News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War on Drugs?. Parent comment

Re:What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War... by runeks on Sunday May 18, 2014 @12:00AM (#7762118)
> So, there's nothing about not liking the addicts who hassle people on the street?

What does that have to do with the War on Drugs? There is no evidence that it lowers drug use; quite the contrary.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War... by msane on Sunday May 18, 2014 @12:34AM (#7762196)
I always take issue with the idea that enforcement does not lower usage, and especially the insinuation that it raises it. Each drug has its own usage dynamics. So if we're talking about say OxyContin or Methamphetamine, I think we can be certain that enforcement suppresses a significant portion of usage. The perfect case in point is Florida, where there are loopholes to circumvent enforcement on OxyContin. Predictably, there is a very high OxyContin addiction rate there.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War... by emn13 on Sunday May 18, 2014 @02:27AM (#7762365)
Sure, in the abstract (whatever good that does), some amount of enforcement almost necessarily impacts some drug trade, pretty much by definition.

But in the practical sense, for relevant real-world drugs and populations, I don't think there's any evidence that enforcement has ever had one iota of effect. People switch drugs, switch suppliers, switch habits, switch methods of consumption etc. etc. Not to mention that some drugs are legal (mostly, such as alcohol and nicotine, or partly such as various medicines), so even if "drugs" are less-consumed, the legal variant might still be just as nasty which renders the enforcement pointless despite "success". And even if overall consumption were to drop, you still might find that drug harm has not - some methods of consumption are more dangerous than others.

Given the absurd level of long-term investment there's been, you'd expect some evidence of meaningful success. Where is it?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War... by msane on Sunday May 18, 2014 @04:06PM (#7764198)
Florida isn't an abstract place, it's located in the southern United States. Contrast it with other states that enforce OxyContin better.

I believe you are confused about enforcement of sale vs use, and the specifics of any policy beyond the buzzword "drug war", which is typical of this debate.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War... by emn13 on Monday May 19, 2014 @02:33PM (#7768986)
Measured how? Overall harm is what we're interested in, not usage and not necessarily crime related to a specific drug.

In any case, I don't want to suggest that the alternative is some kind of anarchic free-for-all - so enforcement wasn't a well chosen word (sorry!). I mean prohibition specifically, not just any kind of regulation.

If anything, I think existing "legal" drugs like nicotine and especially alcohole could use more regulation, not less.

The saying perfect is the enemy of good pretty much sums up my stance here :-) - don't bother aiming for complete abolition despite the fact that that might be a "perfect" solution if achievable.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War... by runeks on Sunday May 18, 2014 @01:13AM (#7762241)
Portugal decriminalized possession of all drugs in amounts for personal use. 10 years later drug abuse has gone down, not up. [1]

I think the natural path for anything that is suppressed is to increase after the suppression is lifted, and then slowly decline. I wouldn't be surprised if drug legalization would increase drug use right at the beginning, but it certainly didn't have such a long term effect in Portugal -- quite the opposite.

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-af...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War... by icebraining on Sunday May 18, 2014 @07:05AM (#7762715)
I wouldn't be surprised if drug legalization would increase drug use right at the beginning, but it certainly didn't have such a long term effect in Portugal

It should be noted that we decriminalized them, not legalized them. The results shouldn't be naively extrapolated to an hypothetical legalization.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War... by msane on Sunday May 18, 2014 @03:06PM (#7763958)
People need to understand exactly what Portugal has done. "Decriminalization" of use is very different than ceasing enforcement. They stopped sending users to prison, they did not stop enforcement.

You still need to enforce against the people who deal addictive drugs, and Portugal still does.

Also, if you are caught with personal use quantities in Portugal it is usually confiscated and you are obligated to some interactions with the state aimed at treatment.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What If U.S. Cities Just Stopped Participating in the War... by halfcat on Sunday May 25, 2014 @04:41PM (#7797497)
>"Predictably, there is a very high OxyContin addiction rate there"

Missing the point. There is a very high addiction rate of alcohol, caffeine, porn, and sugar. Addicts are going to be addicted. Society has not yet collapsed despite these legal addictions running rampant. Closing the oxy loophole would lower oxy use. The same people would move on to different substances. What positive has been accomplished? Some of them would spend decades in jail, despite causing no other harm or threat to society. Think big picture. Are you trying to have a civil society or are you trying to end addiction? The only way to end addiction is the extinction of the human race.

[ Parent | on HN ]