To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use • Hacker News Board

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

#571

Post by jimbob45 » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 5:37 AM UTC

legitster wrote: post #172

jdminhbg wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-...

Cairo wouldn’t comment on the complaints about her management style. Responding on her behalf, Parks and Recreation spokesperson Cherelle Jackson said the bureau wouldn’t comment on “rumors about a member of our team.” “Unfortunately, too many women in male-dominated industries like forestry face this behavior,” Jackson wrote in an email to OPB. “As a Bureau, we will uphold our values for equality and respect for women in the workplace. If you have evidence that is not based on hearsay, please feel free to share, and we may respond accordingly.”

That was really depressing to read. She nuked the program because of her ego and then let her black spokesperson blame it on race and gender instead of her own lies and deliberate mismanagement.

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

#572

Post by huytersd » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 5:38 AM UTC

legitster wrote: post #57

Drug legalization is something I have come 180 on (or at least, 90 degrees). Portland did everything! They invested huge sums in shelters, treatment programs, counsellors, etc. ODs have more than doubled, and the shelters are half empty! They are not one more social program away from cleaning out the streets. I think the experiment has radically failed and I'm ready to say I was wrong. While I don't want to go back t…

No, you’re right. Empathy doesn’t work with certain drug use (opiates, meth, crack etc.). They need to be forcibly put in rehab that is akin to jail until they’re clean for a while. It still shouldn’t be a felony on your record though because that effectively ends any chance of rebuilding your life if you do recover.

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

#573

Post by lazyasciiart » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 5:39 AM UTC

Spinnaker_ wrote: post #310

swalling wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Portland did everything! They invested huge sums in shelters, treatment programs, counsellors, etc." This is not even remotely true. Everyone in the city, from the mayor [1] to the head of the largest services non-profit [2] has been yelling from the rooftops about the glacial slowness to effectively spend the allocated funding for drug treatment. Until just months ago, Multnomah County has been sitting on tens of m…

Right, but the plan has still failed. If all the key players are on board and you can't even begin to implement the plan, then it was a bad plan, and the people who developed it had little comprehension of reality. We should not attempt this elsewhere.

“They did everything except what would work! Let’s all give up and go back to things that definitely don’t work. It’s the only option.”

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

#574

Post by lazyasciiart » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 5:40 AM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #107

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…

There's two problems with these programs. The first problem is that the people we're really talking about, the ones living/defecating/etc on the street do not want help. The second problem is that in order to want to get better, an addict has to hit their personal rock bottom. Programs that keep people floating above their personal rock bottom are like family members enabling addicts. It ultimately doesn't help them.…

[flagged]

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

#575

Post by huytersd » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 5:42 AM UTC

qingcharles wrote: post #66

legitster wrote: post #57

Drug legalization is something I have come 180 on (or at least, 90 degrees). Portland did everything! They invested huge sums in shelters, treatment programs, counsellors, etc. ODs have more than doubled, and the shelters are half empty! They are not one more social program away from cleaning out the streets. I think the experiment has radically failed and I'm ready to say I was wrong. While I don't want to go back t…

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 :(

Solution is easy. If you’re visibly publicly intoxicated with hard drugs, you go to a special rehab that’s essentially prison without the violent criminals. If you’re already a violent criminal, you get put into a segregated area. You then get forcibly treated. If youv’e stayed clean for a set number of months, you get to leave. None of this shows up on any permanent/criminal record.

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

#576

Post by lazyasciiart » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 5:42 AM UTC

notyofriend wrote: post #163

namesbc wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Singapore has been successful so clearly we’re doing it wrong and focusing on the wrong things.

Ooh, is it the Bill of Rights!?

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

#577

Post by jrflowers » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 5:42 AM UTC

legitster wrote: post #78

jdminhbg wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Portland did everything! They invested huge sums in shelters, treatment programs, counsellors, etc. Huge sums were collected, but they haven't really been spent. As noted elsewhere in this thread, the first detox center built with M110 money only opened two months ago, and only has 16 beds: https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/homeless/new-se-portl...

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…

> While this is true, there were a lot of programs that existed before M110

You make a good point. When we look at a program that hasn’t been implemented we must judge all other unrelated programs that were implemented to some degree or another at the same time.

People might want to “see how it works out after implementation” while ignoring the necessity of “going back to the status quo that led to coming up the ideas on the first place”

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

#578

Post by acchow » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 5:43 AM UTC

legitster wrote: post #57

Drug legalization is something I have come 180 on (or at least, 90 degrees). Portland did everything! They invested huge sums in shelters, treatment programs, counsellors, etc. ODs have more than doubled, and the shelters are half empty! They are not one more social program away from cleaning out the streets. I think the experiment has radically failed and I'm ready to say I was wrong. While I don't want to go back t…

Prohibition also failed horribly. We need a middle ground.

What about drug use as a privilege? If you’re living on the street, your litter is all over the street, and you never pay taxes, then you lose your privilege.

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

#579

Post by lazyasciiart » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 5:45 AM UTC

duped wrote: post #151

jmcphers wrote: post #82

I live in the Seattle area, which is struggling with public drug use just like Portland. Like Portland, we've lived for decades with very progressive politicians who have lead successful decriminalization efforts and spent huge sums of public funds on treatment and harm reduction programs. After several decades and many, many millions of dollars spent, the problem is, by every measure, absolutely the worst it's ever…

Is there a measure for how this compares to places without social programs for drug addicts? This is a legitimate question, I don't know if they've done better or worse in the context of the failed war on drugs. Because the country as a whole has been completely ravaged by opiate addiction. It's not just Portland and Seattle. West Virginia doesn't have anything like this, and it's just as badly afflicted. It may be l…

[flagged]

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

#580

Post by graeme » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 5:46 AM UTC

InSteady wrote: post #544

graeme wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Drug use has grown much faster under the current regime of tolerance of drug use. There were lots of problems with the war on drugs, but the idea that it didn't reduce drug use isn't based on evidence. As an analogy, skin cancer had been rising despite sunscreen.

Do you have any actual evidence of this? I would love to see it. I wouldn't be particularly shocked either way to find that drug use has increased faster in places that decriminalized or not, but it's an important starting point for discussions. Assuming everyone is being honest in their data-gathering as well as consistent in methods.

Sure. For one, prohibition keeps the equilibrium price higher, which reduces equilibrium consumption. This RAND report from 2000 estimated a free market cocaine price would be 3% of the price under prohibition.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP909.html

2nd, if you prefer a more direct account, this doctor describes the effects of BC's safe supply program. Basically they bought opiods and gave them out for free to addicts. These were often resold, crashing the market price, increasing consumption of these as a gateway drug. This is to illustate the expected effects of a lower price: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-we-must-end-...

This widely cited study on prohibition of alcohol in the USA found a long run 30% cut while prohibition was in force, with a sharper initial cut: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675...

Overall legal production is generally cheaper, and a cheaper price produces higher equilibrium use. You could of course tax legal drugs, but you'd need a war on illegal supply to enforce that.