Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 1001 posts

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

#151

Post by adamredwoods »

antisyzygy wrote: post #130
tlogan wrote: post #121

I used to strongly support making drugs legal. I thought: this is a free country, you should be able to do what you want. But what I've seen in San Francisco has made me think differently. Most people who use drugs eventually end up not being able to live like normal adults. And no one willingly goes to get help or treatment. The problem will stick around because politicians care more about how things look. They'll s…

I think we're missing part of the equation there. Decriminalization isn't legalization. Legalization would mean controlling purity, and strength where the drug is licensed to be sold. Marijuana legalization hasn't lead to any major problems. People don't even bother getting it on the black market anymore where it is legal. They go for what's convenient. Beyond that simply throwing people in prison doesn't mean that w…

>> Marijuana legalization hasn't lead to any major problems. People don't even bother getting it on the black market anymore where it is legal. They go for what's convenient.

This is actually bigger than people realize.

Fentanyl lacing is a MASSIVE problem. With purity, people can rely that there's no fentanyl.

https://www.cdc.gov/stopoverdose/fentanyl/index.html

https://www.colorado.edu/health/blog/fentanyl

https://wellbeing.missouri.edu/wellness-services/substance-u...

https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/programs/opioid-and-fentan...

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

#152

Post by EricDeb »

schnable wrote: post #49
kelnos wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fair, and certainly a problem, but I don't think the solution is "let's just go back to throwing everyone in jail". We know from long experience that isn't working.

I don't know the specifics in Oregon, but in many places (especially bigger cities) that stopped prosecuting drugs and prostitution, "throwing everyone in jail" was not the previous scenario. People were arrested then put into diversionary programs that were enforced by the courts. It worked much better than just letting people stay on the streets as the process acted as a wake up call for many (of course, not all).

Yea not jail but supervised programs makes sense.

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

#153

Post by Rapzid »

davorak wrote: post #117
gspencley wrote: post #61

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.

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

I think there are point of views that are a much larger burden on society, and yet people are free to have them.

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

#154

Post by brightlancer »

minsc_and_boo wrote: post #123
morkalork wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without legal sales, cartels will keep doing cartel things. Also where will money for treatment programs come from? It will always be at risk of being cut by fiscally conservative governments, vs legal sales that can be taxed to fund amelioration efforts.

Even with legal sales, there are still black markets for drugs, as is evident with marijuana: https://apnews.com/article/business-california-los-angeles-m...

The same thing is true for tobacco - while it is legally to sell and consume (by super-adults, 21+) in every US state, they've taxed it so highly that there is a fantastic black market.

And Eric Garner is a great example of how the government with murder you on the _suspicion_ that you aren't paying your taxes. Garner commonly sold individual cigarettes ("loosies") which were usually untaxed; it does not appear he was selling on the day he was choked to death by the NYPD, but rather that he was targeted as a usual suspect.

So we should legalize all of this stuff for adults AND keep the taxes low enough to avoid black markets. Sadly, the folks in favor of "legalization" are often wetting themselves at the thought of the tax revenue.

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

#155

Post by kouru225 »

tlogan wrote: post #121

I used to strongly support making drugs legal. I thought: this is a free country, you should be able to do what you want. But what I've seen in San Francisco has made me think differently. Most people who use drugs eventually end up not being able to live like normal adults. And no one willingly goes to get help or treatment. The problem will stick around because politicians care more about how things look. They'll s…

How does this compare to Portugal’s wild success when it comes to decriminalizing hard drugs? Seems like SF is a way less useful example.

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

#156

Post by kljasdlkjfsd »

rvcdbn wrote: post #133
tlogan wrote: post #121

I used to strongly support making drugs legal. I thought: this is a free country, you should be able to do what you want. But what I've seen in San Francisco has made me think differently. Most people who use drugs eventually end up not being able to live like normal adults. And no one willingly goes to get help or treatment. The problem will stick around because politicians care more about how things look. They'll s…

We have built a society where the best options for these people are to do what they are doing. Nobody starts using because they have a great life but they’re just curious what a bit of meth feels like and then accidentally get hooked. They do it because there’s no better life path open to them. It’s really a form of suicide. Criminalizing will make the suicide process faster and less visible to you. It won’t stop any…

That's an interesting take but I think it's mostly reasoned from flawed first principles, as if everyone is a rational actor. For starters, some people do meth just because their friends are doing it. Some people aren't able to see the consequences clearly.

And even if you assume it's only people having a bad go at life, every life includes bad parts, despair, etc. We're all vulnerable to irrational acts in those times.

Legalizing drugs just makes access a little bit easier during those times. Once they're addicted, though, no rational amount of jail time will dissuade anybody.

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

#158

Post by anon84873628 »

ecshafer wrote: post #149

Supporting legalization / decriminalization of hard drugs is a luxury belief. If you’re in a nice rich circle it’s easy to believe it doesn’t harm anyone except yourself. If you are around people that become drug addicts, it becomes apparent that it drastically harms everyone around them, themselves probably not the most. You can only see so many addict parents throw away the money for kids food, or pawn of their kid…

Clearly the prohibition on drugs is not preventing those people from accessing them. Obviously rehabilitation would be ideal. But all else being equal, it would be better if the drugs were cheaper and safer.

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

#159

Post by bayindirh »

antisyzygy wrote: post #130
tlogan wrote: post #121

I used to strongly support making drugs legal. I thought: this is a free country, you should be able to do what you want. But what I've seen in San Francisco has made me think differently. Most people who use drugs eventually end up not being able to live like normal adults. And no one willingly goes to get help or treatment. The problem will stick around because politicians care more about how things look. They'll s…

I think we're missing part of the equation there. Decriminalization isn't legalization. Legalization would mean controlling purity, and strength where the drug is licensed to be sold. Marijuana legalization hasn't lead to any major problems. People don't even bother getting it on the black market anymore where it is legal. They go for what's convenient. Beyond that simply throwing people in prison doesn't mean that w…

Your focus on monetary matters is well on par with how alarm-equipped hospital beds are marketed: "Consider the cost of a patient who had skin tissue compression due to wetting themselves. Use our calculator below!". Not kidding, seen almost the exact copy on a hospital bed vendor.

While the numbers may be true, it's a very inhumane way to think about people.

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

#160

Post by tastyfreeze »

Alupis wrote: post #28
kelnos wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that's exactly true. I do agree with you that some people will start using because they lose the fear of being caught, though I'm not convinced this is as large a problem as you might think it is. Either way, there are also undoubtedly people with substance abuse problems who are afraid to get help due to the possibility of incarceration. Removing that fear can lead to more people getting into treatment…

> though I'm not convinced this is as large a problem as you might think it is Several states have legalized marijuana, and surprise, marijuana usage is at an all-time high (no pun intended). People who would have never tried it before now do so because the stigma is gone, and it's trivial to get. This part is always lost on the "legalize everything" crowd. While marijuana might be relatively benign, other drugs are…

> Several states have legalized marijuana, and surprise, marijuana usage is at an all-time high

That may be a result of measurement. People that used prior to legalization kept it secret. The stereotypical "stoners" are a fraction of cannabis users. After legalization people tend to be more open about their cannabis use.

If the measurement is based on surveys there will be an obvious increase after legalization as the legal consequences of admitting use have been removed.

If the measurement is based on sales there will also be an obvious increase after legalization as the majority of sales are recorded. Prior to legalization the majority of sales were illegal and the only sampling of the actual market size is from police seizures.

Yes, there will be a growth in the market when the legality is changed and stigma is reduced over time. That is people finding cannabis useful for themselves and no fear of being judged for that choice (same as alcohol is for many people).

There will always be a portion of the population that use drugs in excess to the detriment of their health or will compromise their morals to use. There is also a larger portion of the population that uses drugs regardless of legality and participates in society. You would never know the second cohort.

The problem with the first cohort is breaking other laws to satisfy their desire to use. Their drug use isn't the problem. Drugs didn't make them do anything. They should be punished for their other behavior not their consumption habits.

Post reply on HN