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

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

#501

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 11:31 PM UTC

jasonfarnon wrote: post #476

simonh wrote: post #446

What was done in Oregon, based on the successful policy in Portugal, was decriminalising use and possession of very small quantities. Distribution and sale are still just as illegal as before. Basically I think this is the right approach. Drug use at low levels in endemic. I don't think it makes sense for huge swathes of otherwise law abiding citizens to be technically criminals. It ends up with grossly distorted dem…

"based on the successful policy in Portugal" How are you defining successful? The linked article links to a recent wapo article from last week "Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts". I don't know one way or the other, I'm just trying to collect more data points. Didn't Vancouver BC try something similar? (Seems a little odd that this Atlantic article, the Wapo article questioning Portu…

[deleted]

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

#502

Post by monocasa » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 11:32 PM UTC

toomim wrote: post #255

anon84873628 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not true. If that were true, then decriminalization wouldn't be making them easier to access. But since drugs have been decriminalized, they have gotten much easier to access. There are open-air drug markets in SF and Portland. You can walk through and say "fent?" and get offers to sell right there. You couldn't do that 10 years ago.

There absolutely were places you could walk around SF and Portland ten years ago, say "oxy?" and get offers right there.

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

#503

Post by lmm » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 11:32 PM UTC

Aeolun wrote: post #496

brightlancer wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't the opposite also true? Not PP, but the onus is always on the person or group making the affirmative claim. It _might_ be that the policy is sound but the execution is in error, but we should not _assume_ that the policy is sound.

I’m kind of of the opinion that we shouldn’t hold addicts to account for their addictions. By the time they’re addicted they’re not rational actors any more. By the same count we don’t judge the mentally unwell and children as if they’re well-functioning adults.

OK, so what does that concretely mean as a policy? "Not judge", fine - does that mean no arrests, no involuntary holds, not touching them? We used to take the view that we could confine people for things that weren't their fault when there was an overwhelming public interest (e.g. people with infectious diseases).

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

#504

Post by dvt » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 11:33 PM UTC

Turskarama wrote: post #497

dvt wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Basically I think this is the right approach. Drug use at low levels in endemic. I don't think it makes sense for huge swathes of otherwise law abiding citizens to be technically criminals. While I do agree that prohibition is probably not the answer, calling the Portuguese policy a "success" kind of misses the forest for the trees[1]. The most obvious problem is funding (which Porto is running out of): life-long s…

>life-long support for a drug addict is going to be significantly more expensive than throwing them in jail for a few years Citation needed, you might be underestimating how much it costs to jail someone. If a drug user actually manages to get clean (which with proper support, most can) then the cost of support is basically checking up on them a couple of times a year. Meanwhile they can hold down a job and live a no…

> If a drug user actually manages to get clean...

Ah, I was assuming the drug addict (or at least a signification portion) wouldn't be getting clean. A large part of Portugal's policy is focused on safe drug use (decriminalization, clean needles, drug dispensaries, etc.).

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

#505

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 11:35 PM UTC

pyuser583 wrote: post #404

brightlancer wrote: post #186

Rubbish. Folks made the exact same arguments about alcohol and marijuana. Specifically with alcohol, anyone can walk into a treatment center without fear that they'll be arrested for the mere _use_ of a substance. (Marijuana has very low risk and rates of addiction, physical or psychological.) If "hard" drugs are legalized, then they will likely be treated the same as alcohol and pot and tobacco: highly regulated, so…

Legalizing pot didn’t eliminate illegal markets. They’re still going strong. Same with tobacco, but that’s because of taxes.

[deleted]

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

#506

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 11:35 PM UTC

brightlancer wrote: post #480

wobbly_bush wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the opposite also true?

> Isn't the opposite also true? Not PP, but the onus is always on the person or group making the affirmative claim. It _might_ be that the policy is sound but the execution is in error, but we should not _assume_ that the policy is sound.

> Not PP, but the onus is always on the person or group making the affirmative claim.

But they're both making an affirmative claim. One says that legalization is better and all these addicts are an error in execution. The other says that criminalization is better and all this widespread disrespect for the law and erosion of civil liberties and mass incarceration and cartel murder squads are an error in execution.

In general the burden should be on the party who wants make something illegal.

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

#507

Post by nelox » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 11:35 PM UTC

inferiorhuman wrote: post #487

jasonfarnon wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"based on the successful policy in Portugal" How are you defining successful? The linked article links to a recent wapo article from last week "Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts". I don't know one way or the other, I'm just trying to collect more data points. Didn't Vancouver BC try something similar? (Seems a little odd that this Atlantic article, the Wapo article questioning Portu…

Beyond the headline Portugal is having doubts because they decided to gut funding. Where it was seen as promising or successful, now it's basically decriminalized drug use and no treatment or enforcement. Which kinda sounds like what Oregon is doing now and what Reagan did with mental health care in California.

In addition, the policy in Portugal was to radically increase funding for community health and other programs as well as decriminalize drugs. I’m not sure that has been replicated in Oregon or San Francisco.

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

#508

Post by DoreenMichele » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 11:36 PM UTC

And Oregon’s drug problems have not improved. Last year, the state experienced one of the sharpest rises in overdose deaths in the nation and had one of the highest percentages of adults with a substance-use disorder.

Hardly shocking. I would be interested in seeing data -- if it's available -- on how much that uptick is due to people with addictions moving to the state in hopes of reducing the odds of ending up in jail over their uncontrollable compulsion to imbibe.

But three years later, with rising overdoses and delays in treatment funding, even some of the measure’s supporters now believe that the policy needs to be changed.

Three years is not a lot of time to give this a chance to work, especially with delays in funding. If you aren't even really providing the programs you said you would, then declaring it a failure is a joke. You never gave it a real chance.

The new approach emphasizes reducing overdoses, stopping the spread of infectious disease, and providing drug users with the resources they need—counseling, housing, transportation—to stabilize their lives and gain control over their drug use.

Not enough emphasis on identifying the actual root cause of the drug use which may be infection. They are probably worried about things like spreading HIV by needle sharing, not "So, does this person have an undiagnosed infection for which their drug of choice is medical treatment?"

Also: Are they building substantial amounts of new affordable housing with good access to transit and essentials like nearby grocery stores? Without that, trying to help homeless people get housing is a joke. If the housing they need simply does not exist, no amount of acting like homeless people are merely badly behaved and need to try harder fixes fuck all.

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

#509

Post by max51 » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 11:36 PM UTC

trobertson wrote: post #485

HAL3000 wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1970 and 1971, in New York City, more adolescents died of heroin-related incidents than any other cause. Watch what you wish for. Hard drugs are not pot or alcohol; anyone who has used all of them at least a few times will tell you that. As someone who had heroin addicts in the family, and as someone who did a lot of alcohol, pot, ecstasy, cocaine, amphetamine, etc., in his 20s, I'm strongly against legalizing har…

> Hard drugs are not pot or alcohol In point of fact, alcohol causes more deaths per year than all other drugs combined: CDC [0]: Alcohol causes over 140,000 deaths per year according to data between 2015 and 2019 CDC [1]: All other drugs caused 100,000 deaths in the twelve month ending in April 2021 There's a lot of arguments to be made as to why (different legal status, different cultural norms around use, etc.) bu…

The number of people dying from jumping off the empire state building is orders of magnitude less than the ones you quoted... that doesn't mean you have good odds of surviving the jump or that it's a good idea to build a jumping ramp.

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

#510

Post by brightlancer » Tue, Aug 01, 2023, 11:36 PM UTC

qawwads wrote: post #282

oatmeal1 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Decriminalization actually would mean you see more of them out on the streets because they're not being locked away in prison. Decriminalization means the government cannot mandate people enter treatment. If people are out on the street and addicted, the government needs some teeth so they can treat even those that are in denial.

Everytime the subject come around, someone repeat this like it's a fact but nobody care to explain. Is criminalisation really the only hammer the gov has? What are the goods of saving people against their wishes? Are these goods higher than the damages caused by criminalisation?

> Is criminalisation really the only hammer the gov has?

Of course. What else could they have?

Every government "hammer" exists only through the threat of force, which is violence.

Don't pay your jaywalking ticket? They will arrest you. Resist arrest? They will, uh, FORCE you to comply.