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

To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 1001 posts

Re: To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use

#141

Post by namesbc »

kepler1 wrote: post #22
jsbisviewtiful wrote: post #10

It's really frustrating to see this headline. The officials decriminalized drugs, wiped their hands and backed off from any follow-up legislation to keep it working correctly. It reminds me a lot of the ACA. Officials got the bill passed and have collectively stopped making updates to the program to keep it healthy, but then constantly criticize its faults. American politics are sad in that it's hard to celebrate any…

If decriminalization relies on a whole raft of practically infeasible (or very expensive) associated programs to make it work, is it really a viable strategy?

We tried this cruel inhumane expensive policy for the decades called thew war on drugs and it was one of the worst failures in US history

The US has spent more than a trillion on the War on Drugs, we should use a fraction of that on housing and healthcare, instead of thinking about restarting the trillion dollar war on drugs

Re: To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use

#142

Post by josefritz »

wussboy wrote: post #91
1letterunixname wrote: post #87

The root cause in both instances isn't drugs and so infinite spending or (de)criminalization won't matter. The core issue is hope. In the absence of work for the abled and care for the disabled and housing, there isn't much hope and so crimes, habits, and deaths of despair take hold. Without holistic and comprehensive betterment of people who feel ignored and cheated, there isn't much for this growing sector of socie…

Do you have any evidence for this?

This is well documented and even acknowledged by the US government. https://waysandmeans.house.gov/2-5-million-uncounted-unemplo... https://www.forbes.com/sites/chriswestfall/2020/05/08/the-un...

Re: To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use

#143

Post by seanmcdirmid »

wcarss wrote: post #120
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't see how "Drugs should be decriminalized because taking drugs is a victimless crime" and "Society needs to sync a lot of resources in tackling drug abuse" are compatible positions to hold at the same time. Either let people do drugs and let them worry about the consequences, or, if society is going to be on the hook for the consequences, don't. There is no feasible way to hold both positions at the same…

It's a weird false dichotomy you've set up. I don't think it's fair or true to ascribe "drugs are harmless" as the generalization of the position, "drug use should not carry criminal penalties". If I may try to thread this needle: - drug use has serious consequences for users directly and for society - imprisonment is not effective at curbing drug use in individuals or systemically, because illicit drugs will always…

> - imprisonment is not effective at curbing drug use in individuals or systemically, because illicit drugs will always be available, see prohibition for the strongest case here

I disagree that hardline policies can't work. In China, there is no social safety net for drug users (nor much for anyone else), nor is there much sympathy for it, therefore...drug abuse happens for sure, but it just doesn't survive very long (one way or the other).

But regarding more permissive western cultures: imprisonment in the American system of "we put you away and don't bother with substance abuse treatment in prison" doesn't work, but there are definitely alternatives to that (flood prisons with substance abuse treatment programs).

Re: To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use

#144

Post by cpncrunch »

drewg123 wrote: post #110

Nowhere in these comments have I see anybody take the position that decriminalization is not enough; drugs need to be legalized and regulated. I have a close friend whose relative is a heroin addict. According to her, a lot of overdoses are due to almost no "heroin" actually being heroin, rather its fentanyl cut to varying degrees of strength. Not knowing what you're taking, and not knowing how strong it is, can lead…

Heroin is very different from Tequila, so I don't think it's fair to compare them just because they are both "drugs".

Prior to fentanyl, what was the percentage of high functioning heroin addicts compared to people living on the street? I can't find any research on that question, and I'm somewhat skeptical that your friend is the norm.

Re: To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use

#145

Post by legitster »

drewg123 wrote: post #110

Nowhere in these comments have I see anybody take the position that decriminalization is not enough; drugs need to be legalized and regulated. I have a close friend whose relative is a heroin addict. According to her, a lot of overdoses are due to almost no "heroin" actually being heroin, rather its fentanyl cut to varying degrees of strength. Not knowing what you're taking, and not knowing how strong it is, can lead…

Well, also the only reason a lot of people turned to heroin in the first place was that OxyContin was taken away from them.

There was a lot of illegal OxyContin use but most of it was well regulated and under the control of doctors and pharmacists.

Re: To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use

#146

Post by seanmcdirmid »

wharvle wrote: post #89
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't see how "Drugs should be decriminalized because taking drugs is a victimless crime" and "Society needs to sync a lot of resources in tackling drug abuse" are compatible positions to hold at the same time. Either let people do drugs and let them worry about the consequences, or, if society is going to be on the hook for the consequences, don't. There is no feasible way to hold both positions at the same…

There’s no contradiction here. It may or may not be bad policy, but it’s not a contradiction. Nobody’s a victim when a kid falls and breaks an arm while skateboarding, but we have programs like CHIP to help kids have access to healthcare to get that arm treated, regardless.

> Nobody’s a victim when a kid falls and breaks an arm while skateboarding, but we have programs like CHIP to help kids have access to healthcare to get that arm treated, regardless.

The kid is going to be fine after they are in a cast for a few weeks/months. A fentanyl addict, even with million of dollars over a few years of treatment, is more than likely never going to be OK again. Both involve moral hazard (if society is responsible for the consequences), but the consequences of both aren't similar at all.

Re: To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use

#147

Post by 1letterunixname »

afarrell wrote: post #96
1letterunixname wrote: post #87

The root cause in both instances isn't drugs and so infinite spending or (de)criminalization won't matter. The core issue is hope. In the absence of work for the abled and care for the disabled and housing, there isn't much hope and so crimes, habits, and deaths of despair take hold. Without holistic and comprehensive betterment of people who feel ignored and cheated, there isn't much for this growing sector of socie…

I have come to the conclusion that lots of humans have a religion-shaped hole in their psyche. It is far better to fill it with a stable, local, hope-giving religion. Hymns are a better opiate of the masses than fentanyl.

This is also true. The decline in community (where religion played a large part in cementing personal and local bonds) and increase in anomie has led not just to deaths of despair and to other symptoms not just loneliness and depression, but on the fringes of alienation and disconnection to where some volatile people go as far hate-fueled "blaze of glory" mass shootings.

I find one of the biggest losses, especially in dense cities, is that the churches and community orgs there often lack local, long-term ties to said communities. Also, there are a number of religious institutions in big cities that are sometimes open only on (Friday, Saturday, or Sunday depending on their beliefs) and don't provide as much closeness and synomie for people as rural religious institutions do.

I wouldn't recommend that all things must attempt to recapture the 1950's apartheid and social conservativism in all regards, but a crucial linchpin of a functional society appears to be missing. It is not necessarily religion or faith, but it includes a lack of love for, and trust of, others where America went from community-individual balanced to hyperindividualism with a dysfunctional social safety net.

Re: To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use

#148

Post by kashunstva »

afarrell wrote: post #96
1letterunixname wrote: post #87

The root cause in both instances isn't drugs and so infinite spending or (de)criminalization won't matter. The core issue is hope. In the absence of work for the abled and care for the disabled and housing, there isn't much hope and so crimes, habits, and deaths of despair take hold. Without holistic and comprehensive betterment of people who feel ignored and cheated, there isn't much for this growing sector of socie…

I have come to the conclusion that lots of humans have a religion-shaped hole in their psyche. It is far better to fill it with a stable, local, hope-giving religion. Hymns are a better opiate of the masses than fentanyl.

> It is far better to fill it with a stable, local, hope-giving religion.

If it's a binary choice of opiate addiction vs. religious practice, sure. But for many, the hole that some fill with religion is filled with other sorts of meaning-giving practices. Not to take away from the comfort, stability and hope that religious affiliation provides for many; but for others the source of connection to the transcendent and to contributing to concerns beyond oneself comes in different forms.

Re: To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use

#149

Post by coffeecloud »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #137
coffeecloud wrote: post #100

There’s got to be some middle ground between locking up people for substance use disorder and allowing people to make public spaces unusable with their antisocial behavior. In my mind it’s something like “drugs are legal but public drug use and public intoxication are strictly illegal.” It’s just hard to enforce that when people don’t have a private place to use in.

>It’s just hard to enforce that when people don’t have a private place to use in. The problem is feeling like you owe it to addicts to provide them with a place to use. Privatize all the public spaces: parks, sidewalks, etc. Grant strong property rights to those spaces.

You can get all high and mighty about who deserves what, or you can actually solve the problem and give people housing for free (or throw them in jail.)

Would you rather be right, or live in a city without homelessness?

Post reply on HN