Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

701–710 of 1001 posts

Re: To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use

#701

Post by hutzlibu »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #697
hutzlibu wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But some people actually do prefer to rot on the street on their own terms, than rot in some asylum cell locked up. Still, I think other people have a right to walk the streets undisturbed, so I don't see an easy, clean solution solving everything at once. But banning public drug use, is very fine with me.

Of course some people prefer a to b. It doesn't automatically mean they are entitled to it. I could build myself a really cool James Bond-style tent house in Central Park and live there in the summers for basically free. I'd like that. I'm not entitled to it. Voters can easily decide that the sidewalk is no longer a place for people to rot on.

Yeah, I agree and that is what I said ..

"I think other people have a right to walk the streets undisturbed"

And when you ban public drug use and enforce it, you automatically remove all junkies from public spaces.

Re: To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use

#702

Post by bradleyjg »

legitster wrote: post #57

Drug legalization is something I have come 180 on (or at least, 90 degrees). Portland did everything! They invested huge sums in shelters, treatment programs, counsellors, etc. ODs have more than doubled, and the shelters are half empty! They are not one more social program away from cleaning out the streets. I think the experiment has radically failed and I'm ready to say I was wrong. While I don't want to go back t…

If you are unwilling to lock people up—whether in jail or elsewhere—that’s the only opinion you get to have. Every other “rule” you propose is meaningless.

Right now the nyc transit system is on the pay what you wish system because the voters have decided they can’t bear to see people locked up for not paying. You can hem and haw, but that’s the consequence.

Re: To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use

#703

Post by cynicalsecurity »

dtx1 wrote: post #629
CydeWeys wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first priority should be cleaning up the cities for the benefit of the actual taxpayers. Absolutely do not let drug addicts overwhelm your downtown cores and make them terrible. You don't need to lock them up indefinitely, but you do need to move them somewhere else where they won't have hugely negative effects on the city and its populace. It may not make life for the addicts better, but it won't make life for t…

The sad reality is that current forms of law enforcement aren't working when it comes to hard drugs and addiction. Putting people in prison for getting addicted to crack is not exactly going to make anyones lifes better. But it has also become quite obvious that you can't have free-range junkies shooting up in what is supposed to be the economic center of a city. I suspect in a few decades forced rehab will become th…

You can't help a person if they don't want to be helped. At the very least you can remove them from the society to make it safe and maybe make the person rethink their life. By shielding a drug addict from the consequences of their wrong life choices you are preventing their potential rehabilitation, unless they've been lost completely, of course.

Re: To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use

#704

Post by oneshtein »

dylan604 wrote: post #591
oneshtein wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I too leaned libertarian with let people do the drugs they want ... unless this harms other, isn't? Drug addicts are causing harm and are burden to society, so why libertarians support them? In liberal philosophy, value of human life is infinite, thus all humans are equal, thus it's not allowed for someone to cause harm or abuse others. However, why we limit this to humans only? In my opinion, is a bacteria, virus,…

What nonsense is this? Smoking weed next to someone does not lead to addiction. Every place that I am familiar with some form of legalized marijuana consumption says you can't do it just any old place you feel like. So this is also just more BS being spread. You have a very misconstrued understanding of something, and now you're calling it libertarianism.

Passive smoke leads to addiction. It's proven for tobacco. It's the mechanism of the propagation. After some hours of breathing small doses of tobacco smoke, people start to like tobacco smoke and want to smoke it too. Weed or tobacco is not important here.

Re: To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use

#705

Post by Intermernet »

cynicalsecurity wrote: post #689
legitster wrote: post #57

Drug legalization is something I have come 180 on (or at least, 90 degrees). Portland did everything! They invested huge sums in shelters, treatment programs, counsellors, etc. ODs have more than doubled, and the shelters are half empty! They are not one more social program away from cleaning out the streets. I think the experiment has radically failed and I'm ready to say I was wrong. While I don't want to go back t…

People should be locked in jail for being drug addicts. Give it a few more years and you'll change your opinion on that too.

Many functioning, respected and powerful people in society are drug addicts. You will almost certainly know some.

Re: To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use

#706

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

hutzlibu wrote: post #701
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course some people prefer a to b. It doesn't automatically mean they are entitled to it. I could build myself a really cool James Bond-style tent house in Central Park and live there in the summers for basically free. I'd like that. I'm not entitled to it. Voters can easily decide that the sidewalk is no longer a place for people to rot on.

Yeah, I agree and that is what I said .. "I think other people have a right to walk the streets undisturbed" And when you ban public drug use and enforce it, you automatically remove all junkies from public spaces.

> And when you ban public drug use and enforce it, you automatically remove all junkies from public spaces.

Depends on your definition of "use".

I can do a bunch of meth somewhere discreet, and then party on the streets without actively "using" drugs for hours - days even!

Re: To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use

#707

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

john-radio wrote: post #700
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course some people prefer a to b. It doesn't automatically mean they are entitled to it. I could build myself a really cool James Bond-style tent house in Central Park and live there in the summers for basically free. I'd like that. I'm not entitled to it. Voters can easily decide that the sidewalk is no longer a place for people to rot on.

When does James Bond live in a tent house?

The house at the beginning of No Time to Die is roughly a tent house like those in the Four Seasons in Chiang Rai.

Re: To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use

#708

Post by hutzlibu »

bradleyjg wrote: post #702
legitster wrote: post #57

Drug legalization is something I have come 180 on (or at least, 90 degrees). Portland did everything! They invested huge sums in shelters, treatment programs, counsellors, etc. ODs have more than doubled, and the shelters are half empty! They are not one more social program away from cleaning out the streets. I think the experiment has radically failed and I'm ready to say I was wrong. While I don't want to go back t…

If you are unwilling to lock people up—whether in jail or elsewhere—that’s the only opinion you get to have. Every other “rule” you propose is meaningless. Right now the nyc transit system is on the pay what you wish system because the voters have decided they can’t bear to see people locked up for not paying. You can hem and haw, but that’s the consequence.

I suppose you meant "option" and in general that, the only solution is locking people up?

I see lots of other ways, the most simple one: just take away their drugs, if they use drugs in public.

If you do this regulary, no junkie will go somewhere, where he will seriously risk loosing his stuff.

Locking up people at some point is also possible, but there are lots of other ways before that.

Re: To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use

#709

Post by Aerbil313 »

diob wrote: post #32
Aerbil313 wrote: post #13

Criminalization works, even without sniffing dogs and modern surveillance, when the crime is also a sin . See Islam. To this day I know no relative or close friend of mine who ever drank any alcohol, nor one which used any drugs. But ofc this is the unthinkable for West. Downvote, pass.

One of the biggest drug users in my life follows Islam. They have struggled with quitting, having a large period of success, but ultimately went back. No one is immune I'm afraid, religion isn't a magic trick.

Unfortunately you are wrong. A single example of a Muslim in a non-muslim society with non-Islamic laws in the technological world says nothing (each of these factors have some effect). See 1400 years of Islamic history. Worked a thousand times better than the failed American Prohibition, and worked sustainably. Worked even in the places without an active government, not to mention the amount of control the governments had over individuals in the past was far lower due to lack of necessary technology.

As a Muslim myself, I’d never drink and use drugs even if I was the only person on Earth. Due to fear of God. Muslim people whom I know closely (family, friends) are of the same sentiment.

What does a Christian think will happen if he drinks in secret? For most sects, he is forgiven anyways because Christ. Atheists? Nothing. Muslims? There is accountability in the form of punishment in the afterlife.

Re: To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use

#710

Post by Reason077 »

billy99k wrote: post #365
rjbwork wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually don't think we should decriminalize. Just legalize it and let people get pure product at dirt cheap prices. There's no reason to fund crime (drug dealers/organized crime), maim and kill users, push users into poverty, and generate and push the externalizes of drug use onto the rest of society. This is the choice we have made and continue to make a society under a prohibitionist regime, decriminalization or…

Selling hard drugs as a legitimate business owner has lots of liability attached, so prices will never be 'dirt cheap'. In addition to this, drug legalization is only sold to the masses if the cities/states that legalize them get tax revenue. Again, this will not lead to less expensive drugs. What's already started happening is that the black market prices continue to be cheaper (because dealers don't have to pay tax…

> “It's interesting to me that the same people the scream about muh socialism and want legal drugs aren't willing to pay the price for it.”

Legalization has nothing to do with socialism. It’s a libertarian policy.

Socialists would tend to favour prohibition, because the costs to society as a whole (increased healthcare and law enforcement costs, economic impact of addicts not working, increased crime, etc) would be considered to outweigh the individual freedom of being able to consume whatever drugs you want.

Post reply on HN