Live data from Hacker News

To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use

nytimes.com

361–370 of 1001 posts

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

#361

So much sympathy for drug users and business owners, but what about the private citizens who get victimized by these drug users? I was beaten nearly to death (in broad daylight, in a residential neighborhood) in Seattle in 2020 by two men enabled to descend into meth addiction by permissive policies. In my victim support group I met so many people - innocent people - permanently injured & disfigured like me, or raped…

[flagged]

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

#362
post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[removed]

Like I said, please go to a victim support group and summon the courage to say that to somebody's face.

In these groups is the consensus view you've all come to that addiction is to blame and nothing else of note? Any shared group feeling about overall policy solutions? Or everyone thinks if drugs were maximally criminalized they wouldn't be there?

I'm genuinely curious but I'm also biased. I was a homeless street addict myself for a long time and the only way I ever got out was a combination of harm reduction and expensive medical attention I am in no way entitled to as an american.

Most of my problems were ultimately caused by carceral violence and I can't really see how more of it would have helped me. But idk, open to other views I guess.

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

#363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the average person (including myself) is just skeptical this is a problem worth having. A rube goldberg where everything has to go right. It seems like the best case scenario is "We legalize drugs and then raise tax dollars and then use that money to fund programs so that people that are addicted aren't harmed too much in the long run" just seems not ideal. I get the arguments for personal liberty, but we wou…

you mean like smoking and drinking?

There seems to be a major difference between "will pay taxes for 30 years and then be a burden on the system when you get liver disease at 60" and "will be a burden at age 30 when you need multiple mental health professionals and non-stop funds"

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

#364
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that the reduction in the role of religion in the US is partially to blame for the increase in severe cases of drug addition, the idea that we need to bring religion back essentially to control people is extremely patronizing. Basically, we are saying that some people are too stupid to live productively if they are not controlled by fairy tales. This is the same approach as we are seeing in the "far lef…

It's not fairy tales. Its human need for attachment to something greater. America has not filled that with anything else. The previous flag waving civic nationalism has become demonized so now there's nothing.

Religion is far from the only venue to explore the purpose and meaning of one's life.

I think religion is declining because people are discovering there are many ways to perform self-discovery and practice fulfillment.

The only aspect of religion that has been beneficial to modern society is providing a social venue for others to interact. This can be achieved by building stronger neighborhoods and encouraging the development of more welcoming social venues -- something that I think is the cure to America's loneliness epidemic.

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

#365

So much sympathy for drug users and business owners, but what about the private citizens who get victimized by these drug users? I was beaten nearly to death (in broad daylight, in a residential neighborhood) in Seattle in 2020 by two men enabled to descend into meth addiction by permissive policies. In my victim support group I met so many people - innocent people - permanently injured & disfigured like me, or raped…

I actually don't think we should decriminalize. Just legalize it and let people get pure product at dirt cheap prices. There's no reason to fund crime (drug dealers/organized crime), maim and kill users, push users into poverty, and generate and push the externalizes of drug use onto the rest of society. This is the choice we have made and continue to make a society under a prohibitionist regime, decriminalization or…

Selling hard drugs as a legitimate business owner has lots of liability attached, so prices will never be 'dirt cheap'. In addition to this, drug legalization is only sold to the masses if the cities/states that legalize them get tax revenue. Again, this will not lead to less expensive drugs.

What's already started happening is that the black market prices continue to be cheaper (because dealers don't have to pay taxes, insurance, or any other costs associated with legitimate businesses) and legitimate businesses can't compete, and they go under.

It's interesting to me that the same people the scream about muh socialism and want legal drugs aren't willing to pay the price for it.

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

#366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably as many regulations as there are on alcohol or tobacco or pharmaceuticals (which I'm also not a fan of the doctor/pharmaceutical gated access to other drugs). If you produce it has to be pure, tested, not adulterated, with standards for production facilities. If you consume, only in particular establishments or at home, and you can't drive while under the influence. If someone breaks those regulations, then…

So you'd arrest all of the homeless addicts and put them in jail for consuming in an unapproved place?

If it’s genuinely dangerous for passersby when people are on the streets and have high doses of meth in them, then maybe?

I don’t know nearly enough about the behavior of mentally ill homeless people and how it varies with addiction status and current meth levels, but I think there is no shortage of recent reports of dangerous addicts in various cities.

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

#367
post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting assaulted sounds like the main problem. Police are a reactive force, they're useless to prevent or break up an assault unless it's a very ineffective (slow) attack

> Police are a reactive force, they're useless to prevent or break up an assault unless it's a very ineffective (slow) attack This seems like you’re implying that stricter enforcement and tougher punishments are useless? I tend to agree, we saw bright and clear as day with the “war on drugs” that being more vicious to addicts didn’t work and the problem only grew. Im certainly no expert though, and what often seems t…

Addiction may have been the root cause of GP's assault, but there are any number of reasons you may be attacked in broad daylight. Despite the risk of prosecution to the perpetrator, many thousands are assaulted every year. Not even the threat of the noose kept the Old West safe.

In the face of imminent threat, only personal preparedness is of value.

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

#368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Permanent Housing is the only solution. Shelters are at best temporary to survive a cold night, but they are not a solution for a sustainable life.

How can someone pushing themselves to the limit of heroin od have anything sustainable.

[flagged]

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

#369
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Murdering people does make them go away yes.

[flagged]

This is disgusting, dehumanizing, and when applied to any group at any scale will cause atrocity. Says incredibly much about this site that this comment is welcome here. Straight up eliminationist. How about I advocate for your death as a matter of policy?

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

#370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 s…

> And remember - we did have a long experiment with legally prescribed opioids, and their widespread availability contributed to the current addiction crisis. People couldn't just go to a store; trusted family advisors were overprescribing due to intentionally misleading advertising. The addiction crisis is what happens when insurance no longer covers the pills.

I'd say the addiction crisis started when people got addicted. The attendant economic and social crisis then got worse as legal pills became less available. But whether someone gets addicted by way of an overprescribing doctor or by way of picking a bottle of laudinum off the shelf at a liquor store, that person is probably going to become addicted. The question is whether that means they'll have to go looking for potentially dangerous street drugs.
Post reply on HN