Hacker News Reader

Comment by MichaelApproved | Hacker News Reader

Time and Time again, we see how stupid the war on drugs had been for humanity. Look at all the negatives:

- Racist origins which disproportionately targeted minorities. It allowed police and prosecutorial discretion to arrest more minorities and give them longer sentences.

- Stopped medical progress. Finally a flood of studies are showing us mushrooms, marijuana, MDMA, acid, and more have positive medical uses.

- Gave law enforcement massive budgets which are further inflated with asset forfeiture. We see SWAT raids based on lies ruining lives and killing innocent people.

- Prevented people from relaxing with safer alternatives to alcohol.

The war on drugs needs to end.

No drug should be illegal. Drugs are a health concern, not criminal.

Replace public funding of law enforcement with public finding of rehab and other mental/physical healthcare services. It'll be cheaper and society would be healthier.

View on HN

I look forward for the US to decriminalize all drugs. I’m Mexican and I live near the border, I’ve seen every day for the last 10 years how cartels gain power with all the money sent from US consumers. That money and power has corrupted not only police and politicians, but also some sectors of the population, drugs and narcos used to be anathema to most people, now they are part of our pop culture, thanks to news, TV series, movies and music.

> I look forward for the US to decriminalize all drugs.

Is there evidence to prove that legal cocaine/meth/heroin being readily available for citizens would be good for society?

Most addictions are a social and healthcare problem. Criminalization is the problem because it makes on so many levels so hard for the people suffering from addiction to get proper healthcare.

I mean look at the opioid crisis. There is no insurance policy for addiction, plus, you are labeled as a dedbeat by the society. And only because doctor prescribed you something they should not have.

Without criminalization of addiction the opioid crisis would have been much easier to deal with.

You can use that as a template for other things as well.

Besides, I would much prefer people got addicted to mushrooms and cannabis rather than alcohol. The damage alcohol does to an addict is total and eventually lethal and irreversible.

> Criminalization is the problem because it makes on so many levels so hard for the people suffering from addiction to get proper healthcare.

Can't you argue that by making it illegal, you make it less available, therefore ending up with less people addicted?

Illegal drugs are available everywhere. They're even available in prisons.

If you can't even keep them out of prisons, how effective do you think making them illegal has been on availability?

I feel this is a very important point. Legality appears to have little effect on usage. All we really do is apply another label to a user/abuser; that of a "criminal".

If the aim is to reduce the social problems caused by addiction then criminalization is the wrong way to do it.

Now addicts are 'taken care' by the justice system which is less effective and more expensive than social and healthcare programs would be if applied to the same population.

Is there evidence to prove that illegal cocaine/meth/heroin being available for citizens would be good for society?

I fact I am pretty sure that since the alcohol prohibition era there's evidence that turning markets with a lot of demand into illegal markets is worse for society .

There is a difference between decriminalization vs making something readily available. They are not the same thing.

Look at Portugal. They treated drugs as a social issue and are making great progress.

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

https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalizatio...

Am I wrong in feeling like comparing Portugal to the US is a bit different because Portugal doesn't have many South American drug cartels looking to make money/do business at such scale knocking at their borders?

Portugal is within border-free EU and no so far away from Africa as well, there is plenty of opportunity for cartels there.

Its already readily available. The only difference is that a lot of people die to make it available. People who want to get high will find a way, be it by purchasing illegal drugs, huffing glue, or drinking legal alcohol.

Now imagine if we took all the money we dump into stopping people from getting high, and put it into helping people with addiction issues. Not saying it would work, but it seems like a good thing to try given that the current approach is a failure

It's readily available already. Anyone that wants some can get it quite easily.

Does one person have the right to define what another does with their body in a country that prides itself on the freedom of the individual? If they commit crimes while on drugs, punish them for that.

I agree with this generally. Though making specific laws can be helpful. For example, drunk driving laws. The only reason drunk driving is illegal is because it causes you to be a reckless driver, which is also already illegal. But the drunk driving laws make explicit the direct link between the alcohol and the recklessness. Maybe there is a similar case to be made for other drugs as well.

That's an interesting point. Frankly, I don't think we should punish DUI drivers if their only infraction is the DUI. Obviously, if they were driving wreaklessly then that is illegal, but I don't like the concept of charging someone for a crime because it COULD have lead to something worse. I think we should just impose extremely harsh penalties if it DOES lead to something worse. Usually, that "something worse" also has worse penalties. People should have the freedom to determine if they are impaired but also not be shielded from the responsibility freedom requires.

Decriminalization means that the thing isn't treated as a crime, not that it is legal.

Making an accidental error on your taxes is illegal, but it is not a crime. You're given the chance to fix it, or assessed a small fine.

Setting up a lemonade stand without a license is illegal, but it is not a crime. You're told to shut down, or assessed a small fine (or more likely, not bothered by the authorities at all).

This is why people advocate for decriminalization, not legalization. Keep it against the rules, but make it a slap-on-the-wrist civil offense, not a crime you can be thrown in jail for.

This is how illicit drugs were treated before the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 added production, possession, sale, and use to the criminal code.

It surely wouldn't be good for American society, but at least it's a choice for those who decide to use those substances.

As it stands, the prohibition on drugs has created a business that many find worth resorting to violence over, and it impacts people in Mexico who would never have chosen to get involved.

There's no good answer here, but letting addicts drop out of society and damage their health with legal drugs seems more moral than banning drugs and having bystanders suffer.

You are skipping the audience that ARENT life-destroying addicts, such as the target of the article.

The fact that researchers can barely study schedule 1 drugs to determine if they should BE scheduled 1 drugs is a big red flag.

The disproportionate response, the people sent to jail for minor offenses, the....well, all the points in the post you are replying to that you didnt address.

How can you stick to your claims of morality if you don't consider ALL the impacts?

I'm arguing in favor of legalization, not against it. In my estimation legalization means more addicts, a greater burden of addiction for society, fewer people in jail, and fewer bystanders hurt by the business. On balance it's the more moral choice, because for the most part those who end up experiencing the negative effects are doing so by choice, and dealing with legal addicts is preferable to dealing with illegal enterprises.

tl;dr Legalization makes sense, because even though more people end up negatively impacted, they are generally only hurting themselves.

Some European countries have very promising research projects supplying selected heroin addicts (with a long enough history of discontinued therapies) with medical heroin. They go to a state run distribution station once or twice a day and get a dose. With that acquisitive crime are no longer an issue and the subjects can reintegrate into a normal life.

I have a feeling there is certain minority in any population that is quiet happy to live off the weaknesses of the rest. Whatever those weaknesses maybe. And they usually just migrate to the next weakness exploiting enterprise once one is shutdown. Just a feeling...maybe totally wrong.

If you eliminate the low hanging fruit- you can make it much harder to live off the weaknesses of the rest.

The bad people in the cartels very well may just continue being bad people- but without the lucrative illegal drug trade they will no longer be the most rich and powerful people in their society.

Yeah makes sense. I guess there is some kind of Tree of Weakness that keeps evolving and needs constant pruning.

The next weakness might not be "as weak" though. Sure, many might start doing something else, but it will not be as profitable or as easy (otherwise they would be doing it already). The world won't suddenly be perfect but it will be progress.

Good point

We need to change the narrative around substances, their use and abuse.

Addiction is not a personal failure but a coping mechanism in the face of trauma and failed social contracts.

Drug enforcement is a tool of selective oppression and unchecked profit for many actors, from enforcement agencies to incarceration. Prisoners are extremely expensive in tax money, and are treated inhumanely + used for forced labor. We as society seem to be happy to pay very high cost, including in money, to treat people horribly.

Prohibition is the main reason for substance prices to be high enough to support a powerful structure of organized crime which permeates and corrupts our society.

Money continues to be the major force behind policy changes in the US and until we make corruption illegal (lobbying and campaign finance are out of control), our politicians and laws will serve corruption.

There is a decent Netflix show that discussed how America’s war efforts and their fear that they could diminish their control over the people in effect put back research in the area back half a century.

https://www.netflix.com/title/81098586?s=i&trkid=13747225

Thanks. I'm assuming you're talking about the "psychedelics" episode but I noticed the one about dreams. The synopsis asks:

"what’s the significance of dreams and What can they teach us?"

From what I understand about dreams, no one has the answer to that question. It seems like they're going to make unfounded claims which makes me worried about their info.

Do they tend to pose speculation as truth or are they avoiding pseudoscience?

Actually, they did a good job of asking the question without posing speculation as truth or quoting pseudoscience. They ask the question, talk about the history of how people have answered in the past, and show what kind of current research is investigating this topic.

Thanks for the follow-up. I'll definitely check it out!

Yeah sorry bad link.

I've always had a bit of a paranoid suspicion, and trust me, I know there is no evidence for it, and I wouldn't make it out to be more than just a feeling:

That the elites of the world are happy to have drugs being illegal, as it is a way to channel unemployed, violent youth who want to make a quick buck.

I mean, think of it this way: If you are a poor, violent and traumatized youth, and drugs were legal and you wanted to make a quick buck, you'd turn to robbery or worse, kidnapping/murder. As long as they prohibit something that people want, that cohort will always have a way to make a quick buck without turning to robbery/kidnapping/murder.

> That the elites of the world are happy to have drugs being illegal

Well, if you start talking about Reagan in the 80s, there's significant evidence. Not as a way to channel unemployed, but to have extra governmental funding for covert operations.

That and to fight hippies and the anti-materialistic movements.

If individuals mostly make decisions based on a number of internal currents, conscious and unconscious, the same must apply to collectives.

>I mean, think of it this way: If you are a poor, violent and traumatized youth, and drugs were legal and you wanted to make a quick buck, you'd turn to robbery or worse, kidnapping/murder.

Is there any evidence of such a "rise the lowest forbidden fruits won't impact the crop"?

Without data, one could just as well argue that it favors criminal paths by smoothing the road.

Think of it this way: if you rule death penalty for illegal music download, you further banalize evil by broadcasting the message that the worst social behaviors is ethically equivalent, as far as law pretends to pursue some ethical aims, as something as harmless.

Nota bene: I don't imply that death penalty is acceptable for any kind of judicial sentence. Human errors and possibility of political abuses should be sufficient points to definitely end such a practice out of any legislation that pretends to respect its citizen dignity.

As stated, no evidence.

I would like to make a point that the effect doesn't have to benefit everyone equally. Historically powerful factions of society have pushed things to the detriment of the majority and the furtherance of a tiny minority.

People in charge do not have their eyes on humanity(I mean, this should be self-evident), they're mostly dealing with power and control. Society is much more an adversarial system than it is a utilitarian/humanitarian one.

Power should be challenged at all times.

One disturbingly accurate bit of snark I had is that a war on abstract concepts (Terror, Poverty) or inanimate objects will always end like a drunk fighting a lamppost - it will end with hurting themselves and looking like an absolute idiot.

So, even stuff like Meth that is instantly addicting to some people? If it weren't harder to get and illegal, I'd hate to think of how many 18-21 year old kids would decide just to "give it a try" only to have it ruin their life.

Then when something is that addicting and you can't afford it anymore... then what? Wouldn't it create more crime, more robberies, thefts, possibly murders in the process?

I think we have a pretty good balance, and some drugs are slowly becoming legal as we learn more about them and we can setup systems to control their distribution.

Yes, everything. Adults 18-21 already have access to meth and other drugs.

Regarding your other speculation about decriminalizing drugs, we don't have to speculate. Other countries have already done it and seen improvements in their society. Crime and addiction rates go down.

We have a horrible balance. Every single day we have prohibition, drug convictions ruin more people's lives and it makes it harder for them to get help for their addictions.

Every day we have prohibition, SWAT teams have another chance to run wild with lies https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/10/14/l...

People will always wanna have drugs. They will find ways, so legalize it.

No one has done more to push drugs than the govt. Whether its flooding the ghettos during Iran contra, mk ultra or Timothy Leary. Our govt was behind it all. I'd guess after mlk jr they pushed the whole drug thing to keep real change from happening

Reply on news.ycombinator.com