I rarely downvote clear and well-written comments just because I disagree with them, but feel I need to make an exception here. Your "1" is true, but you prefaced it by claiming that it was one of the "major things" the parent was missing. I'm pretty sure he wasn't missing this, as indicated by the sentence "This uptick has been benign because its been limited to Marijuana".
Number "2" adds useful distinctions regarding the Portugese approach, but I don't think there is any basis for your statement that "People who do not have some kind of mental illness do not use hard drugs frequently". This is tautologically true if you define addiction as mental illness, but would you really claim that no one regularly uses heroin because they became addicted to after starting with prescription painkillers, rather that they use it regularly only because they have an underlying non-drug related mental illness?
We should never downvote a comment just because we disagree with it. We should only downvote comments that don't contribute to the discussion. If someone is blatantly wrong, their information could be a common misconception that needs to be addressed and seen by everyone. Comments we disagree with are most often very good additions to the discussion and should be upvoted, even if they're factually inaccurate but there is a comment that corrects them. We have to include more ideas, not filter out the ideas we disagree with -- that creates an echo chamber which helps no one.
I used to think like you, but I had to change my mind many years ago. There are opinions you don't agree with - and those shouldn't be downvoted - and there are blatant lies or idiocies at the "the World is flat" level, often put forward by trolls.
Arguing with those is a total waste of time, and one reason why HN is so good is that they get downvoted to oblivion in no time.
I never comment on HN, but I figured out how to log in just so I could express my enthusiasm for how valuable the above comment is.
I wish everyone in every debate ever could read what is written above. People not doing the above is the one major problem with public discourse today.
If I up vote when I agree with a post, then I down vote when I disagree. We should have an "off topic" flag for off topic posts and hide the off topic posts, not unpopular ones.
> Your "1" is true, but you prefaced it by claiming that it was one of the "major things" the parent was missing. I'm pretty sure he wasn't missing this, as indicated by the sentence "This uptick has been benign because its been limited to Marijuana".
I think the thing OP's post was missing is that the distinction is important: we wouldn't expect the same trend to carry over to things that are not "benign," like hard drugs.
> This is tautologically true if you define addiction as mental illness, but would you really claim that no one regularly uses heroin because they became addicted to after starting with prescription painkillers, rather that they use it regularly only because they have an underlying non-drug related mental illness?
Otherwise, yes, I am arguing the vast majority (or maybe all?) people who are drug addicts have some underlying mental illness, and I don't disagree that is tautological: that's kind of the point. Truthfully I don't think we have the data but I also wouldn't be shocked to see a large portion of the people who become addicted to prescribed painkillers and then end up using heroin afterwards come into the injury and prescription with some kind of mental illness which predisposes them to addiction. Ie: you are a construction worker, you are depressed, you hurt your back, you get on painkillers and it escalates from there. But the vast majority of people prescribed these drugs do not become addicted to them and I think that's telling.
But really, that doesn't matter to me, the only thing I'm really looking for is a classification of people who are addicts, however they got that way, as "sick" instead of as "criminals." Again: let's not put people in cages unless we absolutely have to.
Which brings me to the other distinction number 2 adds which is that Portugal's approach is decriminalization not legalization, like with Colorado and marijuana.
So there are at least two distinct ways in which the Colorado Marijuana situation don't apply.
In my experience people get addicted to drugs because they have underlying chronic depression and/or severe ADD, Bipolar disorder, BPD, etc. If you treat the disorder the drug use slows dramatically. Also, lack of social support structures and economic opportunity. All of these things are huge unaddressed problems in the US and increasingly so, and the opioid epidemic is a symptom of this in my opinion.
Number "2" adds useful distinctions regarding the Portugese approach, but I don't think there is any basis for your statement that "People who do not have some kind of mental illness do not use hard drugs frequently". This is tautologically true if you define addiction as mental illness, but would you really claim that no one regularly uses heroin because they became addicted to after starting with prescription painkillers, rather that they use it regularly only because they have an underlying non-drug related mental illness?