Hacker News Reader

Comment by standardUser | Hacker News Reader

I don't get it. Someone smoking something doesn't bother me, unless maybe if I can smell it, then it bothers me very, very slightly. The same way someone drinking a beer in public doesn't bother me. How could it?

If sleeping on the street is a crime, enforce that crime. Don't pretend that if we magically banned all of the hypothetical reasons people might commit that crime that it will eliminate that crime. We can't enforce every-fucking-thing - and we have proven conclusively that we can never effectively ban popular street drugs - so let's focus instead on crimes with victims and enforce them more aggressively.

View on HN

Imagine if you walk down 1 block of a street and there's 3 people smoking crack. They aren't sleeping on the street, or breaking any other law, but they are high on crack.

Do you think people feel safe on this street? Just because you personally may feel safe, consider that you may be personally blessed with youth and health. Does an elderly woman with a cane and a purse feel safe?

People high on crack are unpredictable. They may try to rob you because that was the last crack rock they had, and they are also out of money.

And if people don't feel safe on the street, then people who can start to move away. Then you have a 'drain' problem on a societal level.

'People high on crack are unpredictable."

Do you believe your own propaganda? That's the most simplistic, nonsensical, DARE-level logic I have seen in this comment thread yet.

Yeah I absolutely believe it. If you were riding a public bus, and you had the option of sitting next to 1) a person on crack or 2) a person not on crack, which do you choose?

Also, how about you present a counter position to the argument? Otherwise next time just type “u r dumb” and save yourself a couple of characters in typing.

Ban alcohol then, because I'd rather sit next to sober people than those who aren't.

Ban videogames too. And walking around with hockey sticks.

What a absurdly basic argument. And you thought it was poignant?

Believe it or not if you go out in the street and talk to real people, you are going to find that the vast majority of them find (playing video games) to be in a significantly different category than (smoking crack). You don’t have to believe me about it. Just speak with your neighbors and conduct your own poll.

Btw, yes, public intoxication is against the law in many places in the world. Pretty standard rule.

I probably go out in the world and talk to more real people than you, hence I don't have to make a poor argument.

My neighbours also are not particularly relevant to form a good argument. If my neighbours are all staunch believers in some deity, doesn't mean it's a good argument to believe in one.

> Btw, yes, public intoxication is against the law in many places in the world. Pretty standard rule.

So is homosexuality. Doesn't mean it's a positive thing or that it solves the problem it's supposed to solve for society. Unless you just want the "ugly people out of your way", in which case killing them could also work, but you probably would have some argument against that, but prison seems fine, right?

The world is full of things that can't be eliminated, but we benefit greatly from reducing their occurrence.

How do we benefit? My country has a drug policy too. One part of it is that asthma inhalers require a prescription. Is the world a better place because I can't legally buy an asthma inhaler without spending a lot of money on doctors visits? I would've appreciated having one on quite a few occasions, but not enough to pay for all the doctors visits.

You see the benefit of unrestricted access to medicines but you completely ignore the harms. That's one sided thinking.

The key complaint above as I read it is the cost of both the drug and the doctor's visit.

It's entirely possible to have chaep prescription asthma medication regulated by low cost national health care subsidised doctors appointments.

My complaint is: why can't I just buy the asthma inhaler without any kind of subsidy? I know I have asthma, I know how to use an inhaler, but I'm simply not allowed to. Instead I just have to hope for the best when breathing gets difficult.

You don't know that you have asthma because you haven't been diagnosed by a doctor.

>You don't know that you have asthma because you haven't been diagnosed by a doctor.

Sure I do. A doctor has told me as much on at least two different occasions. Once when I was a young child and again later.

But because I lost my insurance I didn't get treatment in-between, so I have to get rediagnosed. Jim other words, I'm just going to be relying on caffeine when breathing gets hard.

You're right, in your case you shouldn't need to see a doctor. However, that doesn't mean that there should be free access to any prescription drug. The system has serious issues that cause great harm to people like you. And we don't know what harm would exist with unrestricted access. Given the average person's confidence compared to their intelligence, and the effects of cognitive dissonance, bias, other thinking errors, it's reasonable to assume it will be worse.

Where I live pharmacists can diagnose and prescribe for some conditions. Other countries have similar systems that allow lower risk medications to be prescribed by people other than doctors for low risk conditions.

Ultimately, if you can't afford the doctors visit, I wonder if you can afford the medication. At least some asthma medication is expensive.

The deal in Australia (public health service) is that depending upon the level of severity of a persons asthma doctors want to physically check on patients every three to six months .. if you've been prescribed certain kinds of treatment you get months long "refill prescriptions" that ultimately have to be renewed by a doctor (although I believe that pharmacists can extend arefill prescription if you tell them why you haven't been able to drop in and see the doctor).

https://www.nationalasthma.org.au/understanding-asthma/treat...

AS I understand it you can get an inhaler most of the time w/out seeing a doctor, you can get an inhaler if you really need it, but you do need to see a doctor to keep getting an inhaler so that the progression of your symptoms can be checked.

Australia loves epidemiology and keeping tabs on treatments, progressions and outcomes.

It's very little to do with spying on individuals and very much to do with keeping tabs on broad health trends and tailoring bulk medication orders, etc.

Regardless what the intent is, the outcome is that I'm relying on caffeine and sleeping in a semi-seated position when breathing gets too difficult. Luckily, this is rare because I know to avoid aerobic exercise and being in dusty rooms. I'm sure I'm not the only one either. And for people in my situation it essentially means that relief for these issues doesn't exist.

Are you in Australia, if so you really shouldn't be in that position of requiring asthma medication but not having any available.

If you're not in Australia then the intent of Australian health care procedures doesn't apply.

Either way you might consider actively lobbying to change the behaviour of whatever health care sytem you have.

I'm not in Australia, but the premise is still the same everywhere in the world where these kinds of medications are illegal. The idea behind it is that it forces you through a doctor, but in practice it just means the medication has less availability to people that could use it.

I don't see the point in lobbying. I've long understood that any opinion I have about how society should be run is worthless because people might agree in detail, but they won't agree once the scope is broadened into actually doing something.

Somebody comes out with a story about how somebody was too stupid to use the thing correctly and ended up hurt, so it should've stayed banned and that's it. People see the negative sides of taking action, but they rarely consider the cost of inaction. I don't even think the problem is with politicians, but rather just people.

> Someone smoking something doesn't bother me, unless maybe if I can smell it, then it bothers me very, very slightly.

Read up about the dangers of second and third degree smoking.

> The same way someone drinking a beer in public doesn't bother me. How could it?

Perhaps those who've had family or friends killed by drunk driving or drunken homicide might have something else to say.

>Perhaps those who've had family or friends killed by drunk driving or drunken homicide might have something else to say.

A guy I used to date was rear-ended while waiting at a red light by someone who was texting while driving. It was an extremely serious wreck (the person who hit him did not brake at all, ge was so absorbed in his phone), and my ex was lucky to survive it.

But people texting on their phones in public places doesn't bother him. He is not in favor of making SMS illegal. That would be utterly absurd.

Yes, but these people thrive on inflicting sadistic "treatments" and "remedies" on everyone more vulnerable than themselves.

They're not interested in responsible driving, they're just looking for any excuse for their sadism.

Note that the discussion isn't even about dangerous driving, that's a complete tangent.

It's about whether drug use _per se_ is criminalized. Not even legal, just whether the remedy for drug use should be help or punishment. Portugal never decriminalize or legalised vehicular homicide.

That sure is what it looks like.

Texting while driving isn't illegal in your country?

Of course it's illegal. So is drinking and driving.

But texting in public is legal, and having a beer in public is legal. Just because something is dangerous while driving doesn't mean it's harmful under all other circumstances.

> Perhaps those who've had family or friends killed by drunk driving or drunken homicide might have something else to say.

The offence in that case isn't the drink, it's the driving. Maybe we should ban driving.

I also mentioned homicides in my post, not just driving, do you want to ban human relationships as well? The dangers of alcohol at all levels have been quite well documented.

Perhaps those who've had family or friends killed by drunk driving or drunken homicide might have something else to say.

Maybe, but they aren't the folks we should be listening to. I don't drive: I'm pretty sure I'll be OK drinking a beer in public. My decision shouldn't be influenced by those folks.

I don't see many of those people pushing a robust, fare-free public transportation system to help with those either.

This is the approach of trying to address the symptoms and not the cause. I also mention homicides in my post, but some people are conveniently ignoring it. The dangers of alcohol have been well documented.

In general, me drinking a beer doesn't harm you, though. At all. And this is true for the vast majority of people.

I suspect you think the cause is the alcohol: But realistically, it is that people don't always plan ahead. As far as drunk driving is concerned, robust transport would be a step in the right direction. Especially in the countryside and small towns - in the US, these are filled with bars but no transport.

The link with homocides isn't nearly as clear. More people drink alcohol than other drugs and from what I could find, it might be a part of a series of events than anything else, at least in the US. If it doesn't hold to other places, then I'll dismiss it. Prohibiting alcohol in public simply isn't going to help, and we've seen what complete prohibition does. Do you have an actual solution that doesn't drive it underground? I'd personally start with improving people's lives in general so that there is less stress all around - at least that stuff we can do something about.

All it takes is one drunk driving incident or one drunken homicide incident to turn your life around, which I hope no one has to face. Majority or no majority, the facts and statistics speak quite well about the topic. As discussed in another thread about prohibition of alcohol, the main solution is to change the perception of people and have a common goal to get behind. Life will always be stressful. As an anecdote, today due to many factors including continued occupation and external meddling, even the most war torn countries in the Middle East such as Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan continue to have very low suicide rates, and drinking is not something common as it is prohibited in Islam.

Please tell me in GREAT detail the exact dangers of someone smoking on the sidewalk while I walk by.

Odds are there are no studies to reference because the entire idea is idiotic on its face and no one would ever both studying it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com