Hacker News Reader

Comment by Geminidog | Hacker News Reader

There's certainly a lot of benefits of legalizing cocaine or heroin. But legalization also increases exposure to say like kids.

I know I sipped some alcohol before I turned 21, what if I tried shooting up on heroin or sniffing coke? I think the story here is much more complicated then "legalize" it.

Certainly the drug war was a huge mistake but completely legalizing drugs isn't exactly the right solution either.

The current opioid epidemic is the result of legalization through medical usage.

I'm also willing to bet that people who support complete legalization are users either casual or frequent (not necessarily addicts) so there's a personal agenda going on here as well.

Is there anyone who is completely drug free who supports total legalization?

View on HN

I don't think this will happen. Heroin is not cool at all, nobody does that willingly. Coke is a bit more common in certain scenes like big business.

But really, whoever wants to do these drugs is doing it already. Legalising is not suddenly going to make people want to use them. In the Netherlands cannabis is legal but it's a really uncool thing to do. Nobody wants to be a stoney. Most people try it once or twice and move on. Others get addicted yes, but really they're going to get it one way or another.

There's also a big range between legalising or promoting something. It can stay forbidden but just remove the huge penalties. Because that's what drives those prices up: It attracts the most unsavory types that are willing to take the heavy risk. It drives the huge profits they make and the violence.

And yes I've never used any drugs outside of alcohol (which I use infrequently). Not even weed.

Interesting, I didn't know how unpopular cannabis is in the Netherlands. I'm not sure if the numbers I found are very comparable, but it seems like about 5% of adults used it at least once last year in NL compared to over 20% in US.

I don't think legalization has affected usage much in the US either, it seems you're right that it's determined by other cultural factors rather than laws.

It aligns with the Dutch people I've met as well - it's surprising!

> Heroin is not cool at all, nobody does that willingly.

People with chronic pain?

> Coke is a bit more common in certain scenes like big business.

It's really common in many other circles as well, I think you might be surprised.

> Legalising is not suddenly going to make people want to use them.

Pretty much yes. It's in fact the opposite in many cases. I remember being really interested in drugs (especially psychedelics) in my teenage years precisely because of the associated seemingly neurotic stigma there was (and to a wide extent still is) around the subject of drugs. If there hadn't been any "drugs are bad" campaigns (in school or otherwise) it probably wouldn't have caught my interest in the same way. I knew there was something to it, and I certainly wasn't gonna let laws stop me from finding out what, and I was right.

There are lots you can learn about yourself and the mind with various substances. Individuals experimenting with self-discovery shouldn't be illegal. Criminal cartels on the other hand are a whole other topic of discussion.

>Heroin is not cool at all, nobody does that willingly.

Last I heard, heroin induces pleasure and euphoria. People do use it willingly.

> I'm also willing to bet that people who support complete legalization are users either casual or frequent (not necessarily addicts) so there's a personal agenda going on here as well.

this is kinda unfair and also close to an ad hominem argument. people don't generally advocate for anything unless they have some sort of personal stake. I don't currently consume anything that isn't legally available, though college was a different story. I support legalization because several of my friends have already died from tainted drugs, not because my habits would change if more drugs were legal.

in practice, I find the "think of the children" argument quite weak here. when I was in high school, alcohol and cigarettes were far harder to obtain than almost anything illicit.

edit, just noticed this:

> The current opioid epidemic is the result of legalization through medical usage.

how can you even compare abusing the trust people have in their physicians to push drugs whose risk profile the manufacturer lied about to legalizing them for recreational use?

In Europe alcohol and cigarettes are normal thing on high schools.

don't get me wrong, they were common in my US high school too. but if you wanted cigarettes, you had to find a senior who was already 18. for alcohol, you needed someone with a fake ID or an older sibling/friend (since the US drinking age is 21). in contrast, weed/lsd/mdma/coke were sold straight out of people's lockers and cars. alcohol and cigarettes required planning, but you could buy anything popular and illegal without leaving campus.

>how can you even compare abusing the trust people have in their physicians to push drugs whose risk profile the manufacturer lied about to legalizing them for recreational use?

I can do a comparison because it's factually correct. I am not talking about physicians lying I'm talking about easier access.

it's apples to oranges. you are talking about doctors endorsing certain drugs and writing prescriptions based on fraudulent claims by the manufacturer. how can this possibly inform a reasonable discussion on legalization?

No it's apples to apples. I'm not talking about doctors endorsing drugs... that's what you added. I'm talking about easier access. If I wanted an opioid fix one avenue is pain medication, yes it's through a doctor but this is not starting usage through endorsement it's using a doctor as a new doorway for access.

The epidemic in the US is caused by endorsement AND easier access, but I'm not comparing the endorsement part, just the easier access. The endorsement is indeed a separate phenomenon.

"Is there anyone who is completely drug free who supports total legalization? "

Weed is decriminalized to the point that it allmost does not matter. And this is the only drug I do occasionally. (and not at all since some time)

And I do support total legalization.

Out of the philosophical point of view, that adult people should own their own body and life. And what I do with my body, is my buisness and not anyone else.

How can I think of myself as free, when other people regulate what I am allowed to consume?

And from movies, literature and some people in real life, I know what coke and heroin does to people, so I have no intentions of consuming them. Same with alcohol btw.

But if other people think its beneficial to them - I would try to convince of the big risks not worth the effort. But ultimately I would (and did) it accept as their choice. Even if that means they destroy their life. It is their life, after all. This usually does mean tragedy, I am painfully aware of that - but with the criminalization it means even bigger tragedy.

I don't think it's that simple. It's like the freedom to flaunt not wearing a face mask. Your freedom can actually hurt you and society in general. China for example a country without as many freedoms has handled covid way better then the US do in no part to less freedoms.

Additionally specifically for the drug thing we already draw lines in legality even for people like you who promote total freedom. Should a 5 year old be allowed to sniff coke and shoot up on heroin just for his freedom? Well he's a kid... and doesn't know any better so he needs to be controlled.

Does that same logic apply to adults who don't know any better who walk around without masks? Where is the line drawn? Why do kids have to be restricted but not adults that don't know any better, what affords the child the "privilege" of more restriction?

If you legalize heroin and coke you are definitely going to reduce drug related violence and the lacing drugs with impurities but you will increase the amount of addicts and regular users including users who start using at childhood.

"Why do kids have to be restricted but not adults "

Maturity. But I also want to restrict children as little as possible, so they can learn to deal with freedom and self responsibility as soon as possible.

Up to the point, that they fully take responsibility over their body and life. I don't think that this automatically happens at 18 or 21. Some are ready at 14. Some never will.

"but you will increase the amount of addicts and regular users including users who start using at childhood. "

And this is not a fact and not covered by statistics of ares that did legalisation/decriminalisation.

Because avaiability is very high today already with the illegal status. Take away the temptation of the taboo for rebelling teens and you get even lower numbers. And you can more easily help those who still fall for it.

>Maturity. But I also want to restrict children as little as possible, so they can learn to deal with freedom and self responsibility as soon as possible.

See maturity is a vague term this is where the controversy lies because adults can be immature too. What is the logic that gives immature kids this "privilege" over an immature adult.

>Because avaiability is very high today already with the illegal status. Take away the temptation of the taboo for rebelling teens and you get even lower numbers. And you can more easily help those who still fall for it.

This is not a fact either. In fact it's very convoluted logic. Something that is illegal is used more over something that is legal because of rebellion? It's so against common sense.

I decriminalize murder, murder goes down. I decriminalize theft, theft goes down. I decriminalize corruption, corruption goes down.

None of those statements make sense.

But suddenly this one does:

I decriminalize drugs, drug use goes down.

Seems not just illogical but delusional. A convenient excuse to promote a personal agenda.

"See maturity is a vague term this is where the controversy lies because adults can be immature too"

It is, but it is still legally clearly defined who is consent and who is not, because of insanity etc. (the problems of this process is a seperate issue)

"This is not a fact either. "

It is a fact that usage went down with decriminalisation. The other part was a explanation. You are free to disagree with that explanation and offer your own.

And the other part:

murder and theft is directly hurting others.

Drug taking is at most directly hurting yourself.

But feel free to discuss your personal agenda of war on drugs with someone else.

You don't seem to want to have a real discussion, thats probably why your coment was voted to death.

Anyway: the sources I thought to be common knowledge for anyone interested in the topic:

Here a ressource from the german parliament (from their scientific service):

https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/675688/4ba9aed6de8e96...

"DieDrogenpolitik der Niederlande führte zu einem Rückgangder Konsumenten harter Drogen auf ein Niveau, das unterhalb des Niveaus der meisten Länder Westeuropas und den USAlag. Zwischen 1979 und 1994 sank dieKonsumprävalenz in Bezug auf harte Drogen von 15 auf 2,5Prozent"

roughly translated, Consumption prevalence of hard drugs in netherlands: 15 % down to 2.5 % after liberalisation.

And to the other point, well, just because you cannot imagine other people wanting things not just for themself, but for other people, it still happens.

Or if you want to wrap it around: sure, I want to have legalization for myself. Not because I want to shoot heroin (I could do that already today), but because I want a saver and healthier world to live in.

War on drugs is a real war. Illegal market prices created narcos where only those prospered who were the most ruthless and strongly armed.

With legalisation they suddenly would be out of income. Which surely does not suddenly mean peace, when the weapons and mentality is still there, but in the mid or long term they would vanish.

And columbia and mexico could have peace. And all those poor junkie devils around the world could get real help (from the saved money of the war) and not prosecution.

You accused me of being secretly a heroin junkie.

This is not HN style of discussion.

(I suppose you ended up on dangs watchlist or even got shadowbanned, as not many people else read this thread now, if at all)

And this was the main point:

so you could "defeat my cointerpoint" to no one wants total legislation who is not an addict.

So start again with that. I never did any hard drugs. I have no intentions of doing so.

I do have maybe small personal gains with total legislation of marijuhana - but no personal gains from advocating total legislation.

Au contraire.

This actually hurts marijuhana legislation efforts as people like you just assume I am a coke/heroin/meth addict. And feel pushed to keep things forbidden alltogether.

People are more open to legal ganja, but not at all to legal hard drugs.

So if I would just want to incremental my personal life a bit, I would jump on the train of most pro weed legalisation advocats saying "yes yes, hard drugs are bad and should stay banned. But ganja is so soft, much less harmful than alcohol, so please please legalize it so I can be stoned all they and worry less."

Well no. First of all I know weed is a dangerous drug, too. But I simply want to decide for myself, when are the times it is beneficial to me and when not. Likewise with other substances.

And when I claim that right for myself. I think it is fair to claim it for others too, even though I disagree with them about the benefits of coke for example.

So my point of view on legalization is altruistic. Not egoistic.

Did that change your point of view a bit?

I actually think so. Not that you advocate legalization, but that you probably wont make that point again.

> You accused me of being secretly a heroin junkie.

This is an outright lie and lying is not part of HN rules.

I used heroin as an example. You may not be using heroin but I'm pretty sure you're certainly using some kind of illegal drug or legal drug on the regular. You have personal stake in the game. But that's just a guess, I'm certainly not accusing you of it, you can say you're totally drug free and that's fine, I won't say you're wrong.

>This actually hurts marijuhana legislation efforts as people like you just assume I am a coke/heroin/meth addict. And feel pushed to keep things forbidden alltogether.

Did I push this? So you do use mj on the regular. It's not a "hard" drug but it shows you have a biased stake in the game.

Anyway I'm not pushing anything. My agenda as I said before. Is I don't know.

>This actually hurts marijuhana legislation efforts as people like you just assume I am a coke/heroin/meth addict. And feel pushed to keep things forbidden alltogether.

So you admit that this is your bias.

>(I suppose you ended up on dangs watchlist or even got shadowbanned, as not many people else read this thread now, if at all)

I can flip privacy setting on and off. I made a personal post just for you.

There are modern current examples of how decriminalization has positively affected countries where it's been tried. See Portugal where high school age students reported a massive drop in people trying the hard stuff for the first time, overdoses and new outbreaks of HIV and HEP C were drastically decreased, and money was spent on treatment and outreach rather than drug crackdowns which inevitably led some to get clean and others to lead more stable lifestyles.

https://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356/Mixed-Results-For-P...

Portugal is an interesting one. But you pain a one sided story.

So basically problematic usage has gone down. But regular legalized decriminalized recreational usage has gone up. So I picture it like coffee. More addicts everywhere but it's legal. Replace coffee with heroin and it's pretty much the same picture.

Is it better to live in a society where everyone does a cup of heroin in the morning and it's totally normal and no one is dysfunctional or is it better to have the heroin relegated to a few violent problematic users?

It makes sense. You decriminalize a crime you get less crimes. Maybe changing perspectives is the solution but then again maybe not.

In many places kids can buy heroin more easily than alcohol. You know dealer won't ask for an id.

But probably only the worst would actually sell to kids.

Dealers are not all fucked up devils trying to lure people into total submission.

This type surely exist, but I never met one. (but I also never was into hard drugs)

I was just hit in a head on collision at 6 AM by a drunk driver. The driver was buying meth in our small town, and returning to their small town.

The dealer sold meth to somebody who was obviously far, far beyond the point of being able to drive, got their money, and sent them back on the road merrily. This dealer is also selling to somebody who obviously has almost no money (besides the bit scraped together to pay for the drugs), was just released from prison, and is addicted to both hard drugs and alcohol.

Ya, I'd say dealers are pretty much scum of the earth.

Sorry to hear that. But meth is a very low category, probably the lowest of junkies.

I know only weed/psychedelic dealers. That kind that does not try to drain you, but even tell you, if they think you come too often for your own good .. they are definitely not the scum of the earth.

When something is legal people will be much more nonchalant about it and a kid will definitely have easier access to it outside of buying it from a dealer.

I don't think people particularly care whether something is legal or not when it comes to drugs. It's not like when heroin becomes legal everyone will start to take it. And even if somehow a kid obtains heroin from a legal source they'll know dosage strength and doctors will know what to do. If you buy from a dealer you can't know what exactly it is. Many deaths were caused by accidental overdose when dealer added cheap Chinese fentanyl to make it "stronger" but was too lazy to mix it properly. When you buy legal alcohol you can be sure you won't get methanol poisoning or ingest hand sanitizer.

>I don't think people particularly care whether something is legal or not when it comes to drugs.

Yeah so instead of hiding it in a locker I leave all over the table and my 9 year old kid comes in and steals it. I'm talking about that ease of access.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com