Live data from Hacker News

Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

theatlantic.com

111–120 of 1001 posts

Re: Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

#111
post #71

I resided in Portland for two years and volunteered at a free medical clinic. We saw many individuals who were addicted to hard narcotics and it was the same people, repeatedly in our clinics. Then new drugs would emerge on the street and it seemed a never ending cycle of drug addiction, poor health, homelessness, and death. It wore me down because the tide of addicts never slowed, and I questioned if such legalizati…

There's already powerful incentives against narcotics, you mentioned three of them: "poor health, homelessness, and death." If that's not enough to dissuade someone, laws aren't going to make much difference.

Re: Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

#112

It's working just fine. I guess if you want drug use to go down, or to reduce deaths etc. if those specific metrics are you goals, and nothing else matters, that's one thing. Maybe it is not "working" by those standards. But I don't want a government having any opinion on what people put into their own bodies. It is a health/medical issue and, in a broader context, a liberty issue. It is not a legal issue in my opini…

A thought experiment I think about is along the lines of: what would society look like, say, 10,000 years in the future, if everybody somehow magically had an Einstein-level of intelligence and rationality. In such a society, sure, the government probably wouldn't need to step in; the vast, vast majority of the population would either have little interest in the drugs in the first place, or, if they did, could be trusted to partake responsibly.

However, that's not the world we live in. We share our cities with fairly unintelligent, irrational people, that have no interest in higher ideals. Our cities are being destroyed and made unsafe by these people that are just out of their minds on drugs / mental issues, completely disconnected from society, vandalizing, breaking and entering, hurting other people. They obviously, demonstrably, can't be trusted to partake responsibly.

I guess the debate is to what level the government needs to step in to control such people and the actions they take. I'd say that since they've already demonstrated they can't be trusted to coexist with peaceful society, that some level of action needs to be taken. But it's tough because in an ideal society I'd say the correct thing is for the government to stay out of it. But we live in a far from ideal society.

Re: Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

#113

It's working just fine. I guess if you want drug use to go down, or to reduce deaths etc. if those specific metrics are you goals, and nothing else matters, that's one thing. Maybe it is not "working" by those standards. But I don't want a government having any opinion on what people put into their own bodies. It is a health/medical issue and, in a broader context, a liberty issue. It is not a legal issue in my opini…

A person who becomes addicted to opiods, methamphetamine, or other "hard" drugs will with some probability require medical treatment, and and some people who uses those drugs will cause other costs to society. I don't know what those percentages are, but for opiods it's definitely not negligible. Many people begin using opiods and become addicted without intending to, and later need medical assistance. So there is a public interest in how much these substances are used, and it's legitimate for government to regulate them.

In other words, there's a tradeoff between the autonomy to do things to your body and the real costs that drug addiction imposes on others.

Re: Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

#114

Decriminalization has nothing to do with limiting the use of drugs. The main purpose is to bring down costs so that criminal cartels will see their profits eroded through competition. This will also reduce other crimes, especially violent ones, because less people will need for example to rob a shop to buy drugs. Of course more easy drugs around mean that initially more people will use them, however that is just the…

That only happens when the source becomes cheaper than black market.

The only way that happens is gov. Subsidies.

It’s why CO and WA and others still have such a large black market for weed.

Re: Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

#115
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This part is always lost on the "legalize everything" crowd. These types of generalizations are usually built of straw and mud, but I'll go ahead and respond as someone in said crowd with a "no it's not." There's an implicit assumption here that increased usage is worse than the effects of prohibition, but that's at minimum highly debatable. I tend to think increased usage of a regulated and taxable substance by a…

I can think of few things likely to befall a drug user that are more devastating and costly to society than a long period of incarceration.

[deleted]

Re: Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

#116
post #46

If you decriminalize hard drugs, all that happens is that addicts stay addicts, have a higher likely hood of becoming homeless and higher chance of dying. Hard drugs for the most part outside of controlled environments have almost no positive qualities. Drugs like cannabis have medical attributes and can provide benefits. People addicted to hard drugs require treatment, leaving them to their own devices is likely to…

My take is that we're going from a criminalization based "screw them, warehouse them in jail and ruin their lives with felony convictions" policy to a laissez-faire "screw them, let them die on the street" policy. The part that hasn't changed is "screw them." Nobody really cares about these people. They're viewed as an inconvenience and the debate is over the least costly way to either warehouse them or shove them as…

The problem as I see it is that any "treatment" requires the addict wanting to be treated

You could argue that the Taliban are the government that cares the most about addicts, because they are actually making addicts change the way a parent corrects a child

But addicts are grown ups with free will

Re: Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

#117

It's working just fine. I guess if you want drug use to go down, or to reduce deaths etc. if those specific metrics are you goals, and nothing else matters, that's one thing. Maybe it is not "working" by those standards. But I don't want a government having any opinion on what people put into their own bodies. It is a health/medical issue and, in a broader context, a liberty issue. It is not a legal issue in my opini…

> Feel free to disagree. This is my personal political view.

How do you address the argument that drug users go on to be a burden to society?

> But I don't want a government having any opinion on what people put into their own bodies.

It seems like it should if the result is a burden on society, though there are many potential solution to ameliorate the problem other than outlawing or restricting substances.

Re: Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

#118
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This part is always lost on the "legalize everything" crowd. These types of generalizations are usually built of straw and mud, but I'll go ahead and respond as someone in said crowd with a "no it's not." There's an implicit assumption here that increased usage is worse than the effects of prohibition, but that's at minimum highly debatable. I tend to think increased usage of a regulated and taxable substance by a…

I can think of few things likely to befall a drug user that are more devastating and costly to society than a long period of incarceration.

Example 20 year old experimenting with drugs:

Going to jail for a year breaks any career chances or most of the job opportunities plus messes up his mind by staying with other convicts.

Letting him experiment with drugs, he might mess up his health but also he has still a chance to continue rather normal life.

Re: Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Portugal was famously very successful at drug decriminalization It isn't that famously successful at all, at least in Portugal. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-dru...

Excerpt from that article: " Experts argue that drug policy focused on jail time is still more harmful to society than decriminalization. While the slipping results here suggest the fragility of decriminalization’s benefits, they point to how funding and encouragement into rehabilitation programs have ebbed. The number of users being funneled into drug treatment in Portugal, for instance, has sharply fallen, going fr…

The interesting metric would be the percentage of addicts that were treated and went on to be “productive” or at least not using for at least x, y, and z years, and probabilities of relapse.

Re: Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I don't want a government having any opinion on what people put into their own bodies. Because we invest in people. We pay money to educate them, in many cases feed, shelter, and clothe them and in a variety of other ways. We expect citizens to contribute back into society. Having millions of zombies interested in nothing else than getting high is self destructive not only for the individuals we have invested i…

By that same logic more people are dying or ruining their lives from poor diet and lack of exercise. Should the government be mandating diet and enforcing exercise quotas?

That doesn't follow at all. People who eat poorly and/or don't exercise are not a drain on society like drug addicts sleeping on the street, stealing to fund their addiction, and contributing nothing. There's big differences and it's not even really nuanced. It's obvious these are different things.

Saying that we should encourage healthy lifestyles.

Post reply on HN