Hacker News Reader

Comment by IMTDb | Hacker News Reader

The article talks about decriminalization, not legalization.

Decriminalization means that you are still not allowed to sell the product in a legitimate business. If you get caught with it, instead of going in front of a judge - possibly getting a criminal record and jail time - you will get a fine and no record. This lowers the priority for the police and prosecutor to track you down.

I think the US should really start thinking about decriminalizing the use of all drugs. It's crazy to destroy live for use of psychoactive substances. But legalization is a whole other story, the opioid crisis would look pale in comparison to the aftermath of selling high quality MDMA/Cocaine/Heroin with a doctors note.

View on HN

I believe it's Portugal that has very successfully triaged decriminalisation of many or all drugs

> It's crazy to destroy live for use of psychoactive substances

No, it's not. Those who purchase drugs directly fund illegal gangs and cartels, who kill, maim, and torture people. Over the course of years of drug use, drug users have likely funded dozens of murders, mutilations, wars, etc, for nothing other than personal pleasure.

It's fine to think drugs should be decriminalized, but to claim it's a victimless crime or isn't destructive, is simply ignoring reality.

>> It's crazy to destroy live for use of psychoactive substances

>No, it's not.

So it's acceptable to destroy lives for use of psychoactive substances?

I don't think you meant that exactly, I guess.

> Those who purchase drugs directly fund illegal gangs and cartels

If the problem is their illegality then perhaps legalising drugs will ergo stop funding them.

Just crying 'illegal' means nothing if their very illegality is the problem, that the laws are unjust, such as the all-too-legal apartheid in south africa.

If it is then legalise. If there's more that's causing the problem then we need to pin that down, but 'illegal' alone is not - IMO - enough.

If by 'destroy lives' you mean duly punish those who willingly and materially support murder, torture, and lawlessness for the sake of their addiction, yes.

> If the problem is their illegality then perhaps legalising drugs will ergo stop funding them.

I used to believe this, but California's experience in Marijuana legalization and the subsequent wave of terror in Humuboldt county indicate that gangs are not interested in becoming legitimate businesses. Two things happen: real businesses set up and are threatened by gang violence and gangs set up seemingly legitimate fronts that continue to funnel money.

> Just crying 'illegal' means nothing if their very illegality is the problem, that the laws are unjust, such as the all-too-legal apartheid in south africa.

But the laws are not unjust, it is a well accepted legal reality that governments the world over have a right to control substances, especially drugs. There are many drugs you cannot receive without a prescription and most people believe this is not only ethically sound but ethically necessary.

Regardless, buying drugs from people who you know will use the money for drug wars (pretty much every illegal drug today) is still morally wrong, independent of the state of the law. If you chose to buy your hamburgers from drug lords, I'd think you guilty of the same thing.

> If by 'destroy lives' you mean duly punish those who willingly and materially support murder, torture, and lawlessness for the sake of their addiction, yes.

To your eyes it's one thing. To mine it might be another. I have a strong feeling the government is to blame for creating this.

> and the subsequent wave of terror in Humuboldt county

If you wish to say this at least post some links. The ones I've found do support what you say up to a point eg <https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/califor.... But it is an unstable situation at the moment as the story indicates, and it also says "found that after medical marijuana was legalized in California, violent crime fell 15 percent." (but temporarily it seems)

> But the laws are not unjust, it is a well accepted legal reality that governments the world over have a right to control substances

There we disagree utterly. Please see an earlier post of mine <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20165080>.

And 'well accepted' isn't justified here. And 'have a right' I don't automatically accept.

> most people believe this is not only ethically sound but ethically necessary

Sigh. Justify 'most'

> Regardless, buying drugs from people who you know will use the money for drug wars (pretty much every illegal drug today) is still morally wrong

Yep. I would like to buy from a source that is well regulated and does not feed crime. We agree.

> If you chose to buy your hamburgers from drug lords, I'd think you guilty of the same thing.

Yep. Difference is, I have a choice not to.

I think we're so far apart we can't possibly agree here.

> To your eyes it's one thing. To mine it might be another. I have a strong feeling the government is to blame for creating this.

I actually agree the government is to blame for the ability of gangs to control the drug market, by making them illegal. However, I choose to pursue policy decisions based on the situation right now, not the situation that could have been. Decriminalization will not magically make this issue go away, anymore than withdrawing from the Middle East will mean America never has to deal with that part of the world again.

> Yep. I would like to buy from a source that is well regulated and does not feed crime. We agree.

Certainly, and in the absence of a legal, moral way to acquire them, you should probably abstain, independent of what you think the government ought to do. Because the alternative is heinous.

> Decriminalization will not magically make this issue go away

Perhaps not. It’s complicated either way. But legalizing alcohol did remove the bootlegging gangs

Indeed, it's complicated. One thing that is interesting to note though is that, while Prohibition is frequently cast historically as a failure, it did lead to a significant reduction in alcohol consumption, as seen in the drop in cirrhosis cases. Thus, legalization also needs to be ready to handle the inevitably greater public health risks.

The alternative is buying straight from the source on dark net markets, so you're sure you're not financing crime.

So why not selling drugs in pharmacy, so cartels go extinct? I think that simply selling it always slightly cheaper below black market rate for addicts on prescription is possibility to reduce issue.

I used to be okay with legalization because i thought this was true, but experience does not show that. Gangs will want to have their money no matter what. California legalized marijuana (which I think is fine), but we should be realistic about what happens when you do that. Gangs do not go away. They continue to fight for their market share and 'right' to siphon money away to their wars: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/califor...

Moreover, fundamentally, these gangs want to engage in criminal business. If you legalize drugs, it's not like there's no more business sectors gangs could engage in. They will continue to exist because there will always be people who do not want to follow the law. Drug legalization may help (although we don't know that), but that doesn't obviate the need for enforcement. More importantly, it does not exculpate those who fund drug wars as some kind of political statement or because it makes them feel better. That is still morally indefensible.

You'd still be removing a source of income from gangs, and a large one.

Great, then they'll just extort more store owners?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com