Hacker News Reader

Comment by simonswords82 | Hacker News Reader

It's old news that the police in the UK, with the exception of large scale busts that they continue to go after, are losing the will to fight the war on drugs [1].

Society at large are also coming round to the idea that making criminals of drug users isn't working.

Now all we need is for the government to swallow their pride, along with the evidence presented to them, and change the law.

As an aside, I always point people at this video about why the continued war on drugs will not work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8yYJ_oV6xk. It's an interview with a retired police captain who is now vice chair of the Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). Well worth a watch...

[1] http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/what-drug-cops-really-think-o...

View on HN

> for the government to swallow their pride, along with the evidence presented to them, and change the law

As another poster has already quipped, there's practically zero chance of that happening without overhauling the entire government. It may be hard for us, makers and engineers, to see why anyone would obstinately refuse to accept facts as ever more data flows in, but that's not how real life works. Sadly.

Politics and engineering are, in certain aspects, polar opposites. In politics changing one's opinion, even in face of facts, is a mark of incompetence. That's a big factor in why it takes so long to reverse bad decisions. While enough (read: too many) of the representatives who voted 'yay' are still in office, they will keep attacking any attempts to undo whatever they have done or approved. And because the big decision was to make all drugs illegal, there will be constant squeeze to push all other decisions further in that direction.

Reversing the earlier error is simply inconceivable. It takes a new generation of elected representatives to revoke old laws.

> It takes a new generation of elected representatives to revoke old laws.

Well, we are currently getting a big chance in that regard in the UK. All parties, including the one in government, are heavily in flux. Overton windows on all sort of topics are being pushed pretty hard.

If you care about changing long-established political "truthisms", now it's the time to do it.

As an aside to your great post, the government's stance is also ridiculous when you consider that the former Prime Minister David Cameron almost certainly took drugs given his affiliation with the Piers Gaveston society[0]...

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piggate

Ah, but you see, when well-bred people take drugs it is merely a diversion. They are of too strong a constitution to succumb to the base desires and temptations of drug use as the people of no birth do.

The concept here is far from ridiculous; you see dramatically different responses to alcohol in Italians (thousands of years of cultural history with it) and native Americans (hundreds of years).

That is not at all what I am talking about, and you're completely ignoring the entirely different social circumstances of people who have their own nation versus those who've been essentially subjugated by another for the past few hundred years.

I think the extreme poverty and destruction of culture at the hands of the US government has a lot more to do with issues of alcoholism in Native American communities than... whatever it is you're suggesting.

Native problems with alcohol go back long before they lost control of the land.

That's profoundly... ignorant.

And various members of parliament have been caught doing drugs. I was particularly fond of Lord Sewel's cocaine brag:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/watch-the-unde...

Hypocrisy at its finest.

My theory is that politicians tend to focus on experiences and personal networks of the "generation-in-charge" during their formative rise to power. Politicians tend to keep their same network ties, so until they retire, are voted out, or pass away certain issues just won't move because everyone in their personal network just confirms their stance. There's been a more studied generational effect in sciences too.

I suspect, the boomer generation of leadership is probably going to historically enjoy one of the longest sitting times in power as a generation because of their unique spot relative to the life expectancy growth curve...

> I suspect, the boomer generation of leadership is probably going to historically enjoy one of the longest sitting times in power as a generation because of their unique spot in the rate of life expectancy growth curve...

The fact that it was a significant baby boom followed by a significant bust in Generation X is also a big factor, since it mean that Gen X never passed the Boomers as the numerically-predominant generation (instead, it either has recently or will soon, I forget which, switch from Boomers to Millenials.)

Does Gen X have more in common with millennials or boomers? Would there be much difference between a society dominated by Gen X rather than millennials?

> Does Gen X have more in common with millennials or boomers?

AFAICT, Millenials (in fact, lots of the Boomer vs. Millenial comparisons I see now I saw virtually verbatim 20-25 years ago as Boomer vs. Gen X comparisons.) But that could be a misimpression.

> Would there be much difference between a society dominated by Gen X rather than millennials?

Maybe, maybe not. My point was, had Gen X been bigger the transition from Boomer domination to a domination by a successor generation would have happened sooner, whatever that transition would have meant.

Politics and engineering are, in certain aspects, polar opposites.

Funny - and possibly relevant - tidbit: the Prime Minister who decriminalized drug use in Portugal has a degree in EE.

Surely it wasn't the sole decision of the PM?

True, but PMs are gatekeepers and tend to set the agenda.

Sure, but his government introduced the bill in Parliament (though based on an earlier proposal by the Portuguese Communist Party) and his party - which he also led, as is usual - was by far the largest voting block supporting it.

zero chance of that happening without overhauling the entire government.

Hasn't it already happened a little bit in several states (without complete overhaul)? I'm of course talking about marijuana legalization. It's only some states, and only marijuana, but it's movement in the right direction.

I'd tentatively argue that "old people with old ideas die out and society moves on" could be a form of overhaul.

It would be so much nicer if we could somehow convince old people to change their views. Everybody would benefit!

I'd actually argue that we need some form of conservative-ism to keep us from going off the rails. A little bit too much forward movement can destabilize societies too much.

https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/outrage-follows-dea-ref...

Marijuana has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Based on the established five-part test for making such determination, marijuana has no ‘currently accepted medical use’ because: As detailed in the HHS evaluation, the drug’s chemistry is not known and reproducible; there are no adequate safety studies; there are no adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy; the drug is not accepted by qualified experts; and the scientific evidence is not widely available.

Yeah, to the point where in Colorado you forget that there are still states where it's illegal. It ends up making you think of most of the rest of the country in the same light as the few remaining dry counties.

Agree wholeheartedly

> big decision was to make all drugs illegal

Well, except for alcohol and tobacco. Caffeine is a stimulant too. Don't forget prescription drug addiction, which is legal.

Basically, everything is a giant mess and prohibition on something people want to do will never really work.

"Now all we need is for the government to swallow their pride, along with the evidence presented to them, and change the law."

Little chance of that happening when politics is pure ideology. They pick the course of action beforehand, for the manifesto, and seek evidence that supports it later. If your evidence supports the counter view expect to be ignored or ridiculed.

So perhaps come the next government, depending on who gets elected...

Meanwhile in the Philippines...

http://time.com/4462352/rodrigo-duterte-drug-war-drugs-phili...

More people need to know about this :(

In some parts of the UK. Where I live the police are concentrating on the evil drug menance. It's going as well as you'd expect: a constant source of headlines for the local papers, no change in usage, harms, crime, outcomes, etc.

Well they do manage to destroy the lives of innocent drug users and their families, children. That's change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com