Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Drug decriminalization in Oregon begins today

drugpolicy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 242 posts

Re: Drug decriminalization in Oregon begins today

#111

Post by valuearb »

ogre_codes wrote: post #66
GuB-42 wrote: post #46

Just to make things clear, decriminalization is not legalization. Drugs are still illegal, and users risk a $100 fine, especially if they are uncooperative. The difference is that it is now a civil violation instead of a crime, so no record, no jail time, kind of like a parking ticket. Drug trafficking is still a crime.

> Drug trafficking is still a crime. Which is how this should be for many drugs. Though I would like a clean source for the occasional dose of LSD. Just... you know once a month or so.

Drug “trafficking” should absolutely be legal. While Decriminalization is laudatory and beneficial, it solves far fewer problems than outright legalization.

With decriminalization:

1) drug users will still not know what they are actually consuming. They can very easily invest drugs heavily mixed with other drugs, or dangerous chemicals. This will lead to far higher levels of accidental overdoses and is a path to more addictive substances.

2) Drug sellers will still be subject to lengthy prison terms. This directly creates to massive amounts of drug violence. If you are a dealer, you will commonly hold large amounts of cash and valuable drugs, making you a prime target for robbery including home invasions.

Since you cannot rely on banks to deposit your sales, nor police to protect your property, you will need to be heavily armed.

And if you suspect a partner or customer to actually be an informant who can net you a sentence nearly as long as murder, there is almost no downside to killing them. How many innocent kids have been buried in fields because of the paranoia of their dealer?

3) Our individual rights have been reduced significantly because of drug sales prohibition. Because of the war on drugs, police can get no knock warrants to burst in your house, kill your dogs, maybe even you, and not even apologize when it turns out their “tip” was wrong.

If you are driving or flying with a large amount of cash, police can simply take it from you without showing it was linked to any crime, and force you to spend thousands on a lawyer to even have a chance of seeing it returned.

Then there are zero tolerance laws that allowed police to seize your property because anyone on it was using drugs.

We all pay the price for the drug prohibition, whether we use drugs or not. Time to end it completely.

Re: Drug decriminalization in Oregon begins today

#112

Post by throwawayboise »

jjeaff wrote: post #100
notJim wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually seems really problematic for drug trafficking to be a crime while consumption is decriminalized. It creates an easier market for organized crime to sell into, which reduces their risk. IMO instead we should do something along the lines of allowing doctors to prescribe pure versions of illegal drugs to people who are addicted. Then the drugs can be made by legitimate firms that can be regulated heavily.

Reducing risk for traffickers is probably a good thing. Because it will flood the market with competitors. Organized crime thrives because of the risk, not in spite of it. They are the only ones willing to take the risk, so they own the market.

They are also inclined to violently remove competition, or force competitors to operate under their control, so I think it remains to be seen how it will play out.

Re: Drug decriminalization in Oregon begins today

#113

Post by sandworm101 »

ttul wrote: post #95
ogre_codes wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Drug trafficking is still a crime. Which is how this should be for many drugs. Though I would like a clean source for the occasional dose of LSD. Just... you know once a month or so.

I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Criminalization of drug production and distribution has been an abject policy failure from the start. Ending the criminalization of drugs and bringing all drugs into a regulatory framework that is guided by health outcomes rather than the one-size-fits-all goal of eradication is the only path that has a hope of reducing the harms associated with the hardest of drugs. You can't stop…

>> bringing all drugs into a regulatory framework that is guided by health outcomes

Outcomes for who? The individual or the population? Seriously. Ask a doctor and they would probably agree that, for a particular patient, having access to legal safe alternatives is a good thing. But ask them about drugs as a whole, for the entire population, and the answer will always be "less is better but zero is best." Stemming the supply will damage current users, but illegality also suppresses uptake by new users.

Opioids are different than pot. LSD is different than rohypnol. Cocaine is not the same as ketamine. Balling all "drugs" into one category and declaring them legal for traffic and sale is a horrible idea. I don't want to see GHB to ever be sold or transported openly.

Re: Drug decriminalization in Oregon begins today

#114

Post by catstack »

aksss wrote: post #80
catstack wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I welcome anyone who is suffering from addiction to move to Oregon. I hope that as a society we can help them overcome their addiction instead of treating them as a criminals and perpetuating the cycle. It's a suffering human and I don't care what state they live in. I hope other states will move to enact similar policies. We are in this together. I truly believe that legalizing drugs, taxing them, and offering treat…

I think there’s a group of people that will view Oregon as a promising hospital and a another group that will view it as Disneyland. These reforms will welcome both.

"a group of people that will view Oregon as a promising hospital"

I don't follow you on this. Do you mean people will think that Oregon has good health care and will make a move based on that?

"another group that will view it as Disneyland"

I mean, yeah... It's going to be easier to get substances in Oregon than it will be in other states. I would like to see a study on this but I couldn't imagine a significant amount of people who are suffering from addition is going to make the move to Oregon because of this. Do you know someone who has been or is dealing with addiction? I'm not saying that in a condescending way.

Re: Drug decriminalization in Oregon begins today

#115

Post by rootusrootus »

BooneJS wrote: post #40

What happens to people in the justice system for violations of the old law?

AFAIK, nothing. Unless the governor does some kind of sweeping commutation, every case that has already been adjudicated is not automatically affected by this law. Admittedly, I only skimmed the text before voting yes. I imagine it could be used as an argument if the convict can get their case before a judge on appeal.

Re: Drug decriminalization in Oregon begins today

#116

Post by crazydoggers »

ttul wrote: post #95
ogre_codes wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Drug trafficking is still a crime. Which is how this should be for many drugs. Though I would like a clean source for the occasional dose of LSD. Just... you know once a month or so.

I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Criminalization of drug production and distribution has been an abject policy failure from the start. Ending the criminalization of drugs and bringing all drugs into a regulatory framework that is guided by health outcomes rather than the one-size-fits-all goal of eradication is the only path that has a hope of reducing the harms associated with the hardest of drugs. You can't stop…

Very well said. The real world pain caused by drug money going to black market criminals can’t be ignored. It’s easy to bury our heads in the sand and ignore how drug money fuels victimization through exploitation and human trafficking.

And I’m sure someone will pipe up that they know some nice weed dealers etc, but you have to realize that’s a nice little bubble you’re living in. For many, the drug dealers are linked to some very nasty individuals, and the criminalization of drugs has simply given them huge income streams.

Re: Drug decriminalization in Oregon begins today

#117

Post by lotsofpulp »

QuercusMax wrote: post #102
lotsofpulp wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“1-2 drinks/hr” is not a well defined metric. It’s better to use units of alcohol: https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/alcohol-support/calculating-alc... And more than 1 5% beer is outside of almost all people’s ability to “process” in an hour. I would wager the majority of people based on size/weight can’t process a single 5% beer in an hour.

When people are drinking 6-packs, it's much more likely to be Coors Light (4.2%) than something like an Arrogant Bastard. According to 5 seconds of googling, the typical weight of an American man in 2016 was 197lbs. You might well lose your wager.

My estimate was based on half of the population being women, and the fact that fat doesn’t assist with processing alcohol as much as muscle, and most American men are not exactly muscular.

https://mcwell.nd.edu/your-well-being/physical-well-being/al...

Re: Drug decriminalization in Oregon begins today

#118

Post by tastyfreeze »

throwaway2121bx wrote: post #68

I'm a proponent for legalizing drugs. But I believe there will be negative long-term consequences from drug use becoming normalized and so easy to obtain. People who wouldn't otherwise use drugs could be forgiven (after reading about legalization in the binary and positive way it is often reported, or from walking around a city with an upmarket weed shop every few blocks) for believing it can't be that bad for you an…

Of the people that wouldn't use drugs there will be some that legality is their only reason for not consuming. But most in the non-consuming group wouldn't consume even if it was legal for a myriad of other reasons.

I prefer the warnings to be helpful for informing adults weighing risks in their decision. Scarier warnings like on cigarette packs are a means of forcing personal or governmental ideals on others through fear. Provide all the known facts and let people make their choice.

Re: Drug decriminalization in Oregon begins today

#119

Post by throwawayboise »

recursive wrote: post #82
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Start with dinner at 6 and go to bed at 9 and that's 2/hr. Not exactly keg stands and jungle juice territory. The human body processes 1-2 drinks/hr so at the end you'll have a buzz on the order of one stiff mixed drink (~3-4 shots of stuff in the 40% ballpark spread out over a tall glass of sugary fruity stuff). Edit: And since apparently this needs saying "drink" = "the standard alcohol/drink unit that all the prof…

I have no doubt that much higher levels of consumption are possible. I don't really have a position on what "binge" should mean, but that doesn't exactly sound like it's not. Could just be my perspective. I probably drink most days. Usually one beer. Rarely, I might have two in a day. I can't remember that last time I had more than that.

I roughly define binge as any amount of drinking that leaves you with a hangover the next day. That usually indicates that you have consumed enough to lose your judgment on when to stop.

Re: Drug decriminalization in Oregon begins today

#120

Post by xyzzy123 »

throwaway2121bx wrote: post #68

I'm a proponent for legalizing drugs. But I believe there will be negative long-term consequences from drug use becoming normalized and so easy to obtain. People who wouldn't otherwise use drugs could be forgiven (after reading about legalization in the binary and positive way it is often reported, or from walking around a city with an upmarket weed shop every few blocks) for believing it can't be that bad for you an…

Yeah I think overall harm minimisation would have to take into account negative externalities.

Even if you decriminalised meth, for example, and removed the need for property crime to get it, it could still cause a lot of bad effects for people proximate to the users.

People stay awake for days, become irrational and violent. Prolonged use can trigger psychotic episodes.

There needs to be a balance between taking into account the safety and freedom of users and the safety and freedom of wider society.

Post reply on HN