Hacker News Reader

Comment by melling | Hacker News Reader

I've never used illegal drugs, and I've never had a desire. However, the one problem we do have by keeping certain drugs illegal is that Americans are destroying countries, like Mexico, where a week doesn't by where a drug gang hasn't killed someone. Illegal drug money is used to finance so much corruption and killing, that there seems to be little value in keeping them illegal, especially considering that everyone who wants to take drugs still does. If certain drugs do have harmful effects then at least the effects will be mostly limited to the people who take them.

View on HN

College students are surrounded by drugs. They flow so freely that it seems like prohibition isn't really working. People who want drugs can get them. I don't do them either, nor do I have the desire but it just seems like only the poor and disadvantaged drug users go to jail.

Exactly. If people want drugs, they can get it, but not everyone does. We've already reached equilibrium drug consumption, which is why it's ludicrous to believe that drug use will skyrocket once it is legalized. The current drug policy only serves to fill up jails with those not in the middle class.

In Canada, the statistics for illicit drug use almost mirror the statistics for tobacco use; a legal substance. At this point, it is not even clear what we are attempting to solve by the legislation.

I support legalization for ideaological reasons, but that doesn't at all sound accurate to me

Drug use will almost definitely sky rocket if drugs are legalized, at least initially. We can't really say what will happen, say, 5-10 years after, because legalization in this country is unprecedented.

But ask most users if they'd use more if it was legal, and you'll get your answer. Ask some fence sitters who are too scared to try drugs if they'd use currently illicit drugs if it was legal, and you'll get your answer

There are also drug addicts who would like to stop, if more money (that's currently spent on prevention) was being spent on treatment.

Read up on Portugal, they legalised all drugs, just over ten years ago, and the reports released a few months ago (after ten years of it) showed that there are less people using the drugs that previously were illegal (from weed up to heroine), and a higher percentage of those using drugs are in treatment to stop.

I think they in Portugal have not legalized, but decriminalized drugs, these are two different things.

Not sure about how easy it would be for an out-of-college, non-US person, with no social circle experimenting with such substances get hold of, say, LSD.

Part of the non-legalization problem is that if forces you to go down dark alleys which are certainly not compatible with the all-is-good, geek experimentation philosophy. If forces potential users to associate with the hardcore underground, with all the risks that might entail. On top of that, you will never know what you bought. Testing kits aside, and the futility of trying to scam people on dirt-cheap to produce substances, I would have trouble swallowing anything I wasn't confident I knew it was what it said it was.

Probably you could just ask your kids, or ask around at a college campus, or google it, or check on craigslist (people sell weed on craigslist these days), or ask at a headshop. Also, I'm quite confident that someone you know, even in an extremely sober social circle would know someone who would now.

I won't go into details about why each solution you present is not optimal, because I have a better proposal.

Make LSD and other drugs of similar effect legal. Have the government regulate the distribution. Put an exorbitant price tag on them and disallow buying-in-bulk. Make me sign that I am wholly responsible for what happens to me by using them (even though nothing adverse as lung cancer will, I'm sure). Give me a piece of paper that says the LSD I carry is legal. Done.

Where i'm getting at is that I (for various definitions of I) would gladly pay, say, 1.000 USD/EUR for a "trip" if I knew I wasn't illegal or about to get poisoned. Heck, it's even cheaper than non-spiritual trips.

This doesn't prevent, but in fact encourages, the black market. Either pay the gov $1000 or the guy in the van $5 (whatever market price is). You already see this with cigarettes in the US, where the price difference between taxed and illegally sold (untaxed) cigarettes are much, much smaller.

Additionally, you'd likely create a black market for whatever piece of paper says the LSD is legal.

I never said I wanted to prevent the black market. I merely stated a scheme under which I would be comfortable acquiring such substances, and the trade-offs likely to be involved (high prices). As for the piece of paper, it was just a figure of speech; passing a law amounts to the same effect.

Why an exorbitant price tag? That will just fuel the black market that is in turn fueling the drug wars (read: with bullets and machetes and thousands of dead people) in Central America.

How about a reasonable price tag?

Or how about blanket legalization of cultivation, possession, and use? I can get a tube of spores for "magic mushrooms" for about $10 and grow my own indefinitely. But for some reason this activity (the growing and using part) is currently highly illegal.

I don't need a license to brew beer and drink it myself or give it away. Why should it be any different for plants and fungi?

> I don't need a license to brew beer and drink it myself or give it away

In the US you do

Actually it's per-state and per-county. Where I live, there's nothing stopping anyone over 21 from brewing their own beer (up to some rather large amount).

> people sell weed on craigslist these days

Very dumb people. That's almost sure to earn you a visit from the least harried law enforcement group in your local area.

Mostly I worry about about prohibition causing corruption in the US. The War on Terror has done a lot to erode civil liberties, but the War on Drugs has done even more.

Scary/funny chart of the day: http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/07/what-cases-have-the-patrio...

ahem per Mexican History.. before pot becoming illegal in the 1930s do you think the corruption in Mexico was less than it is now?

The answer is no..same amount of corruption..

If we are going to change drug laws it cannot be for the welfare of some other country but to benefit our own.

I think legalizing pot to same level alcohol is and having taxes applied to sale of pot would be step in the right direction.

"Illegal drug money is used to finance so much corruption and killing, that there seems to be little value in keeping them illegal, especially considering that everyone who wants to take drugs still does. If certain drugs do have harmful effects then at least the effects will be mostly limited to the people who take them."

Mexico is already corrupt without the drugs. Making them legal will give the cartels even more power because they will now be able to legally sell drugs in the US.

They already have (and know how to run) multi-million dollar operations, you don't think they won't think about legally partnering up with companies in the US?

"If certain drugs do have harmful effects then at least the effects will be mostly limited to the people who take them."

Many people want government-run health care in the US. Legalizing illegal drugs will add to the already large amount of addicts. Do we really want more addicts in our hospitals? I also don't feel like I should be forced to pay for your poor life choices. Regular Drug users should immediately get a huge increase in healthcare costs.

We still have tons of people suing the cigarette companies because they cause cancer. I can only imagine how many lawsuits will be in our court systems if there is a company selling heroin.

>Making them legal will give the cartels even more power because they will now be able to legally sell drugs in the US.

Does Anheuser-Busch engage in lethal turf warfare in the manner of Al Capone? Yes, I agree that the cartels would move into legal territory but quite frankly, as someone who spends a lot of time in Mexico, the country would be happy to see the terror gone, jobs created and the tax benefits reaped.

Re: legalization and decriminalization: see recent studies in Portugal where addiction rates and criminal activity is plummeting.

"Does Anheuser-Busch engage in lethal turf warfare in the manner of Al Capone? Yes, I agree that the cartels would move into legal territory but quite frankly, as someone who spends a lot of time in Mexico, the country would be happy to see the terror gone, jobs created and the tax benefits reaped."

It won't happen. Mexico's entire system is completely corrupt. Legalizing drugs won't fix the problem.

There are plenty of places in the world that are as corrupt or more corrupt than Mexico which don't have the same levels of violence.

They also don't have huge drug cartels running the place.

Well, exactly.

you miss the point completely....with legalization there would be practically no difference between a mexican drug cartel and a mexican company that produces acetaminophen.

When was the last time you read about an acetaminophen cartel(you can call it Cold Cartel to make it sound cooler!)

So there must be some really enormous cartels engaged in alcohol bootlegging, and "legally partnering up with companies in the US" in the process. Right?

"So there must be some really enormous cartels engaged in alcohol bootlegging, and "legally partnering up with companies in the US" in the process. Right"

The US isn't as corrupt as mexico. You don't have illegal alcohol cartels because the US has done its job at stamping them out years ago.

The cartels also have had many more years to build up their multi-million dollar businesses.

Ah, silly me, I thought that the end of prohibition was the main reason for the drop in bootlegging. Boy, what a goofy assumption that was!

So, it's good to know that the cartels won't be "legally partnering up with companies in the US" due to the lower amount of corruption in the U.S. You evidently mis-spoke there, I guess.

Not sure what your last sentence is supposed to mean. Perhaps you mean to imply that the cartels' current cash-rich positions would cushion them from the crash in the prices of their product that would result from the end of drug prohibition. Again, just like what happened in the 30's, right? Surely, those cartels would take their cash and quickly adapt to the new economic climate, perhaps diversifying into real estate and banking. Then we'd really be screwed!

Please go on, rick888. I'm dying to hear more of your theories.

Not to pile on, but:

> Many people want government-run health care in the US. Legalizing illegal drugs will add to the already large amount of addicts. Do we really want more addicts in our hospitals? I also don't feel like I should be forced to pay for your poor life choices. Regular Drug users should immediately get a huge increase in healthcare costs.

First, the fact that drugs are illegal has done nothing to make them difficult to get - I think most university students would agree they are about 3 text messages away from any drug they might want. People don't avoid drugs because they are illegal, they avoid them because they are concerned about addiction & health effects.

Second, addiction is a public health issue, not a law and order issue. Do you know how expensive it is to imprison someone vs sending them to a rehab program? Take a look at Portugal - treating addiction like the health issue it is works and it's cheaper.

> We still have tons of people suing the cigarette companies because they cause cancer. I can only imagine how many lawsuits will be in our court systems if there is a company selling heroin.

I won't argue the premise but surely you would agree that a backed up court system beats DEA agents getting their heads blown off on a regular basis.

"Second, addiction is a public health issue, not a law and order issue. Do you know how expensive it is to imprison someone vs sending them to a rehab program? Take a look at Portugal - treating addiction like the health issue it is works and it's cheaper"

I looked, and I'm not surprised by the results:

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356/Mixed-Results-For-Po...

"Today, more users are in rehab, but drug use is on the rise, and reporter Keith O'Brien says the policy has made the problem worse."

"personal drug use over the course of their lifetime has gone up about 40 to 50 percent in the last decade."

Drug use is actually up...because there is no legal risk.

More from the article:

"They would meet with the person who had been picked up in possession of whatever drug it was and discuss the issue. These CDTs would then hand down various, sort of, not punishments, but treatments. Some people would, you know, be asked to enter counseling. Some people would be banned from, say, going to raves, if that's where they were doing their drugs; or banned from attending certain concerts or bars, if that's where they were doing drugs. And, you know, this is very controversial, even in Portugal, as you can imagine."

Do you really want the government telling you you can't go to a concert or rave?

I would really like to see the long-term numbers for Portugal. I predict they will be bankrupt within 15 years.

"I won't argue the premise but surely you would agree that a backed up court system beats DEA agents getting their heads blown off on a regular basis"

They still get their heads blown off for things like Vicodin (a legal form of heroin), so how will legalizing all drugs be any different?

"Take a look at Portugal - treating addiction like the health issue it is works and it's cheaper."

How is addiction a public health issue?

Many people want government-run health care in the US. Legalizing illegal drugs will add to the already large amount of addicts. Do we really want more addicts in our hospitals?

I really don't see this as the most likely scenario. Why would it follow that legalization of a drug would lead to more addicts? Cigarettes are legal and addictive and I don't smoke them. Heroin and meth could be legal and I wouldn't do those either. Legal doesn't imply uncontrolled and unfettered access by all and I really just don't see a huge influx of hard drug users, the people who want to experiment with them already do so regardless of legality, health effects or cost.

Further, legalization and taxation should cover the additional medical costs, the price of each pack of cigarettes is currently about 56% tax revenue and distilled spirits are around 50%. Sin/vice taxes already fund dozens of other things besides adult health care costs, if anything I would expect them to be exploited as a revenue generating machine that politicians could gouge for cash since it's so easy to demonize.

"I really don't see this as the most likely scenario. Why would it follow that legalization of a drug would lead to more addicts? Cigarettes are legal and addictive and I don't smoke them"

Many people do because they are easily available in pretty much any 7-11 and gas station.

"Legal doesn't imply uncontrolled and unfettered access by all"

Then there will still be a black market and it still won't solve the issue at hand.

" the people who want to experiment with them already do so regardless of legality, health effects or cost"

Many people don't experiment because they don't know where to get them. Legalizing them also implies that they are okay (if it's legal..it has to be okay..right?)

"Sin/vice taxes already fund dozens of other things besides adult health care costs, if anything I would expect them to be exploited as a revenue generating machine that politicians could gouge for cash since it's so easy to demonize"

I would just rather not have the increase strain on our already over-taxes medical system.

Everyone that's pro-drug wants the government out of their lives, yet they are fine with increased taxes and regulations to support more and more social programs. Government taxation and regulation = control.

> Everyone that's pro-drug wants the government out of their lives, yet they are fine with increased taxes and regulations to support more and more social programs.

Everyone? Well that's convenient. That people who agree on one issue would all also agree on several other unrelated issues. Very convenient indeed.

"That people who agree on one issue would all also agree on several other unrelated issues. Very convenient indeed."

No, they are hypocritical to say that they want the government out of their lives and then also want increased in more government control. You can't have it both ways, sorry.

Everybody except a very small number of consistent libertarians are that way - the liberals/socialists and paleo-conservatives and neo-cons (Judeo-Christian Socialists) just disagree on what they want the government to do. So we mostly end up with the government doing more and more and more. Most of which is not wanted by some group.

Logical fallacies and red herrings....you've put them everywhere....my head hurts.

Not logical fallacies..logic (you should use it sometime). Just because I don't support your point doesn't mean i'm wrong.

Take a look here:

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356/Mixed-Results-For-Po...

Drug use, addiction, and drug-related deaths have actually increased since they legalized drugs. This is exactly what I'm saying.

Not logical fallacies..logic (you should use it sometime)

This way of talking to people probably explains the typical type of response you receive. Grow up.

Ending prohibition would allow the drug supply chain to operate openly, which would tend to result in supply migrating away from undesirable sources. Indeed, the end of alcohol prohibition in the US brought a massive curtailing of the operations of bootleggers in the US. Today the monetary support of violent gangs by way of alcohol bootlegging revenues is essentially non-existent.

As far as government-run health care serving as a lever to control individual behavior, that sounds like a good reason to avoid government-run health care. When the state tries to regulate individual happiness or well being the result is invariably tragedy and disaster. In a free society the government serves society. When society serves government you have tyranny.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com