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

171–180 of 1001 posts

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

#171

Post by wolverine876 »

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?

What works better? The drug crisis has continued for decades, through 'wars', etc.

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

#172

Post by legitster »

jdminhbg wrote: post #122
legitster wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this is true, there were a lot of programs that existed before M110, and part of the bill of goods that was sold with M110 was that it was going to make it easier for people to access existing resources without fear of law enforcement. And again, literally written into M110 is the idea that treatment is supposed to be cheaper than incarceration. Perhaps it's due to really bad red tape, but the treatment program…

> Perhaps it's due to really bad red tape I don't think it's red tape as such, but rather that Portland suffers from a problem SF also has, which is that government social services are mostly run via the NGO-Industrial Complex. Money is shoveled into a patchwork of local governments, and then shoveled out into a patchwork of local non-profits, and there's almost no accountability for turning $X into Y results, like y…

Man, even Friends of Trees! Literally planting trees for free got cancelled by Portland because of back-room nonsense:

https://www.opb.org/article/2022/07/11/portland-oregon-tree-...

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

#173

Post by wintogreen74 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #143
wcarss wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> flood prisons with substance abuse treatment programs

As a tax payer it's perfectly reasonable that I don't want to pay for that, though.

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

#174

Post by scruple »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #143
wcarss wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Somewhere in between imprisonment and flooding prisons with substance abuse treatment programs, we'll have to stop flooding prisons with substances in the first place.

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

#175

Post by cortesoft »

ninth_ant wrote: post #113
qingcharles wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a hard problem to solve. I work with drug and alcohol addicts regularly and addiction is such a damned nightmare. And every homeless person hates shelters. They have way more rules than prisons and all of the drama. I don't know what the solutions are :(

The fact that shelters have "drama" and "rules" is not a compelling reason for someone to make a home in an area that is intended for public use, and render it unusable and unsafe for others. Is this really a hard problem to solve? I can certainly buy the argument that criminalizing homelessness doesn't make sense when the "criminal" has no other options. But if someone has a viable option for not living on the stree…

> someone has a viable option for not living on the street

I guess it depends on how we define viable. In my experience working with the homeless, there are a lot of valid reasons shelters are avoided; they can be more dangerous, don't allow pets (who are sometimes the only companions they have), and don't allow families or couples. Whether that is viable or not depends on how you use the word.

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

#176

Post by shadowtree »

The US is a very young country, with a burn it down and see what happens culture. A frontier state.

It is amazing to watch the speed run of recreating basic civilization from first principles. Why do laws exist? Why do we need traffic signals?

You think I am joking?

Portland disbanded traffic law enforcement! After quite a lot of traffic deaths, mostly minorities they tried to protect, they just reinstated traffic cops. More black people were killed by this decision than by cops in Portland...

Source: https://www.opb.org/article/2023/05/09/portland-oregon-polic...

"Portland has experienced record levels of traffic fatalities in the years since Lovell emptied the traffic division. In 2021, 63 people died in traffic-related deaths in Portland — the highest number in at least three decades. Portland matched that count in 2022."

https://www.koin.com/news/pbot-to-address-street-safety-as-c...

"Multnomah County Public Health Manager Brendon Haggerty said. “The third reason this is especially alarming for public health is that we see racial disparities.”

He added, “in Multnomah County, the death rate from traffic crashes among the Black population is about twice the rate of the non-Hispanic, white population.”

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

#177

Post by defen »

iamcasen wrote: post #85
gafage wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Just curious if you'd include alcohol in that list? What about prescription pain-killers? Just curious where you draw the line on what's criminal, and what's not. Personally, I'd rather criminalize the negative behavior, rather than the drugs themselves. Like DUI laws, for example.

> Personally, I'd rather criminalize the negative behavior, rather than the drugs themselves. Like DUI laws, for example.

How do you punish a homeless drug addict living on the streets with no assets or income?

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

#178

Post by Eumenes »

skyyler wrote: post #153
Eumenes wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is tired. There is no such thing as a functional heroin addict. Most don't quit after a 20 year on and off relationship with it. They die and usually cause mayhem in the process - to society, their loved ones, the healthcare system, law enforcement, etc. I'm dealing with a very serious addict in my life right now and how "clean" the drug is makes no difference. They steal and lie non-stop. They cause ma…

Neither of you are posting sources, so you're both just talking about your opinions.

The source is my personal experience dealing with individuals involved in addiction. No amount of "experts" claiming we need to legalize hardcore drugs is going to change my opinion, thats for sure.

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

#179

Post by WillPostForFood »

stillwithit wrote: post #152
xenospn wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the actual problem is people can’t seem to just use enough to stay functional. Given the legal opportunity to purchase heroin, most people will absolutely overdo it.

So? Then they’re out of the way. One or way or another, none of us are getting out of this alive. Not sure where the religious conviction we must save all souls comes from or has any value.

Even if one ascribes to this nihilist POV, it isn't an answer. We see the negative effects on communities, families, and people around addicts. Even if you don't care that people are destroying themselves, when they take out the surrounding area it is a problem we share.

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

#180

Post by tensor »

Aerbil313 wrote: post #13

Criminalization works, even without sniffing dogs and modern surveillance, when the crime is also a sin . See Islam. To this day I know no relative or close friend of mine who ever drank any alcohol, nor one which used any drugs. But ofc this is the unthinkable for West. Downvote, pass.

Forcing people into your religion is highly unethical in my moral framework. Even though it's criminalized here in the west we still see people finding ways to do it.
Post reply on HN