Comment by simonh | Hacker News Reader

Comment by simonh | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Agreed. I do not agree with decriminalising the trade in drugs, but criminalising their possession for personal use is a really important practical step in fighting the trade in hard drugs and reducing addiction rates for many reasons.

It decouples the interests of drug traffickers from those of users making users more likely to cooperate with law enforcement, frees up social workers and medical professionals from the risk of criminal liability for associating with drug users in possession of or using drugs. It also makes it easier to address incidental associated health issue such as infections from dirty needles. Treating it as a health issue destigmatises it making it easier for users to talk about it and seek help.

This is not theoretical, this is from actual findings from countries like Portugal the Netherlands and Norway where trading in hard drugs is still illegal but possession and use are treated as public health issues. This is a policy that works.

> I do not agree with decriminalising the trade in drugs.

Why not? Do you support criminal cartels making lots of money off of them or do you think that the War on Drugs will actually get rid of that criminal element which profits from them at some point?

I don't see a problem with anyone putting anything they want into their own body. Arrest them when they commit an actual victim-ful crime like stealing but not before that.

To that end, I say sell them with regulation just like Alcohol. Keeping sales illegal means questionable sources, questionable quality and enormous profits for criminal gangs.

what he says.

criminalization should be reserved to actions which cause harm to another person who didn't agree to the respective interaction.

If an adult decides to take a drug - fine. If another adult sells a drug to another adult - where's the problem?

OTOH I'd like to see the concept of mitigating circumstances removed in criminal justice. If somebody takes a drug and commits a crime - full responsibility.

In an ideal world theres no problem but the reality is murkier. Im thinking of crime against vulnerable people, especially that these drugs impair one’s senses. I’d like drug trading to be legal but heavily regulated and the enforcement taken seriously. It would also do a very good thing to educate people about the risks of addiction, the simptoms of it and where to ask for help for it.

Consent is a tricky issue when it comes to drugs. You could even argue that consent isn't possible when you are heavily addicted.

I am sympathetic to the libertarian argument, I agree that alcohol is also a dangerous drug and is the cause of a considerable amount of crime so why is it different?

On the one hand there is a considerable culture around alcohol that is difficult or impossible to expunge. Banning it simply isn't practical in a democracy where alcohol is popular across all sections of society. Hard drugs like cocaine and heroine simply don't have the cultural and social context that alcohol has, there isn't a consensus that it's acceptable.

Arguing that, well alcohol is dangerous too is a bad argument. We do this bad thing so therefore we should also be allowed to do this other bad thing doesn't follow at all. Ideally we shouldn't do either bad thing. Both alcohol and hard drug use impose considerable costs on society. If society has chosen to accept those costs in one case but not the other (while fighting to limit them) well, making such decisions is what democracy is for.

Ultimately I think the libertarian argument works for decriminalising uses, but fails at decriminalising the trade. There's no inherent right to make a profit whatever the cost to others or society.

Because heroin is a poison, and the whole "i do what i want with my body" hides the fact that young adult often will just try random stuff just because its available and / or their friends do it. Its not 100% rational free will.

This is a terrible reason for making something illegal. Alcohol is just as bad, why not just introduce age limits like alcohol?

I think heroin has much higher dangers and usually the accidenal deaths are very swift and come from nowhere. Alcohol on the other hand kills a lot more people but because it does so slowly they have higher chance to pick themselves up, go to detox, AA, etc

This is an absolutetly 100% valid reason, if not the best reason, to make a substance illegal. 90% who try get addicted, so better keep people, especially young ones, far from it.

> why not just introduce age limits like alcohol

Because they don't work..

Where did you get your 90% addiction figure from? If you're going to argue your side, then at least cite correct information.

On the high side, only 30% of people who try heroin get addicted https://www.livescience.com/62701-odds-of-heroin-dependency....

Nicotine has a higher addiction rate

Fully agree with you, I just want to point out that Norway has a very strict stance against all drugs, so much so that you can lose your drivers license for having cannabis metabolites in your blood due too a lack of "soberness". It's mental.

I think it's really important to dissociate supporting decriminalisation of possession and use from being "pro drugs". They are very much not the same thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com