The success of drug decriminalization in Portugal
salon.com
salon.com
Well it is not. Only consumption and possession of small amounts is. And that is the case in a lot of European countries.
Badly written article for leaving out important facts. Author obviously biased.
It's a (almost confusingly) controversial topic, but there is a lot of good that could come out decriminalization. I've never done any drugs myself, but I can think of a number of business opportunities not only in legal narcotics trade, but also supporting industries. If the objective, empirical evidence suggests that it does not present society with an immediate nor a long-term health threat, then the economic and cultural benefits would be exciting.
That said, it will be a considerably long time before metaphors like "The war on drugs" are dropped in the US. People are passionate about it here.
Like making children addicted and profiting afterwards? Legalizing drugs like heroin, crack or coke is just sick. Just have a look at what meth has done.
> I've never done any drugs myself,
Talk to one who has, then. It's going to alter your thoughts.
From:http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/532/most_first_time_drug... The research report from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) found that only 1% of first-time users of inhalants and tranquilizers were dependent a year later. For hallucinogens and sedatives, the figure was 2%; for pain relievers and alcohol, 3%. The drug with the highest number of dependent users a year after first use was heroin (13%), followed by crack cocaine (9%), marijuana (6%), stimulants (5%), and powder cocaine (4%).
There was a previous discussion about the rationality of intellectuals. (For the record, I pointed out that they're feces flinging monkeys like the rest of us.)
Let me suggest that the "rational" basis for drug law is "do the realized benefits of the restrictions outweigh the incurred costs". Prison is a cost. Folks who don't use because of the law are a benefit. Folks who still use aren't.
(Another "I don't like these conversations on HN but can't help from responding to hysterics" post)
Drug use is a facet of human existence that needs to be managed, not a virus to be exterminated...
We have empirical evidence on cannabis, true. In that case (Netherlands) statistics say that "everything is roughly better", but differences are so small that it's difficult to say it's due to the drug laws.
We do not have empirical evidence on drugs that make you physically and/or psychologically addicted after one shot.
And there should be no toying with this. Getting of cannabis after years of using it is a piece of cake compared to getting of heroin after less than five shots. It's a totally different story.
Sorry, where did I say that? I am from Germany, drug use is not illegal here, only possession, trade and production. I am very well aware that this is a good thing.
> The laws only serve to make people like you feel better (ala sticking head in sand) and to line the pockets of drug cartels.
Stop judging me on your misinterpretations of my writings, please.
The process of getting off heroin is extremely hard, in fact going cold turkey can potentially kill most addicts. So without acceptance the only way off heroin is strength of will (and a lot of luck) or death. With expansive and non-judgmental rehabilitation the process becomes easier, and you'd be surprised that the sheer disgust most heroin users have at themselves when they've got dry is enough to keep them away from the drug for life.
Most heroin addicts, between the time the high dies and before the low begins, hate themselves for doing the drug. They aren't corrupt evil people, they're people who were stupid and didn't necessarily have to be weak willed to get addicted to it. Many people get much more help for being much more stupid and much weaker, so why don't we help the people who really need the help?
And this is why production, possession and trade of hard drugs has to stay illegal and has to be prosecuted. Because most drug victims are stupid at the point of time they try it first.
Then again, I am one of those people who doesn't do drugs, drink, smoke, or eat processed foods, because I understand that it's extremely expensive (in that you lose long-term quality of life / life expectancy - the single most important non-renewable resource for a living creature); I am obviously a minority...
There are a ton of packaged assumptions and a nice non-sequitir in just this one little sentence. That's sloppy rhetoric. It would take a page to unpack and discuss them all with clear thinking.
>"Then again, I am one of those people who doesn't do drugs, drink, smoke, or eat processed foods"
Probably most of the people that advocate drug legalization aren't regular users, and many of them have never used drugs. Rather, they support legalization because of the effects of prohibition on society. I wouldn't impute selfish motives to people that disagree with you without understanding them first.