of the society is in contact with drugs.

Japan and HK both have significant organized crime that controls the flow of drugs into the country and drives the price way up. In Japan's case the Yakuza has effectively banned certain drugs they consider "too dangerous".

Source: I had Japanese roommates in college who turned out to be potheads. They raved about the super-cheap marijuana they could get in the US, which was 1/5 to 1/10th the price as was available in Japan.

Japan has low crime rates because there is no visible underclass like blacks in America or immigrants in Europe.

There are drugs that are partly or fully banned in other countries that are freely prescribed here (rohypnol, for example).

Mushrooms weren't banned at all until recently.

An ex's brother was prosecuted for weed but let off after paying a fine. Another guy I knew who sold was let off in exchange for his cellphone contacts.

I havent been to Japan, but what about the Burakumin and the Ainu? Didnt Japan pass a law to stop discriminating against the Ainu at one point?

The Ainu barely exist anymore, and the whole thing about the Burakumin is that they aren't visible and all their descendants hide any connection. A better example would be the Korean descendant population, but that's still a tiny fraction of the population. (I think 1 million out of 130 million or <1%?) So there's no good comparison in Japan to the ~17% African-American population.

There are hardly any pure Ainu anymore and they did not rebel against Japanese culture when they were discriminated against. Burakumin is more of a "They work in the wrong business" discrimination and is not based on skin color or a look. Burakumin tend to be Japanese in the Japanese culture and are not really outsiders.

They also have very homogenous populations with a strong, shared sense of cultural identity.

I am not sure that having a strong cultural identity as anything to do with drugs consumption. For example, I am pretty sure Russians also have a fairly homogenous population with a strong identity, and they still have an alcohol problem (for other reason I am sure). But I can't see the correlation or the causation here.

>I am not sure that having a strong cultural identity as anything to do with drugs consumption.

Why can't it? Drug use could be socially shunned, counter to cultural norms. Consider Islamic countries where alcohol use is haram. Consider also that alcohol use in both Japan and Russia is culturally accepted. Alcoholism is a significant problem in Japan too.

Vodka is part of the Russian identity. Marijuana is not part of Hong Kong's identity.

HK has insane amounts of expats, significant amounts of which smoke weed. Probably almost half the expats I met, mostly rich young folks though so it's not surprising at all.

If you're white and walking around during the night you'll constantly be approached by people trying to sell you weed and coke. (Steep prices, but significantly easier to find than in most western cities)

Edit: Wrote that in a bit of a hurry. When talking about HK you need to take into account the massive income inequality between expats and many of the locals working "normal" jobs. Weed is rather expensive for many of the locals, but for some western bankers making 10k+ USD a month it's a relatively cheap way to take a break from the rather hectic life in HK.

It seems alcohol is often a national icon. While smoking plants.. except for Cuba maybe is rarely a culturally approved ritual.

Just add another example, beef consumption is very low in Hindu countries even for non-Hindus. Similar observations are true for Muslim areas and pork consumption. Case in point is that a strong cultural identity can bring about a soft enforcement of certain practices (in Japan's case potentially help to explain lower drug consumption rates).

Worth also noting that in Asian countries, attitudes to and awareness about drugs are very extreme. Beyond being far more socially deplorable, most people also harbour ignorant views on the physical harm drugs can and can't cause. There is also less glamorisation of it in media.

LMTTFY: "We have black people, so we can't be like $RACIALLY_HOMOGENOUS_PLACE"

Very had to compare to Japan because Japan essentially legalize organized crime. Yakuza are allowed to operate as long as the follow a minimum set of laws.

Basically Japan is following a tradeoff where they have chosen organized crime of lots of unorganized or violent crime.

So it will be very hard to compare such a system with a western country which deals with these issues in such a different manner.

I can mention that drug use is fairly low in my home country Norway as well despite pretty lax laws.

We are doing something very wrong with respect to heavier drugs like heroin though since we have a lot of overdose cases. But Switzerland and the Netherlands seems to be quite good at this and they have very liberal laws.

Maybe we should legalize organized crime instead of drugs. The logic is about the same.

How are legalizing drugs and legalizing crime in any way analogous? Legalizing crime doesn't even make sense, by definition.

Extralegal mobs that keep out drug dealers.

Downvoted by an abolitionist!

What are the traditional organised crimes?

- numbers games: this is just a lottery, only with better payouts

- drugs: already addressed

- prostitution: legal in many countries

- loan sharking: this is just lending to risky borrowers at market rates, when lending at market rates is made illegal

- protection racket: the only real crime here (and, like numbers games, the State hates competition…)

I'd be fine legalising all but the protection racket, because it really is a racket.

Very good point; however one thing to keep in mind that in Japan, Singapore, HK etc., drugs use is seen by the great majority as a huge moral failure and a failure to the family. Social pressure and stigma of drugs use is much more severe. It's not glamorized as "stupid things teenagers do". It's vilified as "the depraved things failed human beings do". Interestingly this tack isn't one western societies have used in their toolbox to counter drugs abuse.

Personally speaking (although I'm hardly one of the "younger drug users" you refer to), I would continue to consume more or less the same quantity of drugs that I do now. I would possibly increase my intake very slightly, but not significantly. The significant differences would be that I would probably pay less, I would be consuming safer, regulated substances, and I wouldn't constantly be in fear of being sent to prison for a personal lifestyle choice.

Unless the penalties drastically increase, or I am convinced that what I am doing is morally wrong, I shall probably continue to take my drug of choice for the foreseeable future.

From what I've heard, the marijuana that grows in the wild tends to be of a far lower quality than that which is cultivated.

same for me, but I hate smoking. if things would be legal, I would much MUCH prefer different, non harmful way to consume it (food, of vaporizing some pure extract in e-cigarette style). usual vaporizers are only somewhere in the middle, plus more inconvenient.

I don't care so much about pricing, amsterdam levels would be OK for me. I consume so little that I would be OK even with higher pricing. But I could actually choose what type of effect, strength etc. I want, rather than random, mostly weak & expensive street stuff, bought from shady characters in dark alleys.

Unless society will be handling death/for life penalties for pure consumation here, I am not stopping consuming of a plant that used to grow all round us, was heavily subsidized when US colonies got independence etc. It just doesn't make sense, this is one of the cases of laws that are plain wrong (in case of this plant and all possible products from it). If there is such an immoral law, it actually feels good breaking it (but still preferring clean, legal, market-driven scenario).

Re: more drug choices -- that's exactly what's happening here in Colorado. There's a huge variety of choice. And at the dispensaries the staff generally very knowledgable, so it's almost like buying wine.

I've experienced it in Amsterdam (albeit in busy-over-the-counter style), glad to hear there is spot like that in US.

the thing is, effects (at least on me) can be so starkly different from type to type (i never experienced different stuff with same effects). very different to consistent dumb-down-but-generally-happy effect of alcohol (again, purely on me).

>I've experienced it in Amsterdam (albeit in busy-over-the-counter style), glad to hear there is spot like that in US.

It's considerably more advanced in (at least) Colorado. Due to the weird quasi-legal status in the NL, only flower, hash, and simple baked goods are available. The chemical extractions (e.g. glycerine, other solvent) that allow for a wider variety of products such as sodas are more strictly illegal in the NL. The black market supply in the NL hampers the diversity and quality of the actual products, too.

It's really quite a stark difference, and CO is leaps and bounds more advanced in this regard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_cannabis_use_by_country

In the Netherlands, where marijuana is effectively legal†, the percentage of the population aged 15-64 which has used the drug at least once in the past year was 5.4 (2005). In the US the data was from 2009 (pre-legalization in Oregon and Colorado), and was 13.7%

Anecdata: I've lived in both places, weed just isn't as cool in NL as it is in the US.

† Use of marijuana in NL is totally decriminalized and it is easily purchasable by anyone over 18.

When I was quite a bit younger and did a semester abroad (from the US) I became friends with several Dutch students in our dorm/hostel. I remember, being the naive 19-year-old that I was, asking how cool it was that weed was legal there and stuff like that. They mostly looked at me with a tolerant but exhausted expression and said that it was more of a tourist thing. The impression I got was that it was treated by everyone the way I now look at teens who constantly talk about smoking cannabis or getting drunk as if it was the coolest thing ever. Basically it was like "yeah, sure, it's legal but come on, only dipshits make it out to be something more than a minor vice or guilty pleasure to be indulged infrequently".

I wonder if this is related to quality of life. A country like the Netherlands with stronger social services/safety nets and more 'liveable' cities must have much better quality of life for the bottom quintile of society compared to the states, and it's that quintile that is most likely to get addicted/cause other social problems.

It seems like a common thread through people getting addicted to drugs is trying to find an escape for a crappy/desperate life, so logically if it's less crappy people won't need an escape as much, right?

Worth noting that the government in the NL is working quite hard to make it less tolerated, e.g. shuttering coffeeshops through legitimate grievances such as selling to minors or through "neighborhood improvement" or "too near a school" reasons and by criminalizing the aiding of production (taken to absurd levels such that innocent garden supply shops can be criminally liable). Production has already been and remains illegal, and the government has rejected calls by various cities to experiment with sanctioned growing.

It's quite an absurd situation, honestly.

Oscar Wilde put it best: desire makes everything blossom and flourish; possession makes everything wither and fade.

Humans tend to want what they can't have - it's reactance in action.

Before drugs were criminalizes in the early 20th centuries they were easily available at pharmacies, cocaine, heroin, p even hashish tinctures. The addiction rate was approxiamately the same as it is today, about 7% of the population. Most people don't get addicted to drugs, and don't want to abuse drugs. It's more of a psychological disorder, particularly exacerbated by childhood trauma and despair.

I believe so, I believe most kids are doing it because it's taboo and feels something adventurous to experience.

Now legalizing drugs would also give standards and tests. Instead of potentially toxic you'd get something tested (you may get shitty product still but the producer will get busted and closed easily).

Culture always shapes how we view substances. For folks in that region I'm not sure there's any stigma attached but I'll take a guess by saying they probably don't see it as a viable past time or fun to consume.

>In my country (India), there is a region in the Himalayas - Kasaul - where marijuana grows in the wild. It is so easily accessible that you can literally pluck some on a walk through the forest.

e.g. Hindu Kush. Interestingly, cannabis has been used in India since 2000BCE.

Aren't there some tolerated/accepted uses of cannabis in India? I suppose what I'm really asking is it actually tourists or aren't there some significant traditional uses such as bhang? I can certainly understand that some users would just be tourists, but most I'm not sure of.

No more than gambling usage has dropped because it's no longer rebellious to gamble.

Gambling legalization is very close to drug legalization in my opinion, and that has shown that usage will increase, and the behavior will be destigmatized.

In the US culture, I think a lot would depend on marketing and advertising. Consider the marketing of high fructose corn syrup, which is cheap, legal, hardly "rebellious," possibly a sort of low-grade high, and consumed in toxic quantities.

I'm not arguing against legalization. But I had a similar conversation with my kids about legalizing pot. I told them that whatever the health aspects of pot use are, the pot industry would use all of the tactics of the tobacco industry, to market pot as "cool" and perfectly safe.

It's not unreasonable to suggest that HFCS is in fact more toxic and more dangerous than any whole-plant drug.

(and I mean traditional plant medicines here, not, obviously, hemlock and the like :-)

Lots of plants that have medicinal effects are immediately dangerous, especially compared to what ends up being a poor diet choice that takes a while to have much of any effect.

"Medicinal" partly implies that a small amount of the substance will have an impact on the body, and there are many substances in plants where the dose does matter.

Where I live it's illegal for tobacco companies to market their product. In any way. Anywhere. They are hidden in the shops and if one wants to buy it one needs to specifically ask for it.

High fructose corn syrup isn't marketed to consumers. It's marketed to corporations that otherwise would use sugar. Sugar is much more expensive in the US than elsewhere because of BS tariffs advocated for by Florida sugar barons.

True, the analogy isn't perfect, but I think it serves as a model for designing and marketing substances that are cheap, addictive, and ultimately toxic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com