Hacker News Reader

Comment by theblackbox | Hacker News Reader

Just found some interesting stuff about the decriminalisation of illicit drugs in Portugal in 2001, seems to be doing them a great deal of good. But there was mention that NO country has ever rationally considered legalisation as this would open up an economy and a power hierarchy the likes of which the world has never seen (hyperbole, yes, but I think we could all imagine the darker side of a legal drugs industry. Off the top of my head, the vast sums of money that can be made would cause a global gold rush where "Prospectors" vs. "Indyuns" would be woefully unbalanced. The "Indyuns" are already there, have assets invested, have militias and are less than ethical business people... bad medicine.)

View on HN

> I think we could all imagine the darker side of a legal drugs industry. Off the top of my head, the vast sums of money

If you're going to "imagine" a legal drugs industry, shouldn't it be things that aren't true of the illegal one that we have now?

Illegal drugs are universally available. They are well marketed.

However, the local Coors and Bud distributors rarely shoot at one another. And, when their customers go broke, neither one of them kills said customers.

Excellent point, never thought of it that way before. Beer is, I think, more or less the same as "drugs"...ok, yes, there are many differences which we all realize, etc.....but the point is, have you ever heard of, or does it even seem conceivable, that someone could get killed in the "beer trade"??

And to those who say "it's different"...yes, it is....I can list any number incidents involving potential serious societal harm, and some involving actual societal harm, that were totally a result of alcohol. And make no mistake, these people also had access to the full range of commonly available drugs as well, and partaked of them often. But in the aggregate, in my experience, it is rarely the drugs that causes the problem, it is almost always the booze. The argument is that all these social incidents come from booze, but it would be worse if drugs were also available.....well drugs ARE available...if you want drugs, it is only a little bit more difficult to buy than booze.

Although, it seems reasonable to me that if "drugs" are legalized, a larger portion of the public will get involved, but I haven't seen anything to make me think this will make society worse. My best guess would be that it might get people off the booze a bit and chill them out, so they don't start so many fights and other wild adventures that boozed up people get involved in.

> have you ever heard of, or does it even seem conceivable, that someone could get killed in the "beer trade"

It happened during Prohibition, so it's unclear why you think that it's inconceivable.

However, I'm compariing between drugs and booze.

I'm pointing out that the "{something bad} will happen" arguments against legalizing drugs almost always use a "{something bad}" that is happens while they're illegal. In other words, legalization doesn't change whether said something occurs, so said something isn't relevant to the legalization or not discussion.

I think my point is often overlooked. I'm not denying that there exists sustainable economic models for the "legal drugs trade", such as tobacco and alcohol, nor am I forgetting this in my hyperbolic critique of the legalisation of the "illicit drugs trade". What I'm saying is simply a matter of scale. Look at the illicit drugs trade as it currently stands, valued at billions if not trillions of monies, dispite the effect of very agressive lobbying on behalf of the worlds governments, police and military institutions. If this pressure were to let up, even in only a few of these countries, this would surely cause an economic vacuum that would be for all intents and purposes like a gold rush(?). What I'm saying is that there effectively exists a non-partisan international agreement to actively surpress the emergence of the free (as in speech) drugs trade. Coffee is already the second largest comodity in the world, it's not that far a stretch of the imagination to picture Meth or Cocaine supplanting the humble bean as our stimulant of choice were they to be part of a legal industry.

Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware of the rhetorical/polemic structure of this argument, as well as the simple age of it, I'm just chipping in with what I've considered. I myself have a very liberal approach to drugs, my use of certain drugs (which is moderate even for alcohol) and I have a family involved in Iraq/AfPaq, figured this thread was well suited to my two cents. Just thought I had to defend my comments as something more than simply a "ohhh, terrorist'll get ya" pokey stick.

> What I'm saying is that there effectively exists a non-partisan international agreement to actively surpress the emergence of the free (as in speech) drugs trade.

I agree that there's an attempt to suppress. My point is that this attempt hasn't produced a significant shortage or any of the benefits that we'd supposedly get from making drugs unavailable.

It's sort of like running an air conditioner outdoors. One can feel a temperature differential if one stands in exactly the right place but otherwise it's a complete waste of energy.

> If this pressure were to let up, even in only a few of these countries, this would surely cause an economic vacuum that would be for all intents and purposes like a gold rush(?).

Legalization might change the players, but there's no vacuum.

> Just thought I had to defend my comments as something more than simply a "ohhh, terrorist'll get ya" pokey stick.

Huh?

> Just thought I had to defend my comments as something more than simply a "ohhh, terrorist'll get ya" pokey stick.

Ha, I think we're broadly in agreemant but I'm tending toward pessimism, the above is a reference to Alex Jones which I guess helps qualify that!! Was just alluding to the fact I wasn't trying to doomsay and polarise the argument but articulate a genuine concern that there exists far to much potential in a free (a.i.s) drugs trade for corruption and misuse of power. It is not a trade I would like to see legal for fear of a smarmy spin covered consumerism. I manage nicely as it is, but decriminalisation I think is a far better option than legalisation. Speaking conservatively and pessimistically.

> However, I'm compariing between drugs and booze.

Argh! I'm NOT comparing them.

I think we could all imagine the darker side of a legal drugs industry

Think of a crack resurgence in the inner city powered by a marketing campaign strong enough to make Nike envious, market penetration approaching that of television, and the resulting decision of middle class America to essentially write them off.

See, for example, alcohol on Indian reservations.

I don't think the availability of alcohol is the main reason for alcoholism rates in Indian reservations. There's that whole reservation aspect of it.

And as far as inner city drugs go, they might as well be legal given how easy it is to get them.

Most people wouldn't do drugs even with Nike like advertising and those who do get hooked could get it legally. Wouldn't steal from their own mother to buy it, wouldn't support the Taliban.

Yeah? Like all those TV ads for liquor?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com