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

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

#291

Post by taeric » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:07 PM UTC

fragmede wrote: post #212

taeric wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Referencing Portugal feels weird. Most reports I see are still very favorable to the outcomes they are seeing, is that changing? Decriminalizing doesn't change people with a drug problem into not having a drug problem, true. It does, at least, free them from also having a legal problem. Idea being that they can seek and get treatment for their drug problem, now. Something they can't do when it is criminal. (Indeed, r…

Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-dru... discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36638752

Thanks for the link, I'll try and take a deeper dive later. Cursory read is not favorable to the article, though. Problems include,

  * Having to concede that Portugal is still doing better than most of Europe.
  * Leaning on pandemic years for a lot of the excess growth.
  * A passing discussion of funding and other costs.

I see most of this was covered in the discussion here. Will see what else is mentioned.

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

#292

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:07 PM UTC

FormerBandmate wrote: post #263

etc-hosts wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> taxing the legal pot industry so highly that it was miles cheaper to buy stuff illegally no the corner the legal pot industry's problem is it's impossible for it to turn a profit. they can't deduct operating expenses from their tax liability like other businesses can, because of federal law. items like rent, payroll. they also can't use the same systems of credit management and bank accounts, because of federal law…

The legal pot industry’s problem is that it’s a legal no-man’s-land because pot is actually illegal at a federal level but states just ignore it and the government ignores them ignoring it. It should be legalized at a federal level because that’s already true de facto Incidentally, the second that happens Altria/BAT/whoever will swoop in and make it a consumer product. This will probably have a serious impact on mom…

[deleted]

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

#293

Post by darth_avocado » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:07 PM UTC

setr wrote: post #251

darth_avocado wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. T…

Safer drugs is usually referring to not getting drugs cut with other unknown shit. A common scenario is heroin from dealer A being mixed, then you switch to dealer B and get it pure (or at least more so) but not knowing that, you take the same dosage and overdose

That is never going to go away though. After weed was legalized in California, 2/3 purchases are still from the black market. [1] That market always will exist because cutting makes drugs cheaper and legal drugs will never be able to compete.

[1] https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/06/california-illicit...

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

#294

Post by hn_throwaway_99 » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:07 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

This is actually really not true at all, and it's important to be honest about the reality. First, in many places where weed is now legal, black markets have continued to thrive because there are high taxes on legal weed, and thus black market weed is considerably cheaper. Totally fine to argue that this is then a problem with implementation, but it is definitely not correct to say "People don't even bother getting it on the black market anymore where it is legal." - that's just wrong, and it's not hard to Google for lots of articles discussing this.

Also, while I agree with legalization, I would state that I underestimated some of the downsides. A couple years ago I was in downtown Denver, along their 16th St pedestrian mall, and it's not really a nice thing to see tons of people stoned out of their minds walking around like zombies. Also not great when you get in an Uber and your driver seems totally baked.

Can't emphasize enough that I think the alternative (throwing people in jail) is much worse. But I don't think it's honest to minimize the downsides.

Edit: Save you a google search, https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/06/california-illicit...

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

#295

Post by antisyzygy » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:07 PM UTC

mtalantikite wrote: post #177

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…

> 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.

My experience was Colorado and Washington. Nobody in either state will bother with black market weed. You can find a licensed dispensary with quality product within a 5 minute drive 20 hours a day.

They both did it right, and took different approaches even. Colorado is a bit looser on the requirements for dispensaries and have cheaper product overall. There is a licensed dispensary just about every block in Denver, sometimes two, when I left. Not sure about now.

In Colorado actually the legal product is cheaper than former black market prices too. In WA is about the same price but there are some cheaper options if you're OK with a lower quality product.

By "Quality" here I don't mean that it's laced, but that it's a product with less high quality plant in it. More stems, less buds, that kind of thing.

I don't know NY law or licensing, but I've heard that this sort of unlicensed pop-up pot shop problem occurred in some States where they didn't plan the roll out and licensing very well.

Either couldn't get their shit together to regulate it properly, and dragged their feet for too long after legalization, or didn't issue nearly enough licenses to sell to meet the demand.

WA had more issues than Colorado actually with meeting demand initially but they recovered pretty quick. It was because they had a different licensing scheme whereby you can't grow and also sell retail, you gotta pick one.

In Colorado you can grow your own and sell it to retail customers. They also seemed to issue far more licenses than WA did.

In any case, I'd look to Colorado for a good case study. WA for a mediocre one. And then CA and NY for what not to do. CA also had some of those pop up shops that were unlicensed.

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

#296

Post by epolanski » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:08 PM UTC

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…

Delusional.

The drug that kills and ruins most lives on the planet is alcohol followed by food (diabetes). And the abuse of alcohol and food has the same root that drug abuse does: mental health and education.

And let's not even start talking about the damage of legal drugs (medicines) on society at all age tiers.

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

#297

Post by brightlancer » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:08 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #259

brightlancer wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about, and I'm just spit-balling here, how about we enforce laws again theft and assault and "quality of life" offenses like smoking and shooting up drugs in public parks, on sidewalks, on transit? If someone wants to get high in their home, I don't care. If someone wants to get high in a bar or such, I don't care. If someone wants to get high in one of those places and then walk out in public _without harming an…

> How about, and I'm just spit-balling here, how about we enforce laws again theft and assault and "quality of life" offenses like smoking and shooting up drugs in public parks, on sidewalks, on transit? > If someone wants to get high in their home That doesn't work in a society in which housing is not guaranteed, and in which almost all "last-resort" housing options (such as shelters) require sobriety. Achieving and…

> The "tough on crime" mentality says, "well, this should give you an incentive to stop using drugs",

How many times did I have to say that I don't care if people use drugs?

_I don't care if people use drugs._ I'm not interested in forcing folks into rehab.

But this crap:

> That doesn't work in a society in which housing is not guaranteed...

> To spell it out: if you don't provide housing options for people who use drugs

Is a BS excuse to let folks commit THEFT and ASSAULT because It's Really The System, or expose kids to fent smoke on the train because It's Really The System, or have kids step over zombies on the sidewalk because It's Really The System, or have children and women (and some men) harassed or threatened by crazies because It's Really The System, etc.

I don't care about the drug use. I worked with homeless folks for years and most of them are not OD'ing in public parks or harassing folks on the sidewalk. Stop making excuses for criminal behavior.

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

#298

Post by wittenbunk » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:08 PM UTC

hintymad wrote: post #288

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 ce…

Opiates arent decriminalized in Philadelphia, seems like your argument is more based in bias then logic

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

#299

Post by FormerBandmate » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:08 PM UTC

downvotetruth wrote: post #253

GeoAtreides wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I used to strongly support people getting guns. 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 guns 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…

Legal guns do way less damage than drugs by a long shot. Even illegal guns kill less people, and you don’t solve illegal guns by banning guns, the millions of illegal guns aren’t going to turn in themselves

We do need gun control but it is an absurdly tiny issue compared to drugs. Barely anyone dies in mass shootings with legally purchased guns, it’s up there with lightning strikes

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

#300

Post by chimeracoder » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:09 PM UTC

j_walter wrote: post #174

schnable wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> Portugal had more rules requiring treatment which is what made it effective...Oregon did not choose that route.

As I explained in a sibling comment, requiring treatment is not the difference. Very few people who use drugs in Portugal are subject to mandatory drug treatment.

The key difference is that Portugal has a radically different housing policy than Oregon. As of 2019, housing is a formal legal right (and even before 2019, it was much closer to a de facto right than it was to Oregon's current model, which is "if you can't pay for a roof, pitch your tent over there, and hope we don't arrest you for vagrancy").

Most people who use drugs do not meet clinical criteria for addiction, so drug treatment programs are irrelevant and a waste of money for them. For those who do, drug treatment programs are still a waste of money unless they have stable housing, because it is essentially impossible to achieve and maintain sobriety without stable housing.