Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by anon84873628 » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:35 PM UTC

singpolyma3 wrote: post #184

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…

The point is that putting them in prison doesn't solve the problem and giving power to police results in inconsistent enforcement harmful to communities. The point isn't that using some of these substances is "fine" but that it should be treated as a public health problem (like smoking) not a criminal problem.

Isn't prison one of the easiest places to get drugs??

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

#202

Post by Demotooodo » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:35 PM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #44

Demotooodo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a novelty right now. In Amsterdam when you go to a music festival you will not see a lot of pod heads. I was one of the few and I'm a German! Look at Portugals drug history. Legalization saved that country!

How do you see wether someone has eaten edibles?

That's not common in Amsterdam

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

#203

Post by fragmede » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:36 PM UTC

nemo44x wrote: post #120

ddtaylor wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A food addict doesn't hold up a corner store to get their fix in a pack of candy, but their costs to the healthcare system are significant. The estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the United States was nearly $173 billion in 2019 dollars. Medical costs for adults who had obesity were $1,861 higher than medical costs for people with healthy weight*. High functioning drug addicts contribute plenty to society, much like there are high functioning obese people. What about the obese who don't contribute to society and sit around and play video games all day? The stereotype of a homeless drug addict is a very visible type of addict, but what of the wall street investment banker hooked on cocaine? 41.9% of Americans were obese (as of March 2020, same cdc link as above). They are a drain on society, and it's a bigger problem than you think. It's more insidious because it's less in your face than being mugged at gunpoint so it seems more benign, but it's causing massive issues.

* https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

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

#204

Post by anon84873628 » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:37 PM UTC

sniglom wrote: post #129

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…

For other possibly dangerous things in society there are things like taking a license and renewing that license. Perhaps that should be a requirement for buying hard drugs where it's legal.

Exactly. You can buy pseudoephedrine or codeine at the pharmacy, but not too much or too frequently. Party sized amounts of safe drugs could be made available. People who go to far get directed to treatment.

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

#205

Post by darth_avocado » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:37 PM UTC

brightlancer wrote: post #186

Rubbish. Folks made the exact same arguments about alcohol and marijuana. Specifically with alcohol, anyone can walk into a treatment center without fear that they'll be arrested for the mere _use_ of a substance. (Marijuana has very low risk and rates of addiction, physical or psychological.) If "hard" drugs are legalized, then they will likely be treated the same as alcohol and pot and tobacco: highly regulated, so…

I generally agree with the sentiment that drugs should be treated like we treat other addictions like alcohol. Drugs should be decriminalized, anti social criminal behavior should stay criminalized. If I’m drunk and pee in public or assault someone, I’ll go to jail. That is what should happen if I do it under the influence of drugs.

The one difference though between alcohol and some of the drugs is potency and how quickly one can be addicted to it. Therefore, treatment should be much more easily be available and it should be much easier to have an intervention.

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

#206

Post by sbierwagen » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:37 PM UTC

alphazard wrote: post #182

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…

Why is there something to do? Your questions seem predicated on a false assumption that no one likes to say out loud: Drug users have a better life waiting for them after they stop using. Daily drug use may actually be the correct way for some people to maximize the integral of happiness over their lifetime. Especially for those at the bottom with limited prospects. I don't think most of HN can fathom what it's like…

Okay, then build a camp for them out in the desert. There's no reason to have them shitting on the streets of downtown SF.

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

#207

Post by serf » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:37 PM UTC

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…

>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.

that's pretty obviously wrong. Look at the demographic sample of meth users; it's not just down-and-out on-the-street folks.[0]

it's not some "i'm going to try heroin on my deathbed" drug; affluent people try/use it routinely and it's fairly common in vacation destinations/sex-clubs/bars/'adult-venues' across the U.S.

Some 100k+ salary earner who frequents sex clubs every weekend while on meth isn't doing it because 'there's no better life path open to them'; they're doing it because they're bored and it is entertaining, which is essentially the raison d'etre of all recreational drugs.

One could also note that the existence of such casual users belittles the idea that it forms such addictive bonds as to guarantee a ruined life.. but personally I think that's a person-to-person thing; some people don't get addicted to things like others.

[0]: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/trends-...

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

#208

Post by mcphage » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:37 PM UTC

brightlancer wrote: post #186

Rubbish. Folks made the exact same arguments about alcohol and marijuana. Specifically with alcohol, anyone can walk into a treatment center without fear that they'll be arrested for the mere _use_ of a substance. (Marijuana has very low risk and rates of addiction, physical or psychological.) If "hard" drugs are legalized, then they will likely be treated the same as alcohol and pot and tobacco: highly regulated, so…

> The big mistake California (and other Leftist faux-topias) made was decriminalizing THEFT, ASSAULT, smoking and shooting on BART, smoking and shooting in public parks, smoking and shooting on sidewalks in front of residences

Not being from California—when/how did they do that?

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

#209

Post by photochemsyn » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:37 PM UTC

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…

A robust public health system that includes treatment for drug and alcohol addiction as part of the services offered to the public would be helpful. It's true that many people won't use such services because of distrust, however (would you want a medical record stating you were a recovering drug or alcohol addict, or mentally ill?).

Legalizing and quality controlling drugs would also help - but the problem there is that we live in a advertising-driven consumer society. Alcohol, tobacco and sugar-laced soft drinks are all unhealthy, but that's a profitable enterprise, so people are incentivized to block public health campaigns, restrictions on sales, etc.

At some point, the problems become so deeply entrenched and societal in nature that passing laws and setting up government programs doesn't really help. For some reason in the USA, a lot of people are really miserable and their only relief is to turn to drugs and alcohol. That's the more fundamental problem.

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

#210

Post by cyberax » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:38 PM UTC

burkaman wrote: post #139

ecf wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is a common theory but it isn't true. There are a lot of homeless people in San Fransisco because there are a lot of people there and it's hard to afford a home. From a huge recent survey of homelessness in California: > Nine out of ten participants lost their last housing in California; 75% of participants lived in the same county as their last housing. https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/2023-06/…

This data is st00pid. It relies on self-reporting, and the questions are coached to get the "required" result.

A while ago I did an experiment, I found the list of people convicted for typical "homeless" crimes in SF, and did a background search on them. About 90% had extensive crime records in other states, far away from CA.

This is not a definitive result for sure, but it's suggestive.