5 ms·

> but I can think of a number of business opportunities not only in legal narcotics trade, but also supporting industries Like making children addicted and pro

> but I can think of a number of business opportunities not only in legal narcotics trade, but also supporting industries Like making children addicted and profiting afterwards? Legalizing drugs like heroin, crack or coke is just sick. Just have a look at what meth has done. > I've never done any drugs myself, Talk to one who has, then. It's going to alter your thoughts.

dantheman 18y ago
I don't believe these discussions are very useful, or in general appropriate for HN; but I'll quickly disagree with your statement that drugs should continue to be illegal. If someone wants to do drugs that is their choice, there is no reason that people below a certain age are prohibited much like alcohol and tobacco.
- usuallyuselss 18y ago
  I would be fine with this if hard drugs weren't "no return tickets".
  - dantheman 18y ago
    They aren't no return tickets, many people can experiment with all sorts of dangerous drugs and be able to stop using them. From:http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/532/most_first_time_drug_users_not_dependent http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/532/most_first_time_drug... The research report from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) found that only 1% of first-time users of inhalants and tranquilizers were dependent a year later. For hallucinogens and sedatives, the figure was 2%; for pain relievers and alcohol, 3%. The drug with the highest number of dependent users a year after first use was heroin (13%), followed by crack cocaine (9%), marijuana (6%), stimulants (5%), and powder cocaine (4%). http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k8/newUseDepend/newUseDepend.cfm http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k8/newUseDepend/newUseDepend.cfm
  - anamax 18y ago
    Lots of things have "no return tickets" and yet we don't make them illegal. There was a previous discussion about the rationality of intellectuals. (For the record, I pointed out that they're feces flinging monkeys like the rest of us.) Let me suggest that the "rational" basis for drug law is "do the realized benefits of the restrictions outweigh the incurred costs". Prison is a cost. Folks who don't use because of the law are a benefit. Folks who still use aren't.
  - robotron 18y ago
    I have tried coke, crack and crystal meth a few times. I did not become addicted and decided that I didn't like it and that the chance of addiction was not worth it, so I stopped. If I had been thrown in jail as a result of one of those experiences, I doubt I would be a contributing member of society today. (Another "I don't like these conversations on HN but can't help from responding to hysterics" post)
    - usuallyuselss 18y ago
      A lot of people are not that strong, sir. Otherwise, we would not have that many addicts, right?
      - Flemlord 18y ago
        Do you mean "a lot of people" like the last three US presidents? Obama did coke. Clinton smoked pot. It's widely believed that Bush Jr. also did cocaine.
    - Flemlord 18y ago
      Thank you for your honesty. If more people talked openly about non-addictive ends to drug use, people's perception would be much different than it is now. It's a self-perpetuating problem because the negative social stigma prevents people from discussing their experiences openly.
jonasvp 18y ago
The assumption most people seem to base their conclusions on is that making drugs illegal reduces consumption. All empirical evidence so far - even from less biased sources than the wildly free-market Cato institute - shows that this is not the case. In countries where more drugs are legal, consumption actually goes down. Drug use is a facet of human existence that needs to be managed, not a virus to be exterminated...
- usuallyuselss 18y ago
  > The assumption most people seem to base their conclusions on is that making drugs illegal reduces consumption. All empirical evidence so far - even from less biased sources than the wildly free-market Cato institute - shows that this is not the case. In countries where more drugs are legal, consumption actually goes down. We have empirical evidence on cannabis, true. In that case (Netherlands) statistics say that "everything is roughly better", but differences are so small that it's difficult to say it's due to the drug laws. We do not have empirical evidence on drugs that make you physically and/or psychologically addicted after one shot. And there should be no toying with this. Getting of cannabis after years of using it is a piece of cake compared to getting of heroin after less than five shots. It's a totally different story.
  - robotron 18y ago
    So the laws should continue to make one a criminal for becoming addicted? The laws only serve to make people like you feel better (ala sticking head in sand) and to line the pockets of drug cartels.
    - usuallyuselss 18y ago
      > So the laws should continue to make one a criminal for becoming addicted? Sorry, where did I say that? I am from Germany, drug use is not illegal here, only possession, trade and production. I am very well aware that this is a good thing. > The laws only serve to make people like you feel better (ala sticking head in sand) and to line the pockets of drug cartels. Stop judging me on your misinterpretations of my writings, please.

dantheman 18y ago

I don't believe these discussions are very useful, or in general appropriate for HN; but I'll quickly disagree with your statement that drugs should continue to be illegal. If someone wants to do drugs that is their choice, there is no reason that people below a certain age are prohibited much like alcohol and tobacco.

usuallyuselss 18y ago
I would be fine with this if hard drugs weren't "no return tickets".
- dantheman 18y ago
  They aren't no return tickets, many people can experiment with all sorts of dangerous drugs and be able to stop using them. From:http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/532/most_first_time_drug_users_not_dependent http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/532/most_first_time_drug... The research report from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) found that only 1% of first-time users of inhalants and tranquilizers were dependent a year later. For hallucinogens and sedatives, the figure was 2%; for pain relievers and alcohol, 3%. The drug with the highest number of dependent users a year after first use was heroin (13%), followed by crack cocaine (9%), marijuana (6%), stimulants (5%), and powder cocaine (4%). http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k8/newUseDepend/newUseDepend.cfm http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k8/newUseDepend/newUseDepend.cfm
- anamax 18y ago
  Lots of things have "no return tickets" and yet we don't make them illegal. There was a previous discussion about the rationality of intellectuals. (For the record, I pointed out that they're feces flinging monkeys like the rest of us.) Let me suggest that the "rational" basis for drug law is "do the realized benefits of the restrictions outweigh the incurred costs". Prison is a cost. Folks who don't use because of the law are a benefit. Folks who still use aren't.
- robotron 18y ago
  I have tried coke, crack and crystal meth a few times. I did not become addicted and decided that I didn't like it and that the chance of addiction was not worth it, so I stopped. If I had been thrown in jail as a result of one of those experiences, I doubt I would be a contributing member of society today. (Another "I don't like these conversations on HN but can't help from responding to hysterics" post)
  - usuallyuselss 18y ago
    A lot of people are not that strong, sir. Otherwise, we would not have that many addicts, right?
    - Flemlord 18y ago
      Do you mean "a lot of people" like the last three US presidents? Obama did coke. Clinton smoked pot. It's widely believed that Bush Jr. also did cocaine.
  - Flemlord 18y ago
    Thank you for your honesty. If more people talked openly about non-addictive ends to drug use, people's perception would be much different than it is now. It's a self-perpetuating problem because the negative social stigma prevents people from discussing their experiences openly.

jonasvp 18y ago

The assumption most people seem to base their conclusions on is that making drugs illegal reduces consumption. All empirical evidence so far - even from less biased sources than the wildly free-market Cato institute - shows that this is not the case. In countries where more drugs are legal, consumption actually goes down. Drug use is a facet of human existence that needs to be managed, not a virus to be exterminated...

usuallyuselss 18y ago
> The assumption most people seem to base their conclusions on is that making drugs illegal reduces consumption. All empirical evidence so far - even from less biased sources than the wildly free-market Cato institute - shows that this is not the case. In countries where more drugs are legal, consumption actually goes down. We have empirical evidence on cannabis, true. In that case (Netherlands) statistics say that "everything is roughly better", but differences are so small that it's difficult to say it's due to the drug laws. We do not have empirical evidence on drugs that make you physically and/or psychologically addicted after one shot. And there should be no toying with this. Getting of cannabis after years of using it is a piece of cake compared to getting of heroin after less than five shots. It's a totally different story.
- robotron 18y ago
  So the laws should continue to make one a criminal for becoming addicted? The laws only serve to make people like you feel better (ala sticking head in sand) and to line the pockets of drug cartels.
  - usuallyuselss 18y ago
    > So the laws should continue to make one a criminal for becoming addicted? Sorry, where did I say that? I am from Germany, drug use is not illegal here, only possession, trade and production. I am very well aware that this is a good thing. > The laws only serve to make people like you feel better (ala sticking head in sand) and to line the pockets of drug cartels. Stop judging me on your misinterpretations of my writings, please.