Hacker News Reader

Comment by fourspace | Hacker News Reader

It should come as no surprise that the right answer is treating drug addiction and substance abuse like medical conditions rather than legal ones. The idea that the government should regulate what I choose to put in my own body is preposterous to begin with.

If you want to criminalize something, try starting with the actions that drug addicts take towards others, not themselves. Driving while intoxicated, theft, vandalism and more serious crimes are already illegal and should stay so. It is impossible to violate your own rights; why should making a 100% personal decision be a crime?

View on HN

"why should making a 100% personal decision be a crime?"

Because that "personal decision" has a huge negative influence on a lot of people. Drug use affects your family and friends negatively, it affects your coworkers, your employer, random people that you run over with your car or attack violently while high, and it raises taxes or insurance premiums since it's very costly to treat drug-related issues at hospitals.

Sure, in the beginning drug use may be a personal decision that doesn't affect too many people - but once addiction kicks in - and it does to a very large percentage of users - your drug use has a hugely negative effect on everyone around you, and even strangers.

Alcohol is a generally legal drug that has all the same issues.

The difference is that hard drugs are a lot more addictive, and the consequences to addiction are a lot more serious.

Ethanol is so absurdly addictive that you can actually flat out die from the withdraw. No opioid is going to do that.

The only reason ethanol is legal to consume and most opioids are illegal is that ethanol has been with human society for thousands of years. There is nothing rational about it.

Furthermore, it's hardly just "hard drugs" that are currently illegal. Even fucking caffeine is more dangerous than THC...

So where do you want to draw the line on this graph?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_...

While I agree with the point you're trying to make, that image is pretty useless without some units on those axis and citations for the studies that determined the numbers.

The graph is designed to convey comparative information and so units are not really important (if the method is sound).

Without units, it doesn't give any sort of scale.

Heroin apparently ranks "almost" a 3 on this graph, the highest shown, but not quite a 3. Why does it fall slightly short? If this is purely comparative then why isn't doesn't the most dangerous drug align with the highest number? And why 3? A scale of 1 to 10 seems like a more common choice for arbitrary scales. And where would something obviously more harmful (like say, draincleaner) fall on that graph? It tells us that Heroin is apparently more harmful than cocaine, but gives us absolutely no indication of how much so. THC ranks as a '1' on this harmful meter. Does that mean heroin is only 3 times as harmful as a substance that nobody has ever overdosed on?

I could construct a similar graph with water, apples, and THC, but it would end up being extraordinarily misleading and just as useless. In fact, the more I think about it, this is probably the worst graphic I've seen in a long time, there are just so many layers to what's wrong with it...

You are so wrong I can't even begin to argue with you about this.

Linking me to the methodology used to create that graphic might be a nice start. At least enough to simply suggest it just wasn't pulled out of somebodies ass...

The point is that it DOESNT MATTER what the scales or methodology was. There is no study or methodology or renumbered axis that will place alcohol to the left and bottom of marijuana. All that matters is that alcohol is above N2O and that heroin is above cocaine and that tobacco is to the right of marijuana etc.

The point I was originally making is that alcohol and tobacco is IN THE MIDDLE of all the illegal drugs in terms of damage and addictiveness and therefore you can't argue that they should be legal or illegal base just on those 2 factors alone.

Here's the study though in case you still want to look at it: ^ Nutt D, King LA, Saulsbury W, Blakemore C (2007). "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse". Lancet 369 (9566): 1047–53. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4. PMID 17382831.

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA#cite_note-97 )

Citation definitely needed on that claim.

Alcohol kills, and so does alcohol withdrawal... The only drug that kills more people per year is tobacco/nicotine, which is also legal.

> Alcohol kills, and so does alcohol withdrawal... The only drug that kills more people per year is tobacco/nicotine, which is also legal. Perhaps alcohol and tobacco should be prohibited too? (I am not really saying that)

If sometime in the future I invented a substance that was very addictive, would cause people to have altered behaviour (i.e. be more inclined to shop for more of the drug specifically at http://meric.com), and ends up being taken by millions so they shop at my website every day, and one day the FDA comes out and says my drug is now banned because it is a form of 'mind control', will you be against that decision because 'it is your right to put whatever you want in your own body'?

I don't see nicotine being much different, instead of buying only cigarettes from https://www.marlboro.com/ they are merely buying more cigarettes from anywhere else.

I can definitely see the point of view that government shouldn't influence people's private lives. That's why I am not so quick to say I support for/against prohibiting mind-altering substances...

Just saying, I'd hate the idea the that anything have influence over decisions I make, no matter if its the government, alcohol or cigarettes. (Anything, not anyone.)

I think we agree: autonomy is the whole point here.

I'm not sure what you're arguing, but it's easy for me to say I'm 100% against the prohibition of any sort of recreational drug.

The reason I mention the danger of alcohol and nicotine is to point out an inconsistency in drug policy, which purports to ban the "dangerous" drugs and (presumably) allow the "safe" ones. ...at least that's how the scheduling criteria are operationalized in the US. Clearly, that's not the way it plays out in real life, and the disaster of this is people believing the legal drugs are the safe ones.

...but I fail to see the point of your argument, because it's not hypothetical at all. There are legal, addictive drugs in wide circulation, and although I hate the fact that my best buddy smokes a pack a day, I would oppose the prohibition of tobacco... and obviously I would oppose the FDA ban in your hypothetical. ...not exactly sure where that leaves us, but I'll upvote you for taking the time to think this through.

True, but asking for intellectual consistency in public policy is expecting too much.

Lots of personal decisions have negative effects on those around you. That's not a rational reason to make all of those actions illegal.

Human beings have been altering their state of consciousness with various substances for all of recorded history and probably for all time. Mostly use of drugs was in an approved social or religious context that provided structure and meaning to the experience. Certainly, there is always the risk of some kind of harm, but history has demonstrated fairly conclusively that the most harm comes when drug use is illegal. When you take away the social, cultural and spiritual support for the experience. When you create an underground market for drugs etc.

The idea that the government should regulate what I choose to put in my own body is preposterous to begin with.

The abolishment of the FDA seems like a pretty drastic measure by any standard.

However effective drug legislation really -is not about this at all-. As you alluded to in your second point, it should be part of the broader system of minimizing the damage to society. Drugs are harmful -to society- when the criminal element is the sole distributor, when quality and dosages are completely uncontrollable, and price and availability of the addictive ish are unpredictable. Thus it seems the only way to quell the social damage of drug use of for the government to not only decriminalize everything, but to also ensure drugs are given away by community centers with specialized staff.

it should be part of the broader system of minimizing the damage to society

That's certainly one thing it should be about. Whether it is appropriate for the government to decide what substances people are permitted to introduce in to their own bodies is an important question though.

Thus it seems the only way to quell the social damage of drug use of for the government to not only decriminalize everything, but to also ensure drugs are given away by community centers with specialized staff.

Alcohol was pretty unsafe during prohibition, often containing methanol, a toxin which can blind or kill. Legalizing it meant that anyone producing and selling impure, mislabeled or adulterated alcohol could be sued or jailed. The same could be done with other drugs.

It's a good point you make about alcohol, but I think the difference is that the "pure/regulated" alcoholic being sold can be consumed in a safe manner without any physical harm. I don't think a "pure" version of hardcore drugs are safe under any scenario. It's not simply a matter of them being laced with something that makes them dangerous.

> alcoholic being sold can be consumed in a safe manner without any physical harm

> I don't think a "pure" version of hardcore drugs are safe under any scenario.

One of these statements is wrong, and one is right. Which is which?

Actually a lot of drugs can be full of other toxic substances that are cheaper than the drug itself. One that you tend to hear a lot about is Ecstasy. I don't know how common it is, but I remember hearing that sometimes it could be full of stuff like rat poison, so if you wanted to score some you wanted to have a dealer you trusted, not just some random guy at a rave.

Completely agree, but my point is that even if you score it from a trusted dealer -- the so-called "pure" ecstasy you're getting is still dangerous to your body and mental state, even in the absence of additives.

MDMA does have known harmful effects. So does ethanol, and from what I can tell, ethanol is more dangerous. What would be your argument for maintaining a ban on MDMA and not banning ethanol[0], or do you believe ethanol should be banned as well?

[0] For human consumption

MDMA is not harmful by any reasonable definition. It's possible for overuse to cause problems, it's possible for certain people with specific preexisting conditions to have problems. That's true for asprin as well.

You can't OD on MDMA. You can OD on water.

One reverse example.

LSD is mostly safe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Poss...

Alcohol is mostly toxic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol#Al...

Devil's advocate: should that right extend to allowing people to commit suicide without any attempt at prevention?

You can hardly make successful suicide a crime. (Though there have been regimes that made unsuccessful suicide attempts illegal).

suicide is illegal in germany.

Punishable by death?

I said "any attempt at prevention", not "making succesful suicide a crime".

IANAL, but, in the UK at least, it's possible for somebody who is suicidal to be locked up for their own safety. That goes against the parent comment's logic that we have the right to do whatever we wish to our own bodies... so I'm not sure the what the issue is with my question.

I think that the logic is that you are 'not in your right mind,' though I suppose you could end up in a situation where drugs are legal, but anyone that would use them is 'not in their right mind' according to the establishment.

It's tough because a "good" society would seek to help someone to prevent them from killing themselves. Counseling or treatment could help them. Maybe they've tried. Maybe they don't want to. Maybe they're plain tired of living. There are days that I feel bored with life. I would never do something so drastic as kill my life, but relative to many, I'm a spoiled little shit. I can only imagine how bad things could be for some. I hate it when people call those who kills themselves cowards. I couldn't imagine the pain I'd have to be in and the feeling of despair needed to kill myself. It's incredibly sad.

The government doesn't "allow" free people (those not in prison, psychiatric hospitals, etc.) to commit suicide; they are free to do so if they choose.

Prevention is orthogonal to what I'm talking about. In fact, I'm all for helping those folks who are suicidal and will accept help. It's a shame that mental disease is one of the few afflictions that you can't admit you have, talk to others about or is even accepted as on par with more physical ailments.

Devil's advocate: is criminalization tantamount to prevention?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com