14 ms·

Finally. I hope this will signal a turning point on this insane approach to national health in all countries. Drugs are a health problem, not a criminal problem

by fsloth 9y ago

Finally. I hope this will signal a turning point on this insane approach to national health in all countries. Drugs are a health problem, not a criminal problem. Lone experts have been fired in western countries when they have expressed this common sense sentiments alone [0]. I hope this groups fares better. Nixon started the war on drugs anyway as a mean to attack left and black activists [1]. Any previous legislation for control has been instigated on behalf of race and class warfare.The fact that some drugs have been the staple narcotic in some groups has been used as a control mechanism upon those groups by criminalizing the substance. Substance distribution should be controlled by law. But that is status quo anyway - governments control the distribution of any number of dangerous substances at any point. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sacked https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-advis... [1] https://qz.com/645990/nixon-advisor-we-created-the-war-on-drugs-to-criminalize-black-people-and-the-anti-war-left/ https://qz.com/645990/nixon-advisor-we-created-the-war-on-dr...

pitcharoad 9y ago
enabling medical issues is a criminal problem, prohibition or not.
enord 9y ago
I think we passed the turning point some years ago when the medical community decided that harm reduction is more important than patient compliance. As long as doctors insist, the rest of society will come around eventually. Of course, it took 40+ years of people literally dying in the streets before doctors began "washing their hands" (i.e. prescribing opiates to addicts, particularily non-compliant addicts who take additional drugs).
mc32 9y ago
I'll agree with consumption not being punishable but a medically treatable issue. Misditribution (illegal distribution) of controlled dugs (not over the counter) should be punishable --whether they be doctors who knowingly over prescribe or black market sellers (drug dealers).
- KGIII 9y ago
  So then make it not illegal?
- stickfigure 9y ago
  You cannot avoid the nasty social effects of drug prohibition (crime, violence, contamination, etc) without making distribution legal. If you want to live in a world without homeless junkies breaking into your car, or a world without running gun battles in the street, or a world without your wayward kids accidentally ODing on their next batch, you need drugs like cocaine and heroin to be sold openly and affordably at the corner Walgreens. "Help the addict but punish the dealer" feels good to say but the world just isn't that simple.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    But even with legal distribution you're going to want to have limits - no selling to children, for example.
    - knodi123 9y ago
      That's easy enough. We do the same thing with tobacco, and look - there are no violent gangs killing people to defend their tiny slice of the black-market tobacco market.
  - mc32 9y ago
    I don't see that borne out by the opioid crisis. Many believe it was lax prescription that allowed opioids to become preferred and prevalent narcotics to abuse. If they are not available it does not matter how many cars or houses you brake into, it does no good if no one is selling. So you say, well in that case someone will make them dirty and available for a price. Punish the illegal seller and prosecute all suppliers who knowingly sold to someone not registered. Prosecute any and all corruption related to making and distributing the product illegally. Do people get their coke from Coca-cola imported leaves? No. They know the consequences and take appropriate precautions to ensure they are not subverted by greedy employees.
justonepost 9y ago
Depends on your goal. If it's to reduce mortality, yes, decriminalize is good. But it will increase usage.
- lagadu 9y ago
  The most notorious large-scale, well studied example of complete decriminalization, Portugal, shows the opposite to be true[0]. [0] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decr...
  - lqdc13 9y ago
    That's not true. Usage increased[0,1]. - Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1% [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20110725093536/http://www.idt.pt/PT/IDT/Documents/Ponto_Focal/2009_NationalReport.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20110725093536/http://www.idt.pt...
    - piva00 9y ago
      Lifetime usage is a different metric than "repeated usage", people can be more curious about it and try but not necessarily stick to using them. Even more when you have policies in place for education and harm reduction.
      - lqdc13 9y ago
        You're right[0] but it looks like it depends on age group[1,2]. [0] https://kek.gg/i/6vgYNF.png https://kek.gg/i/6vgYNF.png [1] https://kek.gg/i/7-w6PD.png https://kek.gg/i/7-w6PD.png [2] https://kek.gg/i/3Jn4G6.png https://kek.gg/i/3Jn4G6.png
      - 9y ago
mythrwy 9y ago
Almost every post about drugs on HN has the obligatory bit about Nixon starting the war on drugs. It's like a Shibboleth or something. Nixon probably tried to make political hay out of it sure, but the war against intoxicants has been going on probably since people started using intoxicants. No shortage of earlier historical examples. At most Nixon is a chapter in the ongoing saga. So please, for all that is holy, stop with this repetitive "Nixon started" thing. Just because people might think Nixon is a bad guy doesn't give the point about drugs any more validity.
- addHocker 9y ago
  Its the war of mom & dads state sponsored sock-puppets waged against chemical induced self-destruction. It would be really interesting to have a panel where both sides could express there interests, trying to find a compromise.
- kobeya 9y ago
  > Shibboleth I don't know what that is. Should I?
  - tome 9y ago
    Very clever joke?
    - kobeya 9y ago
      Just irony it seems.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - jwilk 9y ago
    From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shibboleth https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shibboleth : 1. A word, especially seen as a test, to distinguish someone as belonging to a particular nation, class, profession etc. 2. A common or longstanding belief, custom, or catchphrase associated with a particular group, especially one with little current meaning or truth.
opo 9y ago
>Finally. I hope this will signal a turning point on this insane approach to national health in all countries. Drugs are a health problem, not a criminal problem. Agreed. >...Nixon started the war on drugs anyway as a mean to attack left and black activists This point is a little controversial, in, as far as I know, we have to take Ehrlichman's word on this. https://www.quora.com/Is-John-Ehrlichman-a-credible-source-when-he-claimed-that-the-war-on-drugs-was-intentionally-aimed-at-the-left-and-racial-minorities https://www.quora.com/Is-John-Ehrlichman-a-credible-source-w... While Nixon is remembered for "war on drugs", the actual substance of his policies seems to be different than what people think it was: >...Their consensus is that because he was dramatically expanding the U.S. treatment system (by 350% in just 18 months!) and cutting criminal penalties, he had to reassure his right wing that he hadn’t gone soft. So he laid on some of the toughest anti-drug rhetoric in history, including making a White House speech declaring a “war on drugs” and calling drugs “public enemy number one”. It worked so well as cover that many people remember that “tough” press event and forget that what Nixon did at it was introduce not a general or a cop or a preacher to be his drug policy chief but…a medical doctor (Jerry Jaffe, a sweet, bookish man who had longish hair and sideburns and often wore the Mickey Mouse tie his kids had given him). http://www.samefacts.com/2011/06/drug-policy/who-started-the-war-on-drugs/ http://www.samefacts.com/2011/06/drug-policy/who-started-the...
- piva00 9y ago
  As a follow-up, even though Nixon expanded treatment shouldn't we still blame him for the rhetorics that aggravated the "war on drugs" for the rest of the planet? It's after Nixon "war on drugs" stance that we begin to see harsher and harsher penalties for possession, criminalisation of usage (and this still applies here in Sweden, it's not only illegal to buy, sell or possess drugs but also to take them, if it's detected in a urine or blood test [mandatory tests if you are caught by the police] you have committed an offense) and then the Convention on Psychotropic Substances happened in 1971, very influenced by the US and UK stances on drugs. So as much as he tried to only "look tough", Nixon has fomented one of the worst problems in modern society, I really don't think we as a society should give him any credit, that façade has fucked up a lot some parts of the world and has killed an uncountable number of people.
ythn 9y ago
> Drugs are a health problem, not a criminal problem. Well, I would say they are both. They are a health problem because of the addiction factors. They are a criminal problem because of what people are willing to do to get drugs when they run out of money.
- ryandrake 9y ago
  Using that logic, food is a criminal problem.
  - ythn 9y ago
    So you are saying we should treat drug addicts like we treat hunger - by having "drug kitchens" where addicts can come to get a free fix and by building up huge industries to mass produce drugs so they are much more accessible and affordable to addicts? That seems insane.
    - thephyber 9y ago
      You just described a methadone clinic. Yes, they exist. Yes, some communities are using them to combat opiate addiction.
Nursie 9y ago
> Finally. I hope this will signal a turning point on this insane approach to national health in all countries. Honestly, until the people in power start saying this stuff, nothing seems likely to happen. We've had a parade of experts, medical groups, police commissioners (in the UK), and ex-politicians all calling for change, but the people actually in power are either too set in their ways or too scared to rock the boat and lose their seats by being seen as "pro-drug". We still have a long, long road ahead of us before much is going to change in the UK. I am heartened that baby-steps are being taken in the USA, but that's all they are, baby-steps.
- pstuart 9y ago
  It's not just the people in power, it's the people themselves. Most of the citizenry have been brainwashed that "drugs are bad, m'kay?". A majority now think that cannabis should be legal, but harder drugs should still be illegal to "protect us". This is somewhat understandable in that there are serious problems with drug use (it killed my brother), but we need education to show that the cure is worse than the disease.
  - ddxxdd 9y ago
    But is the cure really worse than the disease? If it can be shown that broad, across-the-board legalization of all drugs would triple heroin addiction, would you be okay with that?
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
>Drugs are a health problem, not a criminal problem. I fully support legalizing drugs. That being said, if today you buy drugs that are being smuggled by the cartel, then your are contributing to the wrong they do. Buying cartel tainted drugs is a criminal matter because it finances massive violence. I draw a comparison to other material that is illegal to posses because it supports harmful production and distribution. Today, there are laws that prevent making such material legally (for example, drawings or computer generated images). But the laws, while I think more harmful than good, does not excuse a person from acquiring material that was produced or distributed harmfully. In the same way, I think drug laws are more harmful, but their existence does not justify someone who pays money to the cartel. Now, if you are growing your own pot or buying it from someone who grew it themselves, I don't see a problem.
- mateo411 9y ago
  Here is a crazy thought experiment. What if the government rationed drugs and gave them out for free? The price for black market drugs would go down, which would change the economics of smuggling drugs and selling drugs in the US. The government could track consumption of drugs and help people who are chronic addicts. What would happen to the amount of drugs consumed in the US? If consumption would greatly increase, then this policy probably would do more harm than good. We would have many more addicts in the US. If consumption stayed the same, then this policy might make sense. It would greatly disincentivize the distribution of drugs and could be used to move addicts into treatment programs. This policy is probably not politically viable in the US.
  - mjevans 9y ago
    I theorize that the situation is bad enough in the US that the use of drugs /would/ increase, if only as a means for the general populace to find some joy in our crappy lives. Alcohol and tobacco consumption might go down a bit though; mostly because the drugs would be free in comparison. (/those/ lobbies would be completely against this experiment) Focusing on the increased use segments of the population and figuring out why they're in to drugs instead of 'healthy' outlets would probably reveal deep social and societal dysfunction caused by a complex and interacting set of self-enforcing patterns. Maybe changes in zoning, public goods funding, and worker rights would actually start to happen on a scientific basis trying to address the identified issues. At the very least though, this would be THE MOST EFFECTIVE means of fighting criminal and terrorist organizations; by cutting off their funding at the source.
baki 9y ago
Drugs are not health problem, the life is a health problem. Drug usage not= addiction or toxicomania, as alkohol usage is not necessarily cause health problems. There is a wide range of alcohol users, from sometimes a glass of wine to hardcore alcoholism. The humans are the problems, not the drugs. Drugs could be good or bad, depend on the usage.
- thephyber 9y ago
  Your comment completely misinterprets the subject of this article and the parent comment. The argument isn't about the differentiation between "life" and "health". It's about how to deal with addiction -- using the medical / mental heath systems or the criminal incarceration systems. I suspect you aren't a native English speaker, but perhaps you shouldn't be so critical/pedantic of the English of other commenters.
dsnuh 9y ago
Agreed. I hope it is a turning point too. Now I wish we could have a national dialog about alcohol in this country.

by fsloth 9y ago

pitcharoad 9y ago

enabling medical issues is a criminal problem, prohibition or not.

enord 9y ago

I think we passed the turning point some years ago when the medical community decided that harm reduction is more important than patient compliance. As long as doctors insist, the rest of society will come around eventually. Of course, it took 40+ years of people literally dying in the streets before doctors began "washing their hands" (i.e. prescribing opiates to addicts, particularily non-compliant addicts who take additional drugs).

mc32 9y ago

I'll agree with consumption not being punishable but a medically treatable issue. Misditribution (illegal distribution) of controlled dugs (not over the counter) should be punishable --whether they be doctors who knowingly over prescribe or black market sellers (drug dealers).

KGIII 9y ago
So then make it not illegal?
stickfigure 9y ago
You cannot avoid the nasty social effects of drug prohibition (crime, violence, contamination, etc) without making distribution legal. If you want to live in a world without homeless junkies breaking into your car, or a world without running gun battles in the street, or a world without your wayward kids accidentally ODing on their next batch, you need drugs like cocaine and heroin to be sold openly and affordably at the corner Walgreens. "Help the addict but punish the dealer" feels good to say but the world just isn't that simple.
- DanBC 9y ago
  But even with legal distribution you're going to want to have limits - no selling to children, for example.
  - knodi123 9y ago
    That's easy enough. We do the same thing with tobacco, and look - there are no violent gangs killing people to defend their tiny slice of the black-market tobacco market.
- mc32 9y ago
  I don't see that borne out by the opioid crisis. Many believe it was lax prescription that allowed opioids to become preferred and prevalent narcotics to abuse. If they are not available it does not matter how many cars or houses you brake into, it does no good if no one is selling. So you say, well in that case someone will make them dirty and available for a price. Punish the illegal seller and prosecute all suppliers who knowingly sold to someone not registered. Prosecute any and all corruption related to making and distributing the product illegally. Do people get their coke from Coca-cola imported leaves? No. They know the consequences and take appropriate precautions to ensure they are not subverted by greedy employees.

justonepost 9y ago

Depends on your goal. If it's to reduce mortality, yes, decriminalize is good. But it will increase usage.

lagadu 9y ago
The most notorious large-scale, well studied example of complete decriminalization, Portugal, shows the opposite to be true[0]. [0] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decr...
- lqdc13 9y ago
  That's not true. Usage increased[0,1]. - Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1% [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20110725093536/http://www.idt.pt/PT/IDT/Documents/Ponto_Focal/2009_NationalReport.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20110725093536/http://www.idt.pt...
  - piva00 9y ago
    Lifetime usage is a different metric than "repeated usage", people can be more curious about it and try but not necessarily stick to using them. Even more when you have policies in place for education and harm reduction.
    - lqdc13 9y ago
      You're right[0] but it looks like it depends on age group[1,2]. [0] https://kek.gg/i/6vgYNF.png https://kek.gg/i/6vgYNF.png [1] https://kek.gg/i/7-w6PD.png https://kek.gg/i/7-w6PD.png [2] https://kek.gg/i/3Jn4G6.png https://kek.gg/i/3Jn4G6.png
    - 9y ago

mythrwy 9y ago

Almost every post about drugs on HN has the obligatory bit about Nixon starting the war on drugs. It's like a Shibboleth or something. Nixon probably tried to make political hay out of it sure, but the war against intoxicants has been going on probably since people started using intoxicants. No shortage of earlier historical examples. At most Nixon is a chapter in the ongoing saga. So please, for all that is holy, stop with this repetitive "Nixon started" thing. Just because people might think Nixon is a bad guy doesn't give the point about drugs any more validity.

addHocker 9y ago
Its the war of mom & dads state sponsored sock-puppets waged against chemical induced self-destruction. It would be really interesting to have a panel where both sides could express there interests, trying to find a compromise.
kobeya 9y ago
> Shibboleth I don't know what that is. Should I?
- tome 9y ago
  Very clever joke?
  - kobeya 9y ago
    Just irony it seems.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jwilk 9y ago
  From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shibboleth https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shibboleth : 1. A word, especially seen as a test, to distinguish someone as belonging to a particular nation, class, profession etc. 2. A common or longstanding belief, custom, or catchphrase associated with a particular group, especially one with little current meaning or truth.

opo 9y ago

>Finally. I hope this will signal a turning point on this insane approach to national health in all countries. Drugs are a health problem, not a criminal problem. Agreed. >...Nixon started the war on drugs anyway as a mean to attack left and black activists This point is a little controversial, in, as far as I know, we have to take Ehrlichman's word on this. https://www.quora.com/Is-John-Ehrlichman-a-credible-source-when-he-claimed-that-the-war-on-drugs-was-intentionally-aimed-at-the-left-and-racial-minorities https://www.quora.com/Is-John-Ehrlichman-a-credible-source-w... While Nixon is remembered for "war on drugs", the actual substance of his policies seems to be different than what people think it was: >...Their consensus is that because he was dramatically expanding the U.S. treatment system (by 350% in just 18 months!) and cutting criminal penalties, he had to reassure his right wing that he hadn’t gone soft. So he laid on some of the toughest anti-drug rhetoric in history, including making a White House speech declaring a “war on drugs” and calling drugs “public enemy number one”. It worked so well as cover that many people remember that “tough” press event and forget that what Nixon did at it was introduce not a general or a cop or a preacher to be his drug policy chief but…a medical doctor (Jerry Jaffe, a sweet, bookish man who had longish hair and sideburns and often wore the Mickey Mouse tie his kids had given him). http://www.samefacts.com/2011/06/drug-policy/who-started-the-war-on-drugs/ http://www.samefacts.com/2011/06/drug-policy/who-started-the...

piva00 9y ago
As a follow-up, even though Nixon expanded treatment shouldn't we still blame him for the rhetorics that aggravated the "war on drugs" for the rest of the planet? It's after Nixon "war on drugs" stance that we begin to see harsher and harsher penalties for possession, criminalisation of usage (and this still applies here in Sweden, it's not only illegal to buy, sell or possess drugs but also to take them, if it's detected in a urine or blood test [mandatory tests if you are caught by the police] you have committed an offense) and then the Convention on Psychotropic Substances happened in 1971, very influenced by the US and UK stances on drugs. So as much as he tried to only "look tough", Nixon has fomented one of the worst problems in modern society, I really don't think we as a society should give him any credit, that façade has fucked up a lot some parts of the world and has killed an uncountable number of people.

ythn 9y ago

> Drugs are a health problem, not a criminal problem. Well, I would say they are both. They are a health problem because of the addiction factors. They are a criminal problem because of what people are willing to do to get drugs when they run out of money.

ryandrake 9y ago
Using that logic, food is a criminal problem.
- ythn 9y ago
  So you are saying we should treat drug addicts like we treat hunger - by having "drug kitchens" where addicts can come to get a free fix and by building up huge industries to mass produce drugs so they are much more accessible and affordable to addicts? That seems insane.
  - thephyber 9y ago
    You just described a methadone clinic. Yes, they exist. Yes, some communities are using them to combat opiate addiction.

Nursie 9y ago

> Finally. I hope this will signal a turning point on this insane approach to national health in all countries. Honestly, until the people in power start saying this stuff, nothing seems likely to happen. We've had a parade of experts, medical groups, police commissioners (in the UK), and ex-politicians all calling for change, but the people actually in power are either too set in their ways or too scared to rock the boat and lose their seats by being seen as "pro-drug". We still have a long, long road ahead of us before much is going to change in the UK. I am heartened that baby-steps are being taken in the USA, but that's all they are, baby-steps.

pstuart 9y ago
It's not just the people in power, it's the people themselves. Most of the citizenry have been brainwashed that "drugs are bad, m'kay?". A majority now think that cannabis should be legal, but harder drugs should still be illegal to "protect us". This is somewhat understandable in that there are serious problems with drug use (it killed my brother), but we need education to show that the cure is worse than the disease.
- ddxxdd 9y ago
  But is the cure really worse than the disease? If it can be shown that broad, across-the-board legalization of all drugs would triple heroin addiction, would you be okay with that?

BearGoesChirp 9y ago

>Drugs are a health problem, not a criminal problem. I fully support legalizing drugs. That being said, if today you buy drugs that are being smuggled by the cartel, then your are contributing to the wrong they do. Buying cartel tainted drugs is a criminal matter because it finances massive violence. I draw a comparison to other material that is illegal to posses because it supports harmful production and distribution. Today, there are laws that prevent making such material legally (for example, drawings or computer generated images). But the laws, while I think more harmful than good, does not excuse a person from acquiring material that was produced or distributed harmfully. In the same way, I think drug laws are more harmful, but their existence does not justify someone who pays money to the cartel. Now, if you are growing your own pot or buying it from someone who grew it themselves, I don't see a problem.

mateo411 9y ago
Here is a crazy thought experiment. What if the government rationed drugs and gave them out for free? The price for black market drugs would go down, which would change the economics of smuggling drugs and selling drugs in the US. The government could track consumption of drugs and help people who are chronic addicts. What would happen to the amount of drugs consumed in the US? If consumption would greatly increase, then this policy probably would do more harm than good. We would have many more addicts in the US. If consumption stayed the same, then this policy might make sense. It would greatly disincentivize the distribution of drugs and could be used to move addicts into treatment programs. This policy is probably not politically viable in the US.
- mjevans 9y ago
  I theorize that the situation is bad enough in the US that the use of drugs /would/ increase, if only as a means for the general populace to find some joy in our crappy lives. Alcohol and tobacco consumption might go down a bit though; mostly because the drugs would be free in comparison. (/those/ lobbies would be completely against this experiment) Focusing on the increased use segments of the population and figuring out why they're in to drugs instead of 'healthy' outlets would probably reveal deep social and societal dysfunction caused by a complex and interacting set of self-enforcing patterns. Maybe changes in zoning, public goods funding, and worker rights would actually start to happen on a scientific basis trying to address the identified issues. At the very least though, this would be THE MOST EFFECTIVE means of fighting criminal and terrorist organizations; by cutting off their funding at the source.

baki 9y ago

Drugs are not health problem, the life is a health problem. Drug usage not= addiction or toxicomania, as alkohol usage is not necessarily cause health problems. There is a wide range of alcohol users, from sometimes a glass of wine to hardcore alcoholism. The humans are the problems, not the drugs. Drugs could be good or bad, depend on the usage.

thephyber 9y ago
Your comment completely misinterprets the subject of this article and the parent comment. The argument isn't about the differentiation between "life" and "health". It's about how to deal with addiction -- using the medical / mental heath systems or the criminal incarceration systems. I suspect you aren't a native English speaker, but perhaps you shouldn't be so critical/pedantic of the English of other commenters.

dsnuh 9y ago

Agreed. I hope it is a turning point too. Now I wish we could have a national dialog about alcohol in this country.