Hacker News Reader

Comment by TruthElixirX | Hacker News Reader

Has banning people from shooting meth into the webbing of their fingers stopped them?

No. It has only made things worse.

100% legalization for all substances.

Really? How do you know, 'it hasn't stopped them.' How do you count the number of people who never got addicted to meth because it wasn't on sale at 7-11, or was never made the secret ingredient in McDonald's new meth burger. Do you know that without rules, there really are no rules, and the examples I just gave are the tip of a scary iceberg. Do you know what worse is? You have no idea.

Look at my rock. It is a magic rock. It keeps tigers away. I have never been attacked by a tiger while holding this rock. Who knows how many tiger attacks it has defeated.

EDIT:: Also I don't give a shit if 7-11 sells meth. I'll just shop somewhere that doesn't.

As someone who thinks the 'war on drugs' is really stupid, I think it's dishonest to compare direct efforts to stop something (no matter how misguided those efforts may be) to a "magic rock". Obviously drug prohibition has stopped someone from acquiring or selling drugs at some point in time who otherwise would have. Of course, that doesn't make it a financially worthwhile or desirable goal.

I for one have been stopped from having chemical fun numerous times because it simply wasn't convenient enough for me.

If you could get meth at Mc'Ds, would you take it? No? Then why do you presume that everyone else would?

Because how would you stop Mc'D from putting it in your burger for you?

Some people would stop eating there, but most just wouldn't care. Convenience beats ethics for most of the time; otherwise none of us would be buying bottled water, or Adidas shoes, or Apple computers, or any product from any company that was found to abuse people in some way or another.

How do you stop them from putting caffeine in your soda?

Easy, because we have laws about food and drugs. If someone puts caffeine in a drink it must be labeled. If someone puts salt in food then it must be labeled. Do you imagine that government and society would spontaneously decide to take methamphetamine less seriously than caffeine if it were fully legalized?

Get drunk, go to McDonalds. Bit of peer pressure. "Dude, try the Big Meth!"

Congratulations, you are now addicted to meth.

McDonalds is a bit of extreme scenario. Sell it in specialized shop, where everything is explained, where you have to sign paper that you do understand the consequences of trying this drug.

Because McDonalds would be allowed to make a meth burger, the same way they can sell you vokda shots with your happy meal.

We do have Prohibition - before, after, and during. Consumption went up during, and back down afterwards. Crime went up during, and back down afterwards.

Being addicted to alcohol is much harder than being addicted to meth, no?

From Wikipedia:

...Methamphetamine has a high potential for abuse and addiction, activating the psychological reward system by triggering a cascading release of dopamine in the brain characterized by Amphetamine /Stimulant psychosis.

Chronic abuse may also lead to post-withdrawal syndrome, a result of methamphetamine-induced neurotoxicity to dopaminergic neurons. Post-withdrawal syndrome can persist beyond the withdrawal period for months, and sometimes up to a year...

Got some junkie friends? I know a couple of them, burned and miserable lives mostly. On the other hand, all my drinking friends are quite normal, no addictions, no suffering from alcohol.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. There are plenty of people for whom alcohol has destroyed their lives (or is in the process of doing so). You happen to know a set of people who aren't afflicted in this manner and a different set of meth users. I'm sure there are people out there who can use meth just as responsibly as others use alcohol.

I have junkie friends. I also have alcoholic friends. The winner of the "who is more fucked up" medal goes to those without a good support system or those whose underlying issues / mental illness / pathology are harder to treat. Spend enough time around addicts and you realize the drug of choice doesn't matter. I knew a girl in rehab who was a compulsive shopper. I didn't even realize that was a thing but there's a fancy word for it and everything: Oniomania.

This comment is making me realize that I have a lot of fucked up friends.

Anyway, I'm fighting an anecdote with an anecdote but the most harmful thing about addiction is getting thrown in jail, getting jail marked down on your permanent record, being afraid to ask for help (or help being unavailable) because Johnny Law is getting tough on crime. The substance doesn't matter.

Wait, are your stats on consumption adjusted for population? The numbers I saw was that the percentage of people using alcohol doubled after the end of prohibition, and alcohol abuse went up around 15%.

Quit spreading FUD. We know. We have a pretty good idea. We can look at what happened in Portugal since 2001:

http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal-drug-policy-decrimin...

It's funny how humans tend to fully forget about things that happened only 100 years prior.

Back in the late 1800's and early 1900's, some 50% of the American population was addicted to opiates in one form or another, usually without even realizing it (due to there being no failed drug laws yet, and no laws regarding the listing of ingredients on common "elixirs"). And yet, we didn't live in some apocalyptic wasteland with drug addled zombies roaming the land, we had a very modern, progressive, civilized society. Just look up images of America in the 1890's to see what America would look like without asinine drug laws, and with a large part of the population physically dependent upon legal narcotics.

Well, there were certainly parts of post Civil War America that could be properly described as a post-apocalypic wasteland. But this was the clearly the fault of state and federal politicians, not the traveling medicine shows and pharmacies.

http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/default...

"The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 was passed after a legally marketed toxic elixir killed 107 people"

1908, when over-the-counter headache pills might kill you:

http://books.google.com/books?id=nssSAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA4-PA6...

I'm pro-decriminalization but anti-snake oil tonics. Legalization allows you to test for purity/adulterants.

http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/news/2010/01/001.shtml

I don't know that anyone is arguing for "No rules". Alcohol is 100% legalized, but you can't be surprised that the soda you bought is really 40 proof.

This iceberg exists only in your head. The fact is that there's no McDonalds alcohol burger, and no McDonalds tobacco burger, and both alcohol and tobacco are legal. Other highly addictive substances - barbiturates, diazepam, etc. - are legal too, even though require prescriptions, but are highly available. No scary McDonalds burgers though. All this data - both on addictiveness and on availability - is widely and easily available. Try to think for yourself instead of parroting propaganda. It's harder, but it's more fun.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com