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

331–340 of 1001 posts

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

#331

Post by dr_dshiv »

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…

1. Licenses or prescriptions should be required for all drugs; either can be taken away. Also, people need education.

2. Start a better public works program. Employment is good for mental health.

3. Maybe require a month of service or something, just to have a way to resocialize people when they break.

4. Have people pick up their benefits somewhere not in the city. Some reason to move.

5. Forced rehab to those engaged in harm; nature and nutrition.

6. Need to avoid cultures of homelessness. Need good policy. Look to Amsterdam, a city with virtually no homelessness.

7. Make better drugs available? Fentanyl seems like the worst.

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

#332

Post by tlogan »

cyberax wrote: post #199
rvcdbn wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Portugal has not yet been fully hit with dirt-cheap fentanyl. It IS different from other drugs.

It seems it got hit this year ( visiting as tourist). Rome and Milan too (visiting family).

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

#334

Post by wonderwonder »

skyyler wrote: post #162
wonderwonder wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>These people became not so much people but just a threat. This is part of the problem. They are a threat, but they're also still people.

Sure but I very much value my kids over strangers engaging in destructive behavior on the street. Why risk myself and my family for them?

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

#335

Post by Apes »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #256
tomp wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should be allowed to be fat. But if you're so fat you need 2 airline seats, you should pay for 2 seats, just like a non-fat person who wants 2 seats. People should be allowed to use drugs and be drug addicts. But if you're so drugged up that you shit in the street and attack other people, you should go to jail, just like a non-drug user who shits in the street or attacks people.

And how about payment for surgery for coronary artery disease/type 2 diabetes medications/etc?

I guess for you that might be an upside of the American Healthcare system - fat people pay more for health insurance, and have to pay money out of pocket for their surgery and medications.

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

#336

Post by dan_mctree »

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.

Can we all just be honest and just agree that prohibitions do in fact make access to the prohibited thing harder and reduce the prevalence of it. This is true whether your topic of choice is drugs, guns, abortions, alcohol, some form of sex, vpn access or whatever you want to talk about.

Sometimes the prohibition can make obtaining illegal things more difficult and risky, and many of us are too lazy or risk avoidant to push through that. Sometimes accessing a prohibited things requires social contacts not everyone has access to. Sometimes people will just straight up respect the law and not obtain the illegal thing even if it is easy or avoid providing it. Prohibitions can be very effective in reducing the incidence of some thing, especially if enforcement is draconian

Prohibitions can have negative effects, obviously especially for those who like the thing that is being prohibited, but it just seems dishonest to try to pretend like prohibitions don't change behavior whenever that happens to suit some political preference

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

#337

Post by jakear »

samketchup wrote: post #328
toomim wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Driving drunk is illegal because you're likely to kill someone, and then it'll be too late to say "let's just prosecute the crime of manslaughter, and not prevent future manslaughters by prosecuting drunkenness in the car." In the same way, we should make it illegal to do drugs in situations where you are likely to cause irreparable harm. If we legalize drugs, let's create safe situations to do so. Many drugs are bei…

More people are killed on the road in accidents caused by elderly folks than drunk drivers. I know this sounds insane, but drunk driving should be no harm no foul.

In some sense, it is. Barring random sobriety checkpoints (which are generally avoidable).

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

#338

Post by JoeJonathan »

darth_avocado wrote: post #301
toomim wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Driving drunk is illegal because you're likely to kill someone, and then it'll be too late to say "let's just prosecute the crime of manslaughter, and not prevent future manslaughters by prosecuting drunkenness in the car." In the same way, we should make it illegal to do drugs in situations where you are likely to cause irreparable harm. If we legalize drugs, let's create safe situations to do so. Many drugs are bei…

Legalization and decriminalization are two different things. I am all for decriminalizing. From a personal viewpoint, I don’t think drugs should be legalized. And as far as the legal administration etc., that already exists in SF and it has had a poor track record of helping people.

Decriminalizing drugs doesn’t fix the supply problem, which makes drug use such a budensome expense that there are all kinds of knock on effects (theft, poverty, etc). Someone commented on how rich people don’t see drug use, but sure they do. Aside from the fact that most everyone here is pretty rich and complaining about addicts, I come from an upper middle class suburb with a ton of addicts. Lots of people I went to school with died of overdosed. But it’s not immediately visible because people’s families reluctantly take them in, they generally have enough money for drugs, etc.

Not arguing for outright legalization—while I once did, I now think it’s naive. And I’m not sure we could pull off a Portugal style system in the US. But descriminalizariam doesn’t seem to be working that well.

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

#339

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#340

Post by FredPret »

toomim wrote: post #249
darth_avocado wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 qu…

Driving drunk is illegal because you're likely to kill someone, and then it'll be too late to say "let's just prosecute the crime of manslaughter, and not prevent future manslaughters by prosecuting drunkenness in the car." In the same way, we should make it illegal to do drugs in situations where you are likely to cause irreparable harm. If we legalize drugs, let's create safe situations to do so. Many drugs are bei…

There’s no safe way to consume a substance that rewires your lizard brain to seek more of it
Post reply on HN