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

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

#231

Post by rvcdbn » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:44 PM UTC

rvcdbn wrote: post #165

tlogan wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand. But what is the solution? Just wait for them to all die? Here in San fransciso we have 3 overdose death per day. That is 40% spike from last years. In 2017 we had 222 overdose death for entire year and we reached that number by march 15h this year. [1] https://sf.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/2021%2005_OCME%20...

The solution that seems most likely to work IMO seems to be a European-style welfare state. All drugs have long been decriminalized in Portugal and you don’t see that kind of thing on the streets of Lisbon. But I don’t see that happening any time soon in the USA.

Actually one thing I would be curious to try is to substitute ketamine for opiates. It might work out that some people prefer it and it’s far less harmful on the body. Problem is it’s super expensive compared to opiates.

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

#232

Post by anon84873628 » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:44 PM UTC

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…

Personally I think marijuana is a bit unique, more similar to alcohol in how it can fit into daily life for some people. Sure the use has probably gone up but that's just social norms changing, not necessarily for better or worse. (If it displaces alcohol or other drug use it's probably for the better). Every culture has different ideas about what drugs are acceptable.

Maybe legalizing cocaine would also see occasional recreational use go up - that's not necessarily a problem either.

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

#233

Post by patrickmay » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:44 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…

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

Got a cite for that? I doubt it's true.

We're seeing the same problems with drug prohibition that we saw with alcohol prohibition. It's time for the government to stop destroying people's lives.

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

#234

Post by kepler1 » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:45 PM UTC

local_issues wrote: post #55

kepler1 wrote: post #47

I maintain now (as I did when Measure 110 passed in Oregon, and in the discussions here in HN) that decriminalizing drugs would lead the state, and especially Portland of course, to a terrible and predictable outcome. Many supporters of the measure believed that it was the objectively right choice. Decriminalize, and get people to treatment instead of locking them up. The sad thing is that you can make all the piecew…

The people I fear the most are people who are 100% sure they're doing the right thing. This comment section is full of that - "no, this is a good policy and it's just the implementation that's wrong." Sure, maybe? But maybe it's just a bad policy? Maybe we could adjust the implementation? Maybe we can look at other places were things are better? Maybe a bit of shame could be helpful, too. SF and Portland have turned…

Agreed.

If a policy requires nearly perfect implementation, and follow through, and good behavior of the people, in order to succeed, and you rarely achieve / sustain the follow through by the community or police, etc. then it is not a good policy. Even though the concept was nice.

A policy is everything, start to finish. You can't just say a policy was good except for the implementation. No matter how good it makes you feel that you got the idea right, it just wasn't carried out the way you thought.

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

#235

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:45 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#236

Post by goatlover » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:45 PM UTC

01100011 wrote: post #40

wonderwonder wrote: post #36

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…

I hate to be that HN guy who nitpicks an otherwise spot-on comment, but anyway... One correction: many opiate users, yes, even heroin users, can be functional members of society. There are many folks you would never know use H, at least until they accidentally get some fentanyl and die. Same thing with meth(which is actually a prescription medication). I'll say that there is always a very high probability that some l…

You’re ignoring the right of someone to do with their body as they see fit, in favor of giving power to governments over people’s bodies. Prohibition didn’t work for alcohol despite’s its negative effects. Doesn’t work for prostitution or gambling either.

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

#237

Post by stcroixx » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:45 PM UTC

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?

It was this way when I first came to the Bay Area around 2008. Police simply ignore all of these criminal behaviors. They know the DA is not interested in prosecuting. It’s shocking at first. I came from a city where none of that is tolerated.

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

#238

Post by nvrmnd » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:45 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/…

My understanding is that "living in the same county as your last housing" can mean that you moved to California with enough money to rent a room for a month before running out. Though, I have seen many other surveys that do indicate that most unhoused individuals have lived in the area for an extended period before factors forced them out (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/us/homeless-population.ht...).

In any event, I feel that metric used by UCSF is really not a good one to the point where it's almost dishonest. It's not hard to come up with questions that do a better job at trying to answer whether CA is burdened by individuals moving from out-of-state to make use of more generous social programs and/or lax drug policy.

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

#239

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:46 PM UTC

dmode wrote: post #223

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 y…

[deleted]

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

#240

Post by mcphage » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 8:46 PM UTC

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…

> 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 not. Removing the stigma and making it easy to get harder drugs is going to be a net-negative thing for society as a hole.

That doesn't entirely follow. Marijuana is widely known to be benign, and so it's not much of a surprise that usage rose with legalization. Other drugs are known to not be benign, so you're not going to find a ton of people going "hey, why not try some heroin?"