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

Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 660 posts

Re: Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

#581

Post by pas »

kumarvvr wrote: post #485
pas wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Caffeine and alcohol both available legally, both are mind altering and addictive. Did that lead to a degeneration? How come they transform some but not all people into bums? Is it like a virus, some are immune? Does the data for alcohol-addicts look like data for epidemics? Maybe the transformation happens due to some other reason?

Alcohol is extremely destructive to society in many seen and unseen ways. Why would you even think alcohol has no negative effects on society?

I said no such thing. I know it's destructive (especially with the ban on other substances leading to an overconsumption), but it did not lead to a degeneration.

And as studies came to light, as the scientific consensus slowly but surely arrives at the "most likely no safe amount" conclusion, it gets less and less glamorized in TV shows, and young people are already drinking less (probably because they're on tiktok and screens instead). Despite all the advertisement for alcohol.

Re: Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

#582

Post by pas »

yakubin wrote: post #457
pas wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Caffeine and alcohol both available legally, both are mind altering and addictive. Did that lead to a degeneration? How come they transform some but not all people into bums? Is it like a virus, some are immune? Does the data for alcohol-addicts look like data for epidemics? Maybe the transformation happens due to some other reason?

> Caffeine and alcohol both available legally, both are mind altering and addictive. Did that lead to a degeneration? Alcohol: absolutely? How many parents beat their children/spouses under the influence of alcohol, but never sober? How many kill others under the influence while driving?

Is that a "degeneration"? People were drinking hundreds of years ago too and there has been a lot of progress despite the availability of alcohol. (The fact that we managed to get to a point where we finally think alcohol is bad is itself, I argue, a sign of progress.)

I'm not saying it's great, I'm saying that it's legal, and it should be, and other drugs also should be, and enforcement of responsible use should be a priority.

Re: Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

#583

Post by palata »

seventhtiger wrote: post #538
palata wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, let's say you find a way to distribute the resources evenly between everybody. Haven't you solved poverty then? Then if you want to solve inequalities, do you think it's easier to start by solving inequalities between the poor people, or is it easier to start by taking money from those who are insanely rich for no good reason?

Your first step is "take" and your second step is "figure it out". If you did figure it out, you wouldn't have to be forcefully taking. Are you assuming we already have enough resources to solve poverty? Isn't the actual issue that even with perfectly equal distribution we don't have enough resources for every body? If the pie isn't big enough, why is the communist's focus always on how to divide the pie, rather than…

I can't really tell you how communists think, to be honest, because I am not exactly one. It's a weird thing (in the US?) that everyone who is not libertarian is considered communist (and not any communist: mostly the kind that is "the enemy" in cold war era video games, apparently).

There are many systems that would probably be considered communist in the US (at least by those of you who seem to have no clue about anything that is not libertarian) that work really well without genocides. But you'd have to open a book that is not US-centered to see that.

Re: Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

#584

Post by fwlr »

mike4ty4 wrote: post #526
fwlr wrote: post #218

Punishing people for being addicted to drugs is miserable, and having people be addicted to drugs is also miserable. When drugs were criminalized, the state had to dole out a lot of misery in punishments, but this also depressed the addiction/usage rate, which consequently lowered the drug addiction misery by some amount as well (not necessarily by more than the extra misery that punishment brought, but not necessari…

This is a good/interesting way to look at it ... add up the total misery level instead of pretending that in either case "the misery" has stopped because you deliberately exclude one or the other miseries from the accounting. Punishment does deter things. Whether it is the only thing that can is a different matter. But I think a lot of those who want alternatives need to get out of the "punishment does not deter" nar…

I think you need to go further than looking at the total misery, although that is definitely an important first step in preventing false accounting. You need to account for some basic “game theory / behavioral economics / control system”-type stuff: when you decrease or increase one variable, what happens to the other variables?

Applied at a crude level, this tells you that removing punishment misery will cause addiction misery to rise (which is an important refinement - a “total misery accounting” perspective that doesn’t have this included will believe that removing punishment misery would leave addiction misery unchanged, thus improving total misery).

Applied at a more sophisticated level, this gets you analyzing incremental changes in punishment or addiction policy: e.g. this new law adds x punishment misery, how much does it reduce addiction misery by? If the answer is “less than x”, you now have some objective basis for concluding this policy is “needlessly cruel”.

Re: Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

#585

Post by DropInIn »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #573
DropInIn wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society can't have it both ways - they can't be both receiving constant direct intervention and be invisible at the same time. So long as the majority just want them out of sight or dead, we need to focus on ensuring that they are seen as members of the community rather than a blight, right?

> that they are seen as members of the community rather than a blight, right? I don't know how it works in the US, but they are primarily people in need of care, like a person with a disease, they need to be cured before they can go back to the society and be part of it or they will return to segregate themselves and die alone sooner or later. Putting them behind 4 walls is exactly making them invisible, so that the…

So, before we can get funding for treatment we need public will, right?

So long as they are viewed as degenerates unwilling to engage in basic care, there will never be the public will. And for some they wouldn't take the help even if it was available, because for a minority it is in fact a lifestyle choice.

Given both those facts, the first step to getting public will for treatment is to minimize the negative perceptions of the class, which is best achieved in the immediate term by reducing visibility, specifically of the street drug addicts.

Combine with safe supply and direct interventionist supports (room checks, emergency buttons, etc) and there would be both an immediate improvement in QoL, individual outcomes and public sentiment towards further supports.

A key is to not permit use in rooms but only at safe sites within the building. Rule violation would mean switching to a monitored room (camera to ensure no drug abuse).

One issue underlying all of this though so that such systems simply can't work for those who suffered abuse by the system in the past, there's too many of our visible homeless and drug users who are where they are almost exclusively because of abuses in foster care or imprisonment (borne of false conviction). Those people will almost never participate in a gov or NGO program which includes facilities and monitoring.... And I don't really blame them.

The truth is we need to stop the problem before it starts and the only real way is to prevent traumas, treats those we can't prevent and bring justice against those who use the system to abuse others or protect abusers.

Sadly, in many ways most drug addicts are a "lost cause" before they even start using, just as so many alcoholics are.

That's the consequences of systemic willful ignorance of trauma.

Re: Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

#586

Post by tiffanyg »

K0balt wrote: post #554
HumblyTossed wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Life is misery by default, as a natural consequence of life itself. The never ending tyranny of the need to eat and avoid being eaten is the normal state of affairs. > Honestly, if a person isn’t up for it, we need to stop trying to convince them to stay around and be miserable. Elective suicide should be a basic right, and drugs are one way out. We only create misery by “helping” people that don’t want hep. What a…

We should, I agree. But not everyone wants to participate. I believe life is wonderful and precious… but it is , by default, misery. If you do nothing (the default condition) to sustain or improve your existence, you will be miserable. That is the never ending tyranny of imperative action. That is the fundamental nature of life, and not everyone is up for it. And that’s ok.

As another commenter noted, you're making lots of assumptions. For example, your mindset sounds, to me, entirely "modern 'western'".

I would suggest that the fundamental issue with your assumptions is a blurring of the lines when it comes to the objective and subjective. Specifically, nature and certain realms of human existence ARE objectively "harsh", unforgiving, uncomfortable, etc. However, that does not mean that all who exist or have existed in such realms are miserable.

If you've not seen this before, this show is just one (of a great many materials not so prevalent in modern western intensely consumer / advertising / so-called "achievement"-oriented cultures) reference with some real views of massive differences in (subjective) experience people can have across various "objective" realities:

https://www.themoviedb.org/tv/83990-the-kindness-diaries?lan...

In any case, your policy proposals earlier would, IMO, add up to poor outcomes. Not because they are inherently so bad / worse than what's been tried - more just due to the nature of the problem. Our tools / these sorts of tools are incredibly blunt compared to the complexity of the problem. And, trying to put in place some of what you propose, would definitely harm some people - in part simply in making the changes.

I am not claiming to be able to do any better, though, for sure.

Re: Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

#587

Post by Broken_Hippo »

leesalminen wrote: post #408
pmoriarty wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"And that last bit - about a death sentence? That is only for a few addicts. A subset of addicts die." Not only that, but most drug users aren't addicts. To the general public, when they hear the words "drug user" they immediately equate that with "addict", and many can't even imagine that people could use drugs and not get addicted. But that's not true, as addicts are a small minority of drug users. Drug policy affe…

> addicts are a small minority of drug users. Do you have any reliable data to back up that claim? In my experience users who purport to not be addicts are indeed addicts in massive denial about their poor choices.

I've known a lot of folks that smoke pot on the weekends. I don't always mind heavy pot users: Generally better than alcoholics.

I've known a lot of folks that use hallucinogens: You aren't addicted to those, in general.

I've known a lot of folks with a liking to cocaine, but they can't afford to use more than a couple times a year. Or it just isn't something they want to feel every day. This applies to a lot of drug use.

I've met a lot of folks that only use drugs (or alcohol) when they have a sitter for their children.

You probably don't have reliable data to back up your claim either, and have the added mental block of deciding that all of the folks have poor choices. And unfortunately, you aren't using what you know about, say, alcohol and applying that to other druts. Most folks that drink alcohol aren't addicts or alcoholics. Even if they drink more than you, it doesn't mean they are alcoholics.

Re: Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

#588

Post by Broken_Hippo »

thriftwy wrote: post #358
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tent cities don't exist solely in places without access to housing "Access to housing" isn't enough. You might have "access" to health care but unable to afford it. You need housing as a right - even without payment - alongside enough adequate housing for everyone. And allow folks to do things in their own home. If they cannot do it at their home with other people, the person in question does not have adequate housin…

A billion people across the world may want a house "as right" in San Francisco. It may only fit three order of magnitudes people realistically, though.

Why would the right to housing stop in san francisco?

Most places can do this. The US can do it. Everything contrary is just excuses.

Re: Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

#589

Post by knightofmars »

DropInIn wrote: post #544
alsetmusic wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also the most readily available. The health problems don’t happen in a bubble. I’d bet heroin is far more destructive per user, but I’m just guessing at that.

Theres no need to guess, we can just look to before it was prohibited. And it was alcohol that was worse. Most people don't care to use it (heroin) at all let alone regularly. Opiates cause nausea and retching in most areas drug abuse levels.... Alcohol was far more popular and consistently harmful... Just ask the wives of the time what they'd rather thier husbands use....

Alcohol is a potential catalyst and not a cause in these situations. There are underlying problems with people's psyche that lead to abusive outcomes. Add in centuries of religion supporting and encouraging the beating of wives and children who don't submit it's no wonder we as a species ended up where we are. Even Ghandi who was teetotaler hit his wife.

Point being, like anything, it's complex. Yes, alcohol is a factor in abuse. But it's not the cause.

Re: Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

#590

Post by seventhtiger »

palata wrote: post #583
seventhtiger wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first step is "take" and your second step is "figure it out". If you did figure it out, you wouldn't have to be forcefully taking. Are you assuming we already have enough resources to solve poverty? Isn't the actual issue that even with perfectly equal distribution we don't have enough resources for every body? If the pie isn't big enough, why is the communist's focus always on how to divide the pie, rather than…

I can't really tell you how communists think, to be honest, because I am not exactly one. It's a weird thing (in the US?) that everyone who is not libertarian is considered communist (and not any communist: mostly the kind that is "the enemy" in cold war era video games, apparently). There are many systems that would probably be considered communist in the US (at least by those of you who seem to have no clue about a…

I'm not American, nor am I a libertarian. I'm a socialist Arab.

I still object to communism, and populist memes like "eat the rich." At best they're immature, at worst they're agents of chaos and destruction who actually harm the lives of millions when they get what they want.

Post reply on HN