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

Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 1001 posts

Re: Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

#181

Post by tlogan »

rvcdbn wrote: post #165
tlogan wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand. But what is the solution? Just wait for them to all die? Here in San fransciso we have 3 overdose death per day. That is 40% spike from last years. In 2017 we had 222 overdose death for entire year and we reached that number by march 15h this year. [1] https://sf.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/2021%2005_OCME%20...

The solution that seems most likely to work IMO seems to be a European-style welfare state. All drugs have long been decriminalized in Portugal and you don’t see that kind of thing on the streets of Lisbon. But I don’t see that happening any time soon in the USA.

> you don’t see that kind of thing

> on the streets of Lisbon.

Actually that is exactly what I saw on the streets of Lisbon. Please do visit by yourself.

Re: Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

#182

Post by alphazard »

tlogan wrote: post #121

I used to strongly support making drugs legal. I thought: this is a free country, you should be able to do what you want. But what I've seen in San Francisco has made me think differently. Most people who use drugs eventually end up not being able to live like normal adults. And no one willingly goes to get help or treatment. The problem will stick around because politicians care more about how things look. They'll s…

Why is there something to do? Your questions seem predicated on a false assumption that no one likes to say out loud: Drug users have a better life waiting for them after they stop using.

Daily drug use may actually be the correct way for some people to maximize the integral of happiness over their lifetime. Especially for those at the bottom with limited prospects. I don't think most of HN can fathom what it's like to actually be completely useless. You're delusional if you think the homeless problem is a bunch of software engineers who tried heroin once, and left FAANG to get high every day.

> Should we require drug tests for homeless people to receive government help like SF CAAP payments?

This is a great idea. If you want society to invest in you, you have to take basic steps to be a worthy investment. But even this is predicated on the idea that what these drugs users are doing is wrong, and that they should instead do something that lets the rest of us reap the benefits of their productivity. Who are we to demand someone be more productive for our own benefit? We're right to want something in exchange for our investment, but there's no place to stand and say a drug user is wrong for not taking the deal.

Re: Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

#183

Post by anon84873628 »

z0r wrote: post #148
rvcdbn wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have built a society where the best options for these people are to do what they are doing. Nobody starts using because they have a great life but they’re just curious what a bit of meth feels like and then accidentally get hooked. They do it because there’s no better life path open to them. It’s really a form of suicide. Criminalizing will make the suicide process faster and less visible to you. It won’t stop any…

I think you're oversimplifying things a little bit. Some people will try e.g. heroin and get hooked due to curiosity. Some people do derail otherwise promising lives with drug and alcohol use.

Heroin is one of the few drugs where "once is enough". Many people go through phases experimenting with drugs in specific party contexts (e.g. raves) but that doesn't carry over to daily life. The people who carry it over are the ones looking for an escape as parent describes.

Edit: And of course it doesn't require that they have obviously impoverished hopeless lives. Part of the illness of our society is the huge numbers of depressed/lonely/etc middle class people who otherwise seem to have a life "on track"

Re: Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

#184

Post by singpolyma3 »

tlogan wrote: post #121

I used to strongly support making drugs legal. I thought: this is a free country, you should be able to do what you want. But what I've seen in San Francisco has made me think differently. Most people who use drugs eventually end up not being able to live like normal adults. And no one willingly goes to get help or treatment. The problem will stick around because politicians care more about how things look. They'll s…

The point is that putting them in prison doesn't solve the problem and giving power to police results in inconsistent enforcement harmful to communities.

The point isn't that using some of these substances is "fine" but that it should be treated as a public health problem (like smoking) not a criminal problem.

Re: Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

#185

Post by kcb »

anon84873628 wrote: post #158
ecshafer wrote: post #149

Supporting legalization / decriminalization of hard drugs is a luxury belief. If you’re in a nice rich circle it’s easy to believe it doesn’t harm anyone except yourself. If you are around people that become drug addicts, it becomes apparent that it drastically harms everyone around them, themselves probably not the most. You can only see so many addict parents throw away the money for kids food, or pawn of their kid…

Clearly the prohibition on drugs is not preventing those people from accessing them. Obviously rehabilitation would be ideal. But all else being equal, it would be better if the drugs were cheaper and safer.

It's not so hard to believe that lack of access prevents some from getting hooked.

Re: Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

#186

Post by brightlancer »

Rubbish.

Folks made the exact same arguments about alcohol and marijuana. Specifically with alcohol, anyone can walk into a treatment center without fear that they'll be arrested for the mere _use_ of a substance. (Marijuana has very low risk and rates of addiction, physical or psychological.)

If "hard" drugs are legalized, then they will likely be treated the same as alcohol and pot and tobacco: highly regulated, sold only to adults in very limited stores, and folks can enter treatment without fear of arrest.

The big mistake California (and other Leftist faux-topias) made was decriminalizing THEFT, ASSAULT, smoking and shooting on BART, smoking and shooting in public parks, smoking and shooting on sidewalks in front of residences -- and taxing the legal pot industry so highly that it was miles cheaper to buy stuff illegally no the corner.

Re: Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

#187

Post by ddingus »

collaborative wrote: post #116
api wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My take is that we're going from a criminalization based "screw them, warehouse them in jail and ruin their lives with felony convictions" policy to a laissez-faire "screw them, let them die on the street" policy. The part that hasn't changed is "screw them." Nobody really cares about these people. They're viewed as an inconvenience and the debate is over the least costly way to either warehouse them or shove them as…

The problem as I see it is that any "treatment" requires the addict wanting to be treated You could argue that the Taliban are the government that cares the most about addicts, because they are actually making addicts change the way a parent corrects a child But addicts are grown ups with free will

Truth and I would change that statement just a bit:

Any * successful * treatment requires the patient to want treatment.

In addition, the triggers for it all need to be addressed.

Those can be:

Simple pain, trauma

More complex financial issues, housing, etc...

PTSD of various kinds, war, abuse and the like.

Without a plan to address triggers and desire to be done with it all, treatment success is extremely unlikely.

Re: Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

#188

Post by rvcdbn »

kljasdlkjfsd wrote: post #156
rvcdbn wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have built a society where the best options for these people are to do what they are doing. Nobody starts using because they have a great life but they’re just curious what a bit of meth feels like and then accidentally get hooked. They do it because there’s no better life path open to them. It’s really a form of suicide. Criminalizing will make the suicide process faster and less visible to you. It won’t stop any…

That's an interesting take but I think it's mostly reasoned from flawed first principles, as if everyone is a rational actor. For starters, some people do meth just because their friends are doing it. Some people aren't able to see the consequences clearly. And even if you assume it's only people having a bad go at life, every life includes bad parts, despair, etc. We're all vulnerable to irrational acts in those tim…

All I know is that if I were born into their circumstances I would probably do the same thing. Some lives are way worse than others due purely to accident of birth and the really uncomfortable truth is that we have built a society where some lives are not even worth living. We need to face up to that, not pretend like everyone suffers to anything like the same degree. Life in the USA is very unequal. I’ve suffered terrible events in my life but I also have hope that my future will be worth living. If I didn’t have that hope, I’d be doing exactly what these folks are.

Re: Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

#189

Post by chronofar »

bostonsre wrote: post #141
chronofar wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This part is always lost on the "legalize everything" crowd. These types of generalizations are usually built of straw and mud, but I'll go ahead and respond as someone in said crowd with a "no it's not." There's an implicit assumption here that increased usage is worse than the effects of prohibition, but that's at minimum highly debatable. I tend to think increased usage of a regulated and taxable substance by a…

> I tend to think increased usage of a regulated and taxable substance by a well educated and supported populous is significantly preferable to prohibition and scare tactics The problem is opioids and other hard drugs aren't regulated, they are just made legal. Human thought when addicted to hard drugs is not logical. Giving people the freedom to consume them has the effect of allowing them to forfeit their freedom f…

> The problem is opioids and other hard drugs aren't regulated, they are just made legal.

So let's regulate them! (though as someone else pointed out they are indeed currently regulated, just not well)

> Human thought when addicted to hard drugs is not logical. Giving people the freedom to consume them has the effect of allowing them to forfeit their freedom from choice when they become addicted. Making them even more widely available will just cause more to become ensnared in their web.

I frankly find it bizarre when people venture down this train of thought. Should we eliminate all potential sources of illogical behavior? You mentioned sex, should we regulate that? Sugar? Groups (which inspire groupthink)? What even is the threshold for you for "logical?"

If we assume consenting adults are capable of making decisions and we value their freedom in doing so, drug prohibition is directly counter to that value.

Now if you truly want to venture down the road of restricting freedom to what is "logical" or some such thing, that actually is a road I think you could reasonably trod down (it's not a popular argument and I think it's pretty hard to make work but I can see a possible world with very little individual freedom but high degrees of flourishing, the problem is it's much more likely when you remove freedom flourishing also suffers b/c the possibilities narrow towards the needs of whomever still holds freedom, ie those in power), but I doubt that actually is where you were headed, drugs just tends to get this kind of double speak for historical reasons.

Re: Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

#190

Post by rvcdbn »

tlogan wrote: post #181
rvcdbn wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution that seems most likely to work IMO seems to be a European-style welfare state. All drugs have long been decriminalized in Portugal and you don’t see that kind of thing on the streets of Lisbon. But I don’t see that happening any time soon in the USA.

> you don’t see that kind of thing > on the streets of Lisbon. Actually that is exactly what I saw on the streets of Lisbon. Please do visit by yourself.

I visited before the pandemic when last did you visit SF because I think it’s a totally different scale.

EDIT: just googled the stats and the number of homeless in SF is roughly the same as the whole of Portugal

Post reply on HN