Hacker News Reader

Comment by sgrove | Hacker News Reader

Upvoted for the possibilities.

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.

View on HN

> but I can think of a number of business opportunities not only in legal narcotics trade, but also supporting industries

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.

I don't believe these discussions are very useful, or in general appropriate for HN; but I'll quickly disagree with your statement that drugs should continue to be illegal. If someone wants to do drugs that is their choice, there is no reason that people below a certain age are prohibited much like alcohol and tobacco.

I would be fine with this if hard drugs weren't "no return tickets".

They aren't no return tickets, many people can experiment with all sorts of dangerous drugs and be able to stop using them.

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%).

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k8/newUseDepend/newUseDepend.cfm

Lots of things have "no return tickets" and yet we don't make them illegal.

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.

I have tried coke, crack and crystal meth a few times. I did not become addicted and decided that I didn't like it and that the chance of addiction was not worth it, so I stopped. If I had been thrown in jail as a result of one of those experiences, I doubt I would be a contributing member of society today.

(Another "I don't like these conversations on HN but can't help from responding to hysterics" post)

A lot of people are not that strong, sir. Otherwise, we would not have that many addicts, right?

Do you mean "a lot of people" like the last three US presidents? Obama did coke. Clinton smoked pot. It's widely believed that Bush Jr. also did cocaine.

Thank you for your honesty. If more people talked openly about non-addictive ends to drug use, people's perception would be much different than it is now. It's a self-perpetuating problem because the negative social stigma prevents people from discussing their experiences openly.

The assumption most people seem to base their conclusions on is that making drugs illegal reduces consumption. All empirical evidence so far - even from less biased sources than the wildly free-market Cato institute - shows that this is not the case. In countries where more drugs are legal, consumption actually goes down.

Drug use is a facet of human existence that needs to be managed, not a virus to be exterminated...

> The assumption most people seem to base their conclusions on is that making drugs illegal reduces consumption. All empirical evidence so far - even from less biased sources than the wildly free-market Cato institute - shows that this is not the case. In countries where more drugs are legal, consumption actually goes down.

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.

So the laws should continue to make one a criminal for becoming addicted? The laws only serve to make people like you feel better (ala sticking head in sand) and to line the pockets of drug cartels.

> So the laws should continue to make one a criminal for becoming addicted?

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.

No it has actually, rather clearly, been shown that in countries like the Netherlands where drug tolerance is much higher, it has become much more acceptable for people using opiates to enter rehab.

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?

> 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.

I think people might be more inclined to discuss this with you if you were willing to actually address their points. The post you are responding to makes the claim that decriminalization increases the percentage of drug users who seek rehabilitation. Your argument completely ignores this point. Basically, in response to "premise A therefore conclusion B", you respond, "premise A therefore conclusion C", where B and C are totally unrelated.

Kicking heroin addiction is nowhere near as hard or as dangerous as kicking alcohol addiction.

If it's true alcohol addiction, but with alcohol psychological addiction usually presents long before physical addiction has completely taken over. Essentially heroin might kill you if you're a long time addict, but alcohol is pretty much guaranteed to kill you if you're a long time addict.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com