Comment by bionhoward | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bionhoward | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The question ought not be if we should legalize these drugs (with obvious proven medical use) but rather, why were they criminalized in the first place?

"Legalize" implies we need permission from the government to control what we put into our own bodies. That doesn't really make sense in a free country.

"Decriminalize" makes more sense: it rightfully implies the government screwed up when it outlawed the substance(s) in the first place...

IMHO banning chemicals is

a) impossible from a practical level because there are infinite chemicals and no means to enforce their use

b) misguided since politicians are unqualified to assess the various technical aspects of medicinal chemistry

c) counterproductive because when something people use is banned, they turn into criminals and the end result is a black market which encourages people to ignore other laws which actually DO matter (like when folks commit murder related to drug deals -- if the drug were not criminalized, then there would be no need for a black market drug deal)

TLDR: Don't legalize it. Decriminalize it!

> Don't legalize it. Decriminalize it!

Decriminalisation means you can’t be charged under criminal statute. You can still be fined.

Legalisation means reversing all the laws that were passed restricting its use, criminal and civil. If you don’t like the term “legalisation”, you could go for “unrestricting”, though that seems like a pedantic waste of political capital.

Legalize and decriminalize already have definitions from our government and mean very different things: https://adf.org.au/talking-about-drugs/law/decriminalisation...

The way you are using decriminalize VS legalize is explicitly different than how they are generally used. Legalize means 100 legal. Decriminalized usually means something like downgraded to a misdemeanor where it is still not technically legal but there are no major criminal consequences.

I agree with your broader point though.

Those mean completely different things to me. To me legalize it means there can be no punishment for the substance. Decriminalize it means sales and distribution are still illegal, the profits are still going to organized crime.

I think your viewpoint may be better served by the word "destigmatize"? In practice, the word "decriminalization" does not go as far as the word "legalization". Decriminalization only refers to removing criminal penalties, while allowing other ones to stand. Legalization refers to complete legalization (they'll most likely still regulate large-scale production like they do alcohol, tobacco, and other psychoactive substances). Ideally legalization should also come with expungement of convictions, as long as no other crimes were committed along the way (and even still, the charges directly related to the drugs themselves should still be vacated, even if there are other valid charges to hold).

That same argument would work equally well with pretty much every chemical that has been banned or severely restricted, such as leaded gasoline, lead-based paint, several pesticides, several food additives, and much more.

Unless you really are arguing that government should not be able to regulate any chemicals, you need to refine your argument to contain at least some elements specific to recreational or medicinal drugs.

I believe the line the OP was drawing was between regulating how one uses chemicals personally in a manner that does not affect others (directly or indirectly), vs. how one uses chemicals generally which may affect others.

Note that you can certainly ingest chemicals for completely personal and recreational use and still adversely impact others (e.g. drinking and driving, dosing for athletic performance, neglecting childcare to get high, I had a neighbor get high once and he painted hieroglyphs on the utility box on the street which I didn't particularly care to look at nor feel like spending my time to paint over it - I could care less if he got high and trashed the inside his house asside from property value loss when he sold his home).

The examples you site (e.g. burning of gasoline and releasing byproucts into the environment, using dangerous chemicals in consumer products) are all applications that will adversely impact others and should be regulated.

Personally, while there are exceptions, I assume people are inherently good and capable of making their own decisions. So, I agree with the OP - if you're not causing any harm to others, I say do what you want.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com