Hacker News Reader

Comment by tathougies | Hacker News Reader

So my moms parents had three children and my dads five. So not huge families but large. They grew up in a city in a third world country and frankly their childhood was a lot more dangerous than your imagined paranoia.

Also your ideas of children are way off. We have a seven month old and we read to her, take her to the library, go to space talks, etc. Actually we do a lot more intellectual stuff now. My wife has taken some online courses ans weve started re learning french. Parents who put their kids in front of the TV are lazy.

Parks exist in most urban areas and are perfect for kids to play in.

All the other dangers you mentioned are way overstated

I do not understand this paranoia that has gripped the American public. The way people act would have you believe things are worse today than in the past when all actual data (anf observation) say the contrary

View on HN

I'm guessing your 7-month-old takes naps? When that stops, you may find yourself re-evaluating the evils of TV.

Well no. Most of the time she screams honestly. She actually screamed the entire time we were giving our marriage prep talk at church and screamed for another two hours while my wife and I read articles to each other

> Parents who put their kids in front of the TV are lazy.

Maybe when your kid is a bit older you'll understand the appeal of turning on the TV just to have an hour to clean up, do a bit of laundry, and prepare dinner...

There is great appeal for sure, but the better long-term solution is to get the kids helping with cleanup, laundry, and dinner prep, even from an age where they can’t do anything yet.

You might be surprised how interested they are in helping out.

> You might be surprised how interested they are in helping out.

Maybe there are some super-parents out there who can manage to always make that work, but in my experience trying to get my kids to help when they are hungry and tired after getting home from some activity on a hot summer day is just an exercise in frustration.

If kids are hungry and tired, maybe a snack and a nap would be effective? YMMV.

> Also your ideas of children are way off.

They come from raising a pair of kids, currently aged four and five. We actually have been living on a semi-rural island for the last five years, though.

| Parks exist in most urban areas and are perfect for kids to play in.

Minus the used needles and other debris that litter many of them. It’s a sad state that that’s the best place people with drug problems can go, but it seems they don’t have anywhere else to go.

It’s just not where I want to bring my kid to hangout.

Where do you live that you're seeing "used needles littering many of them"? This was something that I often heard talked about by teachers and parents, but I only ever recall seeing ONE used needle laying around when I was a kid and it wasn't at a park - it was on the campus of an Ivy League college!

The vast majority of the parks I've been to in the US have been clean and well kept up, even ones in the higher-crime areas of town.

Probably SF. Used needles are not an uncommon sight.

This is something I hear about a lot. And yet when I walk through places reputed to be full of them, like Denny Park in Seattle, which I walked through today on my way from my office to the library, the worst that I saw was a candy wrapper on the ground.

Singapore solved this problem, and we should probably follow their example

> Singapore's top diplomat in the UK, Michael Teo, defended Singapore's harsh drug laws by pointing to the country's lower rates for drug use.

"8.2% of the UK population are cannabis abusers; in Singapore, it is 0.005%. For ecstasy, the figures are 1.8% for the UK and 0.003% for Singapore; and for opiates—such as heroin, opium, and morphine - 0.9% for the UK and 0.005% for Singapore," claimed Teo. "We do not have traffickers pushing drugs openly in the streets, nor do we need to run needle exchange centers."

https://www.tripsavvy.com/drug-laws-in-singapore-1629780

So did Portugal [0], except they didn't resort to draconian rule-of-law policies and instead took a more compassionate approach.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radic...

Portugal didn’t solve the drug problem. Portugal has stratospherically high rates of drug use before it’s change in policy. At one point fully 1% of the population was addicted to heroin. That has come down, but drug use rates are still much higher than in China, Japan, and Singapore.

In fact, heroin use was the only drug the use of which went down in Portugal after the decriminalization. Use of other drugs went up, especially MDMA. At the same time, heroin use also went down in other European countries in which no decriminalization happened. It blows my mind that some people believe that change in Portugal’s policies was some kind of a huge success.

Solved by extremely harsh penalties including execution.

Not exactly aligned with Western countries of human rights.

If you find a country with fewer needles on the streets and fewer people using drugs, we are happy to listen to their policies and how they accomplished it

Singapore is tiny, not much more than a city-state. Rates of drug use is also a matter of honest reporting.

And wow are you really advocating execution of people with addiction and mental health issues that use drugs?

Japan is not tiny, and has a fraction of our drug use. They’re also brutal with drug crime.

I wouldn’t execute drug addicts. But their pushers? Line-em right up!

You realise that most/many addicts will sell small amounts to other addicts?'

Do you advocate the death sentence for drug company executives as well?

Yes, the executives of big pharma are the first in line.

The Dr. and pharmacists who enabled the opioid crisis as well.

Just curious: would you advocate lining up liquor store owners? Bartenders?

Alcohol consumption has purposes other than mere intoxication. Likewise I wouldn’t execute a pharmacists who sells opium for legitimate reasons.

But sure, if you have an alcohol executive cutting their wine with methanol, pushing it to middle school kids and breaking interstate laws shipping laws to evade enforcement, like you did in prohibition... screw him.

If alcohol was as illegal as the drugs are today, sure. Even during prohibition the actual laws against alcohol were much more lenient than today’s laws against opiates.

Singapore, being a city state ruled by a benevolent dictator, is not comparable to nation states with normal political systems.

Period.

You have a shockingly narrow understanding of addiction

By that logic we should emulate the reasons the moon has fewer people using drugs.

If it was legalized and sold retail (out of liquor stores), all these problems would go away.

Junkies would get little red sharps disposal containers, and bring it back those back in for the deposit refund. They'd stop doing it on the streets (for the most part), for the same reason you don't see raging alcoholics crowding the alleys drinking moonshine.

Drug criminalization/prohibition creates all of the problems that most people associate with drug use/addiction.

Needle disposal boxes and injecting clinics are pretty good at cleaning that up. Not to mention modern needles that kids can't accidentally prick themselves on make it a much lesser issue than decades ago. Not to mention having a lot of other responsible adults around keeping an eye out for stuff like this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com