Live data from Hacker News

In effect, Seattle is decriminalizing the use of hard drugs

nytimes.com

491–500 of 501 posts

Re: In effect, Seattle is decriminalizing the use of hard drugs

#491
post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know for a fact that there's no way we can tell who out of that group of "completely insane" is likely to be violent. What you're asking for is detention of people with a disability because they have a disability. That's not allowed under the UN CRPD.

I truly don't understand the world you inhabit. A prior history of repeated attempts to commit harm are a pretty good predictor of future actions absent a compelling narrative suggesting otherwise. Ex. Patient A was doing foo harmful behavior until we changed their medication and the devil stopped appearing in their dreams to give them orders. Patient B had a history of trying to bite nurses noses off but has been we…

Again, you've added "prior history of violence". In that case we're not incarcerating people because they are disabled, we're incarcerating them for committing crime.

GP post calls for indefinite detention merely for being ill.

> I think the tough call needs to be made that when someone is obviously mentally ill, homeless and without proper sane supervision, the State should institutionalize them indefinitely.

There's nothing in this sentence about violent behaviour.

> Every first world nation has standards and procedures for detaining people who are unwell and a danger to themselves and others. It usually involves "expert" opinion and bad behavior to get into such a situation and "expert" opinion to get out.

You may want to read article 14 of the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (UN CRPD). https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-...

> 1. States Parties shall ensure that persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others:

> a) Enjoy the right to liberty and security of person;

> b) Are not deprived of their liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily, and that any deprivation of liberty is in conformity with the law, and that the existence of a disability shall in no case justify a deprivation of liberty.

Especially read this bit: "and that the existence of a disability shall in no case justify a deprivation of liberty."

Now read what the committee for CRPD say about detaining mentally ill people because they are mentally ill: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CRPD/GC/GuidelinesA...

> III. The absolute prohibition of detention on the basis of impairment

> 6. There are still practices in which States parties allow for the deprivation of liberty on the grounds of actual or perceived impairment.1 In this regard the Committee has established that article 14 does not permit any exceptions whereby persons may be detained on the grounds of their actual or perceived impairment. However, legislation of several States parties, including mental health laws, still provide instances in which persons may be detained on the grounds of their actual or perceived impairment, provided there are other reasons for their detention, including that they are deemed dangerous to themselves or others. This practice is incompatible with article 14; it is discriminatory in nature and amounts to arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

> There is an entire history of bad behavior and bad science involved here but the substitute for bad science is better science not let people get away with infinite malfeasance because they are nuts.

The long history is that people wrongly think mental illness causes violence (it doesn't) or that we can predict violence because of mental illness (we can't). If someone is committing acts of violence you have a criminal justice system that should deal with them, and that may involve forensic hospitals. But they're there because of the violence, not because of the mental illness.

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that unethical_ban is wrong to call for indeterminate detention of people just because those people are mentally ill.

Re: In effect, Seattle is decriminalizing the use of hard drugs

#492
post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone who is unwell who has committed multiple lesser acts of violence should probably be locked up for at least a little while sufficient for us to figure out if he is going to do it again.

Committing acts of violence wasn't in GP post. That's a detail you've added. If someone has committed acts of violence you lock them up for those acts.

This entire thread split off the post that read in part.

>There's a guy down at an I-5 onramp in downtown who keeps trying to throw small women off the overpass.

This is what we are discussing.

Re: In effect, Seattle is decriminalizing the use of hard drugs

#493
post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I truly don't understand the world you inhabit. A prior history of repeated attempts to commit harm are a pretty good predictor of future actions absent a compelling narrative suggesting otherwise. Ex. Patient A was doing foo harmful behavior until we changed their medication and the devil stopped appearing in their dreams to give them orders. Patient B had a history of trying to bite nurses noses off but has been we…

Again, you've added "prior history of violence". In that case we're not incarcerating people because they are disabled, we're incarcerating them for committing crime. GP post calls for indefinite detention merely for being ill. > I think the tough call needs to be made that when someone is obviously mentally ill, homeless and without proper sane supervision, the State should institutionalize them indefinitely. There'…

I don't think the US ever ratified the CRPD and we are talking about Seattle.

Are you seriously arguing that a person of average intelligence can figure out which people wandering around obviously fucked up in the head might hurt them but science can't I don't find this claim credible.

Re: In effect, Seattle is decriminalizing the use of hard drugs

#494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hiding the world from our children instead of letting them see how awful the adults have made it is dishonest, at best. I prefer to teach kids how to find compassion for people in such situations.

Do you have kids? If you let them near active drug users as an object lesson, you need CPS called on you.

I have a 10-month old child. We are raising them very differently from the way a fear-avoidant society might.

As such, this is not the first time I've expressed decisions we're making that someone has suggested or even threatened to call CPS.

We have multiple mandatory reporters closely involved in helping raise our child. We'll be more than happy to take them along with us to learn about various things that are all around them in the world. This will include things like taking our child to Narcotics Anonymous meetings, where active drug users may exist, and may excuse themselves to go to the bathroom to shoot up. We will, of course, only be bringing our child into such a context with their consent (which children are definitely able to give in a variety of ways, even if they may not fully comprehend what's happening). It's our job to keep our child safe in these environments, which means first teaching them how to heal from trauma and maybe waiting til they've displayed their ability to do so before taking them.

Regardless, this is a much more careful and well-thought lesson than simply "letting them near active drug users" which we cannot ever be certain of and refuse to pretend as though that's possible. We don't live in denial like that.

I'm an addict of many behaviors and my recovery's going incredibly well. Chemical addictions come with added complications of side effects from the chemicals doing their own rewiring, but it's the behavior of escaping reality that's rewiring the reward center. As a result, there's a lot of overlap between recovering from behavioral and chemical addictions.

Also, please feel free to call CPS on us at any time. My name is my username and I live in Port Townsend, WA. I look forward to developing a working relationship with people who are interested in the well-being of my child* because raising them is an active experiment in applying the sciences of culture hacking, well-being, and learning how to learn in as loving of a manner as possible.

(* Note, I'm not sure if you're actually interested in my child's well-being, as CPS and the foster system are NOTORIOUS for systemically traumatizing children. Yes, there are some systems not harming children or doing so minimally...so in spite of being a system of denying parents and children autonomy, which is a need for thriving...but I'm guessing you didn't look into the state of CPS near me to assess whether or not promoting calling them was actually in my child's interest. If you didn't, would you be willing to do your homework before making similar comments to other parents, as they may not have the emotional intelligence I have cultivated to keep from spiraling into fear? If not, would you be willing to continue making them toward me when you want to do so, so as to at least redirect your potentially harmful behavior? There's a lot of people out there, especially parents, who're suffering from Complex PTSD and undiagnosed because CPTSD is a new diagnosis and official diagnoses require access to certain types of privilege. Let's help educate them and everyone else about CPTSD and how to heal, not threaten them with violence, which is what threatening to call the state on someone is, since the state is designed with violence at its core.)

Re: In effect, Seattle is decriminalizing the use of hard drugs

#495
post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah Economics has a huge problem with the Fruit Basket Fallacy.

Going to need a definition on that, the first result on google for 'fruit basket fallacy' is literally this comment.

I made it up. Economist have a big problem with running statistical analysis on unsorted population data. Hence trying to run regressions on fruit baskets.

Re: In effect, Seattle is decriminalizing the use of hard drugs

#496
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you offer an alternative solution then? Throwing the homeless people in jail is ineffective and immoral. If your solution is drug treatment programs, great, but then don't argue against raising taxes to pay for them.

We need low cost low security jails for people who commit property crimes. Basically just wall off a few square miles and throw them in there left to their own devices.

Maybe you can try using your giant 'logical' brain to postulate why that isn't a good idea?

You're suggesting making a fucking ghetto for homeless people? Are you serious?

This thread has confirmed my suspicion that HN cares way more about money and their material interests than any sense of morality or ethics.

Re: In effect, Seattle is decriminalizing the use of hard drugs

#497

> “You’ve got a guy shooting heroin on the street, and the cop is supposed to say, ‘You O.K.?’” grumbled one law enforcement officer in Seattle. As progressive as some are here, the NIMBYism (see other locals that this opinion piece has riled up in the thread) and bad apples on the police force spoiling the whole bunch are just as bad as anywhere else. Another anecdote to add to the quote: walking up 12th Ave (Cap Hi…

For folks down this far, the prevailing hive mind in this thread is why when someone asks what I do for work here I try to distance myself from the rest of you as far as I can.

I fully agree with you. This insane attitude of "my ill-gotten capital is worth more than your existence" is pathetic and sad.

Re: In effect, Seattle is decriminalizing the use of hard drugs

#498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then maybe it's time for governments to evolve because why AREN'T they being oriented toward collective and individual well-being, which would include healing? And I never claimed leaving people to their own devices was a healing modality, either. We need to expand the concept of responsibility to be aligned with reality. I'm at least partially responsible for everything that hapoen to me after this next breath. Same…

That is lovely sentiment; however, I fear that I will ride a space elevator before I ever have the chance to live in regime managed for the furtherance of my and my neighbors' well-being. It's nice to dream, though.

If it doesn't exist, it's because you haven't created it.

Wanna help me with the task of redesigning government to focus on well-being from the very bottom by rewriting the Declaration of Independence as a Song for Autonomous Interdependence, changing the unrealistic concepts in it?

It'll be easy. I give you a song lyric and you tell me if you think it's a lovely sentiment or not. If so, we're probably on the right track because the things we need can be the hardest to imagine.

Re: In effect, Seattle is decriminalizing the use of hard drugs

#499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For folks down this far, the prevailing hive mind in this thread is why when someone asks what I do for work here I try to distance myself from the rest of you as far as I can.

I fully agree with you. This insane attitude of "my ill-gotten capital is worth more than your existence" is pathetic and sad.

Thanks man.

What's especially insane about it is that most of the folks commenting and voting are members of the working class.

Sure, they might have ill-gotten capital in the form of a deed (ignoring the likelihood that there's a lien on that deed) on a tiny parcel of stolen/colonized land or vested stock in the monopolist they work for, but that's a pittance in the scheme of things. They still need to sell their labor in order to meet their needs for food, shelter, community participation, etc.

We need to find a way to reach these folks. Because this thread is evidence that they think they're significantly different from the people without housing they see on the street here every day.

Re: In effect, Seattle is decriminalizing the use of hard drugs

#500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fully agree with you. This insane attitude of "my ill-gotten capital is worth more than your existence" is pathetic and sad.

Thanks man. What's especially insane about it is that most of the folks commenting and voting are members of the working class. Sure, they might have ill-gotten capital in the form of a deed (ignoring the likelihood that there's a lien on that deed) on a tiny parcel of stolen/colonized land or vested stock in the monopolist they work for, but that's a pittance in the scheme of things. They still need to sell their la…

> Sure, they might have ill-gotten capital in the form of a deed (ignoring the likelihood that there's a lien on that deed) on a tiny parcel of stolen/colonized land or vested stock in the monopolist they work for, but that's a pittance in the scheme of things. They still need to sell their labor in order to meet their needs for food, shelter, community participation, etc.

I agree with you in spirit, that most people in SV and the tech industry in general are truly workers. However, I think the monopolists have been quite clever in offering just enough capital to those workers that they feel like an integral part of the system. Especially as they gain additional seniority, or work long enough to pay off their house, that mindset engrains itself. Add to this the democrats willingness to go after the middle/upper-middle class rather than the true elites to fund social programs, and you end up with an individualistic and anti-democratic mindset.

In a way, 'startup culture' and YC contribute to that perception, giving the workers the idea they can make it big as an entrepreneur, no matter how unlikely that really is. It's manufacturing the consent of the average wage-worker in SV for a system only truly benefits elite VC firms and a very very small number of very very lucky or very very well connected entrepreneurs.

> We need to find a way to reach these folks. Because this thread is evidence that they think they're significantly different from the people without housing they see on the street here every day.

There are a ton of tech workers ripe for class consciousness in the gaming industry, so I think that's a good place to start. I've also had a lot of luck encouraging collective action on individual teams that suffer under incompetent management. Combining a discussion of bad management with the trap of mortgage payments and immigration law has netted me a lot of progress with encouraging a more leftist worldview.

Post reply on HN