Hacker News Reader

  > Go figure where we'll be if it gets legalized.

I know this is old news, but Portugal actually tried in 2001 and has some numbers on the positive effects of broad decriminalization of most drugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf

> She was punched in the face five times by someone who wanted his methadone. > Go figure where we'll be if it gets legalized.

Well, presumably he wouldn't have needed methadone, because the drug he was addicted to would've been available for a reasonable price at a known potency.

I don't eat hallucinogenic mushrooms, but I downvoted because you countered someone saying that they should be legalized with an anecdote about your wife encountering a violent opiate addict.

Conversations like this require clarity.

You should ask the poster for clarity, not downvote his post. He stated his opinion and his reason for it. That post deserves to been read, not buried.

Thanks but that appears to be the opposite of how it works when being critical of drug consumption. Check all the posts I made on it and how they have been downvoted.

It's a travesty that rational discussion is impossible.

> It's a travesty that rational discussion is impossible.

It's difficult when you are entirely dismissive of an idea because of a few bad personal experiences. Literally, there is nothing else to your argument besides that. That is neither compelling nor rational.

Furthermore, upon the shaky basis of your beliefs, you want drug use to be forbidden for everyone. Take away the rights of everyone because of a few bad apples.. if you're going to do that, you better present some VERY compelling evidence. You have presented none.

Not only that, but you have ignored the positive effects of drug decriminalization. Portugal was pointed out - nothing from you. Portugal has seen a decrease in new HIV cases, fewer overdoses, and a large uptick in people seeking drug treatment.

And at the end of the day, you're not going to stop people from using drugs. Keeping them illegal doesn't seem to work. Keeping them illegal means people will get bunk drugs, a danger it it's own. Keeping them illegal forces drug users to buy from drug dealers, the chain eventually leading back to drug cartels and violence; if drugs were legal, less money would make its way back to cartels. In the United States, the war on drugs aka prohibition costs a ton of money, puts a ton of people needlessly in prison, and we still have a ton of addicts. It's a lose-lose-lose situation.

On the issue of mushrooms (since opiate addiction is a much different problem), the only thing I'm hearing from you is that ONE guy had his life spiral out of control because of mushrooms. Have you even considered the number of people that mushrooms has helped? I could point to plenty of anecdotes of people who self-treated their depression with psychedelic drugs and were quite successful at it.

Ok let's take this to hand then and write a rational reply.

Every one of us can answer individually only with anecdotes, other than my wife who spent the best part of a decade dealing with drug addicts. They in turn dealt with the police who deal with the problem at the source. There are very few cases of "healthy" drug use, if any out there, at least in the UK as it stands.

Yes I do indeed want drugs to remain forbidden for everyone because the population is generally irresponsible and illogical and will quite happily smoke, drink and destroy each other. That's just the human race; at least 25% of it is self-destructive and the rest of us really want to protect our position. There's nothing wrong wit that. If the Westborough Baptist Church moved in next door, you'd be pissed off right? Well I don't really want my taxes taken and applied to addiction care or rehabilitation that is unnecessary. I want it to be applied to general healthcare to help me through my life.

I'm entitled to think that and vote for it - that's a democracy.

Regarding Portugal, that's quoted a lot but the fact is, if you read into it that they haven't legalised drugs at all. They have introduced possession limits at which point you are prosecuted. Selling drugs is still illegal. That's not blanket legalisation - that's a soundbite used by the pro-drug lobby, so stop quoting that horse shit.

For reference, HN decided I'd posted too much otherwise I'd have replied directly.

Mushrooms may have helped people but that's where recreational drug use and the medical sciences diverge. Anecdotes from the former and studies from the latter so it's little hypocritical saying what I'm saying is an anecdote and ending on one.

I have no problem with medical research being done and former recreational drugs being provided but only after someone has done an unbiased medical study and trialled it to the same standards as other medicines.

> Every one of us can answer individually only with anecdotes

Scientific studies as well.

> They in turn dealt with the police who deal with the problem at the source.

In the United States, this is not the case at all. The police go after black people disproportionately when white people consume drugs at pretty much the same rate.

> There are very few cases of "healthy" drug use, if any out there, at least in the UK as it stands.

No basis/evidence for this belief.

> Well I don't really want my taxes taken and applied to addiction care or rehabilitation that is unnecessary.

Have you considered the possibility that it might be cheaper in the long run to legalize drugs?

> Regarding Portugal, that's quoted a lot but the fact is, if you read into it that they haven't legalised drugs at all.

I specifically said "decriminalization".

> They have introduced possession limits at which point you are prosecuted. Selling drugs is still illegal. That's not blanket legalisation - that's a soundbite used by the pro-drug lobby, so stop quoting that horse shit.

I thought you were writing a rational reply? I nowhere mentioned that Portugal legalized drugs. Decriminalization is, however, a step towards legalization.

And I am going to quote that "horse shit" because, even though it is contrary to your worldview, decriminalization produced many positive effects: http://healthland.time.com/2010/11/23/portugals-drug-experie....

"... less teen drug use, fewer HIV infections, fewer AIDS cases and more drugs seized by law enforcement. Adult drug use rates did slightly increase — but this increase was not greater than that seen in nearby countries that did not change their drug policies. The use of drugs by injection declined."

But that's just horse shit, right?

> Anecdotes from the former and studies from the latter so it's little hypocritical saying what I'm saying is an anecdote and ending on one.

I'm not using anecdotes as the basis for argument for/against drug legalization. I was pointing it out for you to consider since you are.

The UK uses the same policy as Portugal i.e. soft enforcement with the same immediate effects.

Unfortunately the health effects will not be known for perhaps another 15-20 years.

Then we'll see if it worked or not...

> The UK uses the same policy as Portugal i.e. soft enforcement with the same immediate effects.

No, it really doesn't. For very small amounts of cannabis people mght get an on the spot fine (£90) and a warning - this has effects on CRB checks and visa and etc. please stop spreadin the myth that England has decriminalised cannabis.

And it's certainly not thecase for heroin nor crack.

> my wife who spent the best part of a decade dealing with drug addicts.

Here's the problem with the experience of your wife (or anyone in medicine): selection bias. She only sees drug users whose use is a problem.

Even if positive drug experiences outnumbered negative ones ten-to-one, a hundred-to-one or even a million-to-one your wife would still have the same subjective impression: that all the drug users she sees are people who can't handle it. Same thing with the police officers. If somebody does drugs a few times and finds it a positive life experience, they probably don't go to a hospital or deal with cops.

Steve Jobs claimed taking LSD was one of the most important experiences in his life - he took it a dozen or so times (and smoked pot weekly for about 5 years). Many other people have made major creative breakthroughs or used these drugs to successfully deal with PTSD or depression. There is an upside. Your wife's experience by its very nature will never encounter that upside. So what she tells you is data, but not definitive data. You need to put it in a larger context to reach conclusions...which is where large-scale studies, Portugal and the rest comes in.

"It's a travesty that rational discussion is impossible."

You'd have to offer some first. All I see is hysterical ranting coupled with bog-standard downvote whinging.

You're being downvoted because you're hitting nerves (including mine). Same as if you were to say my uncle was beaten up by a gay person, so homosexuality should be banned. I realize this isn't a fair comparison, but it works as another example of a statement that would offend people by suggesting their basic human rights be revoked (as is the current state of drug prohibition). Why is it anyone's right to impose rules on other peoples' bodies?

Alcohol leads to plenty of crimes, but look how prohibition worked out? Also, in the case of your friend who had schizophrenia triggered, does your friend know that the drug they were taking was what they believed it to be? Likely not. Another side effect of drug prohibition is that it leaves no place for quality control in the underground drugs market.

The conversation needs clarity, not his post. His post was clear, but completely irrelevant to the conversation. Its claim that the "pro-drug crowds" downvoted him was also hostile and inaccurate.

It deserved to be buried.

> Another edit: work in a psych ward. 95% of people in there are violent addicts of various substances. This is not a coincidence.

Do you realise how stigmatising this sounds?

You're making links between mental ill health and violence (people with a MH illness are more likely to be the victim than perpetrator of violence); and you're saying all mental illness is drug related when it obviously is not. You're not correcting for people who had mental illness before they started taking drugs and are self-medicating.

The fact that your ward if full of people in terrible states shows how pisspoor treatment is for peope with mental illness in England.

Psilocybin is not addictive. Therefore, your argument bears no meaning in this discussion.

Also, this story is about treating addiction with psilocybin.

Perhaps it could be used to treat opiate addiction.

"Edit: 1 downvote from the pro-drugs crowd."

And some more from the "tired of seeing people complaining about downvotes crowd". Sometimes opinions are just crap. Yours was. Get over it.