Live data from Hacker News

Oregon decriminalized hard drugs – early results aren’t encouraging

theatlantic.com

991–1000 of 1001 posts

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

#991
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution that seems most likely to work IMO seems to be a European-style welfare state. All drugs have long been decriminalized in Portugal and you don’t see that kind of thing on the streets of Lisbon. But I don’t see that happening any time soon in the USA.

> All drugs have long been decriminalized in Portugal Portugal did not decriminalize use of drugs! Public use of drugs, and being uncontrollably high in public, is criminal and they use the court system to force people into voluntary rehab (the other choice is prison) where they use an evidence-based drug treatment system and up to a few years of job skills and counseling before releasing the person. Decisions are ma…

You're probably right about the Portugal example, I don't know enough about it to know if it is the solution for sure. I was just grasping for what I could only think of as the best possible solution. Perhaps there truly is no solution.

But criminalization certainly isn't the solution. Hiding the problem in order to allow the rest of society to ignore it more easily is obviously (to me at least) less desirable than having it in the open where we are all forced to share at least some small part of the burden, the hope being that this will push us to find real solutions.

Re: ketamine - the point is that many these folks are seeking an escape from an unbearable life. In that position, there is really no desire to neuter the drug. I'm pretty sure Suboxone availability is not the issue. Ketamine on the other hand might provide a similar escape without most of the harmful side effects. It's pretty obvious that ketamine is much less harmful in every way than heroin.

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

#992
post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If you had real empathy, you would understand how people would be upset that their streets are covered by used needles and feces rather than accuse them of being sociopaths. Anyways, I'm pretty sure GP was being facetious. If using drugs is were optimal choice for a bum, then, it would be a much better outcome for everyone involved if California diverted funding from million dollar per unit "affordable housing" into…

It is telling that you perceive their comment as facetious, but not mine, even though mine was clearly written to mirror theirs in mockery.

In any case, claiming I have no empathy because I disagree with people exhibiting a lack of empathy is...an interesting take.

Claiming that I want to see homeless people suffer from addiction is an absolutely wild take.

Steel manning them while simultaneously straw manning me implies that you are not arguing in good faith, and it makes me doubtful that you are actually interested in finding a workable solution for addiction and homelessness.

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

#994
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…

1. Licenses or prescriptions should be required for all drugs; either can be taken away. Also, people need education. 2. Start a better public works program. Employment is good for mental health. 3. Maybe require a month of service or something, just to have a way to resocialize people when they break. 4. Have people pick up their benefits somewhere not in the city. Some reason to move. 5. Forced rehab to those engag…

Wow, legalizing across the board and requiring licensing was the idea I had. Force some kind of education requirements, pay into funds to provide treatment, and revoke licenses for those that abuse the privilege. This is what we do for other high risk activities like driving, skydiving, scuba diving, etc., it just makes sense to do it for drugs. This list is fantastic, it should be shouted across the nation. You have my vote.

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

#995
As a fairy heavy drug user, I feel I should chime in since it appears most of the comments here are coming from "normies" whose experience with users seems to be limited to homeless street addicts or family/friends who fell apart.

1. There are far more users out there than you realize. Almost all of my friends use, they all live normal lives and you wouldn't know it unless you actively partied with them. There are vast swaths of society that aren't opiate or meth addicts, but partake in coke, ketamine, psychedelics, mdma, etc regularly without consequence. You just aren't seeing it.

2. Anyone who hasn't been through the criminal justice ringer for drugs likely does not fully appreciate how devastating it can be. In most cases it does not contribute positively to a person's life, can hinder future employment, can cost a person their job, their livelihood, their housing, their kids, etc., for what was likely a victimless crime. Decriminalization, within reason, is a moral imperative. Full legalization, with regulation, is the only way to effectively deal with the problem in its entirety, from supply on down, the same as it was with alcohol.

3. Using drugs is a personal choice that people should be free to make, the same as using alcohol (a drug as debilitating, toxic, addictive, etc as most illegal drugs), or scuba diving, or skydiving, or any other high risk activity that we tolerate. Like the latter activities, you can implement licensing requirements such as mandatory education and fees to fund abuse treatment programs. Legalizing it across the board will mandate safe and responsible supply, and remove the criminal organizations from the equation. Again, look at what happened with alcohol prohibition and its eventual legalization. It is the EXACT same as what we are experiencing with drugs.

4. Because it is entirely possible to use drugs responsibly, its use in and of itself should not be the focus of criminal enforcement. It is bad behavior that is the issue, and like alcohol, we can criminalize it. Driving drunk, public intoxication, child endangerment, domestic abuse, assault, property damage, etc are all problems we have with drunks, and all are criminalized respectively. There is no reason why we can't do the same with drugs.

5. Addiction is a serious issue. But it is a public health issue, and should be treated as such. Turning addicts into criminals is just making a difficult situation worse. These people are sick, they should get help. We also need to serious expand programs for the homeless, as the housing problem is what drives a lot of what you see on the streets.

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

#996

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mandating treatment gets people into treatment, it does not mean they are treated. Detox centers (AKA treatment) are myopic, they get you detoxed but kick you back out to your shitty life that made you do drugs in the first place. Follow up is needed to make sure people can re-establish connections with their community and not feel alone and trapped. > the government needs some teeth so they can treat even those that…

> You cannot 'treat' those people. Nobody can un-addict the drug addict except the drug-addict themselves. This isn't true. You give them opioid antagonists such as Suboxone. It's not a one-and-done thing, true, but while on these meds they do not want and could not enjoy the drugs. A full treatment plan, such a Portugal uses on anyone caught uncontrollably stoned in public, can take up to a few years and involves ev…

Up front, I think Portugal has the right idea. Decriminilize drugs and do proper treatment with long term support. That is _not_ _at_ _all_ what the US does.

Generally, forcing people to give up drugs fails miserably. That further fails if there is no support post-detox. If a person is not willing, their relapse is exceedingly likely.

In the US, release from jail is pretty much literally the door is opened and you get to walk out with what you had when you came in. There's effectively zero post-release support in the US.

What's more, not all drugs have blockers that a person can take (eg: Meth, cocaine, nicotine), and not everyone can get access to those blockers.

Blockers are great things, but if a person does not want to do the blockers - it will not be effective. That is the point, it's not effective to just stick someone in a jail to treat them of their drug addiction, blockers or not. (US jails don't detox people with blockers, it's the hard way and often without medical supervision. That is even assuming they don't find drugs in jail, US jails notoriously have prolific black markets within them, many people leave US jail more addicted than when they came in)

What's more, blockers are just one part to deal with the chemical dependency (which, as tough as that part is, is arguably the easy part of it all [which is just to say how hard it is to change your lifestyle to develop healthy coping mechanisms, to learn how to live without drugs). Thus, teaching someone new coping mechanisms for stress, particularly when they are leading a very stressful life - is an immense challenge. The US has not instituted anything like Portugal, let alone job programs for people that are not having substance abuse problems. The scale of the two problems are different too. The US has 30x the population and virtually no willingness to spend money on social programs (a ton more people, and even less money to go towards the problem)

For some stats:

"As of 2020, over 37 million people 12 and older actively used illicit substances... 25.4% of all users of illicit drugs suffer from drug dependency or addiction."

https://www.addictionhelp.com/addiction/statistics/#

There are more people in the US that could use treatment compared to there even being people in Portugal! (population of portugal, per some quick googling, is 10M)

>> "Mandatory Rehab and Relapse"

>> "Researchers compared relapse rates for those in mandated opioid addiction treatment to those in voluntary centers. They found that almost 50 percent of the mandated patients relapsed within a month of their release, while only 10 percent of voluntary graduates relapsed." [1]

> No, this is old stigma-based thinking, just from the other point of view. There's no need for someone to do the monumental task of detoxing and through shear willpower, deny any future hits.

This is not what I'm saying. Detox is one part of the journey. Undoubtedly detox is hard, but the sustained effort to stay clean is more what I was referring to. If a person does not want to change their lifestyle, or if they are busy escaping their life - then something is needed like the Portugal example.

It looks like Portugal has long decriminilized all drugs (since 2000). [2]

> It needs to be jail, but your choice of jail with rehab or just jail

To be sure, I'm speaking from a US centric perspective where the full offense is often simple possesion. The chance of re-offending there is particularly high because jail is not treatment, mandatory detox is also not treatment.

Which is kind of interesting the model example is how Portugal does it, yet they did full decriminalization 20 years ago (so jail is not even part of the picture).

[1] https://recovery.org/is-relapse-inevitable-with-forced-sobri...

[2] https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1...

-------------------

I think this conversation also goes to why the term 'addiction' is often no longer used. Detox is one thing, but teaching someone how to deal with stress takes more. When I was a heavy tobacco user, the habit part was a distinct and big part of the overall "addiction." It was one thing to get off of nicotine, it was another to learn that the way to deal with stress was not to go

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

#997

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That seems like reductionist reasoning. How about, all power comes from the Sun. Government violence is the mandate of the Sun.

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

#998

As a fairy heavy drug user, I feel I should chime in since it appears most of the comments here are coming from "normies" whose experience with users seems to be limited to homeless street addicts or family/friends who fell apart. 1. There are far more users out there than you realize. Almost all of my friends use, they all live normal lives and you wouldn't know it unless you actively partied with them. There are va…

6. We need to research and fund more effective substance abuse treatment. There is a surprising dearth of evidence-based treatment programs out there. Having gone through a few court-mandated programs myself, I cannot express enough how useless these were. Show up to a few meetings, watch some ludicrous after-school scared-straight specials, attend a number of NA meetings listening to junkies relate the same rock bottom stories over and over, the occasional piss test (which either didn't even test for the drugs I was on or could be beat by staying clean for just a few days) and probably the only helpful thing: community service. The most effective experience I had getting clean wasn't even a drug program at all: living at a yoga commune for several months as part of their volunteer program. Something about living away from regular life, with a variety of people (not just users), having all my basic needs met, meditating and doing yoga every day, living simply and having jobs to do around the compound, in a totally non judgemental or condescending atmosphere free of conversations that constantly focused on drugs or addiction, really helped me reset. Maybe that only works for me, I don't know what works for other people, but there might be something to that experience that can be applied to other programs as well.

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

#999
post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, drug use is on the rise in many places with prohibition. so maybe that general statement needs some serious qualifiers, no? prohibition as a concept works, and prohibition when implemented has an effect, but that effect might be small compared to society's overall demand changes. yes, of course, draconian measures have significant effects, usually the side-effects are bigger though

Muslims have been very successfull in prohibiton of all kinds of drugs and alcohol since 15 centuries. Compare this with the failed American Prohibition. There are more factors at play than what the law says. What do you believe will happen if you drink alcohol in secret, away from the eyes of the State? Muslims believe this will have consequences in afterlife. Atheists don't. Many Christians believe they'll be saved…

Dogmatic indoctrination is the worst draconian measure.

If you need to put the fear of eternal torture into people's mind through a whole clerical power structure to have the desired effect I don't even know what are we talking about.

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

#1000
post #713

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's difficult for me to overstate how much I disagree with you. I don't need more people being shamed for being gay, for wearing the wrong outfit or for not fitting in. Shame just doesn't work well at a practical level. To say nothing of the superpower that gives the shameless. Meanwhile, I find your alternative of "well if we don't have shame, we'll just have to make explicit laws about it" to be not a bad thing at…

> It's difficult for me to overstate how much I disagree with you. > I don't need more people being shamed for being gay Well he never said anything about being gay. Perhaps you’re reading some other concerns into his comment. Imagine two worlds where there is no murder. The first has no murder because no one feels inclined to murder. The second has no murder because there are very strong rules which stop people who…

[dead]
Post reply on HN