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

451–460 of 1001 posts

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

#451

Post by imstate »

nine_k wrote: post #234
davesque wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Opioids keep the top spot of addictiveness. The second place firmly belongs to nicotine. It's way more addictive than. say, cocaine. Why not ban nicotine, by the same logic as heroin? The key difference is that nicotine is a mere stimulant, while heroin alters your perception, it literally changes the way you see good and bad, because it's the ultimate feel-good substance. I have zero qualms about legalizing LSD, psi…

> Why not ban nicotine, by the same logic as heroin?

because nicotine doesn't increase crime rates on society.

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

#452

Post by silw0001 »

felizuno wrote: post #168

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

#453

Post by arp242 »

jorvi wrote: post #402
graeme wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't really address the comment. Decriminalize = production is criminal, consumption is legal. Legalize = production is legal, consumption is legal. The parent comment was complaining that legal consumption made the environment threatening. >maim and kill users, push users into poverty, and generate and push the externalizes of drug use onto the rest of society. None of these appear to hinge on decriminalizat…

> The parent comment was complaining that legal consumption made the environment threatening. What the top comment is implying as far as I can see is that going soft on drugs (“philosophical”, “internet argument”) is a solution for pen-pushers. Fucked up as his story may be, what has the war on drugs really ended up accomplishing? Do we really think amping it up will make things better? Legalization combined with har…

> Fucked up as his story may be, what has the war on drugs really ended up accomplishing? Do we really think amping it up will make things better?

A full-on "war on drugs" and "do noting" are both extremes. Not many people are in favour of a war on drugs, but that doesn't mean complete laissez-faire policies are the solution either.

"Drugs are illegal" and "war on drugs" are NOT the same thing.

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

#456

Post by lolinder »

Inward wrote: post #419
felizuno wrote: post #168

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…

Stay strapped. Sorry to be harsh, but it’s not policies that keep you and yours safe. You need to protect you and yours and government policies aren’t going to protect you from hard drug users. Sorry you had a terrible experience but since ancient times people have weapons to defend against any enemy.

> Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man. ...

> In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; ... no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.

— Hobbes, Leviathan

Notably, Hobbes's point is that we entered a social contract—placing a Power above ourselves—in order to avoid this eternal warfare.

The kind of environment you describe, where the government cannot protect you from violence and so you have to protect yourself, is the definition of a failed state. It's not a normal situation that happens with normal governments.

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

#457

Post by ALittleLight »

runarberg wrote: post #242
cpncrunch wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How valid the comparison is between Tequila and Heroine is irrelevant. What is relevant here is harm reduction for the addict. In both cases legalization result in harm reduction. Yes legalized and regulated heroine is still very harmful for an addict, but unregulated and illegal heroine has the potential to be way more harmful then a regulated legal one, potentially deadly. The same logic also applies to illegal and…

And legalized heroin has the potential to create more addicts who would be subjected to the harm of addiction, and their friends and families would be subjected to the harms of seeing their loved ones addicted.

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

#458

Post by thomastjeffery »

Dig1t wrote: post #421
KennyBlanken wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>Conservatives and moderates refuse to allocate spending for treatment programs or expand what social programs cover Democrats have complete control of the entire west coast of the United States, they run basically unopposed. I actually don't understand what is standing in the way of them allocating money for this stuff. California is currently formulating a plan to spend an incredible amount of money on reparations,…

Democrats are the moderates in that sentence. The US doesn't have more than a handful of elected leftists.
Post reply on HN