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

411–420 of 1001 posts

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

#411

Post by glonq »

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 fully support decriminalization of all drugs, as long as it's far away from me and from anybody else who is just trying to live their best life.

Let's go build a 10-acre island that is full of free housing and free drugs for anybody who wants it.

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

#412

Post by alex_lav »

It's funny to me that governments (and citizens) aren't realizing you can't simply _do less_ and expect things to improve. As in, deciminalizing drugs could work if the effort that was formerly spent mindlessly arresting and prosecuting smalltime drug offenders was instead spent on increased efforts in community outreach and rehabilitation, but that's not what happened. What we got was a society in which drugs are no longer criminalized but no additional resources. Literally just a government and society _doing less_. Who thought this would work?

Speaking as a person in Portland OR, it's not the decriminalizing that isn't working, it's the absolute dipshit of a mayor in Ted Wheeler and the total apathy from the local PD that are our largest failing.

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

#413

Post by RoyalHenOil »

sbierwagen wrote: post #206
alphazard wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is there something to do? Your questions seem predicated on a false assumption that no one likes to say out loud: Drug users have a better life waiting for them after they stop using. Daily drug use may actually be the correct way for some people to maximize the integral of happiness over their lifetime. Especially for those at the bottom with limited prospects. I don't think most of HN can fathom what it's like…

Okay, then build a camp for them out in the desert. There's no reason to have them shitting on the streets of downtown SF.

[flagged]

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

#414

Post by retrac »

HDMI_Cable wrote: post #354
retrac wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about in the United States, but here in Canada, we barely even have "good" and "bad" neighbourhoods. My city is quite well-mixed together economically. Somehow, despite that, the recent dysfunction of society -- the sharp increase in the number of homeless and the number of publicly intoxicated people -- seems to fall entirely on the poor as a consequence. They're the ones suffering it day to day. A rela…

> I'm not sure about in the United States, but here in Canada, we barely even have "good" and "bad" neighbourhoods. My city is quite well-mixed together economically. This is a joke, right? Like, either you live in a small town not large enough to have distinct neighbourhoods, or you are so isolated as to not see the abject poverty that many live here. Take Toronto, for example. Right on Mt. Pleasant Rd. and St. Clai…

You are forgetting that it's a 10 minute walk from Forest Hill to one of Toronto's poorest communities. They are part of the same community geographically. Same with Jane/Finch -- within walking distance of very wealthy detached suburban homes. It's even more jutted up against each other south of Bloor/Yonge, with some of the wealthiest high-rise condos directly against some of the poorest public housing and tent cities. I am not denying the existence of the divide -- it's very real and very stark -- I am however fascinated that it occurs on the same block. It's not a different part of town. It's the same geographic area sliced differently. That the two worlds are so separate, when literally next to each other, is what I was trying to point out.

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

#415

Post by irthomasthomas »

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'm not surprised. Since the market is still controlled by drug dealers. Legalise the whole supply chain and let people buy opium and cocaine at the apothecary, like they did in olden days, see how things are then.

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

#416

Post by darth_avocado »

JoeJonathan wrote: post #338
darth_avocado wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Which is why I argue:

> Therefore, treatment should be much more easily be available and it should be much easier to have an intervention.

If drugs become burdensome enough that you have to commit crimes to feed your habit, then maybe the society should be able to intervene and help? If I have a drinking problem that I need to steal money for, the solution shouldn’t be cheaper alcohol, but a way for me to stop drinking. Same applies for drugs. Part of the reason why families support (reluctantly) drug habits is because getting help is often not easy or cheap.

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

#418

Post by barbs »

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. And no one willingly goes to get help or treatment.

Citation needed.

Seriously though, the amount of unsubstantiated opinions that get thrown around as facts on HN whenever drugs are discussed is ridiculous.

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

#419

Post by brightlancer »

monkpit wrote: post #324
brightlancer wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The one difference though between alcohol and some of the drugs is potency and how quickly one can be addicted to it. This is a good point. If I go to the liquor store, I can buy bottles that are 90% alcohol or bottles as low as 3% alcohol. If we legalize "hard" drugs like opiates, meth, etc. then we'll get a similar differentiation along with the benefit that the drugs will be checked by Trusted Sources (both gove…

> there's no legal risk in telling their doctor or therapist Maybe no LEGAL risks, but if you live in the USA and want to have insurance and/or life insurance, you wouldn’t want to disclose this info since they’ll either deny you or charge you extra.

That's an interesting argument -- I don't know if/ how much it's true, but that was certainly the norm for decades for gay men.

On that basis, I think it's better if we remove the legal risk even if there are still societal or economic risks.

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

#420

Post by anotherhue »

brightlancer wrote: post #361
anotherhue wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest the drug user equivalent of an insane asylum. If you've shown you're a danger to yourself and/or others you get a place in a retreat/monastery/rehab centre/prison island where you get the care you need. Fraught with opportunities for abuse but not arguably more than the current situation and at least the rest of us can have our public spaces back.

> I suggest the drug user equivalent of an insane asylum. If you've shown you're a danger to yourself and/or others you get a place in a retreat/monastery/rehab centre/prison island where you get the care you need. "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber ba…

It's a great quote, pity it came from a literal Christian apologist. Art/Artist etc. This was around the time of chemical castrations and other such 'cures' so it's quite meaningful.

I'm personally much less interested in their care then the safety of our public spaces, but I think we can all agree one leads to the other.

Post reply on HN