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

171–180 of 1001 posts

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

#171

Post by brightlancer »

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…

San Francisco doesn't have a problem with marijuana, it has a problem with store robbery, muggings, crazies smoking/ shooting "hard" drugs on the metro and on sidewalks, etc.

For too long, San Francisco and California more broadly have rejected The Stick in favor of The Carrot -- and they didn't improve the balance, they just through it out of balance in a different direction.

If folks want to fry their brain on whatever, I think that's their right. They don't have the right to do that on the sidewalk in front of my house, in the park where kids play, on the subway, etc. SF and CA lost the plot.

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

#172

Post by davorak »

Rapzid wrote: post #153
davorak wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

I claim this is an apples to oranges comparison. Controlling peoples views is an attempt at mind control vs regulating substances directly or indirectly which is a common practice, not putting lead into gas for example. Or indirectly regulated, eating of highly radioactive substances.

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

#173

Post by ska »

bostonsre wrote: post #141
chronofar wrote: post #80

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 tend to think increased usage of a regulated and taxable substance by a well educated and supported populous is significantly preferable to prohibition and scare tactics The problem is opioids and other hard drugs aren't regulated, they are just made legal. Human thought when addicted to hard drugs is not logical. Giving people the freedom to consume them has the effect of allowing them to forfeit their freedom f…

(most) Opiods are already legal and regulate - they are mostly medical useful drugs.

The current opiod crisis was largely created by over-prescription of legal, regulated opiods and subsequent rejection of further prescription; something that led many addicts to search out alternative sources, which grew a market for gray and black market opiods, which grew into whatever you want to call what we have now - tons of unregulated and often 'dirty' fentanyl and carfentanil flooding the system and ending up in everything.

I guess I'm saying I know where you are coming from, and increasing usage isn't going to be a great idea. On the other hand, felonization of it and the halo effect of street crime etc. absolutely is causing massive harm, arguably worse than the scenario you describe. It's not an easy problem to make real progress with.

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

#174

Post by j_walter »

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).

Oregon basically made it a $100 fine or you could get treatment...https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2023/04/22/economist-magazi...

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

#175

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

ecf wrote: post #131
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 don’t have any evidence to back this feeling up so take it with a grain of salt: San Francisco has a drug problem simply because it’s one of few places in the country where it’s safe to have a drug problem. Other states pay for addicts/homeless to be shipped off to California and all of a sudden it becomes our taxpayer problem. If drugs were legalized country-wide then SF wouldn’t have the concentration it does and…

> If drugs were legalized country-wide

No thank you. I don't want to catch what SF has. I'll vote against anyone who suggests we need to legalize in my area.

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

#176

Post by runako »

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…

> Most people who use drugs eventually end up not being able to live like normal adults

Is this true? The US consumes a lot of hard drugs, but my perception is that most users not have their lives fall apart as a result. Curious if there are estimates on the % of e.g. cocaine users who are recreational vs those who eventually end up on the street as a result of their use.

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

#177

Post by mtalantikite »

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…

> People don't even bother getting it on the black market anymore where it is legal.

The unlicensed weed bodegas popping up on every other block in NYC beg to differ. People might not text a delivery service anymore, but they're definitely not going to legal recreational dispensaries here in NYC.

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

#178

Post by anon84873628 »

kljasdlkjfsd wrote: post #156
rvcdbn wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tim…

Yes, once they're addicted no amount of prohibition will dissuade them. And we already have lots of addicts so the prevention ship has sailed. It's time to address the negative effects of black markets and drug impurity. During alcohol prohibition people used to die from the adjuncts or improper distillation. Now you can still become an alcoholic but at least can rely on the quality. And no gangsters make a living from rum running.

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

#179

Post by oatmeal1 »

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…

> Decriminalization actually would mean you see more of them out on the streets because they're not being locked away in prison.

Decriminalization means the government cannot mandate people enter treatment. If people are out on the street and addicted, the government needs some teeth so they can treat even those that are in denial.

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

#180

Post by hitpointdrew »

Decriminalization is mostly pointless step and won't work to fix the "drug" issue. It only solves one piece of the puzzle, jailing non-violent people. You still have black markets, you still have stigmatization, you still have unknown and mystery substances (users don't know what they are actually getting).

To "solve" the drug issue we need full legalization and regulation of all drugs, and safe centers/locations where drugs can be used under medical supervision.

Post reply on HN