Hacker News Reader

Comment by wasx | Hacker News Reader

At this point articles like this are stale. They don't convince anyone not already convinced, and are really just echo chambers. The thing is, making posts and articles isn't going to change a damn thing, there's such a disconnect between the people in power and your average person that it's hard to see how any real change will come about from writing, airing your criticisms and petitioning. Especially since 21st century activism seems to be more focused on retweets than praxis, which ultimately means that unless people take to the streets and force change, all that's ever going to happen is more articles and more silence from the top.

Do something if you believe in change.

View on HN

These articles really do change the conversation in Washington, when the byline is someone like George Schultz. We don't expect to hear this sort of thing from a member of the Nixon and Reagan administrations. In fact, it's not common to hear it from the Clinton and Obama administrations. But if it were from a Green or a Libertarian, it wouldn't reach the NYT op-ed page because it'd be uninteresting, and nobody in Washington would talk about it.

So you're saying the NYT, in all it's democracy-loving care and self-importance, can't (or editorially won't) push this issue on it's own, for instance by hammering the point home with continued, determined, journalistic reporting of actual events that the War on Drugs foments, because it's not "fit to print", or not "fit to sway Washington D.C."?

But when some washed up D.C. insider millenials never heard of finally wants to admit what we all know, they run the article, as an opinion piece.

But the nation can't focus on fixing the problem b/c of all the celebrity "news" and other garbage they did print in place of dogged coverage of decades-spanning, life-taking, community ruining, racist practices led by the federal government...

That's exactly why we don't read the NYT. It's part of the oligarchy.

The parent poster already explained why this position would be seen as run-of-the-mill and ineffectual if comes from the NYT's editorial voice.

The NYT choosing to run this is exactly what you want them to do, using their position to push this issue by choosing to run this Op-Ed. Yes, It's a bland position only catching up to the status quo of many statehouses, but what's significant is the byline.

In this case, The Times is showing Shutlz and Aspe approve of the steps taken in states to an audience that's not ready to make any baby steps at a federal level.

Well, about half the country has legalized cannabis now. There were plenty of people who said that could never happen.

What this article proposes is dumb though:

> We should also decriminalize the small-scale possession of drugs for personal use ... we should continue to make it illegal to possess large quantities of drugs

All that means is letting rich people enjoy getting high while putting poor people in jail. For all practical purposes that is the status quo already since it is almost impossible for non-dealer recreational users to get charged unless they do something really retarded.

The only real answer is total legalization. It will happen. It will just take time.

Legalization leads to commercialization. Do we really want for-profit corporations working to create demand for heroin and meth? It is already a huge problem that they're pushing opiates when ibuprofen+paracetamol is just as effective.

"when ibuprofen+paracetamol is just as effective"

Liver says no.

> Do we really want for-profit corporations working to create demand for heroin and meth?

The sensible thing to do would be to bring the supply of drugs out into the open and remove it from the black market.

Most of the issues from drugs like crime, violence and overdose deaths comes from the fact that it's a black market that cannot be regulated with standards or restricted to minors. If we regulated it similar to alcohol or tobacco (or stricter even), we wouldn't have so many problems.

>> Do we really want for-profit corporations working to create demand for heroin and meth?

We don't really want them working to create demand for any pharmaceuticals, tobacco or alcohol either. Which is why in a lot of places advertising of such is banned to a greater or lesser extent.

>> ibuprofen+paracetamol is just as effective

Eh, not really.

https://media.jamanetwork.com/news-item/no-significant-diffe...

While that is interesting (and a little surprising), it's one measure on one sort of pain.

It doesn't look at speed of onset, length of effect or the health impact of repeated dosing - paracetamol is not all that well tolerated by the body and ibuprofen can irritate the stomach.

I'm also surprised because I'm sure I read sometime last year that for some types of pain, paracetamol is indistinguishable from placebo.

Note that this is very specifically ibuprofen AND paracetamol taken together. You're right that both of these drugs can be hard on various internal organs. But compared to opiates? From the opioid epidemic to my personal experience, there is no comparison as to which has larger consequences.

> Do we really want for-profit corporations working to create demand for heroin and meth

There already are for-profit corporations creating demand for heroin and meth. They are just exempt from taxes and product liability laws.

The second one is the really important issue. Having drugs illegal is what shields the producers and distributors from product liability law suits. Without that there would be no billion dollar business in this shit.

Don't overlook the value in trying to manipulate the Overton Window.

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

In this case, we are at least at the threshold of Acceptable/Sensible, and this article isn't really pushing the subject in either direction.

These articles slowly chip away at an entrenched status quo that "all drugs are bad" and gradually shift public opinion. Just look at California who just legalized recreational cannabis today.

>Do something if you believe in change.

Ross Ulbricht filed an appeal to the Supreme Court this week (http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/27/ross-ulbricht-files-appeal...).

What does Dread Pirate Roberts trial have to do with legalization?

Do you mean to say that you've read that link, and don't find anything in that account of government misbehavior that ought to be changed?

That seems... unlikely.

Yeah it feels sort of retrograde, mentioning Portugal for some peripheral point but not mentioning its actual policies that would involve anything but Prohibition.

I thought this too, my guess is the authors felt going all the way would just seem too radical from the current status quo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com