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

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

#341

Post by brightlancer » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:32 PM UTC

GeoAtreides wrote: post #303

styren wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here? Policymaking to limit access to unhealthy food isn't particularly controversial and if there weren't more pressing issues were I live I'd love for politicians to push it further.

But nobody would propose making sugar illegal and putting people that eat sugar in jail.

> But nobody would propose making sugar illegal and putting people that eat sugar in jail.

Michael Bloomberg has entered the chat.

As an almost absolute rule, "nobody is saying" is false. Lots of crazies are saying it. Sometimes they're well respected politicians.

"But Bloomberg never did that!" Right, he did the first _step_ by targeting the sale of "large" sodas. But if you look at his actions on tobacco for ADULTS and the larger War On Drugs, it starts with selling, then buying, then possessing.

There are authoritarians who want to ban anything and everything you can imagine (plus many more). They start with what's popular and then move on to what is, crying "What about the children?!?!" and "Do you just want people to die?!?!" the whole time.

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

#342

Post by michaelteter » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:33 PM UTC

I don't even have to read the article.

The US military is, if anything, serious about understanding cause and effect. They studied and learned about drug addiction during and after the Viet Nam war.

What they found might seem counterintuitive. Addicted soldiers could break the habit easily once they returned home. Of course this is an oversimplification, but the idea is that circumstance has a lot to do with behavior.

Given that, if you don't change the circumstances, then changing the details (criminalization, penalties) won't change the behavior.

WHY are people using drugs (or alcohol, as many of us do?) What is being avoided or intentionally clouded?

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

#343

Post by spamuel » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:33 PM UTC

pravus wrote: post #196

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the war on drugs a failure in Singapore too? I mean, it is self-evidently obvious that at some level of enforcement, you can actually control the problem. The question then is whether we are willing to tolerate the level of enforcement necessary. Is the cure worse than the disease? That is a real question and a worthy one, but pretending that no tradeoff exists is just silly.

After the outrage I saw when a US citizen was caned in Singapore for a vandalism violation, I'd say no, the people here probably don't look to Singapore as a guide for enforcement.

Minds have been changed on a lot of things that are pretty wild lately, in a short span of time. If this stuff continues, there might be further pretty wild changes of mind.

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

#344

Post by DyslexicAtheist » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:33 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…

keep them legal. but also invest in social workers. finally a model like the Portugal approach won't yield results if the basics aren't there (healthcare, housing, etc)

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

#345

Post by photonerd » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:33 PM UTC

seadan83 wrote: post #302

styren wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here? Policymaking to limit access to unhealthy food isn't particularly controversial and if there weren't more pressing issues were I live I'd love for politicians to push it further.

Limiting access to any kind of food AFAIK is extremely controversial! For starters there are the massive astro-turf campaigns that make a lot of noise. Beyond this, food regulation is catnip for the culture wars. > Taxes on sugar‐sweetened beverages reduce consumption, but a strong public backlash holds that they compromise consumers’ liberty, freedom, and autonomy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC691631…

> Limiting access to any kind of food AFAIK is extremely controversial!

Where? Not in the US it’s not & it’s much more common to do so in the rest of the world too.

Try buying proper raw milk cheese in the US for example.

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

#346

Post by lm28469 » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:33 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…

> you should be able to do what you want.

I'm still baffled at how this argument makes it anywhere paste high school. Living a single second makes it plain obvious that no, you don't do what you want. Living in any type of society or even the most basic and smallest community will tell you that

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

#347

Post by Apes » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:34 PM UTC

GeoAtreides wrote: post #303

styren wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here? Policymaking to limit access to unhealthy food isn't particularly controversial and if there weren't more pressing issues were I live I'd love for politicians to push it further.

But nobody would propose making sugar illegal and putting people that eat sugar in jail.

Of course such an extreme proposal is going to seem silly - but what about outlawing any advertisement for sugary goods towards children, coupled with a heavy tax on sugary goods? Now that not only seems possible, but seems like only a matter of time.

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

#348

Post by brightlancer » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:34 PM UTC

anon84873628 wrote: post #197

runako wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people who use drugs eventually end up not being able to live like normal adults Is this true? The US consumes a lot of hard drugs, but my perception is that most users not have their lives fall apart as a result. Curious if there are estimates on the % of e.g. cocaine users who are recreational vs those who eventually end up on the street as a result of their use.

I interpret that to mean, "people who use drugs habitually" not just those who dabbled in particular contexts.

I think you're giving too much credit.

It's more likely GP was talking BS than that they made an absolute statement where they really meant a very specific nuanced statement.

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

#349

Post by themitigating » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:35 PM UTC

varjag wrote: post #262

mike00632 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the same apply to alcohol?

Alcohol use exerts enormous tax on society which chose to tolerate it for historical adoption reasons. Adding hard drugs is going to exacerbate the situation, and a number of those are worse than alcohol by any metric imaginable.

So then alcohol should be banned? Why the line if only historical?

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

#350

Post by zeroCalories » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 9:35 PM UTC

GeoAtreides wrote: post #303

styren wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here? Policymaking to limit access to unhealthy food isn't particularly controversial and if there weren't more pressing issues were I live I'd love for politicians to push it further.

But nobody would propose making sugar illegal and putting people that eat sugar in jail.

It wouldn't be 1-to-1, but I wouldn't mind a war on sugar. Letting your kids be fat should be treated as child abuse, and you should lose access to medicare/medicaid if you've been fat for too long. People have gotten too soft(pun intended) about the right to do whatever you want.