Comment by Anon84 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Anon84 | Hacker News Reader

I'm portuguese (lived there until I left for my PhD a few years ago) and I've always found this system a bit odd. You can own it and use it, but you can't produce it, sell it or distribute it.

Maybe the government believes in the spontaneous generation of drugs?

A couple of quick points, though:

     rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty 
     needles dropped

This isn't directly connected with the decriminalization. There is a program that allows anyone to switch a used needle by a new one (plus a condom, a bottle cap and instructions) for free in any pharmacy/drug store. This program started years before the decriminalization and had a reduction of HIV infections as a goal (hence the condom and the instructions)

One of the main advantages of decriminalization was that is open the doors for a lot more treatments. Before, you had to admit to have committed a crime (with legal consequences) before you could be treated. The decriminalization eliminated these consequences and helped people find the help they needed

>> You can own it and use it, but you can't produce it, sell it or distribute it. Maybe the government believes in the spontaneous generation of drugs?

I am sure the point is for the Govt. to prosecute the producer, not the consumer. This is similar to some countries outlawing 'consumption' of prostitution services, but not offering of such services.

That's something I've never understood. How come the drug buyer is the victim, and so is the sex seller?

When you learn how many of the women in prostitution are forced into that work by sex traffickers or sheer poverty, it's not hard to understand. The sex 'seller' often isn't the one who gets the money.

Not really related to the article, but do you have any data on forced prostitution?

It is a common argument, and I don't deny the existence of it, but I never saw any real research on the fact, besides watching this documentary[1], which did not presented much research on the subject in a global basis.

[1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/slaves/

Depends on your definition of "forced", it could run from literal sex slave through "hooked on drugs and unable to fend for self so stuck with pimp" to just plain "has to feed self and has no other options".

I'd say all of those are forced to some degree.

If the customers are helping the prostitute feed herself, how is she a victim and how are they harming her? She would be worse off if not for the voluntary transaction.

In fact, the government is actually harming the hungry prostitute by reducing demand for her services by criminalizing the customers.

You can't take the isolated circumstances of 'customer helps prostitute feed herself' and proclaim everything peachy, because the reality of the situation is that it goes beyond individual prostitutes, and involves a global dynamic of human trafficking, sexism, class discrimination, income inequality, media stereotypes, and more.

It's easy to read some article and say, if A then B so therefore C (or not C, whatever, etc.), but if you don't have experience with people who actually suffer through these experiences every day, then you have no basis from which to say "In fact".

I'm trusting the individual prostitute who voluntarily chose to sell sex on the belief that it made him/her better off. I trust his/her experience more than yours.

As for this "unless you have personal experience, you can't comment" argument, I call BS. That is nothing but an attempt to keep outside views out of the debate. Thanks to the powers of logic and reason, humans can draw all sorts of correct conclusions without personal experience. I've never experienced quantum mechanics, the inside of a computer chip, or plate tectonics, yet I can draw all sorts of correct conclusions about them. You are trying to tell me that I can't draw correct conclusions about a slightly different human experience?

Yes. You have absolutely no idea what it's like to grow up in the projects and any attempts to map your life experience onto theirs are completely compromised by your predilection to think, "hey, they could've just tried hard in school and gone to college like I did".

I don't know what it's like to grow up in the projects either, and I don't even have a huge disagreement with you in regards to this particular niche of policy.. but I'm wise enough to know that I'm pretty average, maybe a little bit brighter and harder working but nowhere near special enough to claim I would've made it out of the projects.

I see. By virtue of lacking a certain set of experiences, you conclude that I must be irrational. You apparently believe this because you imagine I said someone should have gone to college (not sure when I said this, but whatever).

I'm done here.

Hey, no offense intended, but according to your profile, you're a postdoc at NYU.

That's more than a "slightly different" human experience than giving $20 blowjobs in order to get through to next week. We're talking about something that's entirely alien to your (and my) cushy existences here.

Personally, I had more of a head start by age 5 than anyone in the projects is likely to ever have. I realize this. It's humbling, but it's the truth -- I'm not that special, mostly just lucky.

"voluntarily" is a touchy issue in this subject.

My point is not about whether, given the facts, you could make accurate conclusions. My point is that no internet article on this subject can give you the facts on which to base an accurate conclusion.

And then there's the emotionally abusive / controlling / cult of personality situations where, while the workers are not sex slaves as depicted in cinema (locked up in small dank rooms), they are just as enslaved via cult-like techniques of brainwashing.

Usually that arises after the "has to feed self" situation.

At least, that's what Law & Order SVU has taught me.

The law I was questioning assumes every single prostitute is a victim, including the ones who are not enslaved. It also assumes every single drug seller is not a victim, even the ones who are enslaved.

If the real issue is enslavement, why not just carve out a general exception in criminal law to acts which you are performing against your will? I.e., if you rob a bank because your wife/children are being held hostage, the person holding your wife hostage is criminally liable for that act.

(I'd actually be very surprised if this exception doesn't already exist.)

I think a good way to look at it is that it's not so much about right and wrong or about who's a victim but about average outcomes.

The average outcome of prosecuting a drug user or prostitute is you spent a bunch of government resources processing, trying and incarcerating the person in order to take someone off the streets who's not actually particularly dangerous.

So, why do it?

Drug dealers on the other hand frequently beef over territory, sell bad product that kills people, get into interesting sideline work, etc. And they're very few in number compared to the users. So as far as bang for the buck, it makes sense to prosecute them. Yes, there are exceptions, but you make policy for the average case and hope that your cops and DAs are smart enough to exercise some judgment when warranted.

I don't think you really believe that logic.

Hypothetically, suppose it turns out that black drug dealers are far more likely than white drug dealers to be violent criminals [1]. Would you then favor prosecuting drug crimes committed by blacks, but not by whites? Depending on what the numbers work out to be, you will get the same statistical "bang for buck" that you would prosecuting drug sellers but not sex sellers.

[1] Lets give this hypothetical a TV face: take Weeds as the average white drug dealer, and The Wire as the average black drug dealer. Of course, this is only statistics - there are violent white drug dealers and harmless black drug dealers, even in the hypothetical.

I was arguing prosecuting dealers as opposed to users, because it's a massive waste of money to prosecute the latter (not that that stops us from doing it, with 3 million people in jail and growing). Entirely different argument.

Regarding prosecuting black ones instead of white ones.. well we already do that, so I'd say the reality has surpassed both of us. However, as far as what I think should happen, then yes, I would differentiate between gang bangers who own corners, run protection rackets, etc and the dude in high school who sells a little weed to his friends. But as far as consistency in the law, if you're decriminalizing usage and keeping dealing criminal, then you need to apply that consistently when you catch people dealing.

Anecdotally, I think the difference you're perceiving isn't so much black/white as it is weed/hard and suburban/urban.

"Regarding prosecuting black ones instead of white ones.. well we already do that, so I'd say the reality has surpassed both of us."

After this statement, I can't really take you seriously. Do you have any proof beyond this statement?

"However, as far as what I think should happen, then yes, I would differentiate between gang bangers who own corners, run protection rackets, etc and the dude in high school who sells a little weed to his friends. But as far as consistency in the law, if you're decriminalizing usage and keeping dealing criminal, then you need to apply that consistently when you catch people dealing."

If drugs were legalized, most likely, dealing without some sort of license would still be illegal.

Really?

You're really under the impression that black people aren't systematically questioned/harrassed/arrested in proportionally higher numbers than white people?

I mean that's its own whole discussion but I'd say the number of young african american men currently in jail pretty much proves the point.

If you have any black friends, ask them about profiling sometime.

A citation ought to have been provided, but for most people interested in this topic the disparities in prosecutions and sentencing are so well known that it might not seem necessary.

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/RACIAL/RacialDisparities.htm (copious linkage and a good overview) http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/RACIAL/RacialDisparities.htm (very detailed analysis of sentencing disparities in particular)

"A citation ought to have been provided, but for most people interested in this topic the disparities in prosecutions and sentencing are so well known that it might not seem necessary."

Here is an excerpt:

"Whites are primarily sentenced to prison for violent offenses and white prison admissions for violent offenses grew in the 1990s, while drug sentences actually declined somewhat"

so does this mean that the system is being racist against whites in regards to violent crime?

More African Americans may be getting arrested for drug-related offenses, but there is no mention if they actually interviewed a cross-section of those people to see if they actually committed the crimes.

How do we know that there aren't more African Americans, on average, using more illegal drugs?

Some interesting points from the article:

"The second is more complex: high Black male imprisonment is associated with a rise over time in the proportion of Black children living with mothers who have not graduated from high school; this rise occurs despite an overall rise in Black mothers' education and a positive association between Black male imprisonment and the proportion of children living with mothers who are married college"

So it might not have anything to do with racism. A higher percentage of black families only have a mother..and a father in Prison. I heard stats elsewhere that said that this was the case with something like 75% of black families. Children of these broken families have a much lower chance of becoming successful adults and I would say a higher chance of getting involved with illegal drugs. Racism does still happen, but not nearly as much as you are saying.

> A higher percentage of black families only have a mother..and a father in Prison. I heard stats elsewhere that said that this was the case with something like 75% of black families.

75% of black fathers in prison? Looks a bit high.

...take Weeds as the average white drug dealer...

Seriously? I mean I love that show but taking as Nancy Botwin as the average white drug dealer is crazy talk.

Lets give this HYPOTHETICAL a TV face: take Weeds as the average white drug dealer...

I wouldn't call the drug buyer the "victim", just "harmless in almost all cases". Drug users don't typically commit violent crimes unless they're a junkie in search of a fix (very small minority). Most of the violence, theft and other law breaking comes from the people trying to make a business of it.

Regarding the sex seller being the victim, well, it turns out that many times she is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com