[t34543]

> Analyzing a dataset of over 1.5 billion individual opioid prescriptions between 2011 and 2018, which were aggregated to the individual provider-year level, we find that recreational and medical cannabis access laws reduce the number of morphine milligram equivalents prescribed each year by 11.8 and 4.2 percent, respectively.

As a former marijuana user this seems obvious to me. I don’t understand why federal legalization has been so difficult. There are many benefits despite the potential of unknown risk.

Maybe my beliefs are a little out there. I wish for all drugs to be decriminalized. Portugal’s model seems to be working quite well.

https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalizatio...

[doc_gunthrop]

> I don’t understand why federal legalization has been so difficult.

Look into the history of laws surrounding marijuana in the United States and you'll start to understand the politics behind it.

For example, here's a statement from John Ehrlichman[1], Assistant of Domestic Affairs to former president Richard Nixon.

> “You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman

[pm90]

The most evil aspect of the thing is that it was enshrined in international treaties, which lead to instability in the nations that were too gullible, or were just strong armed by stronger nations into enforcing these laws (e.g. what happened with many Latin American countries).

[sandworm101]

> which lead to instability in the nations that were too gullible

It still happens today. I spoke to some Canadians who served in Afghanistan. They initially liked having some Americans on patrol with them. The Americans could call in better air power. But the Americans started burning all the marijuana plants, which the locals had only started growing growing because they knew the Americans had been burning poppy fields.

[standardUser]

True, but that framework seems to have lost its teeth in recent decades. Uruguay, Portugal, Canada and many US states are flagrantly violating international law with no consequences.

[bobbyd3]

"The complexity of modern federal criminal law, codified in several thousand sections of the United States Code and the virtually infinite variety of factual circumstances that might trigger an investigation into a possible violation of the law, make it difficult for anyone to know, in advance, just when a particular set of statements might later appear (to a prosecutor) to be relevant to some such investigation." - Supreme Court Justice Breyer

"What’s often overlooked, however, is that these legal victories would probably not have been possible without the ability to break the law." - Moxie Marlinspike

[1] https://moxie.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-hide/

[refurb]

Pretty sure this quote has been discredited. Some reporter said he said it, but after he died, so it can’t be confirmed. His family says that quote doesn’t sound like him at all. Even if he did say it, it’s one guys opinion and doesn’t reflect gov’t policy.

[jdietrich]

It's an incontrovertible historical fact that the prohibition of opium and and cocaine was substantially racially motivated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Narcotics_Tax_Act

[refurb]

Don’t disagree, but that doesn’t prove racism was Nixon’s reason for the war on drugs.

[pm90]

A simple google search will turn up many credible articles all of which show pretty substantially that Nixon was very much racist, and that many of his policies were... colored... by his racism.

e.g. https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-a-historian-uncov..., https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-rich...

[save_ferris]

One of Nixon's chief advisers admitted in an interview years later that the war on drugs was explicitly targeted at black people[0]. Criminalizing blacks was a primary objective of this policy.

0: https://qz.com/645990/nixon-advisor-we-created-the-war-on-dr...

[refurb]

This is the same quote as above. Reporter does interview, waits until the guy dies, then says “he said this”, while people who knew him said “I don’t think so”.

[meowface]

It likely was a motive, but it doesn't necessarily make the quote real. I have trouble believing Nixon or his advisors would give a supervillain monologue like that, personally, even if those were their exact intentions.

[int_19h]

The association between drugs and racial minorities has been established long before then - pick any random Anslinger quote about drugs, and it'll have something racial. So it would be perfectly consistent.

[catalogia]

I don't know about that quote being discredited, but I believe I've read a few comments from rayiner here that make a pretty convincing argument that when Nixon coining the term "War on Drugs" in 1971, it was part of an effort against organized crime and was preceded by a decade of rising violent crime. And, if I recall his argument correctly, that it was Reagan who really amped up the 'war'.

My take is that both narratives are simultaneously true. That different people involved had different motivations, some people having multiple motivations. The dimensional of the true series of the events is too high for any human to comprehend, so we instead study lower dimension projections of the truth. Like flatlanders looking at a cylinder; some think it looks like a rectangle and some thinks it looks like a circle. There can be underlying truth to multiple perspectives that may seem mutually contradictory at lower dimensions.

[mehrdadn]

> Pretty sure this quote has been discredited.

By whom? (Citation?) This is the first time I'm hearing that.

[refurb]

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/32247/did-ehrli...

[wayoutthere]

So it was a direct quote from an article that was wholly consistent with contemporary sources. The only “controversy” is that the quote can’t be independently verified by StackExchange users because the guy died 20 years ago.

[nerdponx]

The top answer even throws shade on the "it doesn't sound like my father" response.

[refurb]

You’re leaving out the fact people who knew him said “That doesn’t sound like something he’d say at all”.

[staticautomatic]

Your assertion is that it's been summarily discredited by a speculative though not unreasonably inferential comment on StackExchange?

[FriedPickles]

Why is marijuana so illegal and stigmatized in China?

[olalonde]

The Opium Wars probably have something to do with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

[seanmcdirmid]

Anti drug sentiment is common throughout Asia, not just China.

[jnathsf]

That’s not entirely true. There’s a long and enduring tradition of religious and recreational use of drugs in India (cannabis, charas, opium, datura). It was the British who applied their misguided Victorian morality on indigenous use.

[catalogia]

It seems probable that being close to China in a variety of ways (geographically, socially, etc) may have allowed the Opium Wars to induce anti-drug sentiment in other Asian countries as well. There are probably also other reasons for it, but I'd expect that to be one of the reasons.

[loeg]

Alcohol is still popular, though, for whatever reason.

[SuoDuanDao]

This is pure speculation on my part - but -

Organized crime in China has long been closely associated with mysticism and minority religions. Hashish, associated as it was with foreign traders and genuinely scary secret societies like the Hashashin*, may have set off alarm bells back in the day that are still taken seriously today.

[tapland]

I haven't been able to wrap my head around why Sweden is so against it wither.

[jacobush]

We do as the Americans do. We take a lot of ideas from there, with a bit of a lag. It might change in a few years, but on the other hand, smoking MJ is not that common here and mostly low status people do it. While in the US it seems to be pretty common across the board.

[Reedx]

How would that really explain much, considering that decades of administrations beyond Nixon continued the war on drugs?

Both sides. Plus many other countries.

Furthermore, it's only been recently that the public has finally supported legalizing even marijuana[1]. So legislative action hasn't been in the cards until as of late, and sadly there still doesn't seem to be much of a push or actual policies aside from a few exceptions (Yang).

1. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-s...

[pm90]

> considering that decades of administrations beyond Nixon continued the war on drugs?

There were unrelated reasons that lead to Urban decay and increase in crimes at the same time. The War on Drugs was a convenient distraction and an explanation for the ills that faced American society at the time. Only later did we realize the root causes of those instabilities were unrelated to drug use, and that the war on drugs actually made the problem worse.

This isn't all that surprising. Consider: the current POTUS and administration vilifies immigrants and blames them for all American societies ills.

This is such a common strategy of distraction, and the American public seem to fall for it repeatedly.

[nerdponx]

Don't forget, once the public came to associate marijuana with "bad things" then it was easy to get cheap votes by being "tough on crime" and correspondingly tough on drugs.

[watwut]

The point is Nixon was not outlier. His thinking was not exceptional, he just happen to be on tape and on charge.

[09bjb]

No, your Portugal-model belief isn't that "out there." In my (subjective) opinion, once you do your homework on the issue you come away assuming that the continued scheduling of drugs with low addictive potential and high potential for therapeutic use is due to:

1. The healthcare and pharmaceutical profits at stake if people needed less care and fewer prescription pharmaceuticals

2. Cultural momentum excluding Alcohol from being considered a drug (LOL) and approving of drugs that support the protestant work ethic and existing labor system (caffeine, nicotine, and prescription amphetamines to stay alert on the job and alcohol to wind down in the evening), plus the cultural momentum of billions of dollars and decades spent on a pointless and damaging "War on Drugs"

3. The threat that psychedelics in particular pose to existing authority structures: high self-respect, beliefs that each human is as worthy as the next, and the ability to imagine less authoritarian systems are all threatening to the existing system. Tim Leary wasn't wrong when he said that (users) "won't fight your wars, won't join your corporations"

~~~~~

    There are five different schedules of controlled substances, numbered I–V. The CSA describes the different schedules based on three factors:

    Potential for abuse: How likely is this drug to be abused?
    Accepted medical use: Is this drug used as a treatment in the United States?
    Safety and potential for addiction: Is this drug safe? How likely is this drug to cause addiction? What kinds of addiction?

[dangus]

Please don’t use code blocks for quotes, they’re impossible to read on mobile.

[grogenaut]

If people are going to complain about this, why isn't it in the posting instructions? In fact I don't see any posting instructions.

[vinceguidry]

They're not all that easy to read on desktop either.

The real issue is that code isn't intended to wrap naturally, while prose is. Prose doesn't belong in code blocks.

[grogenaut]

The real issue is no one knows this and being informed of weird UI quirks by sporadic user messaging seems the wrong approach. Eg if you care so much should you not instead be requesting a software fix?

[vinceguidry]

There is no software fix other than simple removal of functionality. You still want code blocks to not wrap(scroll) and you still want prose blocks to wrap. We already have solutions for both cases. For prose quote with "> ". Making posting guidelines won't stop people from using the wrong thing. "Sporadic user messaging" is all there's left.

[mulmen]

> There are five different schedules of controlled substances, numbered I–V. The CSA describes the different schedules based on three factors:

> Potential for abuse: How likely is this drug to be abused?

> Accepted medical use: Is this drug used as a treatment in the United States?

> Safety and potential for addiction: Is this drug safe? How likely is this drug to cause addiction? What kinds of addiction?

[rectang]

> I don’t understand why federal legalization has been so difficult.

Drug laws are enforced unequally across different racial groups. Those who benefit from oppressing racial minorities, especially via voter suppression through felony disenfranchisement, are understandably reluctant to relinquish their tools.

[09bjb]

"Those" have admitted it publicly too:

https://qz.com/645990/nixon-advisor-we-created-the-war-on-dr...

[rectang]

For what it's worth, I used "those" rather than naming names because that way it is easier to keep to the specific issue and avoid descending into partisan warfare — which is more in the spirit of the HN guidelines.

[09bjb]

Haha, well, when it starts with "oppressing racial minorities, especially via voter suppression through felony disenfranchisement" ...just follow the data ;)

[hanniabu]

While I respect the guidelines, we shouldn't be suppressing awareness and dirty tactics

[dsfyu404ed]

IIRC this quote has been discredited.

[abbadadda]

Why is this your about? It makes you seem confrontational. I read abouts for all types of reasons. I clicked on your username to see the likelihood that you're a bot ;-)

> If you're reading this odds are it's because you're incapable of having a well reasoned debate with someone who doesn't share your point of view.

[hanniabu]

Please provide proof

[dsfyu404ed]

Best I can do right now: https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11325750/nixon-war-on-drugs and https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/32247/did-ehrli...

Someone wrote a well done article (I wanna say it was Medium) which appears to be what the stackexchange answer is summarizing that actually tracked down all the who said what and laid a pretty darn good case for why the quote wasn't legit. It basically boiled down to the guy who alleges the quote having several past opportunities to drop that bomb but instead waited until everyone who could disagree was dead. A cursory Google search didn't turn it up for me and I'm not letting a stranger on the internet suck up any more of my time.

[simonh]

Except the Portuguese model, which I’m in favour of, does not ‘decriminalise drugs’. It decriminalises drug use, while still keeping hard drugs illegal to sell or exchange for a profit. What this does is keep users out if prisons and protects medical and social services professionals that help them with e.g. clean needles.

I do think the decriminalisation of the sale of marijuana is a reasonable step, but it’s fundamentally got nothing to do with the Portuguese model.

Norway seems to be taking the same route, so hopefully we’ll see more data to back up the success of this model in future.

[dvduval]

If I understand correctly about Portugal, I believe people can obtain drugs legally at government locations where they distribute the drug, but also have the ability to receive treatment for addiction. I don't know if there are some drugs like marijuana they can buy legally, or if even marijuana is illegal. Surely there aren't a bunch of people obtaining marijuana for free at the government office? Or are they?

[simonh]

I think Portugal prescribes some substitute drugs like methodone to some addicts as part of rehabilitation therapy, but this isn’t unique to Portugal and isn’t really a significant part of the overall strategy except to treat addiction as primarily a health issue.

Of course that’s a lot easier to do in countries with universal health care. I wish we took this approach more here in the UK.

[GordonS]

> I wish we took this approach more here in the UK

As do I, but given UK politics, it's unlikely to happen.

Both Labour and the Conservatives jump on drug control as a political points scoring mechanism, fueled (as always) by the tabloid press. As usual, it's "politics before people".

The fairly recent Psychoactive Substances Act, which makes just about everything illegal (except alcohol, caffeine, nicotine), shows just how progressive drug policy is in the UK.

[save_ferris]

Lobbying by the pharma and alcohol industries has been one of largest impediments to progress on cannabis.

There’s a tremendous amount of money that does not want legalization to happen.

[ancorevard]

Nonsense. Pharma will greatly benefit from the increase in number of schizophrenia patients.

Cannabis is a well established trigger among people whose genes are latent for schizophrenia or other psychosis.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604190/

[save_ferris]

> Nonsense.

Pharmaceutical companies have donated millions to preventing legalization[0], and yet you’re invoking a rare genetic condition as evidence that pharma supports legalization? They’re literally some of the largest donors to anti-legalization efforts.

0: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/oct/22...

[refurb]

They are donating to anti-legalization for the positive PR so that when people say “you make an addictive drug”, they can say they are trying to stop abuse.

[SuoDuanDao]

If that's genuinely their motivation it's incredibly stupid, given that it's easy to accuse them of trying to keep home remedies out of reach of the public.

[hanniabu]

Pharma does not make marijuana

[refurb]

But they do make opioids, benzos and other abuseable drugs.

[catalogia]

That may be true but it doesn't rule out the possibility (more like 'virtually certain likelihood') that they have other motivations as well.

[09bjb]

Nonsense. The number of potential marijuana users that would stand to benefit vastly outnumbers the number of potential users who have a psychotic break in their future that could be accelerated by marijuana or another psychotropic drug. Which, yes, is an acknowledged risk of many of these substances.

[beenBoutIT]

The idea that any drug is capable of permanently transforming a sane individual into a psychotic lunatic is pure bullshit. If there was a substance capable of such magic it would have been weaponized long ago and political dissidents would all wind up insane as opposed to dead in places like modern day Russia, China, etc.

[biotech]

I won't argue for or against marijuana, but I disagree with your argument.

Some drugs are capable of permanently transforming a "sane" individual into one with psychosis or other permanent mental disorders. Even alcohol has been shown to have this effect in some heavy long term users. It's even more common in meth users. It is not "pure bullshit."

[btilly]

As long as a drug's success rate in making someone psychotic is low enough, it will not be able to be weaponized.

Per https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/teens-who-smoke-pot-at-r... if you have marijuana while young and no other particular risk factors, your chances of becoming psychotic increase by 7/1000. The combination of you had to take it while young and this low rate make it a poor choice of a way to abuse dissident adults.

[amanaplanacanal]

Sounds like bs to me. People with early psychiatric symptoms are probably more likely to self medicate with weed. In other words the arrow of causality is probably backwards.

[catalogia]

> political dissidents would all wind up insane as opposed to dead in places like modern day Russia, China, etc.

I don't think it's safe to assume these regimes would favor chemically induced insanity over murder/assassination/execution. For starters, induced insanity wouldn't provide a supply of organs. For another, those in power might fear that the procedure could become reversible, or may have efficacy that wears off over time (these fears may well be ungrounded but still sufficient motivation.) This is to say, there is a finality to death that's hard to match. Furthermore, if it only works "naturally" on a small segment of the population then it's not a forgone conclusion that Putin could snap his fingers and have it weaponized such that it's effective on everybody.

Also keep in mind that inducing insanity reliably can already be done today using very primitive technology. Prolonged sensory deprivation, or even just social isolation, takes a hard toll on people. That's a pretty reliable mechanism from what I understand, and is considered a heinous form torture by many, yet these governments still choose kill people. They could also give people lobotomies or fry their brains [ab]using electroconvulsive therapy, but they still choose to kill people.

[Noos]

...if anything they would benefit more by making marijuana and other drugs legal and cheap, in order to suppress dissent. Surprised no one ever looks at it that way; people sitting around smoking a bowl are not likely to do much political protest

[whymauri]

Anticholinergic OTCs like Benadryl can cause both acute and chronic psychosis when abused.

[astura]

It's no joke, Benadryl gave me horrifying hallucinations when I was a kid. It happened because a careless caretaker gave me the adult dose rather than the children's dose.

[throwawaymath]

Just to make sure I understand you correctly: you don't believe there exist any drugs which can permanently alter the psyche of an individual, up to and including psychosis?

[smt1]

I think a lot of the time, it is a side effect of lifestyle decisions (and/or misuse) that the drug in question can induce, not necessarily the drug itself. For example, amphetamine is prescribed to millions of Americans for ADHD (see, Adderall/Vynanse). However, if one were to for example, have poor sleep hygenine as a result of miuse, the chance of psychosis is high from not getting enough sleep.

There are definitely neurotoxic substances that can induce psychosis or other problems (such as parkinsonianism) but these tend not to be very usable either clinically or recreationally. I think overall, the chance of cardiotoxic or repository depression is more of a common problem with most common recreatioal drugs at common doses.

[yibg]

Define greatly. The amount they stand to lose from just chronic pain medication vastly out strips any potential profit from treatment of maybe slightly increased cases of schizophrenia.

[Reedx]

> As a former marijuana user this seems obvious to me

That's a key point, you've used it and have actual experience with it.

Marijuana has long been misunderstood and misinformation abound, but as more people use it or know those who do, that's been quickly changing. Add to that increasing medical evidence and more doctors coming onboard. It's just a matter of time now.

Indeed it seems we've already hit the tipping point. Public opinion flipped in recent years on whether it should be legalized, most are now in support: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-s...

[ngokevin]

There are a few presidential candidates that are for it, including mushrooms:

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/decriminalizeopioids/

[pier25]

There is a fundamental truth society and lawmakers refuse to ignore. People that want to consume drugs will do so regardless of the legality of it.

It would be much healthier for everyone (drug users and non drugs users) to simply acknowledge this truth.

[claudeganon]

>I don’t understand why federal legalization has been so difficult.

Alcohol and opioid manufacturing buying off politicians. Mass incarceration as a policy to preserve slavery in the US economy and to serve as a jobs program for police and guard forces.

[TylerE]

Not only that, but the Prison-Industrial complex is a real thing. Private prisons are an outrage.

[jdminhbg]

Private prisons only account for ~8% (and falling) of US prisoners[0]. Their incentives are bad, but public prisons have just as many self-interested groups with even more political power[1].

[0]: https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/private-priso...

[1]: e.g. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/biggest-obstacl...

[eagsalazar2]

So sad that this is the right answer.

[dgzl]

I think it's because the people in charge just don't understand or care about the culture. They see the few problems that stem from marijuana and write off the entire idea. Only slowly has marijuana crept into the mainstream for who we might consider "adults."

[__s]

"Good people don't smoke marijuana" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGx72wL4gx4

[hn_throwaway_99]

I don't feel like there is much that unites the left and right in American politics these days, except for perhaps anything said by Jeff Sessions is a pretty strong argument that the opposite opinion is the correct answer.

[seganddr]

Billionaire Sheldon Adelson contributes a lot of money to "conservative" politicians as long as they're anti drug. His son died of an overdose. https://theintercept.com/2016/11/02/sheldon-adelson-fights-m...

[GuB-42]

Just to clear a common misunderstanding.

Portugal decriminalized drug use. Meanings that drugs are still illegal, it is just that you won't face a court of law and you won't go to jail, but you can still get punished, for example with a fine.

Also, if you have more than a small amount of drugs, it is considered trafficking and it is still a crime in Portugal. With jail time.

And there is no exception for cannabis, it is illegal just like crack and heroin.

[Consultant32452]

There's a small percentage of the population for which marijuana triggers psychosis.

I support legalization of all drugs regardless of their safety, but it's important not to generalize too widely based on personal experience. Marijuana presents a different but important risk set when compared to alcohol or tobacco.

[amanaplanacanal]

For those who are susceptible any strong or traumatic experience can trigger psychosis, including leaving home for college. I don’t think that’s a good argument against going to college though.

[posterboy]

There's a decision of the German high court finding there's no inalienable right to get high. However, the right to an education is a fundamental human right.

I'm not saying I understand or agree with the fundamental arguments. In fact, I don't think there aren't any arguments that were not subjective.

I'd say moderate intoxication is not a necessary evil. School is, though. Well, mild intoxication, for lack of a better word, is inavoidable. School is avoidable though.

Speaking from personal experience I find drug use and learning can be at odds very much. The topics are interrelated. And your comparison is backwards. If you are really saying: There can be good reasons not to go to college, but these don't generalize--whatever reasons those may be; Then we can prohibit drug use, if we can make school compulsory. There's no equivalence.

I mean how ridiculuous would it sound that, we must get these people high!? We must let them have relieve at the cost of a few failed existences--sounds not much better. It's OK in case of college, because we need that to reduce the need for it--something like that, if not to cure alzheimer. At this point I note that my idea of drug use chiefly to get high might strike someone as odd and in need of regulation.

That's what they call for, after all, control, information, responsibility. What would that look like in practice? Only one way to find out, you have to inform yourself.

The message that it's bad and hence illegal is therefore the simplest. It does not incur any further responsibility for the emitter, but leaves it completely with the user: It incures duty in prisons--that's the users fault, they didn't have to. Prohibition is a reasonable form of control, too. Because, first those who must participate will find a way any way, whether to their own detriment or not. And then, getting caught should always follow a prior fuck up. Import a substance that sells at the price of, I don't know, alluminum, although it's literally peanuts--hell yeah you are morally corrupt. And I don't see the price coming down after legilization. Whereas getting imprisoned for possession is rather difficult where I'm from, so it's a proxy for worse offenses that get one in the spotlight, often enough.

Perhaps price is a measure of control. If time is money, then an economist sees a lot of time going to waste; perhaps even in colleges and business schools. Thereby I've achieved reduction ad absurdum, commiting to the same falacious comparison as you.

If there's anything else I wanted to say, could have or should've said, the I forgot. My memory is very bad, sorry. I blame information technology, and a sped up aging process.

[Consultant32452]

I think you're bumping up against the difference between positive and negative human rights. Positive human rights requires someone to do something for you. Negative human rights only requires others to not interfere with you.

Negative human rights are the only kind that make sense in my opinion. I don't owe you my labor, my time, or even my existence. It's only when you start thinking you are owed a part of me that you start thinking you should get to control what I do with my body.

This is why the right to free speech is about the government not inhibiting your ability to speak and why the right to bear arms doesn't imply the state must provide you with a gun. Some positive human rights like right to an attorney squeak in because we're about to take away one or more of your other negative rights through the judicial process.

[posterboy]

> negative human rights

did you make that up? I know positive and negative discrimination is a thing, and there was even a fourfold distinction something I don't quite recall about positive/negative punishment/encouragement, sometging about how we learn. So, thanks for the downvotes, I mean, the attention.

"Negative right" is a paradox. You cannot at the fundamental level forbid to forbid.

[LyndsySimon]

Not the parent poster, but no, they didn’t make it up. It’s a well-established conceptual classification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights