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

221–230 of 1001 posts

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

#221

Post by patrickmay »

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…

It would be very hard for the effects of allowing people to choose what they consume to be worse than the effects of prohibition.

The homeless issue is multidimensional and, surprise, people were already getting drugs before they were decriminalized.

Legalization is morally correct and eliminates the gangs, violence, and high costs of prohibition.

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

#222

Post by mike00632 »

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…

Doesn't the same apply to alcohol?

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

#223

Post by dmode »

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…

But doesn't alcohol trigger a wildly different reaction than hard drugs ? Which alcohol triggers schizophrenia, psychosis, hallucination and make you violent ? And these are triggered very very easily by using a small amount of meth or fentanyl. To get to a comparable state with alcohol, you would have to drink copious amount, but then you are more likely to be passed out than exhibit violent behavior.

I agree with your other point though - permissiveness of use shouldn't come with ignoring all societal norms, just because you are a vulnerable drug user. In fact, permissiveness of use should be paired with stricter enforcement of quality of life laws

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

#224

Post by Volundr »

mcphage wrote: post #208
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?

Also not from California; my understanding is some municipalities either don't enforce these laws, or don't do it to the extent people would like.

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

#225

Post by basicoperation »

GeoAtreides wrote: post #200
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 used to strongly support people getting fat. I thought: this is a free country, you should be able to do what you want. But what I've seen in the US has made me think differently. Most people who get fat 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 say the nu…

This but unironically

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

#226

Post by araes »

andybak wrote: post #94
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 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.

One point people don't tend to know, is that a lot of folks actually get drugs in jail, and often prefer them. There's quite a few opioid replacements that get offered to anyone who can show addiction withdrawl, and many folks say they're actually a better, longer high than the street stuff.

There's also some revolving door, and 'Shawshank' style issues, where folks rotate out for a couple months in the spring / summer, do whatever on the street, and then rotate back in the fall / winter with some dumb crime. Eat, rest, stay warm, get the opioid replacements, then head back out. Kind of a homeless shelter where you just have to do some 3-month misdemeanor stint to get room / board.

Although long incarceration can definitely be an issue, there are also some folks who've made it a lifestyle.

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

#227

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

treeman79 wrote: post #96
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.

Perhaps guard the boarders so not nearly so much is crossing. Would also help stop human trafficking. Just a thought.

Thankfully our land and sea borders only total about 312 yards or so, two squads of border control could keep eyes on it at all times, and shut that stuff down.

Oops, my bad. Nope, it's 2000 miles or so.

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

#228

Post by patrickmay »

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...

That demonstrates that California did a very bad job at legalization. The black market arises when the taxes on a good exceed the risk of getting caught. If California had legalized marijuana and treated it like liquor, there would be no black market.

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

#229

Post by brnaftr361 »

kcb wrote: post #185
anon84873628 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not so hard to believe that lack of access prevents some from getting hooked.

The dangers of getting hooked are greatly exacerbated by current "treatment" modalities and the culture the black market breeds.

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

#230

Post by darth_avocado »

anon84873628 wrote: post #158
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.

> would be better if the drugs were cheaper and safer.

Drugs are never going to be safer. If FDA approved painkillers can get you addicted, I am not sure how much safer can Fentanyl get. And making them cheaper is only going to create more problems.

Prohibition doesn’t prevent people from accessing drugs. But that doesn’t mean we make it easily accessible. Theft is illegal, but it doesn’t stop people from stealing. That doesn’t mean we legalize it. Because if we do, we’ll have a free for all like we have in SF and other parts of California.

Post reply on HN