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

211–220 of 1001 posts

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

#211

Post by vineyardmike »

prawn wrote: post #166
gosub100 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has there been any research into how to measure potency (of fentanyl) and cut it properly? Maybe we could keep the government out of it, and instead give information and supplies to measure the potency correctly? I've heard that one way OD's happen is the substance is not homogeneous, so they can consume half the bag fine, then one dose is super-charged and puts them into OD (because fent can be up to thousands of ti…

Are many of them going to care? I imagine testing would be useful for pill-takers at festivals, but something that is a daily addiction dominating life seems a different case.

> I imagine testing would be useful for pill-takers at festivals

And many people bring test kits to festivals and raves and clubs and bars already. So this is 100% a proven solution for light recreational party usage.

I agree with skepticism about addicts (especially someone living on the street, etc)

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

#212

Post by noduerme »

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…

>> decriminalization is not enough; drugs need to be legalized and regulated.

This has been an increasingly popular argument here in Portland since decriminalization. It's deployed, generally, in terms of re-criminalizing hard drugs until there's a well thought out framework for safe, regulated legalization.

While I agree in principle [edit: let's say I did agree, but my views on this subject have shifted radically since I voted in favor of decriminalization - and I'll admit I was naive and wrong], I think that while decriminalization without regulation is clearly catastrophic, legalization with regulation would also not be desirable so long as it's confined to one local city, county or state, in the midst of a nationwide fentanyl crisis. Portland simply does not have the capacity or infrastructure to accept further waves of addicts from all over the country who come here to live on the street. Legalization means more regulatory burden, more services for out of town addicts paid by a dwindling local tax base that's quickly being displaced and/or opting to leave.

To do that experiment and do it right, it needs to be nationwide. In any case, Portland can't go it alone anymore.

And remember - we did have a long experiment with legally prescribed opioids, and their widespread availability contributed to the current addiction crisis.

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

#213

Post by drekk »

Eumenes wrote: post #140
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…

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…

> There is no such thing as a functional heroin addict

I don't have time to really get into the weeds for this discussion, but I can at least do the weaker refutation of this very general claim by way of a counterexample. Professor Carl Hart is one such example that came up in a seminar on substance use disorder during my undergraduate program in integrative neuroscience. [0]

I'm sorry you're dealing with someone who does not have a functional, productive relationship with a substance. What you're describing is true of a lot of things though, not just "hardcore" drugs. If you've lived with or know a gambling/sex addict you know exactly what I'm referring to. How these things hijack our neurology is really complex and it unfortunately boils down to more than "avoid these high risk things". Not sure if you have access to academic journals, but public libraries often can provide access to reputable research on substance use disorder in humans, as well as actual experimentation in animal models such as mice. There are a lot of people whose incentives align with yours for tackling this problem, and the solutions they propose are worth a shot. Clearly the war on drugs has not worked and we agree on that at least. What are we going to try next?

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/06/meet-carl-ha...

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

#214

Post by tdeck »

davesque wrote: post #189
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…

I mean, I remember how things were before fentanyl came around (as an outside observer, not as a user) and heroin was a horrible, life-destroying drug addiction back then as well. And I think it was and is convincingly argued that it is much more addictive than alcohol.

It's my understanding that street drugs like Heroin were frequently cut to varying, sometimes unpredictable degrees prior to the introduction of fentanyl. So you could still easily misjudge your dose and OD due to the lack of any kind of consistency. Presumably this would also make it even harder to try to taper off the addiction gradually.

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

#217

Post by huytersd »

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.

You won’t be saying the same thing when it’s your kid that’s “out of the way”. Making heroin easily accessible means someone that does it a handful of times is truly hooked. Your life is essentially a struggle from that point out.

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

#218

Post by bsder »

gosub100 wrote: post #158
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.

I think this is a good point. I've never been high on opiates, but I've heard it described as "an orgasm over your whole body". How are you going to allow everyone that option and expect anyone _not_ to just check-out of reality, reduce all their other living expenses, and just live to get high?

> I've never been high on opiates, but I've heard it described as "an orgasm over your whole body".

1) Not everybody reacts that way.

I've only ever been given high-end opioids when in extreme pain, but I hate the sensation.

My brain feels like it's encased in concrete. A higher dose simply puts me to sleep.

2) What gives you the right to tell people to not do something pleasurable?

Really. Many people have rough lives. We should help them find joy somewhat safely rather than shunt them into the dark.

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

#219

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

hifreq wrote: post #155
namesbc wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? Homeless shelters are full, wages are the lowest they have been in decades, and US health care is the most expensive in the world

Available shelter space, housing vacancies: https://www.kqed.org/news/11668623/why-do-thousands-of-l-a-s... https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/san-f... https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/top-stories/story/2020-... > wages are the lowest they have been in decades This is an endless argument. Why can't a person with 0 skills rent an apartment in San Francisco? Some wages are very low. If you can't…

I dunno, I would rather be homeless in a city I know then to be homeless in a city I don’t.

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

#220

Post by gretch »

skyyler wrote: post #203
Eumenes wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you're not even interested in hearing people that actually have done research, you're just going to run with your assumptions? That's a rather emotional place to make an argument, in my opinion.

>you're just going to run with your assumptions?

They're not assumptions if they are his/her lived experiences.

Post reply on HN