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

281–290 of 1001 posts

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

#281

Post by 1letterunixname »

anon84873628 wrote: post #254
soligern wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should couple decriminalization with stringent arrests for public use and public intoxication. It’s so damn simple, why won’t they do it. Set a limit above which you’re not allowed to be loitering on the streets like they do with alcohol.

That's one of the interesting things I noticed about Amsterdam. It is notorious for the availability of cannabis, but it's very clear that you don't consume in public or around the neighborhood. (Modulo a group of teens I saw passing a joint around in the park). The coffeeshops are clearly intended to contain the drug use. Unlike California where you smell weed everywhere.

There is so much absurd regulation of marijuana in California, that the gray and black markets are still thriving. There is too much demand and not enough legal supply because of bullshit red tape. Making it easier to grow legally is the path to taking organized crime and violence out of it.

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

#282

Post by qawwads »

oatmeal1 wrote: post #179
antisyzygy wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Everytime the subject come around, someone repeat this like it's a fact but nobody care to explain. Is criminalisation really the only hammer the gov has? What are the goods of saving people against their wishes? Are these goods higher than the damages caused by criminalisation?

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

#283

Post by wonderwonder »

goatlover wrote: post #236
01100011 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, as long as those people don't negatively affect others. Who cleans up after the addict? Who pays for their property crimes or aggression? Who has to clean up their body after an OD or discover it?

I'm open to decriminalizing everything, start with steroids. As long as there are harsh punishments for public intoxication, property damage, theft and all the adjacent crimes that addiction causes, have at it. It can't result in a wasteland of addicts in every down town though

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

#284

Post by 1letterunixname »

wonderwonder wrote: post #38
soligern wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should couple decriminalization with stringent arrests for public use and public intoxication. It’s so damn simple, why won’t they do it. Set a limit above which you’re not allowed to be loitering on the streets like they do with alcohol.

This is definitely part of the answer. Walking through the streets of San Francisco a while ago with my kids I was shocked to see people just lying on the side walk in pools of their own vomit. Also was very protective of my kids walking past people that were obviously on drugs and out of their minds. These people became not so much people but just a threat. It seemed inhumane to just leave them like that. With that…

What did you do to help these people who were suffering? Did you just glare and step over them?

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

#285

Post by chimeracoder »

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).

> 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.

The big difference between Oregon and the other cities/countries that tried this approach successfully is not diversionary programs - it's housing. In Oregon, housing is not guaranteed, which means any money spent on mandatory treatment programs for people without stable housing is essentially wasted.

Diversionary programs and rehabilitation are a waste of time and money if the recipient does not have guaranteed access to stable housing. It's virtually impossible to achieve and maintain sobriety in those circumstances.

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

#286

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

anon84873628 wrote: post #213
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Then make sure you also vote for the people who want to build more housing.

More single family homes? Sure. Low income housing? Nah

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

#287

Post by epolanski »

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…

> Does anyone have ideas on what we should do?

Tackle the issue at the root: mental health.

It's an error to focus too much on the substance (illegal drugs) when alcohol, legal drugs, food and many other forms of abuse and dependency can lead to similar or worse outcomes.

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

#288

Post by hintymad »

Funny. Chinese people were plagued by opium more than a 100 years ago. The Qing government, no matter how corrupted and useless they were, were willing to go to wars with British for fighting opiums. Pictures like this are national stigma even today: https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2011/10/29/be-caref.... Yet, the US, the lighthouse of the nations on earth, thought it was okay to tolerate drugs, and it's certainly okay to have streets like in SF or like Kensington in Phili.

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

#289

Post by hcks »

chronofar wrote: post #105
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…

> Not sure what the answer is but just waving a wand and making hard drugs legal is not it. Make them actually legal (and thus more safe), tax them heavily, use a portion of said taxation to educate properly and then support and rehabilitate those who need it. Don't allow unsafe activities in public places that cause an unsafe environment. This really isn't that complicated, we've just been under the spell of prohibi…

Yeah, it's not complicated when you can make up stuff with 0 evidence and have no responsability anyway.

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

#290

Post by StimDeck »

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…

[dead]
Post reply on HN