4 ms·

I'm not sure most people are against going after the suppliers, even if they support decriminalization. Decriminalization should mean that users are not prosecu

I'm not sure most people are against going after the suppliers, even if they support decriminalization. Decriminalization should mean that users are not prosecuted for simply using drugs, but those participating in the manufacture and distribution are still held responsible.

gonzobonzo 2y ago
> I'm not sure most people are against going after the suppliers I see the claim made often, it even commonly pops up on HN. The claim is that the War on Drugs is a failure, because any prohibition efforts are doomed. Laws against a substance merely push it into the criminal sector and don't actually disrupt the supply. So the only outcome is that we get more crime and suffering, but the amount of people using the drug doesn't change. We saw a similarly argument often used when marijuana legalization was being discussed - legalization wouldn't actually impact the number of people who used the drugs, because prohibition laws don't stop people from acquiring a substance. Naturally, the validity of marijuana legalization goes well beyond it's impact on the number of users, but there were many claims that it wouldn't impact the number of users. Of course, one can make the argument that the War on Drugs is a good thing but that it's implementation has often been wrong (for instance, that there should be more effort made on going after suppliers rather than users). But it's very common to see people claim that any attempts at prohibition are doomed to failure and cause more harm with little to no benefit. Edit: To give an example, here's a HN discussion where most of the people are in favor of fully legalizing all drugs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10424099 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10424099
- bdangubic 2y ago
  attempts against prohibition are doomed to failure because they go against human nature and going against human nature will (almost) always fail. tell teenagers they can’t drink till they are 18… well… tell a kid she/he can’t… well… humans will do drugs. you have to start there. no matter what you try and “prohibit” this is your ground zero. from here you can decide which policy has the greatest chance of “success” once you define what success means to you.
kjkjadksj 2y ago
Decriminalization still means you get prosecuted for using in public. You can’t smoke weed in public or even a cigarette in most public places nor are you allowed to drink in public. Shooting dope in a park will still be illegal.

gonzobonzo 2y ago

> I'm not sure most people are against going after the suppliers I see the claim made often, it even commonly pops up on HN. The claim is that the War on Drugs is a failure, because any prohibition efforts are doomed. Laws against a substance merely push it into the criminal sector and don't actually disrupt the supply. So the only outcome is that we get more crime and suffering, but the amount of people using the drug doesn't change. We saw a similarly argument often used when marijuana legalization was being discussed - legalization wouldn't actually impact the number of people who used the drugs, because prohibition laws don't stop people from acquiring a substance. Naturally, the validity of marijuana legalization goes well beyond it's impact on the number of users, but there were many claims that it wouldn't impact the number of users. Of course, one can make the argument that the War on Drugs is a good thing but that it's implementation has often been wrong (for instance, that there should be more effort made on going after suppliers rather than users). But it's very common to see people claim that any attempts at prohibition are doomed to failure and cause more harm with little to no benefit. Edit: To give an example, here's a HN discussion where most of the people are in favor of fully legalizing all drugs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10424099 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10424099

bdangubic 2y ago
attempts against prohibition are doomed to failure because they go against human nature and going against human nature will (almost) always fail. tell teenagers they can’t drink till they are 18… well… tell a kid she/he can’t… well… humans will do drugs. you have to start there. no matter what you try and “prohibit” this is your ground zero. from here you can decide which policy has the greatest chance of “success” once you define what success means to you.

kjkjadksj 2y ago

Decriminalization still means you get prosecuted for using in public. You can’t smoke weed in public or even a cigarette in most public places nor are you allowed to drink in public. Shooting dope in a park will still be illegal.