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 to locking people in jail just for being addicts, cities still need to be a place that people actually want to live in. Revenue prospects for the city are becoming horrid and there is not a lot of runway to continue throwing money at the problem.
"Portland did everything! They invested huge sums in shelters, treatment programs, counsellors, etc."
This is not even remotely true.
Everyone in the city, from the mayor [1] to the head of the largest services non-profit [2] has been yelling from the rooftops about the glacial slowness to effectively spend the allocated funding for drug treatment. Until just months ago, Multnomah County has been sitting on tens of millions of unspent funds,[3] and has been perpetually criticized for spending on harm reduction instead of treatment.[4] We actually closed the only local sobering center in 2020!
Right, but the plan has still failed. If all the key players are on board and you can't even begin to implement the plan, then it was a bad plan, and the people who developed it had little comprehension of reality. We should not attempt this elsewhere.
No, actually we should be trying to fix the stupid mistakes that were made in implementation of the plan, not roll it back and keep on fighting an equally moronic, ineffective, and racist War on Drugs elsewhere.
The best available evidence is that decriminalization essentially had no effect on overdose deaths (https://www.opb.org/article/2023/10/03/ballot-measure-110-di...). It was going to go up no matter what because of the nature of fentanyl. The only thing the failure of Measure 110 has demonstrably done is waste taxpayer funds and give businesses in downtown an excuse for why they are failing (when in reality it has more to do with the death of downtown for purely economic reasons post-COVID, just like other major West Coast cities).
This reads like total denial. COVID was years ago. The city I’m in bounced back and was mostly normal late 2021. I also was interested in the outcome of Portland’s experiment. It has failed. The war on drugs is anti-liberty and I recognize its racist roots. But racism is no longer a big aspect of the war on drugs as of 2023. Again, denial and excuses. The war on drugs AND Portland’s experiment are BOTH failures. I welcome the next attempt at it.
Not the original commenter, but I took the response regarding bounced back to refer to retail commerce, not office occupancy. I would not expect office occupancy to EVER fully recover in the US.
> I would not expect office occupancy to EVER fully recover in the US.
Remote work was already growing, COVID just accelerated a societal change already in progress. Without COVID, we probably would have eventually ended up in the same place as we are now, it just would have taken longer.
And even years before COVID, I think the US was already ahead of many other countries in this transition. I remember my first business trip to the US in early 2008, I went to Oracle’s office in Orlando, it was near-deserted-I asked where everyone was, I was told “they’re all working from home”. Whereas, back in Australia (Oracle included), there was still a very strong culture of “if I can’t see you at your desk then you aren’t working”. Or similarly, even back then many of the US Oracle executives had remote EAs - remote EAs were not much of a thing in Australia at that time
Wait, at the end of 2023 we're still allowed to blame covid? Anyway, Portland has been going downhill way before covid, I witnessed it with my own eyes, from early 2000s when I seriously thought maybe it makes sense to move there, to late 2010s where it got seriously scary and you couldn't get through downtown without being harassed repeatedly by beggars and witnessing all the decay. And it's not just drugs, drugs are a symptom, it's all ckmplex of disastrous policies, that yes, affects other West Coast major cities too.
I don't think lack of tech bros manning high cost corporate square footage is what is causing the homeless, crime, and addiction problems in West Coast cities. It seems more like bad policies to me. The time window to blame everything on covid is passing quickly
This is the classic approach of conservatives: throw wrenches in every part of a welfare system, then point to its failures to justify its dissolution. See: Medicare, public education, etc.
This is just about the worst example you could have used for your theory. In this case there are thousands of people that could have just done a 1:1 copy of what they do in Switzerland, Portugal, Netherlands, Scandinavia etc. Instead they copied only the carrot (treatment and harm reduction). Then they didn't just not copy the stick (prison, consequences for missing treatment) they threw away all their sticks.
With this in mind I can understand why many people are now against harm reduction of any kind, when the same people that fucked it all up in the first place now want to try again.
I'm curious why you think there are much fewer homeless in conservative cities (like Provo, Jacksonville, even Orange County)? Is it because everything is backwards? The progressive cities are actually conservative, and the conservative cities are actually progressive?
Because if you're homeless, you totally want to stay somewhere with no social programs. Here in California, our Medicaid insurance is infinitely better than any private insurance. Why would you stay somewhere where you get zero help? I. E. Zero Medicaid expansion in conservative states
They're pushed out, either through police violence or a complete lack of viable social support systems. There's many ways to discourage folks from sticking around through ad hoc policies without putting it explicitly into law, or else to simply not mandate the kind of support that other cities have.
Right, but I'm asking if Portland is secretly run by conservatives, why does it have a different outcome? i.e., why doesn't Portland discourage folks from sticking around?
Conservatives don't "secretly run" anything and to insinuate that that's what I'm saying is to misinterpret my comments. So the premise of the question is false from the outset.
Conservatives (and the threat of conservative backlash) can nonetheless meaningfully influence the shape of institutional policies that hinder the stated goals of the organization, municipal government or otherwise. It's not at "tyranny of the minority" levels in many cases but that doesn't mean they're completely shut out.
Intention matters little when it comes to outcomes -- this is the credo of the consequentialist. It's about the material facts as regards what specific elements of specific policies promote or discourage this or that outcome. Deft policymakers can find sneaky leverage points that are only obvious in retrospect as having been a significant influence on the outcome vis a vis the stated goals of the policy in the first place, and it would be naive to assume that large political organizations (parties, PACs, etc.) on both sides don't develop and hire talent to provide exactly this kind of service. It's a battle of shadow consultancies just as much as it is a battle between ideologically-motivated parties, even though you are only exposed to the dramas of the latter in news media.
If Portland is secretly run by conservatives that want to prove that high minded liberal ideas for dealing with the unhoused and drug addicts, they're doing a very good job!
I live in Portland. Conservatives do not have anything to do with our city or the county of Multnomah. We haven't elected a conservative since the 80s: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connie_McCready. We're the second highest taxed city in the nation.
If you ask me most of our problems come down to fraud/waste/abuse, mismanagement, and dysfunction.
I know this is difficult to digest, but compared to a lot of the rest of the world, almost every US politician is conservative.
In regards to Portland, you almost certainly have a problem with the key points you identified, but you also have a problem with the fact that public drug use is intrinsically tied with homelessness. You can't fix one without the other. This involves (in the short term) more public housing, but for a better solution (the long term) it involves better education, welfare, health-care and social equality.
You can't try to fix one of these problems while ignoring the others. It won't work.
> “ compared to a lot of the rest of the world, almost every US politician is conservative.”
As someone from the “rest of the world” I don’t know what people mean when they say that. I think this claim is based on a broad misunderstanding of, let’s be honest, Western European politics by people who’ve never voted in elections here.
I live in Switzerland, have lived or worked in the Netherlands, UK and Czechia. The liberal parts of the US are far to the left of any of those countries.
(Yes, healthcare is cheaper, except in Switzerland. It’s not a 1:1 mapping, but on questions related to drug use in the public square, I think you’d find it’s a lot less lenient here than you think.)
I think if you look at actual class issues such as labor organization, healthcare, housing, public transportation, the adage of all US politicians being consevative stays (mostly) true
Hm, maybe? Public transport, for example, I very nice, I agree, but in fact it’s less affordable in most places than, say in New York. I’d much rather be poor in NYC than in Paris, London or Prague. At least in NYC, you don’t get charged more for commuting from a cheaper area, the city provides heat, there are community programs, etc.
Look up some actual political programs from major parties in Western Europe. You’ll be surprised.
I think most Americans have seen a sanitized version of Europe, just like most Europeans have seen the evening news version of America. Both of those ideas are caricatures.
The way I see it, current European conservatism manifests as nationalism, anti immigration, anti Islam, and anti green policy. I looked at French and Dutch conservativd parties and that seems like a fair description. They’re still in support of government funded education, healthcare, labor organization, vast public transportation etc… those are all hot topics to American conservatives. American conservatives also have their own colors of nationalism and anti immigration stances, but I’m talking class issues, as opposed to social and culture issues. I don’t live in Europe and not a politics expert, so correct me if I’m wrong
Well, we started talking about drug policy. If you would like to do a comparison between American and European right across a range of issues, then I will subscribe to your newsletter :)
But at any rate, I think European healthcare systems either cost as much as the US (e.g. in Switzerland), end up being two-tier public/private (Czechia), or are near collapse (the NHS).
Union density is higher in the US than in France. French unions make a lot of noise, but don't represent that many people. Unions in many other countries are not very powerful (and the mainstream right is generally opposed to them).
I think there's a way these things are presented for the outside world, that doesn't always match the reality on the ground. I also think there is a tendency for people to pick the example out of a group of 28 countries that best supports their argument in the moment: Swedish unions, Swiss trains and French retirement, as it were.
I mean, "poor" might mean different things to different people. Call it working class? I'd rather commute from the Bronx for $2.90 than from Croydon (in many ways the Bronx of London) for, like, $7. I'd much rather get heating for free than pay, like, $5k in London.
If you're on the street, none of this helps you much, but across many metrics, I think NYC might legitimately be more affordable to live for the working class than London or Paris.
i don't know enough to comment on the cost of "normal" living, but think about what happens in NYC the moment you get laid off or, even worse, get sick. I think at that point Paris starts becoming a lot more attractive if you're working class..
> I think if you look at actual class issues such as labor organization, healthcare, housing, public transportation, the adage of all US politicians being consevative stays (mostly) true
Australia is way ahead of the US at privatising public transport. Selling off public assets into private hands is a much bigger thing in the UK and Australia than the US. Some Australian states are now even privatising government services such as motor vehicle registration, driver licensing and land title registration. The UK and Australia also have a much bigger culture of commercialising government IP as opposed to the US culture of putting it in the public domain. People always think of the US as more capitalist, but I think these are examples of ways in which the US is less capitalist. Some of these Australian initiatives are almost bordering on anarcho-capitalism (sans the competition part). And they aren’t necessarily the work of “conservatives” - the decision to partially privatise the motor vehicle registry in the State of Victoria was undertaken by the Andrews government, [0] which is arguably the most left-leaning of Australian state governments, in charge of Australia’s most left-leaning state
The OP was talking about politicians and at least for politicians on a national level that is certainly true. Look up any of the many political compass/categorisation sites and you will find the Democrats economic, defence, education... policies typically to the right of the major conservative party in European countries (CDU, French republicans, moderaterna in Sweden...).
Now with social/drug policies it's typically more complicated, and there are vast differences between European countries as well (e.g. Sweden is extremely restrictive for drugs and even the major left parties don't push for changes).
The overall point still stands though. Now among the population there is much greater variety, but this is one of the issues with the US two party system, significant portions of views in the electorate are not represented.
A very American definition of "conservative" is being used when people say that. The converse statement, "other countries' politicians are in general much more liberal", probably makes more intuitive sense, again using a strictly Western definition of "liberal" (Enlightenment, post-revolutionary France, etc.).
What is conservative about Portland politicians and whom are you actually comparing them to?
IMO Portland already does every single one of the solutions that you recommend. It’s not working out for them well, in the same way it isn’t working out for Portugal or Amsterdam.
Maybe some drugs should be restricted and usage controlled. I’m pro legalization, but I would not support opium dens being as common as Starbucks.
Why do you say it's not working out in Portugal or Amsterdam? I frequently hear those two places cited as an example of where drug liberalisation has been a big success. Is that not true? I ask from ignorance.
The programme in Portugal requires people to check in with the authorities, seek treatment and move off the street corner. It by most accounts worked ok for a while, but downtown Lisbon started to look pretty bad recently, and I think they’ve been backpedaling a bit.
In Amsterdam, the drug tourism made the city hard to live in, and the authorities have largely cleaned it up now. Weed is a special case, but using anything else on the street will warrant a check-in from the cops.
I live in Lisbon and I don't see how "downtown Lisbon started to look pretty badly recently". Street drug users, seemingly mostly/wholly homeless, seem to be concentrated in an area I wouldn't call downtown. I don't really know what they do to keep it that way though. Also Porto seems to be an entirely different story from what I've seen there.
In any case, Portugal's strategy was supposed to be diverting funds from the narcotics police to rehabilitation efforts. But those funds have steadily eroded over the years with cost-cutting measures such as the merger of the autonomous drug agency into the main healthcare service. It's not too surprising if it is falling short of its initial success.
Another thing to consider is the inseparability of homelessness and drug abuse issues. It doesn't seem to be possible address one without the other, rising homelessness will inevitably bring more drug abuse. (Still I see fewer homeless people in downtown Lisbon than in Barcelona that won't even let you have a beer in the park).
Fair enough, my knowledge of the situation in Lisbon is mostly second hand from some friends there. When I visited them, there were definitely areas that were pretty dodgy in what seemed to me to be the downtown. Now, I’ve been to places that are actually dangerous, and I’ve never felt unsafe in Portugal, but I definitely did get accosted by a clammy, pale looking gentleman with a nervous tick who tried to steal my phone.
It's only dodgy compared to Ponta Delgada or the well groomed areas of London, which are well groomed thanks to immigrant labour. Pickpockets and annoying sodium bicarbonate or basilic 'drug dealers' are quite common in Lisbon, but then evey major tourist destination has pickpockets. The novelty in Lisbon is the fake drug dealers. I don't know about drugs as I haven't seen any needles or addicts or even stoners on the street.
I don’t know about Portugal. But Amsterdam’s drug toleration (it’s still illegal mind you) happens against a background of pretty intense anti-drug culture. As that culture has become more permissive, drug policy has become more punitive: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/681551
You got this wrong: drug use generates homelessness. Most homeless in the US are drug addicts - many of them with serious health conditions partly induced by drug use - and that’s why they can’t hold a job or get a home.
In San Francisco when we give homes to drug addicts, the first thing they do is ripping the sink out to sell it and buy more drugs.
There is a serious drug epidemic that needs to be addressed simultaneously as we try to help the super-minority of legitimate homeless that are bad on their luck and need 2-3 months to find a new job and get back on their feet.
I always felt like I heard this was the opposite. That the drug addicts were the minority population, but the majority of the news stories. I feel like we both would benefit from statistics that prove either way. My feelings are generated from anecdotes I've heard over the years, and I would love to be proved wrong and change my mind. Do you know? I feel like so much of this discussion is fueled by strong feelings without data.
Have you ever personally known someone addicted to hard drugs? I've known several. They can't continue living in a house or apartment with other non addicted people. They would steal literally everything to sell for drugs. Losing their housing is something that happens to every drug addict. Of course their use escalates from there, but it's an early milestone common to all.
Have you ever known someone addicted to hard drugs? What gets them started on it before the transition into homelessness? Safe bet is on the scenario that they're in a stressful, economically insecure situation (including insecurely housed), but still housed, when they begin diving deeper into the drug habit.
Your first question is answered in my original post. I grew up in an affluent community where almost nobody was economically insecure. The typical heroin addict was a high school kid with rich parents. Their parents would eventually cut them off financially and kick them out of the house after all the expensive rehabs failed. They'd usually drop out of high school and spend their time panhandling around touristy areas and then go to the projects to buy and use drugs. If they were a girl, prostitution was pretty likely at this phase as well. Many people I went to school with followed this pattern. Most are dead now, some in and out of jail and still bumming around.
Then your anecdotal cases are not generalizable to the wider public and I'm not sure why you're acting as if your experience is comparable to what's being discussed in this thread. "Affluent" is a relative term, by definition, referring to only a couple percent at most of the population.
> In 2022, there are approximately 582,462 people affected by long-term homelessness in the United States. The US homeless population is increasing yearly, particularly in younger age ranges. Tragically, homelessness and substance abuse go hand in hand. The National Coalition for the Homeless has found that 55% of homeless people are alcohol dependent, and 25% reported being dependent on other harmful substances.[0]
More than half suffer substance abuse. Accounting for the fact that many of them would deny admitting to drug use when asked, this is probably a conservative number and the percentage is much higher. Also this is an US average, and it doesn't take into consideration "drug tourism" in cities like San Francisco, Portland and Seattle where drug use is literally the main goal thanks to easy drug access, therefore the drug-related homelessness ratio in some places is much higher.
They also probably take into account both housed an unhoused homeless, with the nuance that unhoused homeless are more likely to be druggies and to refuse shelter. Therefore the percentage of homeless population we see every day in our streets (which is the subset of homeless more likely to affect our day-to-day lives) have very likely an higher percentage of drug use.
Finally, the US actually has another problem: we can't fill up the supportive housing units fast enough! New York has empty supportive housing units [1]. This suggests that the total number of vacancies might be even higher, as more units are added to the system regularly.
The elephant is the room is that drug addicts are present in large number, they cannot hold onto housing and they cause incredible damage in the cities where they congregate, to themselves and to the community.
For as long as we keep ignoring this, we are stuck in nuances.
These people don't want to get better, so we need to mandate treatment (and give them one of the many available supportive housing units after accepting treatment) or - if they refuse treatment - relocate them where they cause no harm other than themselves. Might as well call it a "government-assisted suicide" campus, because this is what it already is in every major American city nowadays. Today, we are literally letting them die on our streets.
Nobody in modern public discourse is complaining about homeless in the context of a regular Joe bad on his luck, who after a while - with dignity and hard work - goes back to a stable life. We should give our all to him and homeless like him.
> they cannot hold onto housing and they cause incredible damage in the cities where they congregate
You are right, on average they cannot maintain housing, which is why I said "subsidized" - which ensures they don't become homeless (aka publicly visible).
> We lack single unit subsidized housing in Portland
What that doesn't solve is the substance abuse, which is a mental health problem. If your intent is to solve both then you need to spend on mental healthcare and subsidized single unit housing. If you just want them off the street and concentrated to certain areas (eg: where I live in Portland) then you just need subsidized housing.
There is more to being able to maintain housing than paying rent. Are you also going to subsidize cleaning and maintenance staff to scrub and rebuild the apartment every time they deliberately destroy it? If you kick them out for smearing everything in feces or tearing all the copper out of the walls or stopping up all the drains and flooding the unit because the drugs made them think this was a good idea, then you haven't solved the homeless problem. You've just made another homeless shelter which they won't stay in because it has rules they won't or can't follow.
They need to be housed in something like a prison or a psychiatric hospital, after being convicted with due process.
The Democratic party would be considered right of center to many Western European nations, but certainly not compared to "the rest of the world", and there's a growing chunk of U.S. politicians that are proper left of center as well.
In Seattle, local elections are a contest between Socialists and Democrats. The former may not have much presence on the state or federal levels, but to say they don't exist in city politics is incorrect.
Also, the reason they can't succeed much beyond a few lefty cities is because they can't stop saying insanely stupid shit, like the suggestion that Boeing workers should seize Boeing factories and use them to make city buses instead of airplanes. Most of America doesn't go in for this kind of nonsense. This is a real example btw: https://www.kiro7.com/news/seattle-city-councilmember-elect-...
What American cities need more then public housing, is housing. Actual policies that increase housing stock and make it possible to live in these places without a car.
That is how you actually decrease total cost of living.
The US has been trending up, between housing and transportation, a huge amount of people spend well above 50% of their income on that, and poorer people even more.
Public housing can be part of this, but by itself it wont fix anything.
We can't fill up the supportive housing units fast enough! New York has empty supportive housing units [1]. This suggests that the total number of vacancies might be even higher, as more units are added to the system regularly.
I think nobody is entitled to live in any city. You and I are not entitled to live in Manhattan if we can't afford it, we are not entitled to live in Beverly Hills if we don't have the means for it, and likewise the homeless are not entitled to live where they cannot be housed.
Otherwise, I would like to apply for a supportive housing unit penthouse on 5th avenue please.
What a useless argument against a position no one is taking! Please participate in the conversation happening here, not some fantasy straw man. Comments like this are less than useless.
You need to learn some manners and some basic critical thinking skills. You don't get to dictate where we are in a conversation.
To build housing "anywhere in the US" you have to build all the infrastructure that makes it make sense to move people there. This country hasn't built a new city in ages, it just keeps expanding metro areas into sub- and exurbs. Are you also going to fund hospitals? Groceries? Building supply stores? A car for everyone? All the devices and supplies for heating and cooling in adverse environmental conditions? How do you think that's going to make sense financially compared to providing services and housing where people are and where they already have human-scale support systems (friends and family)? And good luck bringing together the different governments at different scales to avoid scope creep, budget bloat, and general coordination problems. You're being so myopic and naive that your smarminess and vitriol toward those you consider undeserving is not even funny, just pitiful. People aren't bits in a machine, you can't just move them effortlessly to new locations.
> You don't get to dictate where we are in a conversation.
> you can't just move them effortlessly to new locations.
Turns out we are exactly where I said we would be in this conversation.
We can allocate the homeless to numerous other existing towns without having to build new cities, and most importantly without having to build expensive shelters in places where land is already very expensive, like the coasts.
Where they have friends and family is irrelevant because nobody is entitled to live where they want, unless their families host them. I have friends in Paris that doesn't mean I can demand a flat there. Plus many of them are drug tourists that are from out of town, and those also happen to be the most dangerous ones.
With that said the small minority of homeless that are genuinely looking forward to being re-integrated into society must be given treatment, housing and support. This is a small minority, unfortunately.
That is a common argument. If you spend time arguing with people about housing costs, houses in less desirable areas often turn out not to count for various reasons.
It makes a lot more sense to talk about how to support cheaper communities and migrate people to them than it does to bring down housing costs in expensive areas where the locals are fighting back against bringing in new people.
Mostly because you have to bring people to those places and upgrade the infrastructure to support them there. Do the math yourself if you're unconvinced.
People in cheaper locations also fight back! Why is that location cheap and why do those people live there? Precisely because the density is so low and the community likes it the way it is. An influx of recently homeless people would be a huge disruption and no one would be happy with the change. Would you want to manage that situation? THINK!
This is only true economically in arenas like taxes and government programs. Socially what country are you thinking of that is to the left of the American left?
Please stop voting to steal my money for more social program waste.
I already have to pay a 1% tax on all household earnings above $200k. Before haters hate, please realize I'm already paying 10% to the state on all earned income. Plus the federal rates.
Oregon has consistently mismanaged funds. Giving them more money won't fix anything. They don't know how to spend it.
I'm tired of keeping zero income until the end of April. Especially when all I have to show for it is constant homeless drug addicts. Lwt the private sector handle it or enforce no camping laws and sober folks up in a cell or ship them away, or just give them all fet lined drugs to permasolve the issue.
>I know this is difficult to digest, but compared to a lot of the rest of the world, almost every US politician is conservative
In what way? Compared to almost everywhere on earth, American politicians are extremely xenophilic, extremely tolerant of sexual minorities, extremely feminist, more inclined towards individual freedoms in general and perhaps slightly more capitalist.
All of these things are different axes of politics that are correlated differently in different regions of the world.
Conservatism isn't the point, it's the specific tactics being used that they're highlighting. IIRC the same tactics were recommended in that WWII "Simple Sabotage Field Manual" that still makes the rounds on the internet.
The gist of it is: to kill any initiative, form a committee or task force around it and then drag your feet at every opportunity.
I disagree, falsely labeling things conservative is unproductive for the conversation of "what is going right or wrong in Portland, OR, USA". That's to say, context and the goals of discussion are important. We do a lot of committees out here, but most of them are with the aim of including a vast number of viewpoints. If your point is that we fancy ourselves the type of liberals that do everything but nothing well even to a dysfunctional degree then you and I might agree. If your point is to say there's some conservative operator out here speaking to struggles, empowerment, etc then I'd say you're off your rocker.
It's not a false label. Conservatives do in fact do this. It's kinda their thing. Look what Obamacare became once they got involved.
Nobody is saying conservatives have infiltrated the Portland political scene, only that we see similar failures in other contexts when initiatives are half-assed (on purpose). Similar circumstances-- not identical.
It is a false label when there are no conservatives in Portland's government. That yields to two things:
- This is just a common American tactic
- There are other, less nefarious, reasons this happens
Including conservatives in a context where they don't exist and shifting the goal posts outside of American politics on a whim is both entirely inappropriate and distracting if your goal is to discuss how Portland can be better. Nobody in Portland is sabotaging our committees is my point; at the very least they're not doing so intentionally.
What you do get here is what some people call "everything bagel style liberalism" where we do everything, but nothing particularly well, and there is really no North Star when it comes to ethos.
Small-c conservative is a label that is not necessarily aligned with any political party. If I wanted to say (big-R) Republican I would have. Does that help you understand the argument better?
No. There are no conservatives in Portland's government. There have not been for a long time. There has been no one right of the Oregon Democratic party and a good chunk, if not most, have been left of that in recent times. It's part of why I moved here. The issue was not my understanding, the issue is people who cannot fathom that there are problems here outside of conservatism.
You will note of course that the rules and regulations around how to implement these things are always 'bipartisan' and meant to stir up as little backlash as possible. There's many opportunities to install bottlenecks and roadblocks in systems that end up shaping the entire way they function. To some extent it is progressives anticipating conservative backlash but there's plenty of lines in plenty of laws written into and insisted on by conservatives that have wide-ranging consequences.
Reductionist perspectives on how politics works always end up at this "one side is dominating the other" kind of narrative but it's never actually that way, both sides still have a lot of influence on the various specifics of the outcome.
Are you seriously attributing public sector bureaucratic dysfunction to some sort of subversive public sector conservative operatives, or vague regulatory poison pills that you cannot actually point to here?
It seems a lot more intuitive to believe that you cannot just legislate that all government employees act selflessly towards the Greater Good, and the Homeless Industrial complex is a real thing that is not necessarily working in the interests of the public. Observing waste, fraud, and abuse and reflexively saying "this must be the fault of conservatives somehow" is just sorta sad.
Taking that as an axiom; then what exactly would the plan be to make the welfare system work? Conservatives are frequently going to be in power, they represent about half the votes.
If half the voters think something is not an option, then it isn't an option. That is the joy of democracy. There needs to be a consensus to implement policies long term. Assuming you are correct (big assumption, but still) then the only real choice is to abandon the welfare system. Otherwise, the alternative is to abandon the welfare system spitefully in a way that doesn't achieve anything for anyone.
Technically, Republicans are not necessarily "half the votes", more like "a third of the votes" which are then joined by another 10-15% of "unfaithful" swing voters - whose opinions don't necessarily overlap 100% with core conservative principles.
Participation rates can also be very low, particularly at local/state level, making that core of strongly-conservative votes actually pretty small in absolute terms.
You can quickly judge the actual opinion of the overwhelming majority of voters on completely abolishing welfare provisions, when you mention a few magic words that happen to extend those provisions to "normies" (medicare etc).
BTW: Indie voters typically strongly align on one or other side of the partisan divide despite their self-assigned labels. The nature of the two-party system is it binarizes the entire discourse and ends up reproducing the bipartisan dynamics by restricting and chopping up the Overton window according to the two major lines of thought. For more true independence you'll need proportional representation and multiple parties. The problem would (does) still exist but across a wider spectrum of opinion.
I used to hold that view, but the fact is the vast majority of those voters ask this question and declare themselves independents while asking:
Vote for what?
They want to know what politicians will do to earn those votes.
What you call unfaithful is actually a direct failure to garner votes.
And that means speaking with people, not at or to them.
It means actually asking for those votes too. Go and watch some politicians and in particular the one who lost to Trump. There is almost no ask and a whole lot of speaking at or to people not with them.
The unfaithful ignore voter shaming, again something I used to do:
A no vote is a yes vote for the enemy
Unfaithful voters cannot be counted on. Think it through: a politician who knows they have votes no matter what has very little incentive to work for those votes...
Today I do not judge others for their votes.
Our future is in the votes to be cast and why we might think about casting those votes.
And I do not blame or shame anyone either.
It is on those of us running for office to get out there, talk with the people, garner those votes and then act on them.
Calm down, it's just a technical term when talking about voter behaviour - the "faithfuls" being voters extremely unlikely to ever change their preference (regardless of what it is). It's a fact of life that many voters have "for life" preferences.
I was calm. Just doing a bit of framing in the hope of improving an otherwise solid discussion.
The optics on that term warrant the framing for reasons already given.
Sidenote: one of the most difficult aspects of threaded text dialog is a very high degree of intent ambiguity is ever present. Same goes for overall emotional perception.
Because of this, I avoid personal judgment and very frequently avoid the top responses to "things one may feel compelled to respond to", which are righteous indignation and subject change.
Much better to assume a friendly dialog, give benefit of the doubt and see where it all may lead.
If nothing else, flat out asking about other people state is often better than declaring it out of hand.
Conservatives? In Portland? How exactly did they manage to throw wrenches there? And also in San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle and other deep blue cities? Maybe we need to give some tin foil hats to the managers of those, to shield them from the evil conservative influence?
There are a million reasons a plan like could fail that have nothing to do with with it being a good or bad plan, though. And there are a lot of people invested in making sure a plan like this fails, so that the people who supported it in the first place come to the same conclusion as you.
It's always interesting when someone assumes that failed strategy X would have obviously worked if only had it been pursued even harder.. you might be right, but it seems like an odd assumption to make given the circumstance.
It's always interesting when something doesn't work immediately and someone just wants to go back to the shit system everyone hated before because it personally bothered them less.
You think the policy failed because of that supposed clamor? That's an interesting idea: even when your policy is enacted, it's the fault of the policy that wasn't.
Appreciate your comment. Terrifyingly high number of commenters (likely Americans) drawing flawed conclusions. We tried and failed, therefore this problem is unsolvable. Dozens of cities in other parts of the world had much success, so maybe you're doing it wrong?
Zurich did a great job, especially with the transformation of the infamous needle park.
“ However, lack of control over what went on in the park caused a multitude of problems. Drug dealers and users arrived from all over Europe, and crime became rampant as dealers fought for control and addicts (who numbered up to 1,000 ) stole to support their habit. The once-beautiful gardens had degraded into a mess of mud and used needles, and the emergency services were overwhelmed with the number of overdoses, which were almost nightly. Platzspitz, or Needle Park as it was then known, became a source of embarrassment to the Zurich municipal council and in 1992, police moved in to clear up the park.[clarification needed] The drug scene then moved to the adjacent area of Letten railway station, which closed services in 1989. This spot was also cleared by police in 1995.
Today Platzspitz has been cleaned up and restored, and is presented by the authorities as a peaceful, family-friendly garden.”
Doing some research on needle park- it looks like the experiments with allowing drug use were a massive failure, absolutely ruining the park, and it was ultimately cleaned up by law enforcement
the quote is missing what happened after the Platzpitz and later the older Letten train station were cleared: heroin use was decriminalised - not legalised - but only in controlled locations under supervision from medical staff and social workers. It seems that solution helped in multiple ways:
- no people using heroin on the streets
- no overdoses
- drug users became less criminal because they didn't need as much money to finance their use
- the medicalisation of heroin use made it less appealing to new users by removing the rebellious aspect
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 them much worse either, while it will make life for everyone else substantially better -- and we should be prioritizing the welfare of the productive members of society who actually pay to make all of it possible. Right now way too many cities have lost the plot by being too permissive of violations of the social contract, and everyone suffers as a result.
I hate the messaging of “for the actual taxpayers” phrase even if I agree mostly with the sentiment.
There is more to life than paying taxes, and people contribute to society in many ways that aren’t financial. I think “productive members” has the same phrasing problems. We need to make life better for members of society that contribute and benefit from it, for people that want to be a part of society, regardless of their ability to contribute back.
Exactly. You don't pay taxes to pay taxes, you pay taxes for the collective benefits you get out of it. Paying taxes and not getting the benefits of safe cities, clean roads, parks, and all the other things that government does, then you are living life only to pay taxes.
You get collective benefit even if you live in the woods. You can’t opt-out because you don’t opt out of the benefit.
You can leave the country and stop paying taxes, you just can’t come back.
You can be a nomad in the woods and not earn income, and you’ve essentially avoided most taxes unless you own the woods. You’d pay taxes on your woodland because the government protects it from forest fires, criminals entering, war, etc. As a nomad in the woods you’re still eligible for food stamps, you’re still eligible for Medicare and if you go to the hospital and can’t pay, the government protects you from being turned away.
Again, you’re part of a society and you can’t opt out, even if you don’t want to pay.
>You can leave the country and stop paying taxes, you just can’t come back.
No, you can't. You have to renounce your US Citizenship to stop paying taxes in the US, no matter where you live. Renouncing requires acquiring citizenship in a new country, which isn't that easy: just ask anyone who's tried to naturalize in the US.
>Again, you’re part of a society and you can’t opt out, even if you don’t want to pay.
You're not really a part of the society if you don't live there, but if you're a US Citizen, you're still required to pay both federal and state taxes, even if you've never lived in the US in the first place.
Acquiring another citizenship before renouncing is a given, since you can't legally be stateless. How else would it work?
In any case, I've never renounced a citizenship, but I can imagine countries making it hard. Is the process itself difficult, are there requirements other than the international law one of not being stateless?
Renouncing isn't hard for most people, except Americans who have to pay thousands of dollars in fees. Acquiring the new citizenship is what's hard; most decent countries don't just hand that out.
The point is that of course you have to find citizenship in another country before renouncing your only other citizenship, otherwise you'd have no citizenship.
The argument of getting something for the taxes you pay is made because people can vote away taxes.
But yes, it's a troubling argument, because once people start thinking that way they feel like they're owed something. Large swaths of the elderly and the infirm may not be paying taxes but are absolutely owed things that often cost money just because they're a fellow citizen and a member of our society.
Well, I agree halfway… at the core of any social contract are rights and obligations. I think part of those obligations are to contribute to society (I think we agree up to this point)
However, I believe a part of that contribution has to be in an objective, quantifiable way - which translates to taxes. The rights we consume from society are tangible and expensive. A city populated only by of poets would collapse of starvation after 12 hours…
That said, if a Society feels they need to foster a specific part of it (culture,social work, etc) they can enact tax breaks to reduce the financial load of those making that contribution.
That sounds very short sighted. You are preconditioned on all of your ancestors having kids. Everything you like, love, care about was created by someone who was first created by their parents. If not for those people there would be nothing.
Raising children is the greatest, riskiest, and costliest contribution to the world most of us can make. It should be respected.
I didn't ask my ancestors to screw, thanks. I mean, good for them, I guess? But I wish people would stop insinuating that having children is the pinnacle of human achievement, when, in fact, it's actually the bare minimum. I wish they would realize that not everyone needs to have children (the math alone simply doesn't work out on a finite planet...), and I wish they wouldn't cast aspersions on those of us who choose to live the way we do. How about we go after the people who had kids but shouldn't have, instead?
The black and white question is - would you rather be dead? To the extent that your life is valuable, enjoyable, and meaningful - none of that joy/value/meaning would exist if your ancestors "didn't screw."
This is a real question, not a rhetorical one, and its answer is subjective to your values and experience. If your answer is something akin to "I am indifferent to whether I exist or not" then your entire argument is logically sound. On the flip side if you attach value to what you have and are, then it logically follows that if you have the chance to "ask your ancestors to screw" - you would.
As for "casting aspersions" and "going after" - that's not what I am doing here. You do you. The more interesting question is - which should society value and which should someone emulate based on their own values. That again goes back to the question I asked. If a view is contingent on someone feeling "meh" about their own existence, it's not a very appealing perspective.
> On the flip side if you attach value to what you have and are, then it logically follows that if you have the chance to "ask your ancestors to screw" - you would.
who will change your diapers when you need them again?
spoiler: if not your children, then someone else’s - the robots may not be sufficiently dexterous by that point.
it is fine to not want children. or to want them. to pretend either side is morally superior is rather foolish. practically speaking, you’re gonna need your diaper changed.
I have people with disabilities in my family so I know their realities up close - unlike most leftist politicians who only seek them for photo ops.
My wife volunteers pro-bono in a foundation that employs solely people with disabilities. They do work (according to their capacities), they get paid a wage, and they pay (little) taxes off it. And they are super proud that they can “pull their weight” and be equals in a society that tends to look down on them either as limited (usually from the right) or as “must-be-kept-cotton-balled” (usually from the left).
They want to be seen as people, which is what they are.
One of the big issues with severe disability is the stupidly low cap on assets to qualify for social programs (SS, Medicaid). It was set in the 70s at $2000 and hasn't been changed since.
This keeps people with severe disabilities out of the workforce more than anything else.
Those limits -all of them should follow inflation. The 10,000 you can carry on a plane, the amount you can deposit without scrutiny, etc. all had reasonable limits when set, but things have changed since the ‘70s except those caps.
For the disability cap, it should simply be eliminated. What do I care if some millionaire kid gets SS and Medicare? They are likely paying for it in taxes (or should be).
I'd rather that than have someone lose healthcare because they saved $15k (1970 2k in today's money). Or worse, because Grandma left them an inheritance not knowing the impact that has on their heath coverage.
Severe disability does not go away after your bank account hits 2k.
Just that at least in my country (not US), the left is slowly encroaching into a daily dictatorship on how to run our lives - and that includes regulations which might seem rosy to the general population but really hurt the people with disabilities. They don’t understand them, nor their families, nor care to listen and understand - they just legislate to show their audience that “they care”. And that includes photo ops and empty promises every four years.
“Zing! dang! Thank you madam! Your money is on the dresser. See you in four years when is reflection time”
I think we can assume it's because I came on unnecessarily sarcastic. But he seems to have rolled back from "tangible contributions are the only thing", which is nice.
Because despite significant variance, resisting to the lure of addiction using willpower is much more effective than using willpower to reconnect one's spine.
> There is more to life than paying taxes, and people contribute to society in many ways that aren’t financial. I think “productive members” has the same phrasing problems. We need to make life better for members of society that contribute and benefit from it, for people that want to be a part of society, regardless of their ability to contribute back.
This thread is about the extreme opposite of this, though. Taking from net contributors and using that money to create a place that's to their extreme detriment, because incredibly it's a votewinner, is the current situation.
We don’t have to get lost in philosophical questions of human worth here. We’re talking about addicts, not stay-at-home moms or other non-tax payers.
Maybe pathological addicts are also productive in some ways that we don’t appreciate? In any case: saying that addicts are “non-productive” does not imply that stay at home moms, poor artists, or retirees are unproductive (etc. etc.).
> Loosely, addiction can be useful-- the thrill seekers[...]
This seems like a strange conception of addiction, unless we aren't seriously comparing mountain climbing with heroin. If we are then I wonder what utility the classification of addiction is actually supposed to provide to us.
Drug addicts are victims of a very civilizational pathology, so more like the opposite of savages. I was more getting at whatever good they might do (?) in their own very informal societies—societies that most people either shy away from or are oblivious to, so it’s very difficult for most people to know whatever pro-social activities they do.
I think it's also bad messaging (even though I agree with the overall sentiment as well) because "paying taxes" and "being productive" are sliding scales rather than binary. And a lot of people can and do extend the argument to prioritizing people who pay the most taxes or the right kind of taxes or are productive in the right way. In the context of who a city is "for", it often becomes about prioritizing people who own their dwelling over those who rent, even though renters certainly meet the threshold of contributing to a society and paying taxes.
It seems possible to both agree with the idea that it's bad if a city's downtown is full of homeless drug addicts while disagreeing with the idea of trying to sort city residents into worthy and not worthy.
> There is more to life than paying taxes, and people contribute to society in many ways that aren’t financial.
What are they, and can I do them instead of paying taxes? Because paying taxes soaks up double digit percentages of my productive time and I reckon I could add a lot more value to society if I had alternatives.
You can provide art and music to the community, either by strumming your guitar aggressively at passers-by or turning up your boom box to max volume so everyone can hear your shitty music. /s
But our society rewards your societal contributions via monetary rewards which results in you paying taxes. Sure, the money you get does not necessarily reflect the value of you contributions fairly in most cases, but I think I can count on one hand the number of people I have met in my life that pay no taxes and are still a net benefit to society.
And not paying taxed can be because they have no job and make no money, or are so rich as to be able to write off all their income because they think they don’t owe anyone anything.
Did they say “all there is to life is to pay taxes”? You’re reading what you want to read and shifting the conversation. There is a social contract that the majority of the population voted for you like it or not. That’s what society is.
If you want to follow your own calendar, pay with your own money, not share your bread with the rest of the team, then don’t expect that team to pay for your needles, clean your poop, and also expect them to let you continue doing this indefinitely in the nicest parts of the town that was built with the shared bread of everyone else.
The “contribution to society” we agreed on at a monetary level is taxes. We agreed on it so hard that if I don’t pay them I go to jail. Why should I be happy to use that for people who don’t want to be part of that system?
What contribution to the greater society are hard drug users or homeless with mental issues without a recovery plan giving the society? Are they donating their time to clean up downtown? Trimming weeds? Walking old ladies across the street?
Why normalize this? The more permissive you get the less pressure there is on fixing it. I’m not saying jail like a thief or murderer would get, but why not make the decision for someone unable to do it themselves and enforce recovery?
What should a city do when the people that pay taxes and keep the machine chugging along decide to leave because the city is becoming an unbearable mess?
It's an honest question. Social programs cost money, and the money comes from taxes.
I am generally in favor of drugs being legalized and drug addiction being treated as a healthcare policy concern instead of a criminal concern. But the experiment seems to fail more often than not.
"Taxpayers" is a word people use when they want to say "workers" without the baggage of sounding like a communist. I don't think it's so much about paying taxes.
I agree but also think it goes further than that. The person you replied to also seems to act as if many of these people are actively choosing to not be tax payers and not be productive members of society. Which is a separate discussion we could have, but I think it's especially disingenuous as a country still dealing with an opioid crisis. I know first hand people who went and paid for school, got jobs and healthcare, and became addicts. It literally happened to them (I chose that wording carefully) by being treated with over prescribed highly addictive substances.
The ones who are doing better have to actively make the decision every day to be "a productive member of society" and it's extremely difficult for them. Even though they may have been prone to addiction before their medications, this is still something that happened to them.
> The person you replied to also seems to act as if many of these people are actively choosing to not be tax payers and not be productive members of society.
A lot of people like this exist though. Toronto has a huge problem where the homeless refuse to go to shelters because they don't want to be told they can't use drugs. So they make the conscious decision to opt out of society and stay on the street.
There is no way to get through to people like this. Even if they had their own place they'd probably OD before the end of the week with all their extra comfort and freedom they have. Some people can't be helped and that needs to be something people are more willing to accept.
As for your friends, popping opioids like candy is a poor decision even if your doctor is prescribing it to you. Intelligent, educated, and capable adults should be held accountable for their own decisions when they turn out to be poor decisions. The opioid crisis is not society's fault.
> Intelligent, educated, and capable adults should be held accountable for their own decisions when they turn out to be poor decisions.
Rarely I'll state something so strongly - this is true at face value but in the context you meant it is so fundamentally wrong it borders insanity.
The entire reason we have regulation and reputation-based systems in place (like diplomas from accredited universities, or the bar, etc.) is to allow the individual to delegate decisions to specialists. That is why practicing medicine without appropriate training is a crime (in most/all countries I know of).
Do you also want me to get out of my car and do some quick analysis of the structural integrity of every bridge I'm going to cross? Or are you goin to blame me if the bridge collapses and kills me?
Again, back to the case at hand - the whole purpose of having medical professionals is to follow their advice.
If they are prescribing you poison the solution is obviously to prosecute them through the judicial system, not undoying every trust-based system that makes complex professions in society even remotely possible/functional
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 the norm, once you start smoking crack or shooting up in the street. It's pretty obvious for anyone with eyes that at a certain point, homelessness, mental health issues and most importantly drug addiction cannot be covered by "individual freedom" anymore if you want to have a working society.
Of course, having police beat up and arrest or otherwise forcefully move addicts from one place to another or into the prison industrial complex is not likely to work.
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.
comment you are replying to said "forced rehab" - this is not sheltering people from the consequences of their actions, it's forcing them to accept them and change those actions.
Rather hard examples of this that I've seen have been locking someone up in the psychiatric ward to get them detoxing. Or I have a friend who is a Vietnam vet, who got addicted to heroin whilst there. He ended up getting injured and was in a full body cast for a bit. The doctor in charge of him decided it was a good time to get him sober, so he spent a couple agonising weeks in a full body cast suffering through heroin withdrawal, and he's been clean since.
So your plan is to lock them into psychiatric wards. Then let them out and they will be productive members of society because that's how it worked for someone who can back from Vietnam once you heard.
When they get out they don't have a family or job or support system to go back to. They won't seek drugs to ease those pains again?
I do feel like you somewhat misrepresented my comment.
I was clarifying the meaning of the previous comments.
FWIW, I did actually get locked up in a psych ward once, for reasons involving drug abuse, and while it was unpleasant, it probably did do me some good, although I did have a family and support system to go back to.
Furthermore, I'd like to point out that forcing someone to sober up does not mean that you don't help them in other ways, like providing them with a home and assigning someone to help them.
I think it's possible that just giving someone a home and a case worker if they're in the middle of an opiate addiction will not help them find a happy place in the world, and as such, supplementing such aid by using a bit of coercive force to help them kick some bad habits may, in the long run, leave them happier than otherwise.
finally, I apologise if I'm being too sensitive here, but perhaps you could make a slight effort to be a little nicer when conversating, honestly I did find your comment a bit hurtful.
The approach of giving an addict that is arrested on theft and other charges a choice of prison or treatment is used successfully (as successful as it can be) in many EU countries. Obviously this cannot work if nobody gets convicted for anything short of murder, the incentives don't work.
Unfortunately we have the police for dealing with violations, and when you have a (expensive) hammer everything starts to look like a nail. What I mean is, I agree with both viewpoints: something must be done (don't even bother saying taxpayers - the addicts don't have it easy either), and jail/beating is definitely not that thing. I know this was said already but seeing the actual situation I think it's worth repeating.
I think you can provide services (shelters, etc) AND crackdown with a view to cleaning the city for regular people (rather than just specifying taxpayers).
More than a service, bring back the projects. Yes there were problems with them the last time around, but the problem we have now seems worse on all fronts.
Absolutely agreed + the second you start shaming people for complaining about this you've lost the plot
People were getting ratfucked online for saying "I don't like watching people shit all over the sidewalk" - so you know what? They moved! Maybe out of Portland, maybe politically, but pretending that smoking fentanyl on the MAX is good and normal is just totally insane.
It may not make life for the addicts better, but it won't make life for them much worse either
Seems like a hard claim to back up. What would “moving” the homeless from, say, Portland look like? Setting up a giant slum on Mount Tabor? Building a network of trailer parks? I can’t imagine any answer to “let’s concentrate all these undesirables somewhere where we don’t have to look at them and they can’t interrupt us” that ends up being a nice trip for said undesirables
Think about why homeless people go to downtown centers of big cities: community, institutional support nearby, income, tradition, and (relative) safety from police. How would you turn that back? What do you do if someone walks from your camp back to downtown?
I totally understand your frustration, but our failure so far should lead us to examine the obvious structural issues at fault here, and not abandon our fellow man and give in to the more basic instincts to push them away
> What would “moving” the homeless from, say, Portland look like?
My guess is you don't. Maybe it's easier for the people with money to go elsewhere than it is for the homeless. So, you get WFH, area small businesses shutting down, less of the casual visitors.
> Maybe it's easier for the people with money to go elsewhere
It's absolutely easy. There is no faster way to kill a city. Drive away the people with money and businesses die, tax revenue plummets and it turns into an irrelevant backwater.
All this stuff costs money. It's always like this, "somebody" gotta go out there and solve these difficult problems. Nobody actually wants to be that somebody though. No one wants to step up and pay for it. If you try to make them pay, they leave.
The question also presumes a fixed number of homeless, which is obviously not true looking at the explosion of them we've had over the past decade. You can meaningfully reduce the number of homeless by (a) building a lot more housing, including especially the lowest rung on the housing ladder (weekly/daily-pay SROs), and (b) simply not tolerating them. When you tolerate something, you get more of it.
I appreciate the optimism, always, but I think this is missing the forest for the trees. Kinda like the people obsessed with FBI crime statistics (tho obviously you’re arguing in good faith, so not nearly as objectionable).
The poor in the US might be less likely to starve now than they were in 1933, but I really think the narrative that the US has been “solving” anything about poverty to be incredibly inaccurate. Some indicators (obviously an impossible point to prove either way):
Edit: WAY more importantly I thought about this claim more and maybe I’m giving it too much credit. Are you saying that the people in the Great Depression just didn’t have a good enough work ethic, but now we’ve scared people into having a good work ethic? Cause I don’t think that lines up with my experience in our society or knowledge of our history at all. IMO
Poverty isnt a synonym for sad or unable to save. The US has far less people living in poverty than ever before. Obviously weve got a long way to go but removing the worst living conditions people historically faced is a big accomplishment.
All very true! I should clarify: I’m objecting to the user above attributing that to US policies or culture. The general trend in the developed world away from abject poverty is fantastic and something to be thankful for. I guess I don’t have proof that trend isn’t globally based in “not tolerating poverty” where that’s implied to mean hardline/law-n-order type stances (AFAICT?), but that seems to clash with other countries more compassionate/socialist policies.
Another issue here is not making a distinction between poverty, and people who are near unable function within the system due to drug abuse or mental issues. These are different issues to solve. If you are unable to work due to disability, but otherwise functional in the modern world, then you can work your way through the path to getting back on your feet. What percentage of these people of the homeless? My guess is that the larger problem are those who are on the street due to drugs or mental issues. I don't know what it's like to be on Fentanyl, but some of the people in videos I have found don't seem to be in a state where they're thinking about a place to live.
Right. I think the bottom line is that nobody has solved this problem. Someone with no mental or drug issues can navigate the system such that they don't have to be on the streets. That problem has been taken care of pretty well. The other issues not so much. Previously maybe the problem was brushed away by putting people in jail, but that's not a fix either. I don't oboe what is.
Fixing the structural issues :). In a country where the minimum wage is 2x higher, where mental and physical health care is free, and where the real estate market is mostly controlled by private citizens rather than corporations, I seriously doubt homelessness would be an issue.
Tbh Portland didn’t really try to solve homelessness/poverty. Because it knows it can’t, at the city/county level. I mean, what would that even look like? The city taxes alone paying for a huge swath of free housing, at a time when middle class workers can barely afford to live here?
We need to come together as a country and civilization to solve this problem.
> I totally understand your frustration, but our failure so far should lead us to examine the obvious structural issues at fault here, and not abandon our fellow man and give in to the more basic instincts to push them away
The issue isn't fundamentally structural. It's personal. There's no structure that I'm aware of that gets people to take more and more debilitating drugs, other than a lack of structure on stopping the drugs entering the country.
The structures I’m talking about are along the lines of “if you have schizophrenia and don’t have rich parents then you probably will never be able to afford meaningful treatment”. Just to pick one.
I know it’s tempting to assume everyone else is just morally bankrupt and hedonistic because they’re flawed, but I implore you to be more empathetic to their situation. I PROMISE you, homelessness is not fun, it does not feel good in any way, and no one in their right mind would ever “choose” to “take more and more drugs” knowing that was the endpoint.
> The structures I’m talking about are along the lines of “if you have schizophrenia and don’t have rich parents then you probably will never be able to afford meaningful treatment”.
This is not a structure. It's a situation.
> I know it’s tempting to assume everyone else is just morally bankrupt and hedonistic because they’re flawed
No - the only assumption is yours you're making here. No one is saying that.
> no one in their right mind would ever “choose” to “take more and more drugs” knowing that was the endpoint
Sorry, I was unclear: I was trying to highlight the fact that this situation is far, far less common in other countries, namely those with single-payer healthcare. That seems like pretty solid evidence that it’s a structural issue, not just… idk, circumstance? Chance?
Otherwise sorry I misinterpreted you —- guess I’ll spend more time reading next time!
For sure, you have productive members who can execute unlimited violence in the name of law, why not using them to displace the poor and ill away from the streets completely? Clean em up from scum eh. A brilliant idea of a mindful reactionist. The soviets did this by the way, and they were able to completely hide the problem, however they never understood that showing it boldly on the streets to all the "taxpayers" is the first step to solution
> Portland did everything! They invested huge sums in shelters, treatment programs, counsellors, etc.
Huge sums were collected, but they haven't really been spent. As noted elsewhere in this thread, the first detox center built with M110 money only opened two months ago, and only has 16 beds: https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/homeless/new-se-portl...
While this is true, there were a lot of programs that existed before M110, and part of the bill of goods that was sold with M110 was that it was going to make it easier for people to access existing resources without fear of law enforcement.
And again, literally written into M110 is the idea that treatment is supposed to be cheaper than incarceration. Perhaps it's due to really bad red tape, but the treatment programs are not looking terribly cheap or effective.
I don't think it's red tape as such, but rather that Portland suffers from a problem SF also has, which is that government social services are mostly run via the NGO-Industrial Complex. Money is shoveled into a patchwork of local governments, and then shoveled out into a patchwork of local non-profits, and there's almost no accountability for turning $X into Y results, like you might have with a transportation department or a school district.
Cairo wouldn’t comment on the complaints about her management style. Responding on her behalf, Parks and Recreation spokesperson Cherelle Jackson said the bureau wouldn’t comment on “rumors about a member of our team.” “Unfortunately, too many women in male-dominated industries like forestry face this behavior,” Jackson wrote in an email to OPB. “As a Bureau, we will uphold our values for equality and respect for women in the workplace. If you have evidence that is not based on hearsay, please feel free to share, and we may respond accordingly.”
That was really depressing to read. She nuked the program because of her ego and then let her black spokesperson blame it on race and gender instead of her own lies and deliberate mismanagement.
Most of this thread and politics in general are based around failures being the result of somebody else. There is 0 accountability or self responsibility.
Likewise, when people/groups fail today we want them fired or cancelled. This promotes the "blame someone else" as a self preservation tactic.
I got a glimpse into how various state support systems work in germany and the basic idea is, private companies get good money to take care of people - but they get nothing for actually helping them get out of the helpless state - they rather have incentive to keep them there, as then they still get money for them.
Exactly right. Hard not to see it as a shadowy system of back-scratches and kickbacks between mayors' offices and the folks who run the NGOs. It's remarkable how hard it is to hold NGOs accountable when they're using public funds.
The first problem is that the people we're really talking about, the ones living/defecating/etc on the street do not want help.
The second problem is that in order to want to get better, an addict has to hit their personal rock bottom. Programs that keep people floating above their personal rock bottom are like family members enabling addicts. It ultimately doesn't help them.
It's VERY difficult to create social programs that help people want to not be ill, while simultaneously not letting them fall to their own rock bottom.
And then consider the position from the legislature of creating incentives for government programs/NGOs which align with the desired outcomes and it becomes expoentially harder.
Plenty of people on the streets want all kinds of help. They don't want shit programs with a million hoops and strings attached, nor do they want gross dilapidated shelters also with hoops and strings plus predators prowling around looking to steal their shit (or worse) while they sleep.
Also, while the whole rock bottom trope probably holds some truth for many people, when you make every story all about it you kind of lose the plot. If you try hard enough, you can look at just about anyone's life who has recovered from addiction and create a narrative based on an upward trend after the "worst" moment or period of their addiction. If they had two periods that were basically exactly as bad, you dig around until you find some trivial reason to label the second period as worse, and thus the "real bottom." If someone had their worst period of addiction many years before they actually got to a place where they could maintain sobriety long term it was just a long journey for them. Etc.
> Perhaps it's due to really bad red tape, but the treatment programs are not looking terribly cheap or effective.
The treatment programs implemented so far have been incredibly cheap, in the sense that we simply haven't spent any money on them.
M110 has been more expensive than expected, because by not spending money on treatment programs, we caused an assortment of other issues.
M110's effect on society is confounded by its coexistence with a statewide housing crisis that is pushing people into homelessness, and from there it's easy to fall into drug use.
> While this is true, there were a lot of programs that existed before M110
You make a good point. When we look at a program that hasn’t been implemented we must judge all other unrelated programs that were implemented to some degree or another at the same time.
People might want to “see how it works out after implementation” while ignoring the necessity of “going back to the status quo that led to coming up the ideas on the first place”
There are many other examples of failed policies that increased financial pressure on taxpayers but did not result in an overall improvement in the homeless situation.
E.g. what is the outcome of CA Proposition 2 that passed in 2018?
Former Portland native here: it hasn’t worked. I was back just a year or two ago and 5th ave near the waterfront was overrun with homeless openly shooting up and accosting folks.
All the food carts across from the building where I used to work left, the Indian buffet restaurant closed, walking up around 10th near the Target to check out other restaurants I loved many I saw many barricaded former businesses.
The city used to be beautiful. It used to be vibrant and bustling with people and tourists and working professionals but when I was there last retracing my steps as if I was working and living there again it was not the Portland I remember. It’s disheartening.
That’s not to say I’m blaming the homeless or those addicted to substances or dealing with mental
Health problems. I’m not. I believe in helping people when they can’t help themselves. But allowing open drug use, camping in front of businesses, etc., doesn’t do much for said businesses and people to invest in your city leaving you with less tax revenue to help these very same folks with.
>That’s not to say I’m blaming the homeless or those addicted to substances or dealing with mental Health problems. I’m not.
You probably should blame them. They let their personal problems collectively spiral out of control so badly that they became society's problem, and an entire city was degraded because of it. Blame can still be assigned to the pitiable.
Addiction and the like has a genetic component. Also we, as a society, voted to stop investing in services like mental institutions or publicly available and affordable healthcare... so yeah sure blame the victims: they at one point had their faculities but now some are so far addicted they don't act as you or I would expect but in service of their addictions or afflictions.
Most things have a genetic component. Blame doesn't disappear because someone was more predisposed towards something. For instance, men are generally more predisposed to violence than women. Any sane person would agree there is a likely a genetic component to this fact. But if a man beats his wife, we still can and should blame him, even if it were true that with different genetics he would not have beaten his wife. (or more realistically, with different genetics he would have likely never married the same woman.)
I think we are in agreement here. What I was responding to was your seemingly lack of interest in solutions only commenting about still being able to blame folks for decisions they made whereas I think if we are going to spend we should spend to take folks off the streets and get them help or further remove what is seen as a blight to an otherwise beautiful city.
The streets and parks and business fronts are not camping areas.
It sounds like we agree more than I originally understood. I do care about treatment, and despite what my comment might have suggested, I think blame should be wholly separate from punishment or remediation. I don't care particularly if we spend a lot of time blaming drug addicts, only if we get the streets cleaned up, and their lives improved.
I really don't know where American ""progressives"" (they're sociopaths imo) got the idea that harm reduction and decriminalization involves just letting people rot (and shoot up) in the streets and just releasing people on no bail. That is not done in any of the places these people use as positive examples of the policy working.
This happened on such a scale that I can't help but wonder if the results as seen in Portland, Vancouver, Sf ... were the intention.
In my experience, they're inexperienced with the world and of a background where problems like these are only hypothetical, and therefore very black and white. It's easy to get behind the feel-good answer if you know nothing about the problem other than a Vox explainer you read 5 minutes ago. They don't know what real harm reduction actually looks like, because that would take more than hitting Like and Share.
"Wow! Homeless people still exist! In my city?! That's not very nice! And the police threw away the cover photo lady's tent and pepper-sprayed her friends sleeping bag? That's really not very nice! All to clean up the area for the visit of some official?"
The violence with which many camps are removed is abhorrent to many, as is the idea of shuffling them around for mere cosmetic purposes (not to actually get them into a better place), so there's a naive "everybody be nice! leave those poor people alone!" attitude that doesn't actually care about pesky details.
Since their experience is hypothetical and they're idealizing and romanticizing The Homeless, discussion on practical realities like the number of violent felons and sex offenders in camps is shut down with a classic "that never happens". They'll pretend it's some kind of made-up minority and not the bulk of people who can't/won't go to a shelter (i.e, because they have warrants or have been banned for bad behavior).
Sure, they got what they asked for, but I don't believe they ever really considered what they were asking for, beyond "stop being mean".
I think you accurately characterized a sizable portion of the electorate, not just in the US but in many Western countries. That still leaves me wondering what the social workers, homeless advocates, Mission workers etc were doing.
Either they have been screaming that this is a disaster and nobody wanted to hear (or amplify) them, or they thought it could work on a fully voluntary basis. The latter despite them being in contact with homeless and/or drug addicts regularly. Neither explanation bodes well for civil society.
I think people in western countries have been a victim of our own successes, where we enjoy such a prosperous (relative to most of history) life that we now unwittingly afford the luxury of forgetting how raw human behavior actually works.
People don't start out being nice, altruistic and self sacrificing. That is socially conditioned and a learned behavior. However, we have conflated those positive traits as the base class of humanity, when it's really not.
I worry that we will need to return to widespread suffering just to relearn the same things we knew only a free short generations ago.
The state is accommodating us by dealing with such people, and we keep the state under control (lol) by not letting them get sloppy with even the worst among us.
That is, the state does in fact have certain obligations, regardless of any personal feelings one may have.
WFH means biz isn’t coming back there any time soon even with the homeless gone.
It’s why homeless are downtown now rather on the fringe; fringe used to be emptier more frequently as downtown filled. Now folks are home on the fringe all the time.
I was just downtown for lunch on weekday and it was a ghost town. I worked for PSU for years, am aware of what it should look like and it’s just dead. That’s been the case since 2020.
If you want services, good luck. Feds extracted that money and feed it to cloud app companies to keep you all happy and you still aren’t.
Let’s keep giving Elon forever to fail to reach Mars and complain government experiments are failures right away.
Americans have a credibility problem. Work less and less but expect more and more because we have a lot of hallucinated wealth. Where do the real workers come from if everyone is doing office work? Now that other nations have matured after WW2 rebuild, how do we justify taking more for less output?
1945-2000s was a statistical anomaly. America needs to sober up.
I don't buy this "WFH makes downtowns drug-ridden war zones" dichotomy. I've been to downtown Portland before Covid, and it was pretty repulsive, just like SF. Sure, it has deteriorated in both places since, but that was not pre-determined. WFH != war zone in downtown.
These problems are so American. Downtown in European cities (that I know) are as vibrant as ever. Europe has done just as many social programs as Portland or probably more. Why do people no live in these areas?
It seems to me this problem is much larger then drug law enforcement.
PS: US Government haven't given Musk a single $ to go to Mars, what are you even talking about.
I’ll add another inconvenient truth that I’ve realized. You can copy every law and policy that’s working so well in some other (Scandinavian) place and have it still fail horribly. That’s because it was never the laws that were working, but the society and culture as a whole. You can’t bring good laws to a place with a disintegrating social fabric and expect the same results.
Yes. Exactly same way that trying to transplant ideas like agile or microservices or testing driven development fails so miserably most of the time.
It is not that the ideas are wrong.
It is that they are not the correct moves for a team that is not ready for them.
I know it sounds like a silly parallel. But changing societies is hard, long, unique and not well understood process. It makes sense to try to learn from examples where it is much easier to gather some information.
When I come to meet a team that has trouble (I work as an advisor and help teams that have trouble), I am not coming with a library of good solutions BECAUSE IT IS FUCKING NOT WORKING. Time and time again, I am repairing after previous people who did just that -- they came with a solution thinking they know it all because it worked somewhere. More often than not they have observed something working, they learned elements they could easily understand and they tried to transplant and failed miserably.
So whether you are trying to fix a team or fix a homelessness problem, you have to come with an empty mind and willingness to relentlessly problem solve. And look at those other successful examples as examples to learn from but not necessarily duplicate.
I don't. I mean I do a bit, but the main reason I find it unsurprising and actually logical is that it is easier to talk about stuff we do not know about in terms of things we already do.
A lot of us here have more experience in working or introducing microservices that shaping drug abuse policy. I would be surprised if there was one politician here who actually was responsible for dealing with the problem himself/herself.
There's often not even a serious analysis of the environmental, political, and socio-cultural factors behind and around these ideas to determine if they can even theoretically work on paper, even with very generous assumptions.
Let alone whether they can work in the real world.
In this case I don't think anyone in Portland or Oregon attempted such an analysis.
Not sure they were necessarily referring to drug policy but rather the tendency in other western democracies to try to implement Scandinavian social policies in other countries, often with poor results. In the US, if you go to more than a couple of public meetings, you're bound to hear someone comment "Well, in Norway..." as justification for their support for a particular program or policy.
Absolutely this. A country needs a healthy government and public employees dedicated and honest. A culture of sacrifice for public good. Not "but meeeeee!" culture.
It does not work where the "Deep State" is the enemy and grifters run for Congress to become Twitter trolls.
I don't disagree with you, but I don't think that's the problem here necessarily. I admittedly don't know much about the attitudes of Portland's commission members.
I think more to the point the issue is that you can't legislate morality. Some people will break the law no matter how harsh the penalty, and some people will take advantage of permissiveness no matter how much you try to help. Some problems the government just can't fix.
It seems like some things don’t have perfect solutions and we are “stuck” picking which downsides we want to deal with.
It seems that if we want to be the most kind to druggies (not lock them up) it comes at the expense of the normies - people trying to live, work, raise families, run businesses, etc.
It seems that for the last few decades society decided that normies are fine and even privileged and therefore it’s fine to hurt them a little to benefit the “disadvantaged”. What I think we are seeing now that doubling down on druggies etc still doesn’t really help them (because frankly their problems are internal and a druggie by definition is in a baaaad place) while it also hurts the people trying to live a good life and who by the way pay for everything.
I do hope that people start to recognize this. We need to feel good making choices in favor of families over druggies, when we have to.
How much is the effect exacerbated by Portland being a kind of a magnet? In a large country like the US there is a lot of potential for immigration and making the situation very skewed.
I often feel this is what's happening: Portland and a few other cities around the nation prioritize helping folks in a big way, and we wind up serving a national need not a city need.
The fact that shelters have "drama" and "rules" is not a compelling reason for someone to make a home in an area that is intended for public use, and render it unusable and unsafe for others.
Is this really a hard problem to solve? I can certainly buy the argument that criminalizing homelessness doesn't make sense when the "criminal" has no other options. But if someone has a viable option for not living on the street, I'm considerably less sympathetic given the downsides to everyone else involved.
> someone has a viable option for not living on the street
I guess it depends on how we define viable. In my experience working with the homeless, there are a lot of valid reasons shelters are avoided; they can be more dangerous, don't allow pets (who are sometimes the only companions they have), and don't allow families or couples. Whether that is viable or not depends on how you use the word.
This is obviously a baseless and naive comment, and I'm glad others have stepped in to call it out. This whole thread is filled with noise like this.
The fact that there are so many strong opinions from people who demonstrate an embarrassingly low understanding of the situation is one of the reasons the problem is so hard to solve in the first place.
Not always, but it certainly can. Many animal control departments consider leaving a dog outside 24/7 to be neglect/cruelty and will take that dog from you.
We only have a standard for animals because humans are deemed their stewards. US citizens are their own stewards and most would cry foul if there was some standard that governed what weather they were allowed to go out in and/or for how long.
Pets don't really need medical care per se. There's a huge glut of unwanted dogs, so is it better to euthanize so many unwanted dogs right away, or would it be better to just allow some of them to live on the street with homeless people, and then be euthanized when they have medical problems (which usually takes years: pets are typically fairly healthy until they get older unless they get injured, much like humans)?
Yeah, no. Dogs owned by homeless people are literally the happiest dogs around: they get to spend all their time outside, by their owner's side. They have a clear purpose as a companion, and are cared for deeply.
It's the dogs that get left alone inside an apartment for 9 hours a day that are unhappy and neglected.
They are going to live on the street whether you think it's ok or not. Homeless people avoiding shelters has been a thing since looong before homelessness was even talked about in terms of decriminalizing (and legalized drugs were a literal pipe dream). Having talked to many homeless people over the years, shelters really do sound quite awful, actually worse than jail in many ways.
i felt similarly until i actually ended up homeless and had to deal with shelters. they are shockingly non-viable and since most close early in the day, getting a bed for the night and getting employment so you can stop being homeless end up as mutually exclusive propositions.
Oh, believe me I don't think it's an easy problem either. My brother is a social worker and I know the stories.
But I think the suffering of the individual is largely unchanged whether it happens out in public or on the periphery. In contrast, I think we as a larger society are suffering from lack of safe and clean public spaces. So we may as well maintain some sort of enforcement.
This is exactly the right call, and closer to the way we used to run things -- people acting a nuisance in the city weren't tolerated. We need to go back to it.
Feels like a follow-on from the "white flight" phenomenon. The rich and/or influential (that is, middle-/upper-class, but Americans aren't used to thinking that way) people who set policy for a city no longer live or even spend any time downtown. They push for the policies they think are right, but there's no feedback mechanism to tell them what effect they're actually having.
Why do I have to dig so far down into this thread before finding someone with an informed position based in actual history of cities? Everything else I'm seeing is coming from a standpoint that screams of a sheltered position separated from the realities of the city and a society that fails to provide a dignified existence for these people. I have seen no mention of the fact that america has the most homeless and undernourishment for any developed country, or three times as many empty homes as there are homeless. Or that we subsidize the lifestyle of these suburban dwellers by exhausting municipal budgets just repairing the sewer lines that serve neighborhoods that are 1/5th or less the density of the city. Just a long stream of "this looks bad, I don't like looking at it, we should just push the problem outward."
Portland is the only city in the country that is taking as aggressive an approach towards decriminalizing and formalizing encampments, and it shouldn't be surprising that it is experiencing visible failures this early on, or an indictment of those policies.
> Portland is the only city in the country that is taking as aggressive an approach towards decriminalizing and formalizing encampments
Who the hell wants "formalized encampments"?! We going to turn our cities into third-world-style shanty towns now like you can find on the outskirts of Nairobi?
If you really want to destroy a city, I can't think of a better way to do it than going down this path.
> Who the hell wants "formalized encampments"?! We going to turn our cities into third-world-style shanty towns now like you can find on the outskirts of Nairobi?
I mean, it sounds like what you have now is worse. If your city is going to have an underclass either way, a formal shanty town seems less bad than a homeless encampment.
This was part of the 'efficiency' drive. Many cities added or merged with lots of the subburbs. And then those subburbs control policy.
Torronto is a perfect example. It was merged into Greater Torronto, and those new areas are what led to Trumpist style Rob Ford being elected.
And its also zoning. Its always surprising to me how in the US people don't live in the cities. In Europe, the city center are very lived in. The downtown can't turn into a ghost town, even if everybody works from home.
I don't know about that, places like central London and Manchester are quite densly populated, at least by UK standards. And the UK only really got into suburbs after WW2, when huge swathes of the urban population were moved into garden cities.
I live near Manchester, I know, but the city centre is still nowhere as dense (in terms of dwellings) as most towns and cities on the continent. It's changed for sure - lots of old warehouses and factories have turned into flats - but the city has clearly been built for business activity first and foremost. And as soon as you move to smaller towns, like Warrington, the number of people actually sleeping in the immediate town centre falls to almost zero. Brits just want to live in suburbia and in the countryside.
Well if an adult was found to be a nuisance and was unable to care for themselves, they would be put into the mental hospital. Unfortunately, due to some issues, those did not work out too well.
It’s a difficult problem. I don’t think it works for the individual on the street suffering. I don’t think institutions are great either but no worse than becoming a zombie on the street I would hope.
Solution is easy. If you’re visibly publicly intoxicated with hard drugs, you go to a special rehab that’s essentially prison without the violent criminals. If you’re already a violent criminal, you get put into a segregated area. You then get forcibly treated. If youv’e stayed clean for a set number of months, you get to leave. None of this shows up on any permanent/criminal record.
Christ, I’ve been visibly publicly intoxicated with hard drugs on a number of occasions (many years ago) while holding down a respectable middle class professional job (and being good at it!). If I’d been forced into months(!!) of rehab I’d have lost my job and had to move cities and/or change industries (it’s a small world and people talk).
And the scariest thing (for me personally) is that even if I knew that was a potential outcome, I don’t think it would have stopped me. And I wasn’t a junkie or hopeless addict by any means.
Agreed. I will add that we’ve come full circle on psychiatric hospitals, which is essentially what you’re describing in different words. Budget cuts and deinstitutionalization meant many of those were closed down 50 years ago.
In no small part because psychiatric hospitals were wildly, wildly abused. Basically you could lock people up indefinitely with no conviction of anything because someone said they’re a danger to themselves/society/whatever. Basically used like an on-shore Guantanamo.
People who are addicts and have other mental issues are not well-equipped to maintain housing. Whatever housing you'd give them would very quickly turn into a slum.
Even just cleaning is a lot of work, not to mention additional maintenance (e.g. filter changes, landscaping, etc.), regularly taking out garbage, not flushing trash down the sewer, etc.
Unless you also want to hire staff to do that for them, in which case, sign me up. I want to live for free too and not have to work and do drugs whenever I want.
I tend to agree. But for the sake of fleshing it out,
> I want to live for free too and not have to work and do drugs whenever I want.
Here's the rub: When you get to the point of needing free housing, you are usually more or less already at the, shal we say, 'mature' phase of your addiction where there is hardly an ounce of joy left to be had from it. The daily grind of figuring out how to get high is basically just your hellish normal, and the best rush you might get here and there in your average month is akin to eating a nice meal, having a good (but not great) conversation, or a satisfying workout.
Compared to good sex? Get out of here. That phase of drug use is long gone. If you want that back even for a fleeting moment you have to go through the hell of withdrawal first. Even doses that put you dangerously close to OD don't really reach that anymore unless you risk them after a period of abstinence (which is where most opiate addicts used to die, back before fentanyl was the norm).
However, with all that said, I'd argue a functional addict is better equipped to deal with the stuff you mention above better than a severe addict who is trying to get sober after years of active addiction. Obviously acute withdrawal is an absolute bastard, but so are the following months of post acute withdrawal (aka your brain and body re-learning how to function at a completely new level of physiology). If we were doing it right, sobriety would be a hard requirement up front, followed by a good deal of support during the transition back into housing.
True, it's much easier to get sober in stable housing. But you know what's even easier still? Continuing to use in a more comfortable and secure environment. Or worse yet, when free housing is still pretty scarce, using your pad as a commodity to score perks from your friends who are still homeless, or worse, using it as a safer and more secure place to stash and deal quantities of drugs to support your addiction directly. Anyone in active addiction will consider these possibilities the moment the lock is turned and they are alone in their new home (not all will act on it, of course). Housing yes, but probably not 'housing first.'
You don't take a patient with a gunshot wound and make sure they have a long term care bed to lie in comfortably while they bleed. You get their ass to the ER and fix the bleed before worrying about the long term stuff.
Kind of valid. In Portland "housing first" has been all the rage, but having lived with pretty severe addiction for some years, and spent lots of time around fellow addicts in considerably worse circumstances, it's pretty hard to imagine that a house on its own is some kind of solution. Especially when compared to a support network and high quality addiction treatment, medical care, and mental health services. In terms of sustainable recovery, the former is a luxury, while some combo of the latter are essential requirements. Of course, having all of them is by far the best.. man, addiction is a bitch.
"Housing first" isn't the belief that providing a house "on its own is some kind of solution". It's the belief and practice of not refusing to provide housing support until people meet certain criteria – which is often how governments approach the problem.
"We only help those who help themselves", etc.
You get people a safe place to sleep and then provide them with resources to become re-integrated into society, not the other way around.
If someone is very much not ready "to become re-integrated into society" then they can't be independently entrusted with a house (because they'll screw up life for others around them and the house itself with various asocial and illegal acts), that "safe place to sleep" has to be in an institution controlled by others with some enforced rules - until they become capable of following the rules on their own, which generally requires treating the addiction, and is the point when they can become re-integrated into society.
1. They can generally be "trusted" with a house. It's a house. You sleep there.
2. The idea they need constant monitoring comes from the same outdated approach that believes we shouldn't help people unless they deserve it and we can make sure they deserve it. That model has not proven effective and either reducing homelessness or reducing homelessness' external costs on society. It has proven even less effective at improving long term mental health and addiction issues.
3. We have not found a long-term solution to chronic mental health and addiction issues. No approach, yet, has shown outsized performance over any other. Housing First approaches, however, have shown an improvement in homelessness, medical services and criminality – which might be the best we can hope for.
An addict will tear a house apart to sell the electrical wire and possibly plumbing for scrap at a recycling center, rendering it a fire safety hazard to the rest of the neighborhood.
And a non-addict could leave the stove on. People do dumb shit. Keep in mind most "housing first" initiatives don't literally provide "homes". It's usually apartments.
How? Why? It seems like a reasonable question to me, so maybe I'm prejudiced too. That's entirely possible. What's the prejudice? How do I stop? Why is this a bad question? Does it have an answer?
Maybe some are, maybe some aren't. But it seems likely that the ones in the worst condition that need the most help probably skewed towards out of control. And they will probably be hardest to help. I'm in favor of helping those that need help that can be helped. But that will probably come with rules. There are comments all over this thread that shelters are under-utilized because of these rules. I don't know what the answer is.
The only solution to what? While it might get the off the street, it will not cure the addiction. Are you then going to say that someone must be sober before receiving housing? So, again, what is it solving that it is the only thing that can solve it?
You solve homelessness directly by giving people housing.
Free housing paid for by people like me, and ideally others, who are more than happy to take what I make and give it to people who need it more than I do.
And you don’t need to be rich to do it. It’s a decision on how much money etc you actually need to be fulfilled.
If that takes a zombie proof bunker and multiple houses and first class flights and…and… then that’s on your head that you prefer to comfort yourself than take care of others.
Your thought process in commendable but years of this has made me cynical. No one wants to live in the same apartment complex as junkies. If you put them all together it turns into a crime filled cesspool. A hard drug addict is essentially toxic to any situation you drop them in. The solution is to forcibly treat them in rehab centers and then maybe follow up with free housing. This is followed up by drug testing for atleast a few years otherwise you lose your free housing. If the person relapses, the worst that can happen is they are back in forced rehab and at the very least are off the streets, out of sight and not bothering regular people.
I can attest to part of this. I spent several months in a halfway house earlier this year for those coming out of prison. Putting (mostly) addicts together in one building was total and utter chaos. They all fed off each other. The few that were trying to stay sober and get employment had an insane challenge because everyone around them was using and stealing their stuff to sell for drugs. It was crazy.
It is also mind-blowing that you would release addicts with essentially zero support. They don't even get ID coming out of prison in Illinois, so they can't access any support services at all.
Again, I don't know what the solution is, but I know some things that don't work :(
I have to tell you that I have quite a bit of experience on this and a little bit of compassion and love goes along way.
Maybe talking to people one on one asking who they are how their day is, can you help them? Can you get them anything?
This time last year I helped a man named John stop sleeping outside by supporting him and giving him the moral and ethical support that he needed to reconnect with his family and he was off the streets and a couple of months. When we reconnected, he said that it was because of my outreach that he was able to have what he needed to reach back out to his family. It cost me 50 dollars in groceries/medical kit and about an hour of my time.
So it’s eminently possible, you can do it every single day that you go out into the world.
> No one wants to live in the same apartment complex as junkies.
You sound like you'd be shocked at how many high-functioning junkies live in most apartment complexes in most major cities. Upper-middle-class guys, holding down jobs - at least until a run of bad luck hits.
The functioning junkies obviously aren't the ones who "need" free housing. The junkies on the street are the ones who can't handle their shit and have alienated all of their friends and family who might otherwise help them. Nobody wants to live with them and they can't take care of themselves, and therefore they're on the street. And for these very reasons, nobody wants to share an apartment building with them.
> The junkies on the street are the ones who can't handle their shit
Yes. And nobody can handle their shit 100% of the time, so this is really quite a lot of people one or two mistakes away from being on the street. Many of whom you ignorantly count as "clean" friends or neighbors.
How does America go through the whole fucking opioid crisis and still think that addiction is a personal moral failing endemic to some outgroup? It's a sickening view.
What percentage of Americans ever end up on the street? "Homeless" but couch surfing with friends or relatives doesn't count for this consideration because we're talking about people who lost that fallback (despite you chopping off that part when you quoted me.)
Because, despite what we Americans have claimed forever, America is actually an anarcho-capitalist wasteland of domination.
So if you can figure out how to dominate a group, you will win and you’ll be rewarded for it. This is why people come here. America is the last place where you can basically do whatever the fuck you want, and as long as you gain enough money and influence, you’ll be celebrated.
I mean Trump EMBODIED what I just described and he not only won the presidency, he has successfully created a cult that could actually ruin everything.
Where else but a lawless wasteland would produce that?
The answer is a community that cares about this person and is going to invest in them. Period
That’s it that’s the solution.
Until every person on earth has a supportive loving community - which mathematically works out very easily - we’ll never solve these problems.
There is absolutely no logistical or material reason that we can’t do this. It’s also not biologically determined - fear and greed are not inherit in humans, those are all learned behaviors. I fear however it’s going to take generations to undo how much we have invested in domination based systems rather than partnership based structures.
You are so stuck in your bubble that can't even imagine that societies exist today without a massive homelessness problem. Societies that do not have a "supportive loving community" but that combine individual responsibility with strong social services.
> There is absolutely no logistical or material reason that we can’t do this
Yes there is. What you and other "progressives" fail to acknowledge is that for every well meaning supportive and loving member of society there are two people who will use them and their resources endlessly until they drop dead. If your plan is to wait until we change human nature - then good luck.
Want to see a preview? Socialize with families of alcoholics, drug addicts, psychopaths, etc. Look how their "loving and supportive" families are destroyed by one person who abuses them with no end in sight.
Stop fantasizing about changing human nature. The future where we all meditate in peace like that advanced society in Fantastic Planet won't happen any time soon. The more likely future is that we will completely stagnate and fail to resolve any societal issues because we treat people like they are lost babies that just need a supportive and loving community to be found.
In many American states and the federal level, we execute murderers. The Bill of Rights plainly permits this. Executing drug dealers isn't over the line either if we consider the number of people killed by drugs and the drug trade, and if we make a regular habit of it.
As for flogging people, this is arguably less cruel than imprisonment and is a good option for the sort of criminals the public doesn't need to be protected from (not suitable for violent criminals who will likely reoffend.) It doesn't keep people away from their families for years, let's them stay current in their job training, etc. It is nevertheless a strong deterrent but it does less damage to the rest of society.
Singapore gets results and most of their policies don't violate the letter of Bill of Rights except in a purely subjective sense, but most people in America aren't ready to give real progressive reform serious consideration.
Just curious if you'd include alcohol in that list? What about prescription pain-killers? Just curious where you draw the line on what's criminal, and what's not.
Personally, I'd rather criminalize the negative behavior, rather than the drugs themselves. Like DUI laws, for example.
This is slightly smarter. I have zero issues with people being addicted to whatever they want, so long as it doesn't negatively affect others. You do fentanyl in the privacy of your own home, then go to work in the morning? Cool.
Well that's the rub ain't it? Punishment, at its root, is just a method for control. The more brutal the punishment, the more fear is created, and fearful people will then obey commands (laws).
It's such an infantile mindset, I'm frankly surprised it has stuck around this long.
We all just want to live, and enjoy the fruits of our lives, our friends, our families, our work. When a social break happens due to anti-evolutionary behavior, that situation needs to be corrected. Threat of punishment never needs to come into it.
...apart from in every country that does this and doesn't have lots of addicts?
It is quite strange because you go almost anywhere else in the world...no addicts, no-one uses drugs, they find it strange that anyone would use drugs...go to the US, you not only have drug addicts but a whole industry dedicated to offering very knowledgeable-sounding opinions about what should work...it never is explained why the drug problem in the US is so out of control with so many people who know what "should" work.
The only places where I have ever been that have had lots of drug addicts have been places that have tried to decriminalize (for some reason, almost always with help from the police who just want this stuff off their books altogether).
AFAIK there are drug addicts all over the world, including in the Middle East and Philippines where drug addicts are met with severe punishments. The problem is IMO more the availability of drugs vs the potential punishments people face. People are willing to take risks to do drugs. Unless a government completely controls everyone's private life there remains an ability to evade detection and take drugs while telling oneself that one will not be caught.
It's not a total solution, but a jailed addict isn't breaking into your car, robbing people at knifepoint, or resorting to prostitution to fund their habit. And they should have much more limited in access to drugs.
To help the addicts and reduce reoffending, what we probably need is better jails that are less a punishment and more an enforced rehab program with high-quality mental health support. And then a better path from jail back into society.
P is a sarcastic rejoinder to the GP with approximate intent of: don't put down others' solutions without a solution of your own / don't minimize others'[0] suffering because you don't have skin in the game.
[0]That of people victimized by the homeless/addicts.
I don’t like having my own very not-homeless and not drug addict family members for extended stay…
Not wanting houseguests doesn’t somehow mean we aren’t collectively smart enough to figure out which levers need some tweaking to mitigate drug addiction and housing issues.
I don’t want people locked in jail, but I do think that something akin to the Baker Act needs to be implemented. There are clearly many people who need help but are not willing to seek help themselves. It’s safe to say that they aren’t in control of their own actions and are a danger to everyone around them. It’s not compassion to simply let them rot on the street.
I don’t believe addicts and even to extension a lot of dealers should be locked up. I agree generally that nonviolent crimes probably don’t net benefit the community by locking people up. Assuming we are talking about our existing prison system.
For addicts unfortunately I don’t know what else is possible beyond locking them up in mental health institutions. Perhaps we need to try out new types of addiction centers that we can enroll people into? I don’t know what the answer is and I am not sure if we have the help of history. We certainly had drugs in the past but most of the time it sounds like people were drunks. Now we have a crisis of addicts using drugs that are unstoppable.
I wish I had a better idea but everything so far has not worked. There is probably a cutoff. You have the individuals that are not possible to bring back and the ones that could maybe become recovering addicts. The ones that are not coming back just need to go to state institutions.
We used to have a system in the uk where the addicts were prescribed drugs by government sponsored medics. It actually worked quite well, and you can give them a bonus if they get a productive job. Sadly that sort of stuff while effective at helping drug addicts tends to be an easy target for politicians wanting to be 'tough on drugs'. As well as getting addicts off the street and not killed it means less money for drug dealers so the whole thing dwindles.
Addiction counseling works on some people. But you have to address root cause. The drugs are the symptom. For some they just like to get messed up. For some they use it to tune out. For some they just do not want to feel sick. For some the like the idea that they live the way they want to. Sometimes a pause in being messed up lets people see they have hit the bottom. But there is always more bottom which can cause more of the cycle.
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.
In the US, it's generally only possession (not use) that's a crime. The main exception is while operating a vehicle, which is just about the only time the police will do blood testing. Hospitals will do a tox screen if they're taken in for some medical reason, but it becomes exactly that: a medical issue, not a legal one.
In one comment thread you've gone from "some people may need to be forced to accept treatment" to "anyone taking drugs on the street should be arrested" to "anyone doing anything that bothers anyone else in a public space, or who has done something in the recent past that bothers someone now near them, should be arrested."
Fine them? They don't have money, and won't pay. What do you do when they won't pay? Garnish their wages? Don't have any.
Take their drugs? Oh no. They'll just get more, eventually. It's not like they have a lifetime supply stashed away. They generally do the drugs shortly after getting them. They're unlikely to have any to take.
You act as if the police are complete morons and totally incompetent and haven't thought of any or tried any alternatives - anywhere in the world.
Yeah, they don't have much. So if you take what little they have, if they go bother people in the public, they will avoid those places. You just have to enforce it consequently. Most junkies don't want stress and just get high (and they hate having to let go of their next high). Only if you tolerate them in public spaces with 0 consequences - then they will stay with their drugs.
"You act as if the police are complete morons and totally incompetent and haven't thought of any or tried any alternatives - anywhere in the world"
That's the thing. Addicts on the streets in europe for example, are a rare thing. And I know many other places on the world, with no junkies on the streets either. And also with a way lower prisoner to population ratio. So maybe there are other ways, besides just jailing everyone. (Which is pretty expensive btw.)
> Addicts on the streets in europe for example, are a rare thing.
This is because most of Europe has better social safety nets and didn't have an opioid crisis (also partly because of its safety nets), not because they "banned" anything. Drugs and active drug users are in the end still pretty easy to find in central areas in major cities if you look; and if the police do get involved you definitely go to jail.
"and if the police do get involved you definitely go to jail."
Have you been to europe? I was born and live here and have been to allmost every other EU state and people going to jail for drugs is allmost not existent to my knowledge - unless people are dealing big quantities. (Or doing other crimes while drugged, but then they go for the other crimes and not the drugs)
"Drugs and active drug users are in the end still pretty easy to find in central areas in major cities if you look"
You can also find many drunk people, if you go to the pubs - but I don't remember the last time, I saw junkies in the streets. Of course, seeing people who likely do drugs regular, sure, but minding their own buisness and going somewhere, not occuping the streets and scaring normal people, which I thought is what we are talking about here.
yeah cities are zones of massive economic importance, we can't keep penalizing the people who work there because some drug addicts won't abandon the corner they sleep on. its literally insane.
who are we prioritizing in this situation and why? i care more about the people who have their lives together, they deserve priority.
Portland has way more problems than just drug. I don't feel safe walking in downtown even during the day. Parking is a gamble whether or not you get your windows broken, almost a third of my friends had terrible experience when parking overnight in Portland, doesn't matter if it was a public park or in a hotel park.
My recollection is that in 2007 Mexico banned pseudoephedrine in order to remove feed stock from meth labs supplying the US.[0,1] As a result of this and other factors suppliers in Mexico found fentanyl, which bypassed growing cycles of agricultural drugs like pot and heroin. During the pandemic, Mexico grew additional trade ties with China which included fentanyl precursor chemicals.[2]
Plenty of other precursors to use if you can't get pseudoephedrine at scale. Trying to control ultra-small scale producers doesn't accomplish much other than sweeten the cartels (and purity/yields, so I guess that's a positive).
Opioids being more dependence-inducing than stimulants would better explain a production shift.
Big legitimate trading volumes with China (and any other large producer of goods/inputs) make a customs-focussed effort at controlling supply basically impossible.
The problem isn’t drug legalization, the problem is the inability to deal with irresponsible drug users. Blanket drug bans unjustly punish responsible users, and enable selective enforcement based on the bias of those in power e.g. the police and we all know where that gets us.
If I want to pop some mdma and enjoy myself at a live show, or do shrooms and go hiking, or smoke some weed and relax in a hammock and listen to my favorite album, or do some speed and clean my house, or spend a weekend dozing off with some heroin, then I ought to be allowed.
If however I get into fights, puke and shit in public, nod off laying spread eagle across the sidewalk or in the doorway of a business that’s trying to open in the morning, trespass and steal anything that’s not nailed down, start completely unsafe and inappropriate fires, and menace innocent passerbys on thoroughfares - I should be stopped.
Drugs writ large are not the problem. Drugs are what you make of them. Users who cause problems should be dealt with. Users who don’t should be left unharassed. Drunken brawling? Straight to jail. Drunken hugging? Let people have fun.
Prohibition also failed horribly. We need a middle ground.
What about drug use as a privilege? If you’re living on the street, your litter is all over the street, and you never pay taxes, then you lose your privilege.
I thought we solved this with alcohol already. Can you drink? Yes. are you allowed to be shit faced drunk in the streets? No. Are there lounges to drink safely and responsibly? Yes.
Granted, it may be much harder to make a "drugs bar", but we can use comparable metrics to deem who is too unfit to independently do that stuff and if they need intervention.
Indeed. You don’t get put in prison for being drunk. Maybe you spend a night in the drunk tank and then get released and are free to go repeat the same mistake. We don’t just let you roll around on the sidewalk downtown while continuing to drink.
Just because drugs are decriminalized doesn’t mean it has to be a free for all.
And somehow in Europe people drink on the streets all the time and its mostly fine. Cities are not overrun by drunks and people live and work there just fine. People chilling in the streets and parks together drinking beers and so on.
I find the alcohol culture n the US pretty outputting. The US model of 'get hammer in a bar and then drive home'. Not a great model.
So to say 'we solved this' is kind of ridiculous at least from my outside perspective.
I don't know about a "drug bar" but I'm of a similar mindset in that I think solutions which punish functional users are unhelpful. It's less obvious who those people are in the case of things like fentanyl but there's no shortage of healthcare, legal, and culinary workers making routine use of illegal stimulants. There's maybe a dialogue to be had there about if it's actually desirable such people's jobs be so demanding they feel the need to use the substances they do of course. But it hardly makes sense to jail them or force them into rehab if they're maintaining a productive lifestyle in my opinion.
They got all of the carrots sure, but there was no stick. The reason these programs have success elsewhere is that they give people the choice of prison or treatment.
Also, nowhere except the US just decided to legalize public drug use. In fact one of the goals of harm reduction programs in other places is to get the users out of public spaces.
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.
If you have competent police - than taking the drugs away is sort of a lackmus test. Meaning if they get violent - then they are a danger and further meassures are needed. So yes, jail (conventional or mental) is then the temporary solution.
No, you’re right. Empathy doesn’t work with certain drug use (opiates, meth, crack etc.). They need to be forcibly put in rehab that is akin to jail until they’re clean for a while. It still shouldn’t be a felony on your record though because that effectively ends any chance of rebuilding your life if you do recover.
I don’t see why it has to be one way or the other: either no enforcement or sending kids caught with a joint to prison. For people who have clear drug problems, they need to go into rehab, voluntarily or not.
I voted for 110. I regret it now. An idea I have in my darker moments, which as I said in another comment here are becoming more frequent... Is that we should have single occupancy rooms where drugs are provided to people and they can get high as much as they want so long as they stay put there. As soon as they want to stop, support swoops in and gets them in a system. If they want to go back, they are free to do so.
That's a very American perspective. Downtown in European cities (that I know) are as vibrant as ever. Europe has done just as many social programs as Portland or probably more.
It seems to me this problem is much larger then drug law enforcement.
The US had far better economic growth then Europe in general. With much of Europe barley growing since early 2010.
Why do people no live in these areas? Why are there so many homeless in the first place.
With my personal experience of knowing so many addicts that have been in/out of various recovery programs, I'm totally at a loss. I too leaned libertarian with let people do the drugs they want, but that's back when I thought people were only doing things for recreation. I didn't have experience with true addicts until I was older. I've even played with liking the idea of a version of The Wire's Hamsterdam on the sole basis of the yo-yo lifestyle of recovery/relapse is just something that has no real answer.
Just giving a voice to those who do maintain responsible recreational use, because that crowd very much exists. It might go unnoticed since they usually don't die or screw up their lives because of it.
---
On the flip side I've seen addiction become a much more devastating force in recent years and smart solutions are badly needed.
> 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, ideology, hate, chemicals, drugs, pollution, technical problems, climate change, ecology causes harm to humans, then it should be equal to harm done by a human directly.
Why it's illegal to shot someone, but legal to smoke weed near to someone, which leads to addiction and further death? IMHO, it's the same harm, but with extra steps.
>why we limit this to humans only? In my opinion, is a bacteria, virus, ideology, hate, chemicals, drugs, pollution, technical problems, climate change, ecology causes harm to humans, then it should be equal to harm done by a human directly.
because when you go that granular it's hard to figure out who to blame. is COVID really any one person's fault, even if we narrow it down to a specific patient 0? is that harm intentional and worthy of punishment? Is having a buggy website really "harming a human directly?" And who takes blame? The web dev, the site owner company, the ISP? These start to get unnecessarily nitpicky.
>Why it's illegal to shot someone, but legal to smoke weed near to someone, which leads to addiction and further death?
depends on the drug? Secondhand smoke is a thing but even that has dubious legalities. You're usually not punished for the smoke but for violating the ruls of the premise to not smoke. But nothing is illegal about smoking tobacco in public (as unpleasant as the smoke is).
> is COVID really any one person's fault, even if we narrow it down to a specific patient 0?
COVID19 was leaked from "Vector" BSL4 lab in Russia. It's leaked, because first responders broke doors (to check for fire) and stole equipment from BSL4 lab without any protective equipment, then China special police, which was in same city for training with Russians, captured the virus and returned back to China. Then Russian official hide the fact of leaking and start of epidemic, deleted any evidence of that, which they found, except those copies which are in Wayback machine (they are unable to crack the archive so far), and started to blame China (at West), and West (at China and East).
Yes, this is not an one person fault. So what? 7 million died. Should we just ignore that?
> You're usually not punished for the smoke but for violating the ruls of the premise to not smoke.
In my country, it's illegal to smoke near to non-smokers, which helps to reduce spread of smoking. :-/
As someone who spent most of my life in Novosibirsk I was amused to see the Vector lab mentioned in this context. Some googling reveals that indeed there was an explosion in the facility in September 2019.
I still think that this theory is way too convoluted to be true (chinese secret police and stuff), but an entertaining read nevertheless. I wasn't aware of either the explosion or the covid leak allegations.
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.
My parents smoked when I was a child. The memory of being in the car with the windows up makes me anxious even though it's been probably 30 years since I've been in a car with a smoker. I experience acute irritation when exposed to anyone smoking, and much more widespread smoking is one of the major reasons I dislike visiting Europe. I know that I'm far from alone in feeling this way.
How is that relevant to the naked twerking person at the top of the metro stairwell?
If everyone on the entire planet was addicted to meth and did it daily, but there was a single meth user who decided to twerk naked at the top of the metro stairwell and assault people, that one person should be imprisoned. Why you ask? Because every other person on the planet is (as you say) functional. Nobody cares if you decided to do drugs and then fall asleep at home while paying your bills (ie: functioning). People do care about naked twerking people at the top of metro stairwells who routinely assault passers-by.
That would be "lock up publicly problematic addicts" not "addicts" in general.
The aforementioned "functioning, respected and powerful people" are able to conceal or internalize the cost of their problems and aren't usually a problem for the public at large.
With that in mind, the problem is really just being persistently a public danger/nuisance. The only relevance of addiction to this is that addicts are frequently unresponsive to incentives that would be sufficient for non-addicts.
Portland is not a good test case to decide on one specific policy. It's like testing a cold drug on a person with several cancers - the test can't show any improvement because everything else is so hopelessly broken. I mean, I'm sure their drug policy is broken too, but one should not conclude from this that in a sane city legalize could never work, because Portland is not a sane city.
Locking people up for being addicts is not the same as locking people up for using in the street.
What is wrong with this approach:
Doing drugs isn’t a crime, but all bad behavior associated with it is.
If someone’s addiction has become unmanageable to the point where they are doing drugs on the street, it is a kindness and a necessity to take their agency away from them.
If someone is an addict but otherwise functions, it is none of anyone’s business.
> Doing drugs isn’t a crime, but all bad behavior associated with it is.
Exactly. I can't imagine somebody on weed would bother people that much.
But if you steal from people, leave your unclean syringes lying around, etc. you're a hazard to society and need to be dealt with. So we need to enable law enforcement to deal with that properly.
If you're drunk and belligerent, which happens a lot, you shouldn't be able to do that legally either.
So as long as you're not a menace to society, I don't see why you shouldn't have that freedom. But as soon as your freedom causes issues for others, it needs to be dealt with.
Maybe allowing meth, fentanyl, heroin and such is the problem. I would bet almost all the big problems are due to the users of these.
From what I see daily, if what Portland is doing is working in any way, then I’d hate to see things if they weren’t working at all. It’s a very sad state of affairs here and it’s hard to recommend that anyone move here unless you’re being paid extremely well AND you love the outdoors AND you’ve lived in a city with a severe drug/homelessness/mental health crisis before.
I moved here in 2007 from the extremely rural South. The day I moved into my Old Town apartment a homeless guy spit on me! What a wake up call to a kid from the country. But I ended up living in that apartment for 10 years and never once felt actually scared in that neighborhood. But now, I actively avoid that neighborhood and getting spit on might be the best possible outcome!
They most certainly did not do everything. The Portuguese model works fairly well, but that requires arreatijng drug users and making them show up to court. They don't send people to prison for drug use but they still entangle them in the legal system.
I think you're completely correct in local terms for the interest of Portland. And personally I think this was a wholly predictable outcome.
However, isn't this a little bit like state gun control? Legislation and public services being wildly different across a border that anyone can cross at will creates border effects. Is it possible that Portland is attracting a ton of junkies from elsewhere?
Also this is another exhibit for my pet theory that progressive and idealistic politics are more effective at large scales whereas conservative and managerial politics are better suited to the local level of governance.
Does this analysis also consider the wide ranging massive impact of fentanyl and similar drugs that have skyrocketed drug overdose problems in all communities in the past five years?
Realistically speaking, homeless drug users don't want treatment or shelter; they want to be left alone to do drugs.
Most drug users don't want to get off drugs. That's why you need an intervention. No addict likes interventions either. You have to be really self disciplined to turn yourself into treatment.
I live in Portland and I 100% agree with this. I say this as someone who voted for Measure 110 and now regrets that vote. At this point I would support a straight-up repeal. At least under the old system some people who were arrested were able to get clean in jail, or were able to enter court-mandated treatment programs.
The reality is that people in the throes of drug addiction have already lost their agency, so some kind of coercive intervention will often be necessary to break the cycle. By refusing to do this out of a (commendable) compassionate impulse, we are making the situation worse.
In general the last ~5 years of living here has been a lesson of how important order (i.e. the enforcement of rules and norms) is for a functioning society. You could say it is the foundation of all social goods.
Watching the city's decline up close has deeply altered my political beliefs on a number of topics – this is one of them.
Cigarettes kill 7x as many as fentanyl every hour, day, week, month, and year.
One is available without prescription on every streetcorner, with use allowed in public in proximity to others, and the other is a public health epidemic.
That being the case doesn't negate the fact that cigarette users are not turned into some version of the walking dead but who'd do literally anything for a fix.
Tobacco has a lot to answer for but it isn't the same kind of issue at all. It doesn't destroy communities so directly.
I live in the Seattle area, which is struggling with public drug use just like Portland.
Like Portland, we've lived for decades with very progressive politicians who have lead successful decriminalization efforts and spent huge sums of public funds on treatment and harm reduction programs.
Is there a measure for how this compares to places without social programs for drug addicts? This is a legitimate question, I don't know if they've done better or worse in the context of the failed war on drugs.
Because the country as a whole has been completely ravaged by opiate addiction. It's not just Portland and Seattle. West Virginia doesn't have anything like this, and it's just as badly afflicted. It may be less visible because it doesn't have the same population density.
I presently live in New York but I lived in Seattle in 2020. Open air drug use and homelessness in general is unquestionably a bigger problem in Seattle, despite NYC lacking some of the more progressive policies west coast cities have become so famous for. Anyone who's lived in both the east and west coast can attest to the difference, it's so stark that I find it funny people are still asking if broad coastal politics _might_ have something to do with it.
My question isn't about how visible drug addiction is but any actual metrics that can compare actual drug addiction rates and prevalence between places with decriminalization and those without.
Because just some cursory googling suggests that these cities do have less incidence of drug addiction/use per capita. But I don't really know how accurate that info is, and anecdata doesn't count.
I live in Seattle and recently visited NYC. It was shocking how much cleaner it was, at least the neighborhoods I spent time in. I expected at least similar levels but I saw nothing like Seattle's public drug use and mental health crises on the streets.
I think it's less a question of the amount of social programs and more about how aggressive the police are about public drug use and assaults by the homeless. Walk around cities in southwest Florida for example (Tampa, Naples etc.) and you'll feel pretty safe.
This is a curve that goes up but do the other curves go up more or less? Did places with different strategies perform better or worse, relatively speaking? I can sort of imagine that all the curves go up, given that we added a drug that is 50X stronger than heroin to the mix
Edit: to clarify, not trying to be an asshole, I have no idea what the answer is here, would be very interested to find out
The problems with acute fentanyl poisoning are somewhat separate from chronic methamphetamine addiction. Mexican drug cartels have been manufacturing counterfeit prescription drugs such as Oxycodone and Xanax but substituting fentanyl for the active ingredient. They simply have bad quality control, so sometimes people who buy street drugs randomly end up with a fatal overdose. Especially if they haven't built up a tolerance.
Can always look at places that don't have drug problems like Singapore, Qatar or UAE. decriminalization. look at china who also had a crippling opiate problem with opium and it wasn't solve with decriminalization. Opoids have no place in society and there's no such thing as harm reduction when it comes to opioid use besides complete prohibition. I know 4 people who have died from opioid over doses, and just recently lost a former coworker last week. Fentantyl is a society destroyer and it's just getting worse.
Are those really good comparison countries though? To me, it seems like some of their basic views on rights are antithetical to those in the US, going way beyond how to deal with drug problems.
Japan,Taiwan and south Korea as more examples. Japan has life sentences for opioid distribution/sale. Taiwan has mandatory 3 year sentencing simple possession of class 1 drugs (Opioids). South Korea also has very strict sentencing laws for opioid possession and usage ranging from 1 to 3 years. Most of laws were influenced by the Opium wars 100 years ago.
"punishing crime" is a frankly insulting understatement of the way countries like Singapore or the UAE treat accused criminals. Not to mention the list of things that count as crimes there. I mean if you're that angry about shoplifters or homeless people doing drugs on the street, okay, but don't be dishonest about what these role model countries actually do
Harm reduction and rehab still only treats the symptom, not the cause. The cause is financial instability brought on by insecurity in housing, food access, etc. It's an issue of human dignity in the economic sphere that drives people to such depths, not recreation.
Unfortunately we still have a large portion of the population who believe that one must deserve to live a dignified life, and then apply all sorts of caveats on who is deserving. So we can't reshape the economy to support everyone because the people at the top need to feel like the work they did to get there somehow speaks to their character rather than merely their circumstances. They can't accept that they're not actually that special and so have some pathological need to draw lines between "us" and "them" (e.g. "taxpayer" vs "freeloader").
Undoubtedly that can be the cause in some cases, but there are counterexamples. Like West Virginia which has a bad opioid addiction problem yet relatively low homeless rate. What does appear highly correlated is homeless rates vs. cost of housing to income ratios. Find a city with a real estate bubble, and you'll likely find a large tent city too.
"We have to fix every single problem to prevent people from smoking meth in public."
No we don't. This wasn't a problem 10 years ago. This isn't a problem in much, much poorer countries. This isn't a problem in fucking Houston or Tampa or NYC or Boston.
I get that you want to overthrow Capitalism, but the rest of us want to live a normal life without junkies shitting on our stairs
I'm not really a revolutionary about it, but those living "normal" lives are far from normal if they aren't stressed about the day-to-day.
It would be nice if life wasn't so stressful all the time for so many people. Look at all the wild drivers, the lack of camaraderie in basic everyday life interactions, you can point to all manner of social ills and if you empathize with those who are struggling to get by -- which is most people according to every statistic released in the last 6 years about it -- you would easily make the connection between worrying about not having a bed and enough food and the kinds of shitty behavior people end up enacting.
Those cities don't have a problem with homelessness because their cities either suck to live outside in the winter or suck to live outside in the summer.
You'll also note the high proportions allocated to police in every city budget (NYC cops get something like $5 billion per year!). The difference between some cities and others is primarily the level of controls they put on police re: homeless people because of progressive policies. The cities with hardline positions look better because the homeless are pushed out, not because the homeless find homes there.
I wonder if it attracted a 'type'. Because I know many people who have since moved to portland and they all have a type.
It could be that portland is taking a huge number of people that would otherwise be a drain elsewhere. Maybe we shouldnt consider this an outright failure, but look at some federal support.
Where I live (central Oregon), this is not the case. More than 80% of our homeless population are people that were born and raised here, and were priced out of housing and onto the streets due to housing prices skyrocketing to eyewatering levels. It has tripled in the last ten years, with a 1-br apartment going for under $600 in 2013 now going for $1700. The homelessness here is homegrown, not imported.
Portland is better housing-wise, but not by much. Considering how most people who are both homeless and on drugs were homeless first, then turned to drugs, I think this is a strong confounding factor. It's hard to saw what effect decriminalization has had on drug use when it's adjacent to a housing crisis that is manufacturing more homelessness and drug use all on its own.
Not sure if they still do, but Eugene used to buy you a one-way bus ticket to Portland or Salem and some food vouchers if you claimed to have family there. They didn’t really verify.
Agreed. This suggests to me that homelessness and drug use may be orthogonal problems.
If you triple my rent over the next 10 years, without raising my income, then I'm gonna be homeless. No drug use necessary, batteries included, no assembly required.
Do you know that the person raising your rent isn't the same person that pays your salary, right? And raising it is mostly up to you. Doing drugs because you are incapable of matching society's dynamics isn't an excuse
Maybe raising it is "up to you", but it's up to you within the context of an existing economy, not a vacuum. "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already..."
Seattle's 2019 point in time counts says 84% local, 11% in-state, 4% came from out of state. San Francisco has similar numbers. Seattle excluded this data from their most recent report. Possibly because they out of state numbers have been going up, and it is harder to raise money and sympathy for non-local homeless? But even if you allow for that, it is huge majority local.
That is an oft repeated myth. A recent study by UCSF of California homelessness found that 90% of homeless Californians became homeless while already living in California, and 75% still live in the same county as they did when they became homeless [0]. Locals are approximately 90% of the problem.
I don’t think this is it. A lot of the unhoused in Seattle are locals or in state, and many of the out of state are from neighboring states such as Idaho or other West Coast states.
Rather I think the problem is that half assed decriminalization efforts simply aren’t enough and that drug overdose has become a much more severe issue because of the opioid epidemic and the proliferation of fentanyl. What needs to happen for decriminalization to work is much better social support for addicts, including safe use sites staffed with nurses, free health care for addicts including detox hospitalization and substance abuse treatments, social housing including housing specifically for recovering addicts and active addicts. In addition full legalization and regulated drug markets (preferably via pharmacies with a strict non-profit motive) wouldn’t hurt either.
What Seattle has done is basically just decriminalization without any of the support needed to go with it. Yes we support addicts and spend a lot of money on their care, however these are all suffering from austerity and are often just post-hoc measures (which often cost more in the long run).
Yes, for Seattle a key issue is there is hardly any supporting services available for the mass of people who need it. There are just a lot of people needing services. Seattle also has a huge shortage of mental health treatment professionals. You can't just start working with one of them, you have to wait for months on a waiting list. There's not nearly housing at night.
So you have fentanyl, not much housing, not much treatment, not enough hospital space. People get addicted, at least some move here when addicted and then they are stuck.
> What needs to happen for decriminalization to work is much better social support for addicts, including safe use sites staffed with nurses, free health care for addicts including detox hospitalization and substance abuse treatments, social housing including housing specifically for recovering addicts and active addicts
How many productive members of society does it take to support each drug addict? Should there be any calculation, or should we say "whatever it takes"?
Yes, whatever it takes. A society which doesn’t take care of their sick is a failed society. Seattle is the richest city in one of the richest state of the richest country in the world. If we wanted to we could easily take care of anyone that needed it.
At some point we have to say it takes too much. If it takes 20 college-educated social workers, medical professionals, etc. just to enable one junkie to eek out a miserable existence doing drugs and sleeping on the street, it's too much. Their lifestyle is untenable. On some level, we have to accept that one can fuck up one's own life, and fuck it up so badly that others can't fix or maintain it for you.
More realistically smaller total staff than 20 dealt with 3,800 addicts in an 18 month trial a decade and a half ago with benefits to the community (reduced expenses from deaths, overdoses, central record keeping, etc) that were considered worthwhile to keep such centres going until the present day.
Sadly they never fixed the supporting issues, low wages, inability of affordable housing at pace to keep up with growth. It’s like they just thought giving an aspirin was going to cure the flu.
This is basically just a moving the goalposts argument. The public was told that the policies would fix/help/address the problem. The public was conned into throwing literally billions of dollars at these policies and programs. And then after the programs fail, you can't just say "well of course it failed, we didn't do X and Y". If that's the case, we should never have spent billions of dollars on programs and policies that we knew would fail without X and Y.
Cities primarily need affordable and low income housing. If you're trying to deal with your demons sleeping under a bridge, you're going to get warped. The social safety nets in this country are so inadequate, so when people fall, they fall hard.
How do you define “low wages”? Current minimum wage in Seattle is $18.69/hr, which is higher than the median wage in several US States and almost all of Europe. Cost of living is high but not that much higher than the more expensive parts of Europe.
There are legitimate causes for the blight in Seattle but lack of jobs and low wages aren’t one of them.
Americans have no idea how high the cost of living is in Europe relative to wages.
Median sale price in Seattle is $560/square foot, which is almost exactly $6000/square meter. With minimum wage at $18.69/hr, that's 320 hours of minimum wage work per square meter.
For comparison, average price per square meter in Paris is over 10 000 EUR ($10 700), whereas the minimum wage is 11.50 EUR, giving you a ratio of 870 hours of min wage work per square meter, almost 3 times more expensive.
When you compare them by median household income, Seattle is around $110k/year, which is $55/hour, giving 110 hours/square meter for median family. In Paris, for comparison, median household income is 44k EUR/year, which is 22 EUR/hour, resulting in 454 hours/square meter, which is 4 times more expensive than in Seattle for median family, even worse than for minimum wage.
These were before-tax figures, and doing after tax makes the situation even more lopsided: US tax system is much more progressive than European, and so taxes for median and below are extremely low compared to Europe. At Seattle minimum wage, the effective tax rate is around 15%, whereas in France, at minimum wage you're still paying 25% in income tax. To top it off, in France, the VAT is 20%, compared to 10% in Seattle.
You can do the same calculation for most of Europe, and you'll find the same: pretty much all large metros in Europe are almost universally less affordable than most expensive metros in US, including NYC and SF.
Not sure if Paris vs. Seattle is a good comparison. The former is the crown jewel of France and a historic world-class city. The latter is one of the smaller cities on America's West Coast and is fairly unremarkable.
If anything, I'm stunned that the price for square foot in Paris is only 180% of that in Seattle.
Not to take anything away from your post but Seattle has roughly half the GDP of Paris with less than a third of the population. The past is the past, if you wanted to place a bet on the future, I wouldn’t take Paris over Seattle. Seattle isn’t just tech, it is one of the major deepwater ports on the Pacific Rim and with a famously diversified industry. It is still on the upward part of its trajectory.
Seattle is not a cosmopolitan global city, this is true, but Paris wishes it had Seattle’s economic dynamism by almost any measure. Like many European cities, its status is the accumulated capital of a prior era that is not being replenished at replacement rate. I have my qualms about Seattle but European cities are largely worse when looking forward.
> The former is the crown jewel of France and a historic world-class city.
How is this relevant to my point, which is that in Paris (and most of major European metros), the prices-to-incomes ratio is much worse than in Seattle, and pretty much anywhere in US? In what way it is a crown jewel, if, by US standards, 3/4th of the population barely makes the ends meet?
These are all major, but not the biggest, cities in their respective country. I'm not saying they are representative (for what, anyway). You'll find major cities that are much more expensive (eg Munich) or cheaper.
As for income tax, at first glance, PWC disagrees:
OK, let's do some of them, say Poznan (because I'm most familiar with it). It's hard to find median household income figures in Poznan, but you can find that average individual income in it is 22000 EUR/year, and average household income typically is something like 150% of average individual income, so let's take average household income in Poznan to be 33k EUR/year, or 16.5 EUR/hour. This gives us 120 hours/square meter, which is comparable to Seattle.
However, this becomes much worse if you look at after-tax situation. In Poland, at this pay range, your effective tax rate is 27%, whereas in Seattle it's 16%, and you have to then apply 23% VAT to your purchases, compared to 10% sales tax in Seattle.
> As for income tax, at first glance, PWC disagrees:
What specifically does it disagree about? It is well known that the effective tax rate on lower half of the population is much lower in US than in almost all of Europe, as my example comparison between US and Poland or France shows. In Europe, the middle class pays the bulk of the tax burden, whereas in US, taxation is much more progressive, and it is the wealthy who pay most of the tax.
Nowhere in these comments have I see anybody take the position that decriminalization is not enough; drugs need to be legalized and regulated.
I have a close friend whose relative is a heroin addict. According to her, a lot of overdoses are due to almost no "heroin" actually being heroin, rather its fentanyl cut to varying degrees of strength. Not knowing what you're taking, and not knowing how strong it is, can lead to a lot of problems. If people knew what they were getting, and it was legal, you could have "functional addicts" that cause little or no societal harm. My friend's relative was a functional addict on and off for 20 years. She held down a job, paid rent, paid taxes, etc. She decided to get clean only when she had a close brush with death thanks to fentanyl.
Think of it this way: My drug of choice is tequila. When I buy a bottle of 80 proof tequila, I buy it from a state licensed store. I have confidence that its 40% alcohol, and that its safe to drink. It is sold by a reputable company with a brand reputation. What we have today with illegal or "decriminalized" drugs is the equivalent of people dying from drinking bathtub gin during prohibition.
>> decriminalization is not enough; drugs need to be legalized and regulated.
This has been an increasingly popular argument here in Portland since decriminalization. It's deployed, generally, in terms of re-criminalizing hard drugs until there's a well thought out framework for safe, regulated legalization.
While I agree in principle [edit: let's say I did agree, but my views on this subject have shifted radically since I voted in favor of decriminalization - and I'll admit I was naive and wrong], I think that while decriminalization without regulation is clearly catastrophic, legalization with regulation would also not be desirable so long as it's confined to one local city, county or state, in the midst of a nationwide fentanyl crisis. Portland simply does not have the capacity or infrastructure to accept further waves of addicts from all over the country who come here to live on the street. Legalization means more regulatory burden, more services for out of town addicts paid by a dwindling local tax base that's quickly being displaced and/or opting to leave.
To do that experiment and do it right, it needs to be nationwide. In any case, Portland can't go it alone anymore.
And remember - we did have a long experiment with legally prescribed opioids, and their widespread availability contributed to the current addiction crisis.
This happens all the time and is in practical use one of the best justifications for regulation.
There must be a more specific term for it I’m forgetting, but it is essentially the tragedy of the commons.
There are many things that are good for society where if one business did them, that business would lose market share or cease to exist, but it is in the public interest that the specific thing be done. Regulation is the proven answer there.
In this case the primary difference is we are talking about regulating cities instead of companies.
I think this is closer to my point, which was that some ideas can only work at scale. That doesn't mean they will work at scale. But having them fail small doesn't prove or disprove anything.
So you come up with a federated database model for your company with 30 employees, and find yourself in dev hell and wasting resources on an expansion that could have been solved with a slightly larger monolith. That means you chose the wrong tool for the local job. It doesn't mean the other tool couldn't be effective for a larger job.
Are the results that bad? Or are the results exactly the same but more visible (i.e. homeless addicts are not just being hidden below the concrete of highway interexchange instead of being able to live in the city center)?
I grew up in Los Angeles in the 80s, a time and place when homelessness was rampant, but your typical homeless person was a slow-to-move 50 year old wino, not a psychotic 20 year old on fentanyl and meth. Leaving aside the difference in the drugs, I think it's worse because: We do have, and have had a lot of people living in underpasses in Portland for the last 30 years. Most of those people are unfortunate locals who fell through the cracks, not the new crop who just showed up from Florida. Underpasses are full, and have been full, for decades. Many of us have tried to help. The increased visibility is a sign of two things: (1) overflow, and (2) much more dangerous chemicals.
"This content is not available in your country/region."
I could only read the title but from what I can come up these people would have overdosed, the only difference with public drug use is they die in front of everyone. What I am concerned is it should actually trigger a response towards helping addicts get access to safer drugs, and finding a way for them to stay functionnal and harmless in our society. Instead people want to try to hide the problem under the carpet but it will not work either.
> And remember - we did have a long experiment with legally prescribed opioids, and their widespread availability contributed to the current addiction crisis.
Well yeah, when you have criminally-encouraged over prescription of highly addictive, fairly dangerous drugs, you’re going to create an addiction crisis, but the actual deaths happening now are due to the unavailability of those same prescription drugs. Before the prescription crackdown and fentanyl prevalence, some people who got addicted turned to heroin, and some of those people ODed, but now nearly every addicted individual only has access to fentanyl-laced street opiates.
Methadone clinics are a decent example of how regulation helps this issue.
Sure, they can help, but wouldn't you say that's treating the symptoms rather than the disease?
>> the actual deaths happening now are due to the unavailability of those same prescription drugs
But you just said the initial reason was "criminally-encouraged over prescription". How do you not trace the deaths now all the way back to that? The thing about opioids is that you develop tolerance. I guess if those people were still getting higher and higher prescribed doses, they would never need to dip into illegal markets where their drugs might be contaminated with fentanyl. But it's hard for me to cut off the search for a root cause of deaths at this latest unavailability. The root cause is the over-prescription in the first place.
Stigmatization serves a role. I'm a smoker - but I know anti-smokers will agree with me, that stigmatizing my behavior prevents more people from starting to do something terrible to their health.
And if that's true, then legalization would be a root cause of the next wave of deaths. It's the addiction that kills; the erstwhile lack of good drugs is just the way it happens to kill some people.
What’s the disease? Is it the body’s down-regulation of opioid receptors? If so, then you’re right. But if it also includes the impact of an active opioid addiction on one’s lifestyle, methadone clinics help treat that, which in turn makes it much easier to address the former.
I think for practical purposes, it’s most helpful to ascribe it to a recent and controllable factor.
Otherwise, you could say that the “no medical benefit” scheduling of cannabis also contributed. Restricting medical pain management options to (with a few exceptions) just opioids when there was an unexplored (medically) class of less addictive, less destructive, physiologically safe medicine, definitely didn’t curb the opioid issue.
I agree that stigmatization is a good thing, but if all tobacco products got taken off shelves overnight, people wouldn’t stop smoking, they’d just have to buy on an unregulated (unsafe) market. Not saying that current regulation is perfect, but at least it can be controlled, which allows the market to move in (hopefully) the right way.
> The thing about opioids is that you develop tolerance.
This isn’t really unique to opioids, and I picture the legalization/regulation being discussed in this thread as more along the lines of existing cannabis programs, though obviously stricter in whatever necessary dimensions.
> It's the addiction that kills
Not necessarily, now at least. Lifestyle, maybe, but plenty of people now are overdosing on fentanyl from just experimenting, not even necessarily with opioids. And yes it is dumb to experiment with unknown street narcotics, but I’d be surprised if you took your first sip of alcohol when you were 21, and it’s the same principle of doing something that feels forbidden (and will make you feel good). And, if it were during prohibition, that sip could have had methanol in it. Now it can’t because of legalization and regulation.
I agree. Any one city that gets out in front will be overwhelmed with a national population of addicts flocking to it. Legalization has to happen nationally.
Imagine if prohibition had ended just in Chicago. Chicago would have been overrun with alcoholics.
> And remember - we did have a long experiment with legally prescribed opioids, and their widespread availability contributed to the current addiction crisis.
That is not what "legalized" means. It's still illegal to have opioids from anywhere other than your own prescription, which means that people without a prescription are basically on their own, have to get it through illegitimate means, and are all the way back to not knowing what they're getting.
If I wanted a supply of, say, LSD, I am not going to accept a doctor telling me how much I can have, when and where I can have it (as in current legalized psilocybin clinics). I want to buy some from the store, take it home, and enjoy it in my own, safe environment, with friends and people I can trust. Is that so hard to ask? It's not like it's any less safe than stuff like alcohol or tobacco, in fact there isn't even any known LD50 yet. The only risk is things being sold as LSD that aren't actually, which is basically the same scenario as the current opioid crisis.
> And remember - we did have a long experiment with legally prescribed opioids, and their widespread availability contributed to the current addiction crisis.
People couldn't just go to a store; trusted family advisors were overprescribing due to intentionally misleading advertising. The addiction crisis is what happens when insurance no longer covers the pills.
I'd say the addiction crisis started when people got addicted. The attendant economic and social crisis then got worse as legal pills became less available. But whether someone gets addicted by way of an overprescribing doctor or by way of picking a bottle of laudinum off the shelf at a liquor store, that person is probably going to become addicted. The question is whether that means they'll have to go looking for potentially dangerous street drugs.
I thought the drug laws in question were, or rather had to be, enacted at the state level. Why does the issue seem to be most pronounced in Portland but not as significant in the rest of Oregon?
What would be different if the experiment was done on a national scale? It seems to me that you would still see the worst impacts confined to a few major cities. I would hypothesize that other factors come into play like lax enforcement/penalties for petty crime, availability of free support services, and general sentiment/tolerance of degeneracy (though it sounds like that is changing.)
It's really, really bad in Eugene, Oregon. And Salem is a mess too. But the Portland metro is by an order of magnitude more populous. It's also desperately underfunded, and it's got a situation in which the populace mostly hates the police, and the police feel the same way back. (Which led to an amazing announcement during early Covid, when people were being assaulted and houses broken into all over the city):
This effect hasn't worn off. And the combination of lawlessness and drug availability in Portland has led to a massive influx of people from every other part of the country that has less tolerance for a combination of open drug use + antisocial behavior. I don't think support services even register as part of the draw. There are no cops here and drugs are everywhere, it's open season on people who own property (still), or just anyone walking down the street with $10 in his pocket.
It's a separate subject whether the Portland police are essentially allowing this because (a) they're pissed off at the DA who won't prosecute anyone they arrest and (b) they're pissed off at the denizens and (c) they can't even hire anyone from Portland itself, since Portlanders hate the police so much. All those are basically true, and they're holding the city hostage by not doing their job.
But this is why it doesn't work on a local level. If half the junkies in Idaho weren't robbing people here to buy fentanyl, they'd have to rob people in Boise. White America did not give a fuck about the effects of street drugs on their loved ones when only Black Americans were enduring the crack epidemic. They only started to care once it affected their neighbors and their kids. Shipping those all off to the one place in the country that allows reckless abuse and has no enforcement is a way of washing their hands of their problems and blaming "liberal cities" like ours.
Yes drugs should be legalized and regulated nationally just like Portugal did. But also we should absolutely unambiguously no excuses house and feed the homeless the end full stop we have plenty of money. It just needs to be redirected to doing something productive other than paying endless assemblies of bureaucrats competing with each other to virtue signal the loudest.
Because the reason people get hooked on to drugs is they have nothing better to do with their lives and they've run out of Hope but that runs straight into the effective altruist and effective acceleration as the gender here so it's not going to happen.
Portugal arrests and jails people for dealing drugs, as well as for public displays of disorder.[0]
>> Police take the person to a police station and weigh the drugs. If the weight exceeds amounts specified for personal use, then the person is charged and tried as a drug trafficker and can receive prison sentences of 1–14 years. Otherwise, the next day, the person appears at the Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction for an interview by a psychologist or social worker. Next comes an appearance before a three-person panel that will provide guidance about how to stop drug use.
This is the stick which accompanies the carrot. The trouble with decriminalization in Portland is that there's no stick. Sure - make drugs legal, I don't care what people do with their bodies! But make sure they don't become a menace.
Housing the homeless is really a separate topic. I'm all for making sure that no one in this country is ever homeless. The drug culture, however, in Portland is comprised mostly of able young men and women under the age of 30. They're willfully homeless because they've given up the idea of having a life, in favor of the drugs they're on.
You say there are no excuses about housing and feeding the homeless. But facts on the ground are: There is a highly visible group of people who are choosing to be homeless, robbing people and serving their own addiction, and (1) people who are actually homeless not by their own fault are the first victims of this, and (2) the general population here who are extremely caring are absolutely sick of it. The backlash is inevitable, and no amount of moralizing will change that.
I don't believe in "effective altruism" or "acceleration" - I think a 4-day work week or a universal basic income is a recipe for disaster. People need to feel a purpose. Hell, even dogs and horses need a purpose, or they get depressed. Accommodating their worst impulses is worse than doing nothing at all.
Heroin is very different from Tequila, so I don't think it's fair to compare them just because they are both "drugs".
Prior to fentanyl, what was the percentage of high functioning heroin addicts compared to people living on the street? I can't find any research on that question, and I'm somewhat skeptical that your friend is the norm.
> Heroin is very different from Tequila, so I don't think it's fair to compare them just because they are both "drugs".
Very true, alcohol is much worse by most metrics, both in terms of number of addicts, number of deaths/year [1][2] and general damage done to the body. [3][4]. (I'm not trying to be cynical, just stating facts.)
> Prior to fentanyl, what was the percentage of high functioning heroin addicts compared to people living on the street? I can't find any research on that question, and I'm somewhat skeptical that your friend is the norm.
There's no data on self-reported addiction, for obvious reasons, but there is data on overdoses: "Fatalities involving only heroin appear to form a minority of overdose occasions, the presence of other drugs (primarily central nervous system depressants such as alcohol and benzodiazepines) being commonly detected at autopsy." [5]
I've met good people addicted to heroin. They've been through more hell than the rest of us can ever understand, almost entirely because of those times when they couldn't access it. If I could press a button to forever ban them access to any opioid, I'd press that button; they'd get over it in a few months and thank me. But that's impossible. The second best option is to allow them access to a clean, low-cost, prescription of it for the rest of their life.
Those stats aren't per capita. That page says 902,000 Americans use heroin annual and 14,000 die. That is a 1.55% fatality rate. And that is strictly overdoses. Any death to which heroin contributed but isn't an overdose isn't counted.
141,000 Americans die from the effects of alcohol each year. That would include factors such as increased heart attacks, etc. It is not merely looking at deaths from delerium tremens or the like.
Nonetheless, 177 million Americans[1] use alcohol annually. That is a 0.079% fatality rate.
So, the [direct + indirect] deaths from alcohol are 19.6x smaller per user than the direct deaths from heroin. I would wager if you included indirect effects, the difference is 100x or more against heroin.
The per capita number only matter if you believe that legalization would increase the number of heroin addicts. There is no reason to believe that, and any legalization effort should be done to prevent that as much as possible.
I know drug consumption usually go up when legalized, but a regulated heroin market would ideally be under very strict regulation, much stricter then alcohol or weed. It would most likely involve getting a prescription and buying it at a pharmacy. There would probably be strict no advertising and no branding. As well as a strict non-profit requirements for makers and distributes.
>I've met good people addicted to heroin. They've been through more hell than the rest of us can ever understand, almost entirely because of those times when they couldn't access it. If I could press a button to forever ban them access to any opioid, I'd press that button; they'd get over it in a few months and thank me. But that's impossible. The second best option is to allow them access to a clean, low-cost, prescription of it for the rest of their life.
How can you say both of these things? People who try to act like alcohol is worse than Heroin do more harm than good, but you even seem to understand it is worse with your last paragraph.
Of the hundreds of millions of users of alcohol, surely we don't even have to look up a study to find that the percentage of people who "been through more hell than the rest of us can ever understand, almost entirely because of those times when they couldn't access it" is less than Heroin.
> The second best option is to allow them access to a clean, low-cost, prescription of it for the rest of their life
Meaning after a few times of someone finding black market heroin, they can prove addiction - and then get it for low cost on the taxpayers dime, indefinitely and forever. Even better, the heroin addicts with less restraint about only using their supply will know who to beat and steal from to get more.
I'm not saying addicts are inherently bad people. I am saying heroin users are unlikely to have the self-control to stick to their prescribed amount, every day for the rest of their lives. We all have bad days and need something to make them suck less.
> Very true, alcohol is much worse by most metrics, both in terms of number of addicts, number of deaths/year [1][2] and general damage done to the body. [3][4]. (I'm not trying to be cynical, just stating facts.)
That heroin is illegal and prosecuted is going to massively skew the number of people who are likely ever try it or could develop a safe habit around it.
How valid the comparison is between Tequila and Heroine is irrelevant. What is relevant here is harm reduction for the addict. In both cases legalization result in harm reduction. Yes legalized and regulated heroine is still very harmful for an addict, but unregulated and illegal heroine has the potential to be way more harmful then a regulated legal one, potentially deadly. The same logic also applies to illegal and unregulated gin (just to a lesser extent).
And legalized heroin has the potential to create more addicts who would be subjected to the harm of addiction, and their friends and families would be subjected to the harms of seeing their loved ones addicted.
Your argument is tired. There is no such thing as a functional heroin addict. Most don't quit after a 20 year on and off relationship with it. They die and usually cause mayhem in the process - to society, their loved ones, the healthcare system, law enforcement, etc. I'm dealing with a very serious addict in my life right now and how "clean" the drug is makes no difference. They steal and lie non-stop. They cause massive amounts of anxiety and stress to people who love them. They disappear for weeks on end and every time you get a text or call, you think its someone saying they're dead. They treat you like a monster if you don't want to engage with their BS anymore. They claim to want "help" but when push comes to shove, they want to be enabled. After many years of this, you realize that some people simply want to live this lifestyle. The war on drugs was extreme in one direction, and your suggestion, is in the other.
> There is no such thing as a functional heroin addict
I don't have time to really get into the weeds for this discussion, but I can at least do the weaker refutation of this very general claim by way of a counterexample. Professor Carl Hart is one such example that came up in a seminar on substance use disorder during my undergraduate program in integrative neuroscience. [0]
I'm sorry you're dealing with someone who does not have a functional, productive relationship with a substance. What you're describing is true of a lot of things though, not just "hardcore" drugs. If you've lived with or know a gambling/sex addict you know exactly what I'm referring to. How these things hijack our neurology is really complex and it unfortunately boils down to more than "avoid these high risk things". Not sure if you have access to academic journals, but public libraries often can provide access to reputable research on substance use disorder in humans, as well as actual experimentation in animal models such as mice. There are a lot of people whose incentives align with yours for tackling this problem, and the solutions they propose are worth a shot. Clearly the war on drugs has not worked and we agree on that at least. What are we going to try next?
There is a critical difference between heroin, and heroin laced with uknown amounts of a fentanyl analog. The adulterated stuff kills even first time people experimenting with drugs.
Joe Perry & Steven Tyler (Aerosmith's "Toxic Twins") are still here. Clapton lives. So does Led Zeppelin's Jimmy Page.
All those guys would be long dead if there had been fentanyl lacing back in the 70's.
That's a little bit like the football-betting-sequence fallacy -- if I send a thousand letters out, with 50% predicting team A wins and 50% predicting team B wins, and do so successively for 10 weeks, at the end of the 10 weeks a small number of people will have gotten my letters "correctly predicting" the football outcome 10 times in a row. But of course, I didn't know anything about the games.
You can name a few of the richest people ever to do drugs who haven't died -- but how many have? And how many people without resources to pull them back from consequences of an overdose have died versus have used long-term and lived?
(For the record, I think I'm not really on the other side of the larger argument here, but I don't think your argument here is a convincing one.)
I may be wrong, but I thought we were discussing how many regularly-heroin-using people die early, not how many people try heroin once and subsequently become addicted.
Oh I interpreted the thread to be talking about heroine use in general. Could go either way I guess, there's a lot of comments at this point.
Though ime most users don't die. Which is why I support legalization. What I watched happened with my drug phase and others, it was mostly a phase and people just needed time, support and patience to get through to other side. There might be extreme examples ruining it for all, but I saw a lot of people stop after some serious use.
Unfortunately some die because of the policy we have like a few people I knew personally. All uncessarry.
> I'm dealing with a very serious addict in my life right now and how "clean" the drug is makes no difference. They steal and lie non-stop. They cause massive amounts of anxiety and stress to people who love them.
There are plenty of people who fit this description, and heroin isn't the root cause of their problem. It's just a symptom of a deeper problem. For every person like this, there's someone who dabbles with heroin/etc and still goes to work every day and has a healthy relationship with their family.
The source is my personal experience dealing with individuals involved in addiction. No amount of "experts" claiming we need to legalize hardcore drugs is going to change my opinion, thats for sure.
I'll hear the research, but it won't change my mind. I just want them to stop because its killing them. They aren't young. Every time they use is a major rolling of the dice. Many an ER visits have occurred. I don't really care if the drug is legal or not. Same would go with alcohol if that was the poison of choice. And yes, it is an emotional place to make an argument, because its personal, not some stranger you read about on the 4th page of the Tuesday paper OD'ing (which probably isn't even news anymore).
This is the fallacy of scientism. You don't have to do a peer-reviewed research paper to see the truth. Firsthand observation is still the primary way we know the truth. Research depends on observations, not the other way around.
> According to her, a lot of overdoses are due to almost no "heroin" actually being heroin, rather its fentanyl cut to varying degrees of strength.
Anyone knows that who followed current events during the opiod epidemic and read some Wikipedia on it.
And actually, it's not just fentanyl, but fentanyl-like compounds that, even if controlled to the same concentration, have varying degrees of strength.
"The structural variations among fentanyl-related substances can impart profound pharmacological differences between these drugs, especially with respect to potency and efficacy"
You don't know which fentanyl analog is in that heroin dose, and how much of it.
It’s a lot, but not a crazy amount. Chemistry scales combinatorically, so if you find a single nitrogen to put a little e.g. acidic group on you’ve got yourself a couple of hundred possible substituents, many of which may have a similar effect on the body.
In Portland and generally agree. And the people saying alcohol isn’t comparable should look at the stats - death from alcohol is a huge, but normalized and largely invisible issue.
Legalizing will reduce violence, reduce accidental overdoses and poisonings, and give the state regular contact points with users (to hopefully funnel them to assistance). Safe use sites would go some way towards hiding the problem if managed well.
Legalizing will not solve the problem of addiction. It will not solve overdoses (many overdoses are not caused by surprise differences in dose; people often overdose after relapse, or deliberately seek out stronger than usual supplies).
We have to accept that legalizing will solve some problems, but will likely keep killing at least some people.
Housing is another solution to hiding the problem. But housing just hides the drug use problem. It will probably also kill people - people who overdose on the sidewalk are more likely to be narcaned than people using alone.
Free housing + free drugs for opiate addicts would go a long ways towards solving the issue for everyone who isn’t an opiate addict, and probably cheaper than imprisoning or healing addicts.
I’d prefer treatment but the local officials have already proven incapable of that. The county is already very good at handing out needles, smoking kits, and boofing literature, so handing out fetty should be a very light lift administratively.
Housing plus making it legal to use in shared spaces is a good start. E.g some shelters in Seattle have a covered/seating location outside, in sight of the front desk, and residents are encouraged to use there instead of in their rooms so that they can be seen and cared for.
You should watch what is happening in British Colombia, Canada right now.
They have decriminalized possessing less than 2.5 grams of
- Opioids (such as heroin, morphine, and fentanyl)
- Crack and powder cocaine
- Methamphetamine (Meth)
- MDMA (Ecstasy)
It's a trial basis from Jan 31 2023 until Jan 31 2026, so we should get a good amount of data and evidence to see if this leads to better or worse outcomes for people and society as a whole.
Well a lot of reasons people turns to drugs in the USA is because doctors and pharmacists give them strong painkillers way to easily to begin with.
For instance oxycodone and many powerful painkillers are afaik not available as tablets in many countries, only given through IV's and injections in hospitals for serious enough conditions, or under serious constraints like palliative treatments. If you are recovering from an injury and are allowed to leave hospital, all what you should be allowed to take is paracetamol or ibuprofen for a limited time and that's it.
We shouldn't have to enter war against pain. Pain is not necessarily harmful, they are useful signals that can let people assess their recovery and physical state. Trying to avoid pain is trying to avoid reality. It is deemed to fail.
Nobody should take opiods painkillers for minor injuries and ailments, it just doesn't make sense.
to me it seems like you need a strongly enforced social norm that doesn't include all the worst bits of drug abuse (crime, public defecation, graffiti, other public nuisance/problem things) regardless of whether you legalize and regulate or make it extremely illegal. My preference would be for legalize and regulate and social order enforcement because it would cause a lot less misery but I don't see how this works if people are going to be allowed to leave needles everywhere, routinely vandalize and break into cars and buildings, etc. We should have never gotten rid of the enforcement aspect for the bad behavior when we we getting rid of the criminal aspect of the drug use.
Decriminalizing test kits that let you identify the presence of fentanyl in other drugs would be a great start - but those are instead illegal and classified as “paraphernalia”.
That law was already fixed in Portland (and the rest of Oregon). Test strips are still classified as paraphernalia, but there’s a carve out making them legal now.
The only time I've ever been on fentanyl was in a hospital, and the nurse described it to me as the "Michael Jackson drug". I actually enjoyed the gallows humor of the nurses, as I felt it brought down the tension in an otherwise serious environment.
Its very different, in that I can walk in off the street and buy alcohol. As far as I know, there is noplace I can legally buy fentanyl without a prescription.
Indeed! I think the point is that "legalization" and "regulation" can take pretty different forms, not necessarily the for of the substance being generally available.
Not all addictions are the same. Nicotine is extremely addictive but you will never have a total breakdown of your life which is essentially a guarantee with heroin, whether you get it legally or not. There is no such thing as a functional heroin addict (outside of extremely rare cases). Even if they received very pure heroin for free they would be dead within the next decade or two.
> She decided to get clean only when she had a close brush with death thanks to fentanyl.
Under your system she would've never decided to get clean then? Also dying much earlier than she would've had to and probably adding a bunch of burden to the health system. People chastice cigarete smokers for much less.
I'm genuinely curious why you think she should get clean. I fail to see what sort of burden she'd put on the health care system. AFAIK, long term opoid use is less dangerous than cigarette smoking, and the highest danger is of falls.
(https://fpm.ac.uk/opioids-aware-clinical-use-opioids/long-te...)
That's when the user knows what they're taking..
Because the few people I knew in real life that did it died and all the people I know that didn't do it are still alive. One of them was a single mom and left a 12 year old alone.
If you ask that guy who is today an adult, I can tell you he doesn't have second thoughts and would probably punch you in the face if you told him that heroine had no bad effects.
When it comes to dangerous drugs, nothing "works". We have to choose the least-bad policies.
A lot of people, including me, thought the war on drugs was pretty much the worst policy position. Now I'm seeing that there are (perhaps) worse policies. We need to be quantitative and nuanced, not speak in sweeping characterizations.
I think the actual problem is people can’t seem to just use enough to stay functional. Given the legal opportunity to purchase heroin, most people will absolutely overdo it.
There are people with substance abuse problems and addictive behaviour that goes way beyond any particular drug. It's often a condition that needs treatment.
"Given the legal opportunity to purchase X, some people will absolutely overdo it." This goes for some ridiculous things like Pokemon cards or collectible shoes as well. Should we ban those?
I think this is a good point. I've never been high on opiates, but I've heard it described as "an orgasm over your whole body". How are you going to allow everyone that option and expect anyone _not_ to just check-out of reality, reduce all their other living expenses, and just live to get high?
When Bayer created heroin and brought it to market in the late 19th century, is this what happened? I don't know for sure, but I've never read about that having been a problem when it was available over the counter from a reputable brand.
Surely some people became addicted to it (not that different from alcohol, nicotine, fatty sweets, or various prescription drugs), but it didn't destroy society.
The 21st century opioid crisis that’s being unraveled right now with the Sacklers and Purdue pharma would tell a different story. Of course it wasn’t over the counter.
One thing that’s missing in a lot of these discussions is strength and education. What strength was the Bayer drugs vs things available today, and how well informed was the average person that this was a product they could access recreationally.
> 2) What gives you the right to tell people to not do something pleasurable?
this is a really good question and I had to think about it a lot. I think if all other variables were equal, I would have no problem with people doing something pleasurable. In contrast to say, a strict religious fanatic who vociferously preaches against wanking or rock music.
However, I think we can both agree that opiate withdrawals are not pleasurable, nor is the change in an addict's personality when they start putting drugs high and above everything else in life. I think we can also agree that there is a continuity between "pleasurable" and "not pleasurable", and opiates give the user so much pleasure that pales in comparison to anything else. Enough to substantially change their personality, for at least the ones who are susceptible to it (as you pointed out, not everyone becomes instantly addicted). So that's where my case for prohibition comes from.
There's the whole "Rat Park Experiment" that I think deserves a mention. Whether the experiment itself has been debunked (I can't remember) is irrelevant. I think it's worth asking the same question of Portland: is there opportunity here? Can someone get an entry-level job and be happy? If not, why? This is a liberal, government-micromanaged city. Why are things so dismal that people are choosing not to work? (If you wonder why I'm suddenly making this a partisan issue, it's because (1) the government has their hands on all the controls so obviously they could fix things, and (2) people are suggesting regulation of dope, so if the gov can't regulate a simple local economy, why would we think they can suddenly be the new dope dealer?). Why don't they double down on their taxes and fees and manipulate the city such that an entry-level, full-time employee at Dollar General or Taco Bell
can rent his own apartment, raise a family with their spouse, have healthcare, own a car, have a vacation, and a 401k? The reason is because the far left doesn't actually represent the people. They'd rather distract everyone with gender pronouns and anti-racism red-herrings while their own citizens check-out of the late-stage capitalist hellscape their government created for them.
> for at least the ones who are susceptible to it (as you pointed out, not everyone becomes instantly addicted).
And, see, this is the crux. You are banning something for everyone even though only a smaller number seem to be susceptible.
The problem is that this applies to a whole bunch of things: porn, gambling, alcohol, etc. Why heroin and not alcohol which, in many ways, is much worse than heroin?
I agree that the base problem is that life sucks for many people, and we need to fix that. However, that problem is going to be slow in fixing, and we need interim, probably sub-optimal solutions in the meantime.
Wrapping this topic up, I realized something very relevant to PDX I wish I had mentioned originally: the fucking weather. Constantly living under gloomy skies and rain has long-term affects on mental health. I would love to see a graph - controlled for all other variables - of opiate abuse vs avg sunshine.
I had some opium tea when I was in Egypt and let me tell you, it was so cheap, and it felt so good that I would absolutely do it every day if I had the chance.
One or way or another, none of us are getting out of this alive. Not sure where the religious conviction we must save all souls comes from or has any value.
Even if one ascribes to this nihilist POV, it isn't an answer. We see the negative effects on communities, families, and people around addicts. Even if you don't care that people are destroying themselves, when they take out the surrounding area it is a problem we share.
Yeah and humans have seen it for centuries and failed to stop it
Who is to say any progress we make won’t be undid by another pandemic we cannot predict, or some nutter launching the nukes
We have political agents hell bent on war and subjugating undesirables, rather than pushback against them let’s focus on some people who don’t want to live?
Why not ask Oceangate how the war against physics is going. It will always win and erode any social progress we think we made
I don't think that's the goal. The goal is to attempt to reduce harm of something that removes freedom. Try asking a drug addict if they want to keep taking drugs. I suspect you'll be surprised at the answer. Stopping drugs would be like achieving abstinence as the primary form of contraceptive. Both are impossible because they work on the same soup of chemicals, but one has evolved with some form of continuation in mind. The other is a direct injection, orders of magnitude stronger, that just fucks up all the machinery of the brain.
Well we all better stop flying and driving if we’re set out to reduce human suffering.
But hey the toxic mess we leave for the future to suffer through won’t be our problem so shrug
This is the most disingenuous and self righteous thread I’ve ever been involved with. Traditional catechisms and stubbornness will win out against physical reality. RBG fans I guess.
> Well we all better stop flying and driving if we’re set out to reduce human suffering.
If the car has doors your can't unlock, and the plane forced you to fly or you die from withdrawals, both of which follow you around you're whole life honking their horns begging you to get back in, even if you do manage to stop, then your analogy could make sense.
Do you have any experience with addiction?
Having experience with the pain it causes, and not liking the idea of more families being ripped apart/abandoned due to a few milligrams, isn't self righteous as much as sympathetic. I think there's some compromise between complete freedom and "this thing completely removes freedom, so maybe it's a bad idea".
Both times my family wished for euthanization options rather than watch family rot
But patronizing high minds said no; in our society they must suffer until they die
Americans have spent so much time huffing toxic positivity whippets.
All the high minded worship and praise of the economy, tech, feeding notions of American exceptionalism has led us to believe we really can do anything
But we all can’t live forever and have no guarantee the future won’t just screw it all up again
Physics rules, not human philosophy. Reality itself is the root of our misery. There’s no eradicating suffering without eliminating humans; we cannot violate physics and the physical word fosters suffering. Erosion and entropy of all structure.
This forum is sounding way too religious. Thought it was science nerdy when I signed up but it’s just typical “America great!”
You don’t have to watch others rot just because they are alive - you are choosing to stay alive to do so, and can change your mind at any time without imposing on anyone else’s rights.
You seem to argue for ultimate freedom for others as some abstract goal while ignoring how you take from others by existing
You generate waste and increase costs by reducing resources for others
You get in the way of others free agency due to management of your mess
Just by existing you impose yourself on others. Stop pretending physical reality doesn’t apply to you an vacuous political poetry about rights waves away externalized burdens your elder self will foist on the next generation to preserve your perception of rights at the cost of them to perceive what they value for themselves
I’ve been in pain from surgery multiple times, it’s awful. You’d leave dying people in pain to suffer through it versus violate spoken tradition of the dead. Our own experiences mean nothing to you, just adherence to philosophy.
> Well we all better stop flying and driving if we’re set out to reduce human suffering.
No, we're better off regulating safety, setting increasingly strict pollution and mileage standards, and continuing to update laws to eliminate behaviors such as DUI or texting to continue to have those freedoms while limiting externalities.
Humans have absolutely stopped it in places with draconian laws. The use of heroin in Singapore, other parts of south east Asia and parts of the Middle East is essentially zero because they give traffickers the death penalty and jail the few users for a very long time. If you can truly secure your borders and you can’t grow poppy in your country there will be no heroin.
By that logic, we should remove any suicide prevention or other mental health support as well. Allowing, even encouraging, people to suffer when the very nature of their disease destroys their agency should be repugnant to everyone. Religion is a red herring here.
You won’t be saying the same thing when it’s your kid that’s “out of the way”. Making heroin easily accessible means someone that does it a handful of times is truly hooked. Your life is essentially a struggle from that point out.
> you could have "functional addicts" that cause little or no societal harm
Yeah, I don't know about that – plenty of "functional alcoholics" around, sure, but also plenty of not-so-functional alcoholics around, as well as the wife-and-kid-beater alcoholics.
Heroin is not alcohol and doesn't induce aggression in the same way, but it's also a lot more addictive, and especially at low wages getting your daily dose can be a challenge – so "junkies" will not be eliminated outright. I consider it an open question whether they will be reduced – it's very possible (perhaps even plausible), but I certainly wouldn't consider it a forgone conclusion.
> My friend's relative was a functional addict on and off for 20 years.
Dick van Dyke was a chain-smoker until well in to his 70s and he's currently doing well at the age of 97.
These are the sort of things where you really need to look at overall effects and statistics, rather than individual cases.
Hard disagree. Decriminalizing drugs has skyrocketed schizophrenia and homelessness. Drugs should only be legalized in specific, medically necessary situations. Recreational use should be stigmatized and dealers should be handled as Duterte advocated.
The crime of the War on Drugs was that we had double standards, not that we had a War on Drugs.
This sounds like you're advocating a stance where anyone who shows up to a music festival with a bag of weed for their friends should be shot. That's a rather extreme position that seems much worse than the potential harms from the drug itself. Can you go into more detail?
Your argument is a strawman because the people on the streets are not there because they are addicted to weed. China has learnt this the hard way when opium almost destroyed their nation and lead to a century of humiliation, I don't see why the US wants or should repeat the same mistake.
> Recreational use should be stigmatized and dealers should be handled as Duterte advocated.
Are you arguing that no recreational or unsanctioned use of any banned substance should be tolerated?
For context:
- MDMA shows promise treating PTSD. Currently Schedule 1 - total ban
- Psilocybin and other psychedelics reportedly beneficial for end-of-life care, notably in the case of cancer patients. Currently Schedule 1 - total ban
- Marijuana is also still Schedule 1 at the federal level
Schedule 1 is normally also a ban on research but luckily we've seen some improvement in this area. Why? Because the illegal market still exists, and people __do__ discover genuine medical uses for currently banned substances
"Decriminalizing drugs caused the increase in homelessness" seems like a really strong assertion to make considering all the other things that have happened in this same time period.
GP’s coded language (“should be handled as Duterte advocated”) is advocating for summary executions for those committing nonviolent, victimless offenses, carried out between consenting adults.
This is not sensible, nor does it even respect basic human dignity. To elevate it or advocate for it is evil.
I mean, I remember how things were before fentanyl came around (as an outside observer, not as a user) and heroin was a horrible, life-destroying drug addiction back then as well. And I think it was and is convincingly argued that it is much more addictive than alcohol.
Opioids keep the top spot of addictiveness. The second place firmly belongs to nicotine. It's way more addictive than. say, cocaine.
Why not ban nicotine, by the same logic as heroin?
The key difference is that nicotine is a mere stimulant, while heroin alters your perception, it literally changes the way you see good and bad, because it's the ultimate feel-good substance. I have zero qualms about legalizing LSD, psilocybin, ketamine, etc. Likely even cocaine. But legalization of opioids would require a lot of preliminary work, to somehow allow the addicts function in a socially compatible way when badly wanting a dose.
It must be noted that a physiological addiction to opiates does not form from a first dose, and not even from the first ten doses, so infrequent recreational use is possible, given a right psychological preparation. This is similar to alcohol.
Because smokers can hold jobs and are productive members of society. Unlike meth and heroin, nicotine does not make people attack other people, does not make people miss work, does not make people irresponsible.
It's my understanding that street drugs like Heroin were frequently cut to varying, sometimes unpredictable degrees prior to the introduction of fentanyl. So you could still easily misjudge your dose and OD due to the lack of any kind of consistency. Presumably this would also make it even harder to try to taper off the addiction gradually.
Surely we can solve this inability to regulate with even more regulation. Just one more regulation bro... trust me bro. Just a bit more power and money to the government bro. It's all gonna be great! Just give a little bit more in taxes, bro. It's going to be a utopia, you'll see!
Has there been any research into how to measure potency (of fentanyl) and cut it properly? Maybe we could keep the government out of it, and instead give information and supplies to measure the potency correctly? I've heard that one way OD's happen is the substance is not homogeneous, so they can consume half the bag fine, then one dose is super-charged and puts them into OD (because fent can be up to thousands of times stronger than a morphine equivalent). Maybe teach addicts how to dissolve their dope in a liquid and reconstitute it so it's homogeneous in potency? Addicts can be extremely cunning with their drive to get money for dope, so I dont see why they can't use that will power to their advantage. I wonder if they could also get a primitive CPAP machine to keep them breathing if they do OD? IIRC death comes from lack of breathing, not acute toxicity or anything.
Your post is a prime example of the classic engineering approach of efficiently solutioning the immediate technical problem without solving the actual root cause because it's too complex or messy. I mean, CPAP machines for drug addicts because street fentanyl is too potent and inconsistent?
> Has there been any research into how to measure potency (of fentanyl) and cut it properly?
Yes?
When you're having surgery and the anesthesiologist uses a mixture of fentanyl and propofol, such that you safely wake up, they aren't just guessing.
One problem is that what's out on the street isn't necessarily fentanyl in the first place, but any one of hundreds of fentanyl analogs, which all vary in potency. You have no idea whether what you're measuring is fentanyl.
If you "give information and supplies", how do you keep the government out of it? At the very least, the government has to decriminalize what you're doing. Then what; someone has to pay for it. What about liability? If someone dies and it turns out you gave them the supplies, you're liable.
The anesthesiologist doesn't pull out a test strip and check (measure) the purity of the fent they pump the patient with, so you are incorrect. I'm suggesting providing addicts with the tools to measure their own dope's potency so they can avoid OD.
Are many of them going to care? I imagine testing would be useful for pill-takers at festivals, but something that is a daily addiction dominating life seems a different case.
> I imagine testing would be useful for pill-takers at festivals
And many people bring test kits to festivals and raves and clubs and bars already. So this is 100% a proven solution for light recreational party usage.
I agree with skepticism about addicts (especially someone living on the street, etc)
You are talking about harm mitigation, and when options are made available there is very enthusiastic take-up from even street addicts. If you create a safe injection center people will come and use there, so there is medical care. If you distribute drug test kits they will use them. If you offer clean needles they will use them.
We don’t offer them in most places because (a) nobody wants a safe drug use center near them because drug users will come to it and (b) a really despicable and unfortunately common attitude that harm reduction is bad because it keeps drug users alive.
Considering that alcohol is, by far, the most dangerous drug and it's completely legal, I think there's something to be said for your point.
I gotta say though, it's sort of complicated when you're talking about legalizing things that are already legal as prescription drugs (like opiates and benzos). Alcohol is different because it doesn't really have any medical use outside of disinfecting things (it's fairly terrible as an anesthetic or as a tranquilizer), but there's something kind of weird about having former prescription drugs just be legal over the counter. How many people might bypass their doctor and start using strong opiates for pain that might not need it and end up in a bad spot?
I don't think you can go so far as like w/ alcohol where you just show an ID and buy whatever you want, but it does seem like there needs to be some way to ensure the product is safe. Maybe a compromise might be some sort of free testing kits, or something like narcan on hand in a safe space.
Sydney and a large number of other cities about the globe have injecting centres and decades of public reporting on crime, death, etc. in the vicinty of such centres.
They're an interesting middle ground - dedicated medical centres that allow users to inject with clean needles, test drugs for purity, and have narcan and crash carts available for complications.
You arrive, show ID, inject your drugs, chill for 20 minutes or so, and then leave.
The long term results are no increase in crime, reduction in death from overdose and dirty needle infections, HIV, etc, improvement in drug quality (now that the users can readily test quality there's more discernment in the market and a reduction in blatant over cutting bad mixes into the illegal supply).
Public drug use | shooting up is still illegal - this is reduced as there is a centre to go to, etc.
One other benefit is being able to easily and routinely survey drug users and adapt public policy to changing situations on the ground, early detection of changes in illegal supply, etc.
They cost money to run, they save money on reduction in public funds spent on the problems they reduce.
It sounds like the primary benefit is reduced ODs for the drug addicts. Does it do anything to benefit productive members of society? Do libraries go back to to being libraries? Do parks once again serve as a place to relax and recreate with family or friends? Does it clean the sidewalk and make them disability-accessible again? Does it stop the property crimes that are committed to buy drugs?
It's an absurd level of misdirected empathy to redirect such massive parts of the society's collective effort to benefit a few people who had some amount of agency in ruining their own lives.
How it worked in Amsterdam in the 90ies is that the government also started to provide the drugs (Methadon) for the heroin addicts… The addicts were responsible for lots of petty crime in order to fund their habit (stealing car radios, muggings) and this decreased. So this helped make the city a more liveable place, not just for addicts.
Alcohol is only more dangerous because so many more people use alcohol over hard drugs. When you look at the per capita rate, hard drugs kill more people.
Alcohol withdrawal is potentially much more dangerous than withdrawal from most other substances. Withdrawal is always miserable of course, but seizures, blood pressure, elevated pulse, hallucinations, etc. can be fatal in the case of alcohol without treatment. You also have to consider that the first product that alcohol is metabolized into, acetaldehyde, is extremely toxic, attacking multiple organs and also causing lovely things like dna damage.
The thing about most (not all) illegal drugs is most of them have some sort of positive usage outside of abuse. Opiates can be effective for pain, benzodiazepines for acute anxiety, stimulants for ADHD or narcolepsy, etc. Alcohol despite its useful social role (I'm not telling you all to be tee-totallers) is basically just a poison that has a small handful of short term nice effects and a long tail of effects that are a disaster.
Anyway, I question the math in the other post about heroin because it's essentially ignoring the dangers of a bad supply. People do safely take other (prescribed) opiates safely. I imagine that alcohol would be a lot more dangerous if we were back in prohibition times with like bath tub gin.
It's really frustrating to see this headline. The officials decriminalized drugs, wiped their hands and backed off from any follow-up legislation to keep it working correctly. It reminds me a lot of the ACA. Officials got the bill passed and have collectively stopped making updates to the program to keep it healthy, but then constantly criticize its faults. American politics are sad in that it's hard to celebrate any victories when you know those victories are doomed to mismanagement anyway.
The 'officials' did not do that. The voters did, it was state ballot measure. They decriminalized Drugs, to encourage treatment. And moved quite a large percentage of taxes from Marajuana dispenseries to help pay for it. Then left the Oregon Health Authority in charge of distributing the money to build all these new treatment facilities. (Oregon is near the bottom in treatment centers per capita in the US).
The Oregon Health Authority then sat on that money for several years, bickering about procedures, policies, etc, and not a single dollar was sent out for several years after the law changed.
Treatment centers are finally starting to get open, years late. In the meantime, we spent years decriminalizing the drugs, while then guiding people into treatment, with no actual treatment available to them (and literally amassing hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for it, before spending anything)
I still don't see how "Drugs should be decriminalized because taking drugs is a victimless crime" and "Society needs to sync a lot of resources in tackling drug abuse" are compatible positions to hold at the same time.
Either let people do drugs and let them worry about the consequences, or, if society is going to be on the hook for the consequences, don't. There is no feasible way to hold both positions at the same time.
It's a weird false dichotomy you've set up. I don't think it's fair or true to ascribe "drugs are harmless" as the generalization of the position, "drug use should not carry criminal penalties".
If I may try to thread this needle:
- drug use has serious consequences for users directly and for society
- imprisonment is not effective at curbing drug use in individuals or systemically, because illicit drugs will always be available, see prohibition for the strongest case here
- illicit drug trafficking increases other criminal elements like gang violence, petty theft, etc, incurring high costs on society
- it is believed that addressing the causes for hardcore drug use as a mental and physical health issue may actually reduce drug use
- that work may be expensive today, but is expected to become a net positive over time as drug use declines
The idea is literally investing to fix a problem properly, rather than slapping on ever more expensive band-aid solutions as the problem gets worse.
If you don't believe health care can reduce drug use, that may be a sound position to hold, but if you believe it is effective it is absolutely not at odds to both desire investment in it and to seek decriminalization.
> - imprisonment is not effective at curbing drug use in individuals or systemically, because illicit drugs will always be available, see prohibition for the strongest case here
I disagree that hardline policies can't work. In China, there is no social safety net for drug users (nor much for anyone else), nor is there much sympathy for it, therefore...drug abuse happens for sure, but it just doesn't survive very long (one way or the other).
But regarding more permissive western cultures: imprisonment in the American system of "we put you away and don't bother with substance abuse treatment in prison" doesn't work, but there are definitely alternatives to that (flood prisons with substance abuse treatment programs).
Yes. But we are already paying more to many keep these people out of prison than in. $100k/year per unhoused neighbor on fent is hugely expensive, and they aren't even getting treatment in most cases.
Personally, this is where I hope the costs are going to come down with time. I'm content for this to be something we try, and we can measure its costs and efficacy after some real time and investment. The initial outlay and efforts are likely going to have a lot of bespoke work and trial and error, and lack economy of scale.
If after a decade it ends up being very expensive but very effective, or moderately expensive and moderately effective, or expensive and not very effective, we can make better informed decisions -- rather than stick with prison by default, just because it is cheapest for now.
It’s a hugely expensive experiment that we are primarily paying for with local funds. Can the richer cities of Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles solve our nation’s drug problem by throwing their money at it? Obviously not, and even if we were successful, our problem would just get worse (since none of these cities are closed).
Somewhere in between imprisonment and flooding prisons with substance abuse treatment programs, we'll have to stop flooding prisons with substances in the first place.
I mean if you propose we just kill addicts it might be effective in some cold, economic sense, but it sure would be great not to do that. I don’t know why you’d use china as an example unless thats what you’re suggesting.
Say we put someone in prison then treat them for drug use and it works. This person is cured, found jesus, and will never touch another drug in their life. Why would you still keep them in prison? They’d have been sentenced to a time in prison regardless. Why? Would you propose a system of early release for cured drug offenders?
That wasn’t the point. Some of addicts in China are dying, but given the lack of a social safety net at all, most are just willing not to go there. Here in the USA, you can try fent with the local idea that mom, dad, or maybe society, will put you back together. In China, none of that will happen, your chances of ruining your life are obviously high, so doing drugs isn’t really an option.
But we can’t really go there as a western country, so we try to socially reduce the consequences of drug use: not only are we not going to throw you in jail, but we are going to make sure you don’t starve/freeze to death and we will even try to cure you (even if we are going to fail at that most of the time).
If we had drug treatment in prison that worked, we would be horribly stupid not to just lean in on that. I’m totally for “go to prison but get out of you get clean.” Who wouldn’t?
How do you know that drug use is so much more rare in China? Wouldn’t this system allow it to be equally common but relegated to the shadows? Just based on what I’ve heard from a friend who grew up there, people in China go through an extremely competitive, difficult schooling to obtain a position in an extremely competitive, brutal workspace and have high rates of undiagnosed mental illness as a result. I’d be willing to bet a lot of them secretly use drugs to cope.
Do you think it’s the fact that people will be able to put you back together in the USA that gets people into it? I’d have thought they get into drugs young, when they don’t think it’s dangerous (or like that it is) then get addicted and look for things to keep getting that high on. Only other group that comes to mind is veterans coping with ptsd and people who got put on prescription painkillers, though I’m sure there are others I’m not considering. If I’m mistaken please inform me.
There’s no contradiction here. It may or may not be bad policy, but it’s not a contradiction.
Nobody’s a victim when a kid falls and breaks an arm while skateboarding, but we have programs like CHIP to help kids have access to healthcare to get that arm treated, regardless.
> Nobody’s a victim when a kid falls and breaks an arm while skateboarding, but we have programs like CHIP to help kids have access to healthcare to get that arm treated, regardless.
The kid is going to be fine after they are in a cast for a few weeks/months. A fentanyl addict, even with million of dollars over a few years of treatment, is more than likely never going to be OK again. Both involve moral hazard (if society is responsible for the consequences), but the consequences of both aren't similar at all.
This is the real issue. If you “fall” to heroin it’s not economically viable to help you get up. The cost per success is in the millions of dollars and even success is a pretty degrading state of existence. It’s not like insurance people who fall never paid in, it happens too often for that or charity care. It’s just not possible to treat everyone
If we made getting sick a crime, you could reasonably argue that it's a victimless crime, even if we choose to spend money to help people avoid getting sick and help them get better.
Perhaps they should have done the “follow-up legislation” before the decriminalization then?
I think the problem is quite the opposite from your diagnosis. There are no standards for legislation “success” or “failure”. Very few bills actually achieve their stated aims, and all the ones that don’t are kept on the books, then the results are blamed on under-budgeting, or partisan politics (which should be foreseeable if true).
I think the answer is a "follow up lawsuit." The administration had a duty to follow and implement the law as it was passed. They very clearly failed to do so, to the extent that I think it would be appropriate to begin a criminal investigation.
A rehabilitation program requires a very high level of trust from those seeking help, especially so if the program is trying to pull people off of the streets.
Re-criminalizing drug usage would make it difficult to convince people that they won't be arrested.
Admittedly, I don't know how this problem has been approached elsewhere and what was needed to actually improve things.
If decriminalization relies on a whole raft of practically infeasible (or very expensive) associated programs to make it work, is it really a viable strategy?
This embeds a lot of assumptions without offering any proof. The programs may or may not be too expensive to be practically feasible, but without supporting evidence there's nothing concrete to talk about.
We tried this cruel inhumane expensive policy for the decades called thew war on drugs and it was one of the worst failures in US history
The US has spent more than a trillion on the War on Drugs, we should use a fraction of that on housing and healthcare, instead of thinking about restarting the trillion dollar war on drugs
So what, we continue empowering our state-sponsored thugs to harass, detain, charge and imprison more and more people for the use of substances we've decided are too bad for them, while we continue selling cigarettes, alcohol, etc. to everyone else?
Decriminalization is the only ethical way to move forwards. For decades now we have abused our own populace and those of other countries to the point of parody in the name of this prohibition, and, shock of shocks, it has failed, just like prohibition did, with the added benefit of we have the documents from the Nixon administration who were quite ready to say, behind closed doors anyway, that the entire point from the start of the war on drugs was openly to fuck with hippies and black people at scale, and that was before the CIA was flooding ghettos across the country with drugs to find/launder money for their operations.
None of this has ever been about the fucking drugs, it has always been yet another cudgel wielded by the state to further it's own ends. IF we decide we need to regulate substances based on actual scientific documented evidence, not puritan sensibilities of sin and vice, then so be it and we can figure that out after the fact. But until then, the entire existing systemic infrastructure for it is frankly, poisoned. It is not fit for the task it is entrusted and should be destroyed.
Prohibition was a massive success where did you get the impression it didn't work? Nothing has ever reduced domestic violence or alcohol related deaths as much. Even after being repealed it fundamentally changed how Americans interact with alcohol; how much people drink is still massively below what is was pre-prohibition.
> Burn it down, and start over.
They did and the whole article is just about how much worse it made everything. Not just visible issues or people complaining about moral issues but OD deaths surged.
> Prohibition was a massive success where did you get the impression it didn't work? Nothing has ever reduced domestic violence or alcohol related deaths as much.
It also more or less created organized crime in the United States, and laid the foundations for every illicit-business-at-scale that would follow it. Of course it reduced alcoholism: alcohol was illegal, and anything made illegal will be necessarily reduced in availability. But it didn't get rid of it, and it made the alcohol that remained far more dangerous:
- The economics of smuggling meant that lighter alcohol like beer and wine were far less profitable to transport than hard liquors like whiskey, bourbon, vodka, and moonshine. SO MUCH moonshine.
- Because the aforementioned products were illegal, there was now zero government oversight involved in their production and distribution, meaning you often had no idea what the fuck you were actually buying and if it was any good, or hell, even safe to consume. Much like the war on drugs, and, if you wanna get REAL political, the fall of Roe v Wade, making it illegal, be it booze, smokes, pot, meth, or abortion doesn't make it not happen: it makes it unsafe.
- Worse still, the legal issues meant that if a particular establishment was selling unsafe liquor, you couldn't do shit about it because, again it's illegal and any report to authorities about the lack of safety put you in legal hot water. This meant the enforcement that did exist was basically down to the aforementioned organized crime rings, who didn't bother with a jury trial, they'd just put you in a hole out in the woods.
And, naturally, no taxes are paid on all this commerce that is very much still happening, and is riskier to the people engaged in it, to suit the puritan sensibilities of a loud minority. Which is probably a big part of why it was no longer the law of the land. And that's all before you consider the fact that it flies directly in the face of all the individual freedom that this country's supposed to be built on in the first place (not that that's usually true, but in such matters, I think we should strive for it.).
The treatment / rehab / injection / addict housing programs (and more) that are required when you decide that having people use drugs isn't something that they believe they will be punished for anymore and no longer exercise some measure of self-caution to avoid falling into. The near-hospital-like facilities and salaries of people you have to pay for to replace that self- or state-policing, and now have to clean up after those who have been given free license to use drugs, and get them back on some productive life track.
As GP was alluding to, all the things that require spending $ on, which people aren't apparently willing to spend after the symbol of voting for decriminalization. Which, if they're a mandatory part of decriminalization, but people never end up paying for, mean that decriminalization isn't actually a viable policy.
I was really hoping that for once we might have a reasoned debate about decriminalisation (or not). I can see we are yet again going down the same route of many people simply relaunching their pro/anti positions.
If you ever despair of politics, this is why; this is politics done badly.
But it doesn't. The troublemakers are a tiny percentage of the population. I guarantee the local cops know every single one of them. But there's no mechanism for diverting them from making trouble so here we are.
I think the average person (including myself) is just skeptical this is a problem worth having. A rube goldberg where everything has to go right.
It seems like the best case scenario is "We legalize drugs and then raise tax dollars and then use that money to fund programs so that people that are addicted aren't harmed too much in the long run" just seems not ideal.
I get the arguments for personal liberty, but we wouldn't allow other risky behavior that has a such huge societal cost.
There seems to be a major difference between "will pay taxes for 30 years and then be a burden on the system when you get liver disease at 60" and "will be a burden at age 30 when you need multiple mental health professionals and non-stop funds"
Sorry to hear of your sense of frustration. Can you please elaborate on what you believe was “working correctly,” and the associated superior cost-benefit tradeoffs.
Until recently Portland had a shitty local government structure that voters recently approved to modernize.
Former city council members often railed against it; as a member they’d be assigned city bureaus (fire, police…) to basically manage day to day.
Former members complained they were so busy dealing with office work rather than understanding Portlands problems in the abstract and crafting legislation. Also the mayor was on the council and did the same job.
The hope is the new system (mayor and council are now separate entities, city manager oversees bureaus so mayor and council can focus on legislative matters).
Also I’d like to point out every city in the US is a raging dumpster fire of homeless, collusion, graft, fraud… Portland isn’t unique and it’s hardly as bad as say PA cities. America is a shithole country full of FOMO obsessed fast fashion clothes, food, gadgets, and media and gives zero fucks about setting that aside to clean itself up. Garbage in garbage out
As someone who used to represent drug addicts in a past career...
Drugs are illegal for a reason. Making drugs legal just makes the problem worse; the reasons most drugs are illegal is because of the many negative side effects they impose on users...and others.
Voluntary rehab and counseling don't work. Permissive policies don't work. There are literally thousands of shelters beds empty each night in LA, SF, and Portland because drug addicts would rather keep their drugs and paraphernalia than have a warm, safe space. The rare rich person who can control their habit or the consequences of their drug use because they've got a wealthy family to take care of them shouldn't be the basis for determining policy for the hundreds of people who can't.
Forced rehab works. Imprisonment works. Losing custody works. Some amount of externally-inflicted mental pain is necessary to overcome addiction to serious drugs like meth and cocaine because without it an addict will never develop the mental fortitude to stop using.
Imo the US (and most countries) really fucked up putting Marijuana down in the same tier as hard drugs.
I feel a lot of people think since Marijuana isn't that bad, neither are the others. Which leads to the number of people voting for these 'decriminalize all drugs' policies.
Doesn't help when you see people comparing Heroin to alcohol or nicotine as well...
Marijuana, like all psychoactive drugs, is known to trigger latent mental disorders, which is the primary reason it was made a controlled drug in the first place. It is also known to cause infertility in men and women due to the interaction between THC and various hormones.
It also has a number of other negative health effects (e.g., lung cancer, popcorn lung, asthma, etc.) if smoked as weed or vaped which are generally avoided if marijuana is consumed as an edible or liquid.
I lived in Portland before the decriminalization laws passed in 2020, and from my perspective, drugs were already effectively decriminalized for the in-your-face-homeless, which I think is the most obvious social problem that people in Portland are trying to fix. At least that is my view based on the very common observation of people doing hard drugs in public.
The people drugs weren't decriminalized for before 2020 were the mostly normal citizens. After all, if someone has a house or a job or a car, you can take that away from them by punishing them, and that is what the cops would do. But if someone is already sleeping on the street, is arresting them and having them spend a few nights in jail and then going back out the streets going to change anything?
A cop might walk right past a man smoking meth in the street, but if you get pulled over for a broken headlight, and the cops might call out drug sniffing dogs, find a small amount of heroin in your possession, and throw you in jail for months.
What if they spent more than a few nights in corrective housing? Actually drying out, and getting treatment? I get that you can't force someone to want to get better, but you can lock them away if they refuse and keep breaking the law. Right? The whole situation is horrible. I moved away from Portland around the turn of the century, and it's unrecognizable to me when I go back to visit family.
What if we...i don't know, actually helped people!?
Nothing, absolutely nothing, will change until this country starts actually helping people.
* Quality drug treatment that is paid for by the state/federal level.
* Job training/retraining that is paid for at the state/federal level.
* Affordable, high quality education that helps people not get interested in, have time for, be so full of despair that they resort to these hard drugs.
* Quality, affordable, accessible mental health services IN ADVANCE of a crisis.
Locking people up or making drugs illegal will change nothing but cause there to be more pain.
> Locking people up or making drugs illegal will change nothing but cause there to be more pain.
Making drugs illegal and locking people up, or straight up executing them, is actually extremely effective at stopping drug addiction, as seen in many east Asian countries, particularly Japan, Korea and Singapore. As well as the middle east.
It's an uncomfortable truth for the Western world because we don't like strict punishments for nonviolent crimes, and for good reason. But let's not pretend that the heavy-handed corporal punishment approach doesn't work.
Most crimes committed by adults should carry much harsher penalties across the board. There's far too much sympathy for the criminals and not nearly enough for the victims and communities that have to tolerate their nonsense.
Having worked in shelters, these are all nice ideas and would take an amount of funding and staffing tantamount to freeway construction. Except freeway construction pays more and is a lot more pleasant.
> What if we...i don't know, actually helped people!?
This I support 100%.
> paid for by the state/federal level
This I can't. That's not "we" in any sense or form; that's other people's money taken away from them by violence or threat of violence.
If you encourage people to help others (as we should!), then we should help people ourselves. Not delegate it to others, especially if they're not doing it voluntarily.
> If you encourage people to help others (as we should!), then we should help people ourselves. Not delegate it to others, especially if they're not doing it voluntarily.
What if that reduces our policies, in every area, to zero effectiveness?
You’re assuming a populace that doesn’t already have 90% of what you just proposed and still ignores it instead to commit immoral acts and destroy society
This is the right answer and it is hopefully one people will converge on, although true to form it will be after trying everything else. Its super frustrating in a lot of cities right now because the current political environment seems to want to have a "stochastic junkie" if you will. When it comes to violence, disorder, theft and just generally refusing to be part of society in a non-harmful way all we get right now is a ton of verbiage about how addiction is a disease, these people can't be held responsible for the actions they've undertaken, they're serving their addiction, etc, etc, etc. And so then someone says "Well if they are completely incapable of conducting themselves rationally then we should probably step in and force them into treatment to remove the thing that is making them act this way." And of course a huge uproar comes in response from the same enablers "We can't force them into treatment! They have rights! We need to wait until they choose to enter treatment and they have to consciously take responsibility for completing the treatment."
And so we're caught in this terrible in-between with people who can't be held responsible for their actions, but who also can't have the state enforce care on them unless they ask for it, and regular citizens just trying to peacefully live their lives bear the brunt of it. Its a luxury belief whose costs are disproportionately borne by the lower income members of society which makes it even more galling to watch it masquerade as some sort of progressivism. Ultimately people are going to force politicians to make a choice. If these people aren't responsible then the state needs to step in until they can become responsible. If they have inalienable rights then they also have responsibilities that come with those rights and need to be punished for their misdeeds. The current path is not cutting it and the voting public is waking up to that.
I think there'd be a lot less resistance in Portland to forcing folks into treatment if the folks doing the forcing weren't already under a mountain of investigations for their brutality and racism. Hard to fault people for claiming the state lacks legitimacy given how the PPB tends to treat folks.
I've been locked in a hospital for chemical dependency treatment, so I have a hard time believing that it's impossible to force people into it. There was, of course, a huge bill that my insurance largely covered, but I suspect that homeless peoples' health insurance is not so good.
You'd be wrong. Medicaid is fantastic. No copays (nominally there are, but you can just not pay, which obviously street junkies opt for), no premiums, full service.
The only drawback is it represents a kind of prisoner's dilemma defection and when a sufficiently high percentage of the population gets a clue and starts reliably defecting the whole system is going to collapse. Not for lack of payment, but simply for lack of beds, doctors, and nurses.
Fair enough - I do not live in a state where anyone can get Medicaid and I don’t know how that works in Oregon. Nevertheless I suspect treatment is very expensive and the potential patients are not all that sympathetic such that people are happy to pay for their care. I’m sure we can debate how benign neglect is for these people but it seems to be the path that most people will choose. I don’t think I’m all that different in that regard; I mostly look the other way at these people in my city as well.
The problem is that most addictions need years of treatment. Years and years :(
I work with people coming out of prison who have been clean for a decade and the first thing they do is go and score some meth or crack or whatever. After a decade without!
Yes, I was in with many of them. While you can get anything you want at a cost inside Illinois prisons, hard drugs like coke, meth, crack are actually very hard to come by. 99% of the drugs are "K2" and weed.
This sounds a little like treating a symptom so one can pretend they don't need to solve the actual problem, which is homelessness. Which you solve by providing housing, and a long term caretaker-supported program to help folks clean up, get good psychiatric help and therapy, another pass at the educational system, and then hopefully at the end of all that, a new shot at a normal life.
That costs a lot of money. Something that people who want to live in a city that's livable should probably be willing to collectively pay for. But don't.
The junkies are the problem. Homelessness is another problem, sometimes intertwined, but distinct. All the housing in the world doesn't change the hordes addicted to meth or fent, who would be an absolute plague even in some sort of magically awesome free housing situation.
its very rare a person goes homeless because the prices in downtown Seattle are expensive. if housing goes up, you move to a place its more affordable - not to the street. The reason for this homelessness surge is drugs.
Many of these people its a lifestyle choice, one that works very well for what they want. They get to beg, do drugs, and sell stolen goods all in one spot, its very convenient. yes, if you have been paying attention, all those store robberies and car break ins is very much related. many of those instances, the hot goods are exchanged for cash at these tent areas - some even have xmas lights!
> "hopefully at the end of all that, a new shot at a normal life."
What makes you think they even want that? They want to do drugs, they want to not work. we should re-criminalize public drug use, followed by not allowing people to set up permanent residence anywhere they please.
All of a sudden, less people would want to choose that lifestyle.
> its very rare a person goes homeless because the prices in downtown Seattle are expensive. if housing goes up, you move to a place its more affordable - not to the street.
>What makes you think they even want that? They want to do drugs, they want to not work. we should re-criminalize public drug use, followed by not allowing people to set up permanent residence anywhere they please.
Any organization that actually helped deal with homelessness with the intent to help people, rather than the intent to "clean up the streets" (especially in countries that "solved", compared the US, this problem) will be more than happy to explain to you all the ways in which this claim is just complete nonsense, and will be equally happen to explain to you how much harm yelling "they're all criminals" does.
To pretend that people choose to be homeless, or that homeless folks somehow have a better life when they're not on drugs that dull that experience and so should be trivially capable of choosing not to do drugs, is simply bonkers.
Yeah, mandatory treatment is a touchy subject, and getting it funded is a task itself. I think we might see better results if we had a doctor advised period of mandatory treatment. Maybe 1-6 months based on the situation. Unfortunately I don't think such a thing is feasible in the US at the moment.
“When we push it back into the criminal system, it pushes people back into the shadows,” Ms. Hurst said. “People will die because of this.”
^ this quote from the article speaks plainly why it's dangerous to recriminalize. Agreed w/ your perspective on prior laws hurting disproportionately normal citizens who still had (some) property/livelihood to damage through arrest.
Not agreeing w/ the status quo in Portland, though - from friend's accounts it has become a tough place to walk around. I appreciate the fine line the government is trying to walk here. Hopefully they can accelerate some of the drug treatment options concurrently.
One common theme I've noticed with Progressive policy on the west coast is that well make the progressive amendments to our laws and policies, but we don't have the institutions to support those policies.
At least with Portugal, they have a stick in their policy that enforces treatment and medical attention if you're strung out and using on the street.
Also, Channel 5 did a great piece on the Safe Injection Site in SF. When talking to the "real ones", the safe site made all the difference in people's lives when it was available.
I think the difference is that drug use was at least kept out of nice/touristy parts of town.
There was lots of blatant drug use all over town, but you could expect to go to Powells or Pioneer Courthouse Square without seeing people smoking out of pieces of foil.
So while it was not a great or sustainable system to have police clear out good neighborhoods and force addicts into designated bad areas, having a city be equally unappealing to everyone is in the long run a lose-lose trade-off.
Oregon banned cops pulling people over for broken cars btw, a lot of the issues described in this thread are also because the locals here rightfully hate the police and have muzzled them.
There’s got to be some middle ground between locking up people for substance use disorder and allowing people to make public spaces unusable with their antisocial behavior.
In my mind it’s something like “drugs are legal but public drug use and public intoxication are strictly illegal.” It’s just hard to enforce that when people don’t have a private place to use in.
>It’s just hard to enforce that when people don’t have a private place to use in.
The problem is feeling like you owe it to addicts to provide them with a place to use. Privatize all the public spaces: parks, sidewalks, etc. Grant strong property rights to those spaces.
You can get all high and mighty about who deserves what, or you can actually solve the problem and give people housing for free (or throw them in jail.)
Would you rather be right, or live in a city without homelessness?
> give people housing for free (or throw them in jail.)
This is a false choice.
>Would you rather be right, or live in a city without homelessness?
I can be right and also live in a city without homelessness. I'll just ship them to wherever you live, because you're so nice that you are volunteering to take care of the problem.
You will never eliminate severe mental illness. You can, however, create systems that understand human incentives. If you can't even imagine options that don't involve systemic centralized planning, we are so far from moving towards peaceful solutions that my only incentive is to ship the antisocial people to your neighborhood.
I asked a pretty straightforward question and you responded with a very vague tangent. What other options are there besides giving people homes or allowing them to live on the street?
Privatize all property. Eliminate zoning, licensing, labor laws including minimum wage, price controls, and building codes. Eliminate inflationary monetary policy. Dismantle the military industrial complex which creates the veteran->streets pipeline. Eliminate laws which reduce/limit liability of drug manufacturers.
These policies eliminate the cliff off which people fall, resulting in living/defecating on the streets. There will still be some tiny fraction that are too ill/handicapped to work, but once their numbers are so small it becomes easier to help them on a case by case basis. Defining a top-down, centrally planned strategy from afar is the opposite of how to help anyone.
I'm telling you explicitly that the idea that you need a policy is the whole problem with how you are thinking about this. "We" will do literally nothing. I might do something. You might do something. But no centrally planned collective action whatsoever.
At the scale we're talking about here, the problem described in the subject of this thread is already solved.
Drug use is a mental health issue. People take things that make them feel good when they don’t feel good. They’re just self medicating and we need to start treating it as a symptom of an underlying issue rather than the issue itself. Same with the obesity epidemic. It’s not the what, it’s the why.
Yet.. there are people who take things to make them feel good when they already feel good.
Further.. the idea that someone is going to improve their situation in any other than the most short sighted terms by "self medicating" with something like Methamphetamine or Heroin is completely ridiculous. I am absolutely not comfortable standing by to see how that story plays out, I know exactly how it plays out, and it's completely inhumane to pretend that you don't either.
The term "self medicating" doesn't imply that it works, just that they're trying to address an underlying issue that isn't being sufficiently addressed by anything else. It's closer in concept to "coping mechanism" than it is to "prescribed medication".
Oregon shut down most of their mental health facilities in the 80's and early 90's. We literally have a federal judge letting charged criminals out free, becuase they have sat in jail for sometimes months before even being evaluated by the state hospital to see if they are competent/capable of defending themselves. They literally have 2 state hospitals for the entire state, and one of them is only 1/3 capacity, but they can't seem to staff it, and the other is well over 100% capactity, and forced to release people because of inhumane overcrowding. (and way understaffed, since it turns out people don't like to be beaten up by patients, with no help, protection, or training, for what is essentially entry level pay)
I'm sure I'm not alone in using drugs (alcohol, caffeine, pot) for many reasons other than to "make them feel good when they don't feel good". Which along with equating use with abuse is such a shallow, narrow minded and ignorant view of drugs.
Well, you have psychological and physiological addiction. Normal "happy" people get addicted all the time - we've seen that with prescription drugs. That's almost purely a physiological addiction.
But of course, those two are not mutually exclusive - you can have both forms of addiction, and they do often merge into one with many types of drugs. Even if you beat extremely physiologically addictive drugs, you can lust for the effects many years / decades later, because of how good they made you feel.
And as you become addicted, usually at the expensive of everything else in your life, depression will set in - which just amplifies the need to escape.
The big problem with homelessness, and those types of drug users, is that a solid chunk of them have underlying mental illnesses - which may have lead to the drug use (self medication), or came out after drug use. These are the type of patients that simply can't function on their own. If you give them a free apartment, they're not able to live there.
I don't think radical decriminalization is the root problem - but rather the utter lack of (mental) healthcare.
I would probably ask myself if substance abuse existed in communist countries, socialist countries, and so on. If it did, I might not be too eager to point the blame at capitalism.
When I think about the endgame of capitalism, I think about the kids in coalmines and the gilded age, the extractive and horrible conditions that allow for widespread unfulfilling company-store-owned worklife to flourish under the guise of progress.
I'm not sure if there are any solid alternatives for this endgame actually, but we may already be in it, and pervasive addiction to me seem to go hand it hand with unhappiness.
In the Soviet Union, it was illegal not to work. They would have killed (not a high bar for them given their body count, so excuse the colloquialism) to have a camera watching every worker.
Now we have Amazon drivers and packers with cameras in their face every day, working themselves so hard that they have to piss into bottles - every motion, breath, and second tracked - and people are convinced this is freedom, that our system is freedom.
I'm always happy to learn from countries which have succeeded at something, but insofar as Europe has succeeded at things, it hasn't been a simple matter of "end capitalism". The devil is in the details.
Also remember that Europe freerides on the US a great deal. They get bargain prices on drugs+health innovations discovered by US companies, and have an amazing defensive arrangement in NATO that comes at low cost for them and the US hardly benefits from.
During the cold war it was realized that unless the broad mass of people in Europe were reasonably happy / well off, they would turn to communism as it was right next door. The US had no such compelling imperative, so capitalism was allowed a freer rein.
Drugs+innovations are largely funded by the public sector (see a previous discussion on HN I can't find right now), but in Europe we don't have a predatory healthcare industry.
As for NATO, that was formed to stop the entirety of the Eurasian landmass falling under Soviet control. It is hard to imagine an isolated US fairing too well in that kind of world.
>Drugs+innovations are largely funded by the public sector (see a previous discussion on HN I can't find right now)
Insofar as Europe pays less for drugs than the US, the US is subsidizing drug development. (I.e. when pharma companies decide whether they will recoup their R&D costs for a new drug, they are disproportionately looking to countries that pay the most.) Public/private doesn't affect my point here -- the US shouldn't necessarily copy the European model if the success of the European model is based on freeriding, even if it's freeriding on US govt spending.
>As for NATO, that was formed to stop the entirety of the Eurasian landmass falling under Soviet control. It is hard to imagine an isolated US fairing too well in that kind of world.
The US has oceans on both sides and friendly nations on our borders. We're gonna be fine. Isolationism was working perfectly well for us prior to WW2.
If you really believe in the European model, you should advocate for Europe to defend itself. Stand up for what you believe in. If the European model is truly effective, then Europe should be perfectly capable of taking care of itself. The US can then offer humanitarian alliances to other, poorer countries that actually need help.
No, the US is not subsidizing drug development for Europe. What is happening is that US pharma is profiteering in the US because they can.
The US is dependent on international trade - not least for Middle East oil. How you going to get that if the Med and the Gulf are Soviet lakes?
For sure Europe should shoulder it's burden when it comes to defense - but the reason you have homeless people in every major city is not because of your defense bill! It is because your society is malfunctioning.
Bear in mind that isolationism is exactly what Putin's Russia (and Xi's China) wants, be careful that you are not being indoctrinated by anti-US interests.
> No, the US is not subsidizing drug development for Europe. What is happening is that US pharma is profiteering in the US because they can.
2 ways of describing the same thing. The difference between US "profiteering" vs Europe "getting a bargain" depends on your reference point. At the end of the day, the US is doing more to foot the bill for new drugs, and Europeans point and laugh instead of saying thank you.
>The US is dependent on international trade - not least for Middle East oil
The US is now a net energy exporter. I think we should retool to reduce dependence on foreign oil and reduce foreign entanglements. Should be good for the climate as well. And much cheaper than helping Europe with defense.
>For sure Europe should shoulder it's burden when it comes to defense - but the reason you have homeless people in every major city is not because of your defense bill! It is because your society is malfunctioning.
Resources are finite. You earlier implied that the US govt should spend more on social programs. That means either taking on more debt (terrible idea), or reducing large expenditures like defense. Furthermore, if it's true that the US is "malfunctioning", increased expenditure on social programs (as you earlier implied, remember our discussion was originally about capitalism vs social democracy) wouldn't necessarily even fix the problem.
This was a sufficiently disingenuous argument on your part that I don't plan to reply further in this thread.
>Bear in mind that isolationism is exactly what Putin's Russia (and Xi's China) wants, be careful that you are not being indoctrinated by anti-US interests.
I see Europeans trash the US about as much as I see Russia/China trashing the US. Where are the anti-US interests?
I never saw a Russian or Chinese person claim that US society is "malfunctioning". How would you feel if I said Europe was "malfunctioning" due to its low GDP?
You're talking about US interests. Being friendly with other major powers like Russia and China is in the US interest, for the purpose of preventing another world war. But at the end of the day, NATO is not in the US interest -- certainly not after the cold war has ended, which you seem to have forgotten about (cf "Soviet lakes"). Nor does it make sense as a humanitarian alliance. It's time for the US to leave. It's also time to charge Europeans more for drugs. They need to pay their fair share.
(To clarify, it's clear to me that your comments are far more motivated by contempt than constructive critique. That's why I don't regard you as an ally, and I don't plan to reply to you further.)
I commented a few times here over the years criticizing decriminalization as it came up as an option, against loud / vociferous people saying, how can you continue to embrace criminal penalties that clearly aren't working. As if it were crazy to believe that people need laws to obey.
I said that you can make all the rational step-wise choices in the world, and find yourself led down a path to oblivion, where you've made drug use not a crime, and find yourself in a drug-problem-overwhelmed city.
Lo and behold, we find years later, people awaken to the fact that decriminalization might not work, and countless people having left the city because of it, and probably more importantly, tons of people falling victim to the scourge of drugs.
Sometimes, as unkind as it sounds and expensive as it is, you need to enforce some harsh laws and have people understand that you won't tolerate certain behaviors, lest your society fall apart.
The US is genuinely like a third-world country, in this regard. And apparently lots of adults in that country think they are doing the compassionate thing by allowing to people use drugs?
You have poor countries with no expensive treatment facilities re-distributing money to Democrat donors...why do these people think no-one uses drugs in these countries?
This kind of "compassion" is, ironically, complete anathema to anyone who lives in a left-wing society. The US version of left-wing politics is characterized by extreme individualism, it is on a spectrum along with Republicans, not something distinct in any way.
As a human who doesn't live in the US, the sad part isn't the people using drugs, it is the people who are gleefully pushing them into a situation where there are no disincentives towards self-destructive behaviour. Result: more suffering, more people gleefully suggesting that even more individualism will fix it, etc.
The other thing that is unique about the US is the lack of punishment for drug dealers. People on the left complain about pollution, drug dealers are ruining the lives of tens of thousands of people...stand aside, they say, for the entrepreneur?
It is complete madness, but you talk to anyone in the US about this subject and you realise immediately why they have this problem: they care about themselves, that is it.
The problem is that the people using drugs out in public are already at rock bottom: there aren't many punishments you can use to deter that, short of putting them in jail and when they come out they're just going to be using drugs in public all over again. I'm somewhat receptive to the idea of mandatory treatment but as it stands, "enforcing some harsh laws" doesn't do anything to curb recidivism – temporarily incarcerating people falling out of the bottom of society is not a long term fix for society.
At the very least it cleans up the streets. I really don't care to see people shooting up every time I leave the BART. Enabling that is not a good use of my tax dollars.
If you're trying to save your tax dollars, you should really be in favor of letting people shoot up on the BART! After all, doing nothing costs nothing!
What about the obvious punishment:
Taking their drugs away.
Doing so improves the addicts life in the medium-long term, and provides an immediate consequence. Its something that many addicts actually want, that society wants, yet no one has the balls to actually do it.
Well, what about the value of making clear to people that in case they fall over that edge and start using drugs, they will be punished? Police being able to arrest people and caution them, rather than being told to actively ignore it?
In order to stop them from tempted to try it or go further, and prevent more people from joining that group? Or the people who deal drugs? Which decriminalization basically removed any check function on?
The material problem is that their lives are often so miserable that feeling good from doing drugs even under threat of incarceration overrides most punishments you could dish out.
> short of putting them in jail and when they come out they're just going to be using drugs in public all over again.
The "Seattle is Dying" documentary describes a treatment program called the "MAT Program" (medically assisted treatment) that is used in Rhode Island prisons. They interview several people -- both leaders of the program and former addicts -- who speak positively about it: https://youtu.be/bpAi70WWBlw?si=ZkMQb3tb5P_Ztbvs&t=2645
If it's criminalized there's no way to go and no way to control things. So that's definitely not the right way.
Decriminalization is thus accidentally necessary to gain a better control of the situation, but then you do need to actually seize control of the situation. There need to be institutions to help get people away from drugs.
So much sympathy for drug users and business owners, but what about the private citizens who get victimized by these drug users?
I was beaten nearly to death (in broad daylight, in a residential neighborhood) in Seattle in 2020 by two men enabled to descend into meth addiction by permissive policies. In my victim support group I met so many people - innocent people - permanently injured & disfigured like me, or raped, or psychologically destroyed by meth users who had been allowed to live in tents in their neighborhoods and use hard drugs undisturbed until it was too late.
It's easy to treat this like a philosophical topic when you've had the privilege not to pay any personal price. For some of us it's more than an argument on the internet. If you think we should allow people to sell/buy/use meth please have the courage to attend a support group for victims of violent crimes. I doubt you'd claim a moral high ground for decriminalization to the faces of victims like me who have had our lives destroyed by meth users.
I'm severely visually impaired. I walk and use public transit. Currently in the pacific northwest. My quality of life has decreased so much since covid and when these policies came into effect. I tripped over someone asleep on the train floor and they lost their shit. I was really scared. One of dozens of instances. And the cities in general must become less walkable to avoid crime. Fences around apartments that mean less sidewalk access, store entrances near transit that close early, and people camping on the sidewalk that block access.
At this moment, it feels society cares less about me and others who want to use public services than the addicts.
It's been an especially hard couple of months here in Portland. I've traveled around, hoping to find a new place to live. But all the big US cities with good transit suffer the same issues. At best, I wish I could move to another country I could live in and feel I had a sense of agency, if anyone would have me. But at this point I'm feeling like it's time to give up.
Austin is quite visually impaired friendly. The Texas School for the Blind is here and I often see people walking around with canes. You also won't trip over anyone sleeping on the streets, save a couple of places downtown.
I know a bit about Tokyo and while I love the idea, I don't think it's very practical. The language barrier is real. I'm not great at non-computer languages, and Japanese script seems tough to read when one is visually impaired. From what I've seen, living as a foreigner there can be a bit isolating long term.
Currently looking at Europe. But immigration is hard anywhere. And there are tax implications I don't understand well.
Japan is probably one of the most blind/disabled friendly cities I’ve seen. Sometimes there are people sleeping on the floor of the trains too but if you trip over them they’d likely continue sleeping or apologize to you.
I'm a Canadian who travelled to Seattle recently and I found that city legitimately scary downtown. The addicts were unstable and violent like nothing I'd ever seen, even in some of the worst parts of our country.
Walking through downtown Seattle at night with a suitcase trying to find my hotel is the first time in my life I thought I was about to be attacked or robbed, but thankfully I only had stuff thrown at me by the junkies.
I'm an American with decades of history traveling to West coast cities.
Portland and Seattle in the past few years look completely different than they did even a few years ago. Both cities have always had run down parts, but now it feels like the blight permeates almost everything. Some of my favorite places to visit have either closed entirely or now have limited hours and require me to buzz in at the front door so someone can visually verify that I'm not a threat. I can't explain how strange it feels for this shift to have happened in a matter of years.
It really trickles down so much. You can't use a public restroom anymore with the ease you once could. Items in stores are locked or just not available, employees feel unsafe, including my family members who are just trying to work college jobs. It's possible to help people without fully enabling them but too many who have been voted into office don't see or care to see the consequences of their policy. And the sad thing is they keep getting the green light from voters. I quit trying to understand a while ago.
I recently visited Downtown Seattle, and most people I encountered shared your opinion, but based on their stories, it’s not that bad by current standards.
Honestly, it’s much better than I’m used to. In a day of walking around, only one drugged out person was screaming uncontrollably. When he saw me, he politely asked for a light, and I said no, so he went back to screaming at nothing in particular.
It’s not like I was tripping on human feces (SF, post-pandemic, though they seemed to have cleaned things up a bit for APEC) or needles (various cities in Europe, pre-pandemic).
I don’t mean to trivialize the problems in Seattle. It is much worse than it was. However, it’s better than average these days.
At least in California, housing shortages are a big root cause, as is the broken approach to mental health care: It’s basically illegal to treat someone during a psychotic episode until they’ve already committed some serious violent crimes.
The west coast cities of the US post covid are significantly more dangerous feeling than the east coast cities. In the past couple years Ive been in portland, seattle, chicago, philly, nyc, detroit, boston, washington dc and smaller cities. Seattle and Portland top the list as the cities that seem the most run down, and with the most visible violent crime.
A friend of mine recently closed his store in Seattle, permanently, and relocated to another county. He had the door smashed, and the organized thieves ransacked the place, and caused a lot of costly damage. (He showed me the security camera footage.) The police not only did not come, they told him they no longer responded to property crimes, only violent crimes.
The law does not allow citizens to protect their property, and the police won't, either. So what to do? Leave.
Even violent crimes might not be enough to get attention. I know a couple that was mugged at a gas station near the Oakland airport this past Thanksgiving. The muggers stole stuff from the car with their infant and toddler in it.
Even then, the clerk watched the whole thing while not calling 911. The police didn’t come out and would only take a report if they went to the station, which they ended up not doing.
If something like that isn’t even making it into the crime stats…
What part of Canada? I live in the Seattle area and visited Vancouver for the first time recently, and Vancouver was much visibly worse than Seattle in terms of open drug use and general sketchiness. Obviously there’s a lot of potential selection bias there in terms of what neighborhoods I visited there vs where I spend time in Seattle. But I was still surprised at how bad it was.
Vancouver was definitely worse than Seattle in the 90s with respect to open drug use, but now...it feels about the same last time I visited last spring. But I spend time in downtown Seattle and walked through China town in Vancouver.
In Vancouver the rate of violent crime doesn’t feel that high. There are lots of people strung out of their mind and they will definitely yell at you but I have never heard of anyone in my circle of friends and their circle of friends being assaulted.
This aspect of the discussion truly baffles me. It's like there's noone but the drug users to consider. Oh, do the addicts get enough treatment? Ah, they want to camp next to a school because they find more 'shelter' from the rain there? No problemo!
Aren't tax-paying citizens allowed to demand that they be able to walk into a train station that doesn't smell like urine and fecal matter?
They think that if you are a peaceful citizen with a place to live and a job, you are privileged and so the government doesn't have to help you. And if you are a homeless addict or criminal, you are an oppressed victim and deserve the help of the government.
I agree with you, the government is supposed to serve the tax-paying and law abiding citizens. But this oppressor-victim ideology that's spreading everywhere is blinding everyone from seeing it.
I don't think this particular issue has actually been debated on the internet all that much because I haven't seen it come up that much; the obvious solution is to draw a parallel to alcohol. It is illegal to be drunk and driving. Similarly it can be illegal to be high on something exotic and out in public. As hot takes go that seems fairly cool.
The issue with drug criminalisation is that people get arrested who weren't going to hurt anyone, weren't any threat to themselves, haven't done anything objectionable and nevertheless were risking prison. The wins on that front should be preserved.
>I don't think this particular issue has actually been debated on the internet all that much because I haven't seen it come up that much; the obvious solution is to draw a parallel to alcohol. It is illegal to be drunk and driving.
It's already illegal to drive impaired, doesn't matter your intoxicant. It could even be legally prescribed by a doctor.
But it's much more legal to sell alcohol than it is any other drug. Put the onus on the drug sellers to provide a safe controlled place to consume... which I hope comes with some legality and maybe some access to the banking system.
> Similarly it can be illegal to be high on something exotic and out in public. As hot takes go that seems fairly cool.
Nope, try suggesting that in much of the mainstream/popular internet and you'll be immediately pounced on for discriminating against the homeless (and then the people who said that will get pounced on for saying homeless rather than "unhoused"). "So you think it should be legal for rich people to get high but not poor people". Pretty soon someone will bring race into it too.
Just adding my context that i have had this conversion on the "mainstream internet" (reddit front page threads) and not been attacked for it.
Honestly it seems to me like that stuff is happening less and less often. It just comes with not talking to literal children all the time. I'm all for privacy but i think in these arguments we should really be allowed to know who is 14 and who isn't. I think a big part of the toxicity and radicalism on the internet is that we're now having to have political discussions invaded by literal high schoolers. No one would privilege their ridiculous opinions at the Thanksgiving dinner table
I'd say just the opposite. People who think age means they have life experience are doing the most to damage the quality of discussion. Nowadays if you're born in the right class you can reach age 30 - hell, you can make it all the way to retirement - while never being exposed to any real consequences for your actions (and in fact everyone around you will go out of their way to prevent that happening). There are plenty of literal 14 year olds who have a lot more to contribute than a PMC "excellent sheep" who coasted right through school, university, and a not-quite-clearly-nepotism career in middle management or consulting.
Stay strapped. Sorry to be harsh, but it’s not policies that keep you and yours safe. You need to protect you and yours and government policies aren’t going to protect you from hard drug users. Sorry you had a terrible experience but since ancient times people have weapons to defend against any enemy.
> Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man. ...
> In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; ... no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.
— Hobbes, Leviathan
Notably, Hobbes's point is that we entered a social contract—placing a Power above ourselves—in order to avoid this eternal warfare.
The kind of environment you describe, where the government cannot protect you from violence and so you have to protect yourself, is the definition of a failed state. It's not a normal situation that happens with normal governments.
I will say here what I have said many times in real life: if I had been carrying a gun I would probably have been shot with it - dead men tell no tales and they certainly ran my pockets.
I was jumped from in front and behind by two people by complete surprise and tackled to the ground. The amount of time between the beginning of the assault and losing consciousness was only a few seconds. From the video it looks like they already tried to kill me by repeatedly stomping on my head and kicking me in the face. I'm speculating but I think if they found a gun on me they would have just shot me with it.
That is chilling. I am so sorry you experienced this.
What neighborhood was this in? I used to do long urban hikes throughout Seattle and have had a few close calls with near-mugging. Since the pandemic it has begun to feel really risky to randomly wander around.
Surprisingly yes, they were caught with much credit and appreciation to the detectives of SPD. In fact the police were very helpful in accessing support and counseling, and I should be completely honest that I would have described myself as loosely "anti police" until I had this experience.
The issue was simply that these men were psychotic after using meth in an uninterrupted fashion, and emboldened by the fact that the police were not allowed to interrupt their daily drug use or property crimes. I'm very confident that if possession/use of meth had been treated criminally these men would not have been in our neighborhood and able to target me. During pretrial I was made aware that they had been contacted multiple times in the days before my assault but police were not allowed to arrest them despite the fact that they were using/in possession of methamphetamine.
I appreciate this problem and empathize with what you've been through. I live in the bay with a toddler. I presume by "treated criminally" you mean jail time. But by all accounts and data, jail time makes drug habits significantly worse [1]. The extreme version of this is just dragnet police enforcement turning every simple drug use into ever-worsening drug use (aka the weed-to-fentanyl pipeline).
In your specific case, it means a low-level drug offender going to jail and coming out hardened using more aggressive drugs, evermore ready to unleash violence at worse levels.
I'm happy to think through what a low-recidivism version of "treated criminally" could be, but it is not any of the options we currently have.
The paper I linked has some interesting suggestions as to how to change the current incarceration systems to support actual drug treatment.
P.S: I think police should have better tools, and better pay (it's a hard job!) but also higher accountability, Police vs. Anti-Police is a made-up twitter dichotomy.
I think we probably agree to a large extent. There are a lot of comments here, so I want to quote one of my responses to another person in an effort to inject some consistency, but tl;dr the reason I think decriminalization is the issue is that AFAIK our criminal justice system is the only way we can confiscate drugs or force a person into treatment such as inpatient detox and/or rehab:
"""
To me it's not so much about punishing drug use (jail time), it's about stopping drug addiction (intervention and recovery). For example I think intervening in such a way that a user is confirmed to get at least a few hours of sleep before potentially using meth again would be a big start.
I'll admit that I support confiscating drugs when found, but I'm not advocating that arrest is always appropriate. I am in favor of punishing selling meth, which I acknowledge is perhaps hypocritical given my other beliefs knowing that plenty of people sell to support their habits.
I do think it's important to have a mechanism of mandatory intervention, and my non-lawyer understanding is that criminalizing drugs is really the only way to put mandatory intervention on the table. I met mothers who could not force their children into rehab, for example. I should be clear that I don't feel this way about all drugs, but I think that methamphetamine specifically poses a risk to the safety of both users and people around them that merits mandatory intervention.
If we had functional mechanisms to to enact mandatory interventions for users that were non-criminal I'm definitely open to that. Depending on the targeted success rate it seems like inpatient detox + rehab would be required in many cases, and I am simply not aware of non-judicial ways we can force a person into those circumstances against their will (which in the case of meth I admit I support even if that opinion is controversial).
I am not an expert, but nonetheless I'm now entangled with the topic as one that defines significant aspects of my life (loss of smell and hearing, PTSD, facial disfiguration). I think we can do better than we have been, both recently and since Nixon, but I think that having tough conversations is part of how we'll get better. My experience is that people in my situation frequently have our perspectives invalidated as "politically incorrect" or otherwise irrelevant [...], and I wanted to speak up to make sure people know that we exist and we don't want our numbers to grow.
"""
This rhetoric has only increased the suffering in the world and filled cities with an underclass of vagrants too drugged out to tell you the day of the week. People shouldn't go to jail for weed, fine, fair enough. But all you see in cities that have decriminalized harder drugs are frozen in time drug zombies. It's a terrible policy every time it's implemented in the States, but people are more concerned with the feel-good vibes of the policy.
> because the whole point behind decriminalization is that criminalizing homelessness and drug addiction does not have a net positive outcome for them or society.
This is one theory, and it's a theory that's hotly contested. Asserting it as a fact doesn't actually make it one, and we're currently watching several large scale experiments testing if decriminalization helps society. Early results are not promising.
Look, obviously there have been and continue to be all sorts of problems with the US justice system for various reasons.
But that doesn't mean it's not needed, because it is. Violent drug addicts are locked up in other countries too, and if you spend time hanging around in public high on meth then at the very least police are going to tell you off.
All I see is a claim that harsher drug laws would not have helped this victim.
Also rudeness, but being rude is not victim blaming.
Edit: Pretty please someone explain? Am I missing some obvious implication?
From here it looks like people hate the grandparent comment so much that even incorrect criticism will get treated as true. Which is really bad for a discussion website. I hope I'm wrong about that, but I'm failing to find another way to read things.
People who are in prison are not out committing more crimes.
We do need to reduce the prison population, but by the time someone has reached the point of heavy drug use and street violence the odds of rehabilitation are very low. No other country has a good record of rehabilitating those people. So, the only reasonable way to reduce the problem is further upstream with better opportunities and support systems for youths.
Well no, the problem is transit-poor environments that force every old trip to be a car trip [1]. What you're asking for is recompense, what I'm asking for is a system wide permanent fix.
EDIT: Rephrased retribution->recompense, that is to say recompense is good, but is not optimized for avoidance in the future (i.e. a system-wide fix)
You can tell a lot about how someone thinks by listening for denial of agency. The CEO had to do it; that drug addict had no choice; he had to defend his honor; she couldn’t lie.
Sometimes people have only one choice, but they almost always have agency.
I was referring to the language people use to convert other humans into objects or automatons.
But if you deny the addict any agency, you deny the possibility of eventual recovery. One could also point to the Sacklers as the ones with agency in that scenario. But somebody made choices; it didn’t just happen and there’s nothing that anyone could have done.
Getting assaulted sounds like the main problem. Police are a reactive force, they're useless to prevent or break up an assault unless it's a very ineffective (slow) attack
> Police are a reactive force, they're useless to prevent or break up an assault unless it's a very ineffective (slow) attack
This seems like you’re implying that stricter enforcement and tougher punishments are useless?
I tend to agree, we saw bright and clear as day with the “war on drugs” that being more vicious to addicts didn’t work and the problem only grew.
Im certainly no expert though, and what often seems to be missing from these conversations is actual experts who research and actively work amongst these addicted and homeless people.
It’s wild how often we have conversations about incredibly complicated and wildly nuanced subjects with very little back and forth from those with far more expertise than ourselves. Then we scratch our heads and tilt our heads in confusion.
>I tend to agree, we saw bright and clear as day with the “war on drugs” that being more vicious to addicts didn’t work and the problem only grew.
Drug use has grown much faster under the current regime of tolerance of drug use. There were lots of problems with the war on drugs, but the idea that it didn't reduce drug use isn't based on evidence.
As an analogy, skin cancer had been rising despite sunscreen.
Do you have any actual evidence of this? I would love to see it. I wouldn't be particularly shocked either way to find that drug use has increased faster in places that decriminalized or not, but it's an important starting point for discussions. Assuming everyone is being honest in their data-gathering as well as consistent in methods.
Sure. For one, prohibition keeps the equilibrium price higher, which reduces equilibrium consumption. This RAND report from 2000 estimated a free market cocaine price would be 3% of the price under prohibition.
2nd, if you prefer a more direct account, this doctor describes the effects of BC's safe supply program. Basically they bought opiods and gave them out for free to addicts. These were often resold, crashing the market price, increasing consumption of these as a gateway drug. This is to illustate the expected effects of a lower price: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-we-must-end-...
Overall legal production is generally cheaper, and a cheaper price produces higher equilibrium use. You could of course tax legal drugs, but you'd need a war on illegal supply to enforce that.
Addiction may have been the root cause of GP's assault, but there are any number of reasons you may be attacked in broad daylight. Despite the risk of prosecution to the perpetrator, many thousands are assaulted every year. Not even the threat of the noose kept the Old West safe.
In the face of imminent threat, only personal preparedness is of value.
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 not.
> Just legalize it and let people get pure product at dirt cheap prices.
Having traveled to Portland recently and witnessed the public drug problem first hand, I have no idea how anyone would think that increasing availability of the drugs would improve the situation.
The only thing legalization and widespread availability would help is reducing deaths from tainted drugs. While that is a significant problem, anything that increases the availability and reduces the price of a drug addiction will also fuel drug use among the public. I've heard people try to argue the inverse, but removing penalties, decreasing prices, and improving availability simply cannot do anything other than increase consumption.
Sociologists recently performed a large multi-region study of homelessness, drug use, etc.
It turns out that there’s no real correlation between having drug addicts on the streets and the level of drug use in the area or even mental illness. Unemployment doesn’t even predict homelessness, and neither does weather, or laws pertaining to the homeless.
By far, the best predictor is housing affordability and availability.
I know this sounds absurd, but I don't think social studies on such politically hot issues can be trusted outright. Given the state of university social science departments, can you imagine the cost of publishing something that supported ‘war on drugs’ style policy. Im not saying your study is bogus, just that Ive learned to be circumspect around research into such topics. Because often such academics are also activists or involved in public/ nonprofit institutions that have become invested in specific policy.
They generally have incredibly severe homeless problems, which is ironic, since they spend so much money on homeless aid programs, affordable housing (not more housing) initiatives, etc.
I think that partially motivated the study. Climate also doesn’t seem to matter, neither does hiring more police, or really anything politicians have funded in the last decade.
The biggest problem with dying by overdose is measuring the dose. Legal drugs presume quality control and standardized dosing. This, alone, could prevent the majority of opioid deaths.
> This, alone, could prevent the majority of opioid deaths
Reduce, yes, but it's not a magic bullet. Many opioid deaths are from people taking pharmaceuticals in precisely measured doses, often in conjunction with other drugs. Others are from people who misjudge their tolerance after extended breaks, such as after relapsing.
Regardless, it's an entirely separate discussion than the problem in the main article: Increasing availability of drugs will worsen the societal problems in places like Portland.
I suspect increased availability of drugs would also lead to more deaths from polydrug abuse. People who normally take one drug might be more tempted to start mixing drugs if it's as easy as picking up some extra pills at the drug center down the street.
You're missing the point. If you're a politician, "making drug addicts not poison themselves" is a nice-to-have, but "making drug users not victimize others" is basically mandatory. Zero political parties are going to win on a platform of "its ok that drug addicts are making the streets unsafe, the real problem is that their drugs are not affordable or high enough quality."
I think selling hard drugs being criminal is OK. But the US should actually do something with the severe addicts rather than just tossing them in prison, or creating laws against that and leaving them on the streets.
Mandatory rehabilitation would do a lot. But rehabilitation would work much worse in an environment where relapse is easily attainable, anyone who has had any kind of addiction will tell you that.
I think part of the problem is people with no real experience pushing their narrative. Many honest drug addicts will tell you the actual solutions that will be around wholistic rehabilitation: withdrawals treatments, reintegration into society, no permanent records, removing stigma. And some would prefer to be funneled into that rather than go to rehabilitation by free will. Free will stands no chance against a heroin or meth addiction.
My family member works in a psychiatric clinic in Central Europe. They deal with severe addictions. They have proper rehabilitation programs with dedicated facilities where people with severe addictions that have led to mental disorders learn to reintegrate with life, attend job interviews, take care of themselves, and so on. I have spent my childhood around these people as family members of clinicians would attend various events (Christmas parties, weddings, funerals, other outings, etc) and I have not felt threatened by anyone in rehabilitation.
But yeah, what I see in West Coast cities is threatening. It’s a day and night difference between that and proper care for hard drug addicts though. West Coast is what ignoring the problem looks like. Central Europe is what solving the problem looks like. In both cases, hard drug sales are not legal.
And the solution is ridiculously simple. If someone is acting out in public due to drugs, police would be called. The police would deliver them to a psychiatric clinic in a municipal hospital. The clinic would put them in a ward and on a rehab program, start withdrawals management, set up a social worker for employment, and so on. It would take several months to rehabilitate someone and some people would go through the program a few times. Not all of it is easy and the taxpayer pays for the healthcare. But that’s the cost of solving this problem, and that does solve it.
This doesn't really address the comment. Decriminalize = production is criminal, consumption is legal. Legalize = production is legal, consumption is legal.
The parent comment was complaining that legal consumption made the environment threatening.
>maim and kill users, push users into poverty, and generate and push the externalizes of drug use onto the rest of society.
None of these appear to hinge on decriminalization vs. legalization. Alcohol, for example, maims and kills users, pushes severely addicted users into poverty, and externalizes the problems of its use onto society.
Use went down during prohibition, use went up during legalization. So in effect you're proposing we increase these problems as related to meth and other hard drugs.
(This is not an argument for prohibition of alcohol, it is merely listing the cons of legalization)
> The parent comment was complaining that legal consumption made the environment threatening.
What the top comment is implying as far as I can see is that going soft on drugs (“philosophical”, “internet argument”) is a solution for pen-pushers.
Fucked up as his story may be, what has the war on drugs really ended up accomplishing? Do we really think amping it up will make things better?
Legalization combined with harm reduction and strictly regulated point of sales (think how Sweden treats alcohol by selling it through systembogalets) is what will ultimately pull us out of the pit. Nothing else will.
A good chunk of society wants to get high, as long as they’re not serviced legally they are financing criminal empires. Not only are you getting no tax on those sales, you have to spend buckets of money on law enforcement to fight those criminal empires. Not to mention you’ll also have to spend money on police, EMT, hospital hours etc to cope with the less stable subsect of drug users, because they are currently out of government purview and thus unmanageable.
It shouldn’t even be a partisan thing, the right could easily sell it as increasing government revenue and restoring law and order. All without it costing the regular taxpayer a penny, as you can fund the new system with the drug tax.
All well and good: allow everyone to use as many legalized drugs as they want, but enforce the other laws on those people. Don’t allow anyone to camp in the street, don’t let them steal with impunity. If they want to get wasted on drugs, they should manage to not cause harm to normal citizens.
I could certainly agree with that. Just take a page out of alcohol management. Many cities across the world already have pretty strict laws against public alcohol use. And they send more police to places where drunks are more likely to congregate and cause issues, like around bars at Saturday and Sunday.
What’s an unmentioned but relevant issue to me is how things like MDMA and ketamine (users are less harmed and harmful than with alcohol) are lumped in with hardcore opioid and meth abuse. There’s “hard”drugs and then there’s HARDdrugs.
I’d rather see the really hardcore stuff not even sold in specialized stores with the other stuff, but rather directly distributed through places similar to methadone clinics. They can give whoever wants the drug the full PR on how this substance very likely will get a grip on you and demolish your life. Clinics themselves are quite grim, making the whole atmosphere around recreational use less enticing. And you can put a higher age limit like 21 or even 24 on it.
Maybe if they werent constantly cycling through erratic meth benders and on a constant search to steal enough to afford their next high, they might have a better chance at affording housing. Im all for housing those who need it. And housing is too expensive in cities, but the meth/fent addict who cant even manage to keep their pants on has more severe problems than the going rate on a studio apartment.
"what has the war on drugs really ended up accomplishing?"
A lot of comments here have a "Portland was a lot better before decriminalization" theme. So at least some people might think the war on drugs was working out better than the current policies.
I'm not saying we should bring back the war on drugs, but the argument you are making can no longer be taken for granted.
Also you can just point to all the countries that do have a war on drugs, and have been successful, and do not have major problems with drugs as a result.
I think sometimes the point to make something illegal is not to stop it. But to make the behavior unacceptable to do in public.
Maybe we can craft better laws that just enforce them get aspect.
But if it is flat out illegal then some amount of trying to hide it will occur. As a result, maybe those two meth heads would have not been wondering around in the public where they will harm others.
Making legal and taxing it would still result in the meth head problem, and potentially increase bad behaviors associated with getting money to buy the higher taxes drug.
> Fucked up as his story may be, what has the war on drugs really ended up accomplishing? Do we really think amping it up will make things better?
A full-on "war on drugs" and "do noting" are both extremes. Not many people are in favour of a war on drugs, but that doesn't mean complete laissez-faire policies are the solution either.
"Drugs are illegal" and "war on drugs" are NOT the same thing.
> what has the war on drugs really ended up accomplishing?
I haven't studied this extensively, and I know that it's widely accepted that the war on drugs was unsuccessful, but I would caution against conflating "it didn't completely solve the problem" with "it had no positive impact at all." As a parent comment mentioned, periods of prohibition are generally associated with lower consumption overall (across both legal and illegal channels).
We're not talking about a war on drugs that "didn't completely solve the problem", we're talking about one that made the problem ten times worse and fucked up society in the process.
It doesn't matter if it had any positive impact, the negative impact outweigh them so much it's a downright crime against humanity that imprisoned millions of people in a system that constitutes modern day slave labor.
It’s not clear to me that making it legal was the problem. The marketing was catastrophic. The amount of messaging, in doctors’ offices and otherwise, about using long-acting painkillers, getting ahead of the pain, making sure your pain was treated, etc was ridiculous.
Nowadays, the messaging is quite different. And we’re starting to learn that the opioids may not even work for the things people like using them for, regardless of how dangerous they are:
I'm sure the marketing for legalized Meth will be more responsible (just like it is for everything else that isn't good for us).
What is the compulsion to find some tiny fragment of an argument to go against the obvious? Maybe it's because you'd need an absolutely idealized scenario to take legalizing drug use seriously.
You know those countries that legalized drugs? Feel free to look up how well that's going.
We should stop all the current Meth marketing...that'll solve the addiction problem for sure.
What are all these scenarios where policy makers have absolute control of how drugs are sold and consumed? Meth is illegal, as in we don't allow "marketing" today. But if it was legal, it'll only be the marketing that will be the potential problem? What is the point of these arguments? The low enforcement/legalization options have been tried in various places in various ways, not one has gone well. Besides magical thinking, what is the actual argument that legalizing drugs makes it less of a problem?
Marketing of legal prescription drugs can be restricted in certain ways, but it has to be allowed unless we modify the First Amendment. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right and can't be casually eliminated just because we don't like the results.
Advertisements for prescription drugs are very heavily restricted in the US. And, as far as I know, companies selling prescription drugs may not encourage doctors to use them arbitrarily.
I don’t know whether anyone has ever tested the constitutionality of the relevant laws and regulations, but they exist and are enforced.
Is that the overwhelming opinion of legal scholars?
I think I would be just fine with a change like that. If sales of a product can be restricted, why should advertising for that product need to be unrestricted?
It doesn't feel to me like advertising is more of a fundamental right than engaging in sales.
I don’t, and never have, seen posters in doctors’ offices suggesting that patients get ahead of their symptoms (of hunger? sleepiness? distraction?) by taking prescription meth. And I’ve never heard any suggestion that the high incidence of methamphetamine is caused by its legality.
I didn't say that, just pointing out that a lot of these illegal drugs have already legal analogs that are quite similar in chemical composition. (If I were to make an argument here, it'd be more along the lines that we're overdiagnosing ADHD and overprescribing stimulants)
If you had any experience with this at all you would realize how profoundly ignorant it is to conflate the downstream effects of meth with adderall. Anyone reading this please please do not make this mistake.
I know some people that are (former) meth addicts, and you know where they got their start? I'll give you a hint, it happened when the doctors stopped prescribing their ADHD meds or they wanted a higher dose. Just sayin'
Oxycontin is still legal, as is methamphetamine (Desoxyn) and cocaine (Numbrino). They can all be legally prescribed by a physician, although as DEA scheduled controlled substances they are subject to tight restrictions.
The issue with Oxycontin (and related opioid painkillers) wasn't the legal status. It was over prescription triggered by a range of unethical actions by pharmaceutical companies (mainly Purdue Pharma) plus some doctors who took advantage of the situation.
Incorrect. The literal capital owners used the fucking market to push the sale of these drugs. So much so they caused a problem they now profit off the fix for…
There are countries all over the world that take a much stricter prohibitionist approach, and overwhelmingly do not have the same problem with drugs. Your claims instantly fall apart given the numerous counter examples of countries that DO successfully criminalize drugs.
Probably as many regulations as there are on alcohol or tobacco or pharmaceuticals (which I'm also not a fan of the doctor/pharmaceutical gated access to other drugs). If you produce it has to be pure, tested, not adulterated, with standards for production facilities. If you consume, only in particular establishments or at home, and you can't drive while under the influence.
If someone breaks those regulations, then they face similar kinds of penalties as people who produce and consume alcohol would. I really do not understand why people do not draw the same conclusion as if we don't already have a terribly destructive drug that society has more or less made peace with.
If it’s genuinely dangerous for passersby when people are on the streets and have high doses of meth in them, then maybe?
I don’t know nearly enough about the behavior of mentally ill homeless people and how it varies with addiction status and current meth levels, but I think there is no shortage of recent reports of dangerous addicts in various cities.
You're the one who proposed the regulation ("particular establishments or at home"), and now you are already second-guessing whether it should actually be enforced (asking if it's "genuinely dangerous... maybe").
Regulation sounds good, but it doesn't just happen because it's written down. Enforcement is the messy part.
My question stands, then: does "legalize and regulate" mean that there would be regulations preventing the stated problems in Portland, and that they'd be actually enforced? Or is it essentially just the same as plain legalization?
> If you consume, only in particular establishments or at home,
I think you're imagining a hypothetical scenario that doesn't match the problems described in the article.
Portland isn't having problems with crime and homelessness because responsible adults are consuming moderate amounts of drugs from the comfort of their homes on the weekends.
> If someone breaks those regulations, then they face similar kinds of penalties as people who produce and consume alcohol would.
I think you've missed the point of the article and what's being discussed. Decriminalizing drug use means removing those penalties, which has resulted in widespread public drug use in those cities.
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 taxes, insurance, or any other costs associated with legitimate businesses) and legitimate businesses can't compete, and they go under.
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.
Socialize the drug distribution then. The government can manufacture and distribute drugs at dirt cheap prices.
I don't want legal drugs for me, but to get rid of the criminal distribution networks, and reduce the lengths addicts need to go to in order to procur drugs (which may often culminate in robbery and theft)
Why can "the government" distribute drugs at dirt cheap prices? Maybe you come from a country where that happens but in the US the government couldn't distribute masks during a pandemic.
Plus cheaper, easier accessible drugs lower crime, overdoses...how?
The way Ive heard this done is you get a prescription from you doctor, you go to a dedicated facility where you get your prescribed dose and fresh gear, and you have to take your dose there under supervision by medical staff.
This lets the addicts get their hits without overdosing, without them having to steal or sell themselves to buy the next hit, and they're not funding narco cartels and terrorists.
Sweet, let’s have a government that profiteers off providing their people with extremely addictive, life-destroying, undeniably harmful substances. I’m sure that’ll work out great and not be corrupted ever.
As long as you short-sighted folks keep this idiotic social experimentation out of Oregon, go nuts. We’ve had enough of being the nation’s testbed of half-assed radical policy.
> Sweet, let’s have a government that profiteers off providing their people with extremely addictive, life-destroying, undeniably harmful substances. I’m sure that’ll work out great and not be corrupted ever.
Did you miss the part where we were suggesting the government didn't make money off of this?
> “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.
I live in Sao Paulo, Brazil. We have quite bad drug abuse issues as well.
I have helped a group that rescued several people (I believe most with drug addiction) from the streets[1]. What they do, and several other groups, and also government institutes do, is offer voluntary recovery programs that are legitimately very good. You can go there and they'll take care of you, including professional psychologist/psychiatrist support (and medicine to help get off drugs); in the main institution we're working with[2], former homeless and former drug dependents help directly in welcoming people. I'm not sure that's the whole solution to the drug problem, but I think it's part of the solution -- getting out in the streets, offering help to the homeless and addicts, and if they want, taking them somewhere that'll offer shelter and recovery from addiction. [3]
There's one rule in those places: you can't go in with drugs with you. Of course, if the person becomes too violent then they might not be able to deal with them either.
Please, go out there and help (while staying safe too, preferably in a group) -- or help institutions that do this kind of work (like we say, everyone can play a role, be it in a kitchen, on the streets, or with donations). I think it's groups like this that keep things from falling apart.
There are many people on the streets for whom drugs are just a quick escape mechanism, and have economic issues, mental health issues, or health issues (or all together), and a compassionate community/institutions that helps everyone recover is what really is needed I think.
Pretending they don't exist or as a friend calls "shuffling them around" doesn't work.
[1] Our group offers a meal once a week (Sunday nights, where they have difficulty finding something to eat), and we offer taking them off the streets. It's incredible what genuinely caring about people will do: I've seen people cry when you hand them a plate of food.
[3] Other important parts being, educating people about the tragedy of drug abuse, and providing community and support so they don't resort to drugs, and also preventing selling.
A core element of the problem is that Americans are vehemently opposed to involuntary long term psychiatric treatment. Long term, in this context, meaning anything longer than 72 hours or so.
So there’s a push to decriminalize because the alternative is jailing non violent drug offenders. This is counterproductive in many ways and keeps them in cycles that enable addiction like preventing gainful employment, increasing access to network of people that can provide hard drugs, increase hopelessness and worthlessness, increase likelihood of violent behavior, etc.
A better system would be to decriminalize with the alternative of connecting people with serious and persistent mental health issues to significant inpatient mental health supports. Not someone that smokes pot or drops acid every once and a while, but the people like you describe that abuse hard drugs like methamphetamine or fentanyl to the point that they become homeless and frequently experience psychosis. Programs that provide housing, counseling, rehab, etc. but again most people vehemently oppose this for various reasons. Distrust of psychiatry, refusal to fund government programs, a libertarian belief that a person should be able to let themselves self destruct even if it destroys the community around them, etc
no, the prosecutors office cut deals with both of them because they were a) only able to schedule murder trials and b) scared to face a jury in Seattle
When I first moved to Seattle for my first real job, eons ago, my car was stolen. The police came right out, and found my car (they didn't find the thief). I got the car back.
Put them in already overcrowded prisons where there aren't free cells, because the prisons are full of people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses?
Put them in treatment centers...that don't have the beds? Or the staff?
Or do you intend to cut the supply, using some technique which has been undiscovered by US law enforcement, fifty years into the "war on drugs"? Or, any other developed nation for that matter?
"just" take away their meth, and you have the nerve to accuse me of pointless exaggeration
I'm not proposing doing anything at all to "them". I would enforce the laws making it illegal to sell. It won't remove everything, it would just reduce supply.
> Put them in already overcrowded prisons where there aren't free cells, because the prisons are full of people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses?
You don't want to put them in prison because they are already there? Hu?
> Put them in treatment centers...that don't have the beds? Or the staff?
This isn't even true.
> which has been undiscovered by US law enforcement, fifty years into the "war on drugs"
And yet somehow every city that isn't Portland manages to do it sufficiently well.
>Conservatives and moderates refuse to allocate spending for treatment programs or expand what social programs cover
Democrats have complete control of the entire west coast of the United States, they run basically unopposed. I actually don't understand what is standing in the way of them allocating money for this stuff. California is currently formulating a plan to spend an incredible amount of money on reparations, so presumably they have the power to spend the kind of money in the way you are suggesting.
West coast states are also incredibly rich, they collect a huge sum in taxes each year. All of the ingredients seem, to me, to be present to implement the idea you are talking about.
Because we can say the exact same thing in the other direction. Go to a group that's grieving over car deaths, and tell them you're glad that resources that could have helped are instead going to fight the war on drugs.
Since this method gets such contradictory results, maybe it's a bad method for evaluating things!
In these groups is the consensus view you've all come to that addiction is to blame and nothing else of note? Any shared group feeling about overall policy solutions? Or everyone thinks if drugs were maximally criminalized they wouldn't be there?
I'm genuinely curious but I'm also biased. I was a homeless street addict myself for a long time and the only way I ever got out was a combination of harm reduction and expensive medical attention I am in no way entitled to as an american.
Most of my problems were ultimately caused by carceral violence and I can't really see how more of it would have helped me. But idk, open to other views I guess.
Thanks for your comment, it's good to have perspectives from other people with real life experiences. It sounds like you're in a better place which is great to hear :)
Me and most people I met who were victimized by drug users "blame addiction" in the narrow sense that we don't think the people who victimized us would have behaved that way in the absence of the drugs. I don't think the general attitude was that drug users are bad people, more that drug use can result in people acting in ways that they otherwise wouldn't. I certainly don't think using any drug reduces a person's human value.
I'm in support of targeting pathways and outcomes that I think might be similar to yours. We probably have different perspectives on some forms of harm reduction and agree on others, which I think is inevitable based on our different experiences. I think we agree that medical attention and pathways to overcoming addiction outside of jail are important ingredients to a successful recovery.
To me it's not so much about punishing drug use (jail time), it's about stopping drug addiction (intervention and recovery). For example I think intervening in such a way that a user is confirmed to get at least a few hours of sleep before potentially using meth again would be a big start.
I'll admit that I support confiscating drugs when found, but I'm not advocating that arrest is always appropriate. I am in favor of punishing selling meth, which I acknowledge is perhaps hypocritical given my other beliefs knowing that plenty of people sell to support their habits.
I do think it's important to have a mechanism of mandatory intervention, and my non-lawyer understanding is that criminalizing drugs is really the only way to put mandatory intervention on the table. I met mothers who could not force their children into rehab, for example. I should be clear that I don't feel this way about all drugs, but I think that methamphetamine specifically poses a risk to the safety of both users and people around them that merits mandatory intervention.
If we had functional mechanisms to to enact mandatory interventions for users that were non-criminal I'm definitely open to that. Depending on the targeted success rate it seems like inpatient detox + rehab would be required in many cases, and I am simply not aware of non-judicial way we can force a person into those circumstances against their will (which in the case of meth I admit I support even if that opinion is controversial).
I am not an expert, but nonetheless I'm now entangled with the topic as one that defines significant aspects of my life (loss of smell and hearing, PTSD, facial disfiguration). I think we can do better than we have been, both recently and since Nixon, but I think that having tough conversations is part of how we'll get better. My experience is that people in my situation frequently have our perspectives invalidated as "politically incorrect" or otherwise irrelevant (not what you're doing BTW thank you for your perspective), and I wanted to speak up to make sure people know that we exist and we don't want our numbers to grow.
Congratulations on your recovery, and FWIW I really like your your username/giraffes :)
I’ve never been to a support group, and you have, so take this from that perspective. It seems to me that the support group wouldn’t want outsiders dropping by to share their opinions.
Please stop incessantly committing appeal to emotion fallacies.
This is about as helpful as "please go to welfare office and tell everyone to just work harder" or "please go to a substance abuse center and tell everyone to just, you know, stop using drugs mkay?" or "please go to a prison and tell everyone that crime is bad and they just need to fly right and everything will be fine."
It seems to me like there are places where it does, and places where it doesn't. In the places where it works, everyone agrees that it works, and in the places where it doesn't, everyone agrees that it doesn't.
I'm very curious about the underlying factors for this.
It's hard, and for the record I'm also anti-prohibition about many substances (just not meth). I had weed in my pocket when I was assaulted that I campaigned to legalize in WA. I shared streets with plenty of harmless drug users too.
I'm sorry for calling you out, after seeing this comment it's obvious I would have done better to give you some space to think. It's an emotionally charged experience that I'm still learning how to rationalize years later - but haste makes waste and I was hasty.
I just want to make sure people know that victims like me exist, and though we are often treated as if our perspectives are invalid/uncouth/politically incorrect most of us simply want to stop other people from going through similar experiences. Telling people off doesn't spread that message and isn't helping bring smart ideas to the table, which I regret.
Sorry this happened to you but every human has the god given right to use whatever substances they please and no government can tell them otherwise.
Perhaps your anger should be focused at the government officials and local policies for allowing these people to live in tents on public property and use drugs in public.
I'm sorry for your experience, but consider this: in central and south America, drug cartels are murdering and beating people every day. I think it would be an understatement to say there are more beatings and murders being dealt by drug cartels than meth-induced psychos.
Why do drug cartels thrive? Simple: because drugs are illegal in the USA. By legalizing drugs, we would bankrupt them.
There’s one thing to have legal drugs and another to turn a blind eye on people shooting or smoking crack in broad daylight in the public, defecating everywhere and attacking random people. That’s a bit too much for the rest of us to bear. Common sense seems to be upside down and inside out these days.
I have been travelling through Latin America, going through Cancun, Bogota, Lima and Buenos Aires, spent a few weeks in each city. I've been walking around these cities a lot, including at night. I've never seen any people who looked dangerous or felt afraid for my safety.
I really think that a lot of stereotypes about the region are outdated by about 20 or 30 years by this point.
Bankrupt them? The drug cartels in mexico have other means of income, don't be daft.
Still it's really amazing what mental gymnastics people make to justify the norms. You've got fear instilled in your decision to go outside your house and still call yourself the land of the free.
Do you have some stats to back up the implied claim that homeless drug users significantly raise assault rates? Portland is a very safe city AFAIK.
Either way It’s less about “we should let people sell meth” and “we should let people sell meth if the only other option is just jailing them” IMO. obviously no one wants to see or be homeless drug addicts taking up public space. But we don’t really have a ton of options without systemic change
> And in Portugal, no distinction is made between “hard” or “soft” drugs, or whether consumption happens in private or public. What matters is whether the relationship to drugs is healthy or not.
Interesting.
Of course Portugal has a stronger social safety net, indeed stronger social fabric (though sometimes it feels a bit too strong)
I live here. There is almost no crime, the streets are clean, very few (visible) homeless, good public transport. I wish they'd cheer up a bit though, maybe colour outside the lines occasionally.
One of the unfortunate side effects of criminalizing drug use has been the muddying of the ethical landscape around law breaking. The argument that drug use laws are unjust has bled into a belief that other illegal behavior is somehow excusable when committed by an addict.
So it's not that Portland made a mistake in decriminalizing public drug use. Their mistake was that they stopped enforcing other laws around the misbehavior addicts engage in.
I'm from Portland. And, recently moved to Florida. This issue feels a lot less cut and dried than people make it out.
One thing I've noticed in Florida is that there are no public spaces. Every park has explicit hours, where it is illegal to be there after 10 pm. And, there are blue lives matters signs everywhere, so I'm sure that the police round up anyone who doesn't comply.
Also, Florida has a low prison population rate, only 900 per 100k. Low when you compare it to other states that is. Northern states are much lower, like Oregon at 550. Taking 40,000 people off the street is one way to solve homelessness.
I bet there are lots of people in Florida who live cheaply away from any population centers because of the police presence and to avoid imprisonment. Those people probably would be homeless on the West Coast.
There was an extremely high people case in Portland recently where a man attacked two young black men on the train. His name is Adrian Cummings. Supposedly he was let out of jail in Oregon and that's indicative of a failure of the criminal justice system because he should have been in jail long before that assault.
But he's a Floridian. He had a lengthy criminal record before reaching Oregon and his drug addiction didn't start in Oregon. The transformation of his face over a short period due to drug addiction is crazy to see in his mug shots.
ITT: lots of people who seriously believe (or pretend they believe) that you can fix a deep and complex social problem as drug use, in 3 years, with a couple of laws.
The war on drugs is three-generations old; it will take at least a generation after abandoning it to see good results. Of course there will be mistakes on the way (and allowing brazen drug use in public spaces is probably one of those - a lot of stuff that is absolutely fine to do in private is not allowed on the streets). That doesn't mean you throw away the baby with the bathwater.
The police in Portland usually won't even show up when people call from stores being (nonviolently) stolen from. How would they suddenly have the bandwidth (and/or will) to enforce this?
I have no more sympathy left for drug users after my wife was attacked in daylight in downtown Portland on the way to work. Enablement is not compassion.
It was great up through the early 90s, and then turned into an absolutely bonkers shithole run by people too dumb and too extremist to be considered even progressive (I support many progressive polices and causes fwiw).
I basically was ran out of my own town when the politicians, police, and moonbat locals – many of whom were not born there – started thinking of Portland as some sort of weird test bed, layering on all kinds of experimental policies and governance. It hollowed out the downtown area, made it nigh on impossible to start a business, and made everything bonkers expensive.
I'm sad to say I had no choice but to leave. All of these decisions left very little opportunity to build a career (many of the businesses left) own a house (NIMBY 'urban planning' made housing unattainable) and of course the streets became as gross as the Mission in SFO.
It's like the worst of the Hippy Boomers were able to enact all of their worst policies in one small town and now it's a microcosm of their weird blend of laissez-faire social policies mixed with maximcally-extractive taxation and fiscal policies.
Doesn’t Portland have a housing affordability problem? Why was the answer to “people are using drugs in public because they can’t afford a place to do it in private” to legalize public use? I swear we’ll do anything to address the consequences of lack of housing except actually build enough houses.
I'd be interested to hear from people in large European cities and whether public drug use and homelessness are as big of an issue there as they are here.
I've only been to a handful of European cities, and none seem to struggle with either to the extent we see in larger cities in the US.
Public drug use is something that I've never seen in Bavaria. Altough you'll be able to find it if you know where to look.
Seriously though, leftist cities like Berlin have the same problems as the US, although on a much smaller scale. It's what D. Trump would call an shithole. Bavaria is clean, because we enforce a restrictive drug policy.
As for homeless, we've got some, but they're voluntarily so. The shelters don't accept alcohol, drugs nor dogs. They gather far away from any business/residintial area. (In my local town, under a bridge between a river and an animal shelter.)
After any period of repression there's a rebound effect, it happened after the prohibition of alcohol was rescinded too. Unfortunately, the insane 'war on drugs' has created much harder and more dangerous substances than alcohol.
The problem will be that we already know the cycle of
illegal drug use->jail->out of jail with worse stuff
is not working..
What would work better....
illegal drug use->modified jail sentence for non violent offenders to be in ail-designed-rehab
I say modified in that successful completion of rehab steps gets parts of sentence modified...
But at the same time we need to address the legal drug problem that lead to
50% of this problem in the first place....stats show huge amount of people who got addicted to legal opoids before their illegal drug use...yes it is actually 50% in places in the US....
And saying something failed because of under usage is not actually saying it failed but saying incentives to use it are not aligned.
The problem is fentanyl. It is cheaper than dirt and can be laced into almost anything. A lethal dose is easy to administer. Fentanyl is also extremely addictive.
You can't decriminalize or legalize hard drug use without first tackling the reason people use drugs. Otherwise they'll just end up in downtown again, shooting up in public.
And you can't ban public drug use unless you want to build a lot of new jails.
So the answer is to put all drug users into one place, like The Wire. It'll be the nastiest place on earth, but at least all other places will be prettier.
I’m not sure how well it will work but NYC is experimenting with supervised consumption centers. The goal is twofold: Reduce overdose deaths by having trained medics on hand and convince users to enroll in rehabilitation programs.
P2P is a methamphetamine precursor, not a drug in itself AFAIK
Edit: I did a search and can't find much. There seems to be a lot of bullshit but suspiciously little by way of solid info. The best I could find was this so-called super meth is simply higher in the dextro isomer which gives the high (the levo being less interesting effect-wise). But that's well known already so...?
1. Drug use and the fallout was infitesimal compared to what it is after it was widely culturally promoted and approved of. Neither has alcohol abuse been supplanted.
2. Drug addicts (which especially includes pot users) will argue for maximum legalization until everyone is blue in the face, and despite any counter argument. Such is the nature of addiction.
At some point, people need to be again ignored for the social good. Drug use legalization advocates will always remain, but they will be less with time.
Criminalizing drug addiction is wrong, but letting drug addicts proliferate and live in squalor with no consequences is even worse. The pendulum has swung so far to the left, and now everyone is suffering. It really makes me wonder what these drug proliferation activists are thinking. Do they really think that seeing people lying on the sidewalks in their own feces is freedom or a good thing?
It was a failure because it wasn’t enforced uniformly, not because it existed. We need a new War on Drugs, but crack and cocaine should have equivalent (harsh) penalties.
Banning public drug use will simply criminalize the actions of the poor and vulnerable. Rich people can continue to hoover up kilos of coke in their gated enclaves. Where is a person living on the street supposed to go to enjoy their completely legal cannabis product?
So we only care about either the rich or the destitute? How about the vast majority of people in between those poles who don’t want to be harassed by crazed meth heads or walk their kids past a forest of fent zombies?
Crazy how people think there is a viable solution other than strict intolerance of public drug use. The mental gymnastics are gold medal worthy.
(Also, I know quite a few rich people and none of them do coke. They’re problem is booze and food-just like everyone else in America)
It seems trying to solve the homeless drug addiction crisis is putting the cart before the horse. Why are there so many homeless drug users in the first place? Any real solution for the problem would be to prevent people from ending up like this.
If you fall out of the rat race in the US you are screwed. No job, no insurance, no health care, no house, no car followed by homelessness and drug use. After all that it would take an insane amount of effort to get you back up to the ladder.
I know socialism is the big scary word in the US, but socialist European countries mostly prevent people from falling down the ladder that far and fast and the amount of homeless and drug use is significantly lower over here.
> If you fall out of the rat race in the US you are screwed. No job, no insurance, no health care, no house, no car followed by homelessness and drug use. After all that it would take an insane amount of effort to get you back up to the ladder.
This isn't true at all. The US has a good social safety net, just like European countries. San Francisco in particular has free, universal healthcare, rent assistance programs, eviction protection programs, public transportation, pretty much everything you mentioned.
The problem is if you're a nuisance to your neighbors (i.e., smoking drugs indoors, which my downstairs neighbor decided to start doing during 2020), you will be kicked out if you don't own your place (and you don't have an HOA). At which point, you can go to a shelter (of which there are many in SF), but if you refuse to do that, well…
The US is a very young country, with a burn it down and see what happens culture. A frontier state.
It is amazing to watch the speed run of recreating basic civilization from first principles. Why do laws exist? Why do we need traffic signals?
You think I am joking?
Portland disbanded traffic law enforcement! After quite a lot of traffic deaths, mostly minorities they tried to protect, they just reinstated traffic cops. More black people were killed by this decision than by cops in Portland...
"Portland has experienced record levels of traffic fatalities in the years since Lovell emptied the traffic division. In 2021, 63 people died in traffic-related deaths in Portland — the highest number in at least three decades. Portland matched that count in 2022."
"Multnomah County Public Health Manager Brendon Haggerty said. “The third reason this is especially alarming for public health is that we see racial disparities.”
He added, “in Multnomah County, the death rate from traffic crashes among the Black population is about twice the rate of the non-Hispanic, white population.”
>The US is a very young country, with a burn it down and see what happens culture.
The United States as a nation-state is older than almost all of European nation-states, barring a few. It is one of the few nation-states that has continually existed since its foundation, without interruption.
Germany for example was unified in 1871. Were there 'Germans' (who spoke the language) before then? Sure. Germany? No. Neither Prussia nor Austria is the German nation-state. The modern German state was recreated after WW2 in 1940s. France is on its god knows what number of Republic now after Kingdom-Republic-Empire-Republic revolutions etc (although I'll grant that 'France' as a singular 'country' is older than the US). Italy was unified well later. The dutchy of Poland is not the modern Poland, etc.
It is one of the oldest(among the other very few) continually existing nation-states still alive today.
Again, culture/language/people != nation states. I didn't realize bureaucracy meant nations. With that logic ottomans would still exist!
India is a very young country. Indians as multiple civilizations/peoples are some of the oldest ones. Two completely separate things. Shame you can't see that.
Very young courtry but most successful in the last 200 years
What do you mean by young?
Roman Empire young? Relative terms like young/old when applied to a country that’s a melting of all others let’s me believe you’re not an American or have studied American history in depth.
I find it astonishing that nobody has the common sense to consider that the nature of this epidemic is uniquely American, and thus learn from the plenty of developed nations that don't have this problem.
You will barely find any find meth or fentanyl in Western Europe. You won't have zombie blocks nor would they ever be tolerated at this scale. The absurd amount of deaths would trigger urgent and decisive actions.
Nor would frequent petty crimes be tolerated. In the Dutch city that I live, there were imminent threats of looting during the lockdown curfew days. Vast crowds of local men, including the local football hooligans, formed a spontaneous army awaiting the looters.
They would not allow their town to be trashed. Everybody stood for the integrity of their community: citizens, police, businesses. Public disorder is not tolerated, not at a large scale anyway.
The attitude to just let it spiral out of control is anything but "progressive". You have a right to public order, clean cities, consistency in applying justice, it's the basis of a functioning society.
> I find it astonishing that nobody has the common sense to consider that the nature of this epidemic is uniquely American, and thus learn from the plenty of developed nations that don't have this problem.
FYI, most American cities aren't like this.
The article describes Portland for a reason: They're one of a small number of cities that experimenting with decriminalization (combined, theoretically, with treatment programs) under the theory that it would improve the situation. It has not improved the situation.
I think you might be viewing America through the lens of whatever stories make the news headlines, which is an aggregate of all the worst situations in the country. It's not representative of the entire country.
The US has about 200X more land than the Netherlands. It's huge and more diverse than you might be used to if you're imagining it as a parallel to where you lived.
I'm not too familiar with the situation in Portland, but I have heard that programs which decriminalize drugs and provide care centers are not effective without existing social nets such as solid unemployment programmes and public health programmes that treated addicts can use to get themselves out of the socio-economic hole they got themselves into
Maybe the US is lacking in those programmes and is why the drug legalization programme is not effective in Portland?
The size of a country isn't an excuse for any of this. You won't find this phenomenon in other large developed countries either, not with these specifics.
This is about laying down the law in a very basic way.
Hmm go to North Korea and let me know about their drug use and violent crime; internet arm chair comments like these just show how out of touch most people on HN are
The root cause in both instances isn't drugs and so infinite spending or (de)criminalization won't matter. The core issue is hope. In the absence of work for the abled and care for the disabled and housing, there isn't much hope and so crimes, habits, and deaths of despair take hold. Without holistic and comprehensive betterment of people who feel ignored and cheated, there isn't much for this growing sector of society to look forward to. It should be no wonder why many people are so desperate and put faith in a lying, vindictive con artist like Trump.
This assessment contradicts all evidence we have on the homelessness in the US. Unemployment rate is very low in the US, shelters are very often half-empty. Drug-addicts and homeless people refuse help (unless it's cash or free drugs).
The idea that we just need to invest more and more into this extremely corrupt industry has no merit.
Shelters have a lot of restrictions that keep swaths of homeless out. For instance most don't allow animals or carts. If you're homeless and don't want to abandon those you're stuck on the street. There might be reasons for restrictions but they exist and homeless are excluded from shelters because of them.
What are you talking about? Homeless shelters are full, wages are the lowest they have been in decades, and US health care is the most expensive in the world
This is an endless argument. Why can't a person with 0 skills rent an apartment in San Francisco? Some wages are very low. If you can't afford rent in one of the most expensive cities on the planet, move to a cheaper place, don't become homeless in SF.
Do you want me to solve this for you? Here you go:
You're acting like people aren't emotionally attached to their home cities.
Most people are born and raised in the same city or area their whole lives. The adult illiteracy rate is 20% and less than 40% get any kind of 4 year degree. Options are limited. People will cling to hope and the life (and community!) they know, until they're broke and lost their job... and at that point, they straight up can't move to Fresno and start that Walmart job. Walmart wouldn't hire them without a local place to live, and cheap Fresno landlords wouldn't rent to someone without a local job. Neither Walmart nor the landlord has an incentive to change, they're doing just fine exploiting the local Fresno populace.
Low-skill/low-pay life situations are a completely different reality than what well-off knowledge workers know.
> You're acting like people aren't emotionally attached to their home cities.
Respectfully, you misplace the responsibility. When people go through a rough breakup, we don't call for the person experiencing attachment anxiety to be housed with their ex just because it would make things easier for one party at least temporarily. Life is full of hard moments and challenging choices. The fact that something is hard doesn't mean giving up is the healthiest path that the society should encourage.
Talk to people who work in social services. The fact is, visibly homeless (street homeless, most often addicted people) are in this situation not because they have tried everything else and have no choices. They don't seek employment and often refuse help. They are not part of a community (unless you consider other homeless people they randomly ended up living close to their true community).
As usual, the discussion about homeless is kind of pointless without clarifying which segment we are talking about. Homeless families with children, disabled non-addicts, etc are not someone I include in this discussion, and I never see them living on the street.
With all due respect, I was responding to your original highly reductionistic take
> Do you want me to solve this for you? Here you go:
As if your list was anything close to a viable solution for someone already homeless and addicted.
With this post, you're right - it is absolutely more complex. There are absolutely families on the street, they're just more likely in cars or squatting rather than assaulting people.
Beds can be located in places that lock people out of employment or introduce them to toxic elements... and becoming unhoused by itself causes mental health issues in a society which does nothing but stigmatize that from birth to adulthood.
Even within treatment, skilled help is chronically burned out and mediocre help is worse than a rubber duck.
There's a need for structural reform, from policing through sentencing and voluntary/mandatory rehabilitation, as well as public education. Not to mention real estate bottlenecks that drive up prices for everone from low-income odd-job workers, to the city police force, to building new institutional facilities, to staffing social services.
Agree with all your points. We just need the people in power to recognize and act on that, instead of pandering to the extreme vocal minority and throwing money at an industry that has no incentive to make itself more efficient and effective.
This is an unpopular but more tenable solution. The federal government should step in should anyone be homeless and find them better living conditions and comprehensive services especially in under-utilized, lower cost areas where it is cheaper to deliver services. The federal government level is necessary because it amortizes the financial risks more fairly than dumping the costs on specific municipalities.
The article discusses the significant problem of empty beds in Los Angeles County's homeless shelters, despite a large homeless population. Investigations reveal safety and sanitation issues in many shelters, such as bedbugs, rats, foul odors, and lax medical care. Half of the LAHSA shelters had 78 percent utilization. Homeless individuals cite issues like theft, harassment, and violence within shelters, prompting some to prefer living on the streets. There's no unified oversight system, and the is much room for improvement to ensure humane conditions in shelters.
Approximately 7,800 homeless people in San Francisco, 2,100 have been approved for subsidized housing, yet challenges persist in moving them indoors. The city cites issues such as a shortage of case managers, complicated paperwork, and resistance from the homeless to certain unit conditions. Although efforts have been made to address the problem, including a $62 million investment in case managers, the average wait time has increased to five months, a significant delay considering the program's annual budget of $356 million. The article calls for an in-depth audit of the permanent supportive housing program and urgent action to house homeless individuals promptly.
The article discusses California's Project Roomkey initiative, launched by Governor Gavin Newsom in April 2020 to lease 15,000 hotel rooms for homeless individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the program's progress has been slow, with only about half of the rooms occupied over a month into its implementation. Challenges include delays in preparing rooms for occupancy, a shortage of service providers, and difficulties in transitioning residents into permanent housing. While some counties, like Sacramento, have seen relative success, others, such as San Diego and Orange County, struggle to fill leased rooms. The initiative, funded by FEMA, targets homeless individuals aged 65 or older and those with health conditions susceptible to COVID-19, but the article raises concerns about the overall effectiveness and limited coverage of the program in addressing the state's homelessness crisis.
Thanks for the summary. All of that confirms that the shelters are not full, they are underutilized. I am opposed to the idea that we just need to pump more money into this issue, which then gets distributed among "case managers".
E.g. we have invested $62M in case managers to handle 2100 approved cases? With the program's annual budget being $365M? This shows a ridiculous level of bloat and corruption. Do we need to spend $30K per case, considering that this doesn't cover the shelter expense?
I am not opposed helping people in need, I am opposed the idea that we just need to spend more money. And then next year a little bit more. More taxes, more case managers, more street cleaning teams, more safe injection sites. None of that is solving homelessness, all of that is contributing to making the homeless industry bigger.
Caveat: unemployment statistics don't count people who aren't seeking work. Which chronically homeless and/or drug addicted people usually do not.
> The unemployment rate measures the share of workers in the labor force who do not currently have a job but are actively looking for work. People who have not looked for work in the past four weeks are not included in this measure.
Basically what unemployment rate tells us is that USA has enough jobs for people who want to work. It says nothing about people who have given up looking.
> Basically what unemployment rate tells us is that USA has enough jobs for people who want to work. It says nothing about people who have given up looking.
That's a fair point. If people are not seeking work but claim benefits indefinitely, doesn't this require a different solution than blaming the society and expecting taxpayers to take care of that?
Which benefits are you referring to? Unemployment insurance and welfare are generally time limited. Disability payments can last forever, specifically because those people can't work. (There is a small amount of disability fraud by people who are capable of working but choose not too, and are able to convince physicians to approve their claims.)
Benefits in a very broad sense. This includes both e.g. SF General Assistance payments and things like cleaning the streets from syringes, urine and poop on a weekly basis.
I have come to the conclusion that lots of humans have a religion-shaped hole in their psyche. It is far better to fill it with a stable, local, hope-giving religion.
Hymns are a better opiate of the masses than fentanyl.
While I agree that the reduction in the role of religion in the US is partially to blame for the increase in severe cases of drug addition, the idea that we need to bring religion back essentially to control people is extremely patronizing. Basically, we are saying that some people are too stupid to live productively if they are not controlled by fairy tales.
This is the same approach as we are seeing in the "far left" bubble in the context of this issue: street drug addicts have no responsibilities and agency, the society has to accommodate their every whim, including ignoring all illegal activities they are engaged in.
Until we acknowledge that benefits come with responsibilities we are not going to solve this.
It's naive to see religion as fairy tales. If used correctly, the tales are a medium of communication to instill values, discipline and morals in the masses.
The fundamental reason and ground for these morals will remain in fairy tales. You don't see how divisive and fragile that is? This is fundamentally wrong, even if it used to work effectively.
Surely there is another way? Stronger families, philosophy, sports, education? Humanism over religion - the only truly universal approach.
It's not fairy tales. Its human need for attachment to something greater. America has not filled that with anything else. The previous flag waving civic nationalism has become demonized so now there's nothing.
Religion is far from the only venue to explore the purpose and meaning of one's life.
I think religion is declining because people are discovering there are many ways to perform self-discovery and practice fulfillment.
The only aspect of religion that has been beneficial to modern society is providing a social venue for others to interact. This can be achieved by building stronger neighborhoods and encouraging the development of more welcoming social venues -- something that I think is the cure to America's loneliness epidemic.
> I think religion is declining because people are discovering there are many ways to perform self-discovery and practice fulfillment.
Let's suppose this were true. If, as you say, it's all about purpose and meaning, then we would expect that although everyone's conception of these things is different, it would still provide the same benefit. However, this is not what we find. Markers of purpose and meaning (such as suicide rate, depression, etc) are getting worse, not better.
So we're forced to come to terms with a few possible conclusions, none of which are very good for your point of view. Either the systems people are coming up with are insufficient to achieve the same goals or people are not coming up with their own system and are left to flounder.
> This can be achieved by building stronger neighborhoods and encouraging the development of more welcoming social venues -- something that I think is the cure to America's loneliness epidemic.
How is Europe doing on these indicators? Or anywhere else?
I am not surprised by that in the slightest, and I agree that most people struggle with that, myself included. It is THE struggle of our lives.
Being told as a child that if you take drugs you will go to hell is not a meaningful alternative. Not for incredibly complex thinking beings that we are.
Submitting to Jesus, being a part of the "right" religious group is not a benefit to the human race as a whole. It's poison, promoted by power hungry maniacs.
Our maturing world (not just the US) is starting to recognize that religion is BS. We can't go back to relying on religion for keeping our bad instincts at bay. The influence of religion is and has been low in many European countries for decades, which did not result in an increase in homelessness we are seeing in the US.
Social programs, education, keeping corporations in check - these are meaningful alternatives to the idea that we need to bring Jesus back to control the population.
I'm pretty sure they anticipated this attitude in Revelation 3:15
Indifference is worse than extreme atheism or fundamentalism because those two options are actually concerned about others
The indifferent person could care less whether you believe or don't, it's your own "individual responsibility", they owe nothing to you and you owe nothing to them
Widespread indifference will bring about the slow dismantlement of society
East Asia and parts of Europe have quite a few people who are entirely apathetic towards religion. Drug addicts aren't out and open in those regions.
I've really only witnessed such open drug abuse in countries with strong Christian influence, e.g. the US and Latin America. Might be worth investigating why widespread debilitating drug abuse stems from that background.
I mean, they anticipated the effect of eating shellfish and allowing women to speak up in Whatever X:YY, is this going to end the world as we know it as well?
Finding purpose and our place in the world is our individual responsibility. Don't confuse it with the lies of eternal heaven at the cost of total submission in this life that your religion is promoting.
It isn't a "price" that you pay for some reward down the line, or at least that's a pretty shallow way of approaching it, and assuming that is kind of reductive
>the idea that we need to bring religion back essentially to control people is extremely patronizing. Basically, we are saying that some people are too stupid to live productively if they are not controlled by fairy tales.
Can something be simultaneously true and patronizing?
Just looking at how humans in general behave worldwide, I'd say that yes, people are really quite stupid.
Ha, well, yes. But despite sounding so anti-religious and pro individual responsibility, I am not only optimistic, I am always inspired and heartened by us, humans. I believe, we are capable of incredible breakthroughs and are growing as a whole. Untangling from centuries of brutal religious domination will take time, and we will struggle, and sometimes fail. But eventually we will grow out of the need to find purpose in submission, and will thrive as more aware and realized beings.
> I have come to the conclusion that lots of humans have a religion-shaped hole in their psyche.
I increasingly believe the same and I don't believe the vast majority are capable of filling it on their own in a healthy way, but there are a lot of other social factors at play too.
> It is far better to fill it with a stable, local, hope-giving religion.
If it's a binary choice of opiate addiction vs. religious practice, sure. But for many, the hole that some fill with religion is filled with other sorts of meaning-giving practices. Not to take away from the comfort, stability and hope that religious affiliation provides for many; but for others the source of connection to the transcendent and to contributing to concerns beyond oneself comes in different forms.
This is also true. The decline in community (where religion played a large part in cementing personal and local bonds) and increase in anomie has led not just to deaths of despair and to other symptoms not just loneliness and depression, but on the fringes of alienation and disconnection to where some volatile people go as far hate-fueled "blaze of glory" mass shootings.
I find one of the biggest losses, especially in dense cities, is that the churches and community orgs there often lack local, long-term ties to said communities. Also, there are a number of religious institutions in big cities that are sometimes open only on (Friday, Saturday, or Sunday depending on their beliefs) and don't provide as much closeness and synomie for people as rural religious institutions do.
I wouldn't recommend that all things must attempt to recapture the 1950's apartheid and social conservativism in all regards, but a crucial linchpin of a functional society appears to be missing. It is not necessarily religion or faith, but it includes a lack of love for, and trust of, others where America went from community-individual balanced to hyperindividualism with a dysfunctional social safety net.
>I wouldn't recommend that all things must attempt to recapture the 1950's apartheid and social conservativism in all regards
I don't think you can avoid this. If you bring back religion, you necessarily have to accept apartheid and social conservatism. The two go hand-in-hand.
Religion probably worked well for bonding communities back when communities were small and homogeneous and had little contact with the outside world. But in an era of global travel and communications, it doesn't work: we have to have huge wars to decide whose religion is the correct one. Just look at what's going on with Israel lately. Different religions can't peacefully co-exist, so devastating wars are necessary to maintain order.
> Religion probably worked well and bonding communities back when communities were small and homogeneous and had little contact with the outside world.
Religion has been more impactful in spreading knowledge and connecting cultures around the world than the printing press, radio and the internet combined. Religion for a long time was the only contact with the outside world. Christianity today is more or less the culture and knowledge from thousands of years and countless different tribes and cultures, fused into one piece. Spread worldwide by preaching, manuscripts, monks, monasteries and by the sword. Compared to most ideologies that only spread by the sword, ancient and modern.
The default human condition is to spread by breeding among your own people, and exterminate other people. Sometimes just the men and the boy children, to breed with the women. Sometimes by exterminating everybody and even eating them. Cannibalism and human sacrifice was the default human condition for tens of thousands of years, or maybe even for millions of years, before the light came to man.
Thinking that religion is only war and oppression is like thinking math is only for calculating artillery. It's a limited perspective.
This was one of the topics covered by "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong [1]. While she didn't propose people should find religion per se, she did present the argument that a god sized hole exists in our psyche, so if one is not religious it needs to be filled somehow.
The side effect of that is that some people will get it into their head that they're the chosen ones and push their religion onto others at great cost. Religious nations have already shown that.
Consider video games as the opiate instead. At least they don't fuck up your health and you might come out with stronger problem solving skills.
That's not entirely true. Singapore definitely has very few drug problems, but there are still drugs (and violent addicts). Drug arrests make the news at least once a month.
To be clear, I'm 100% behind Singapore's drug laws. Not having to deal with psychotic methheads is my #1 thing about this place (compared with Australia).
But I do wonder if their laws would work elsewhere (i.e. some place that's not a tiny island with a culturally conservative population).
Not saying I agree with Singapore's methodology. But their calculus is that one drug trafficker will bring in enough drugs to kill 5 people. Therefore, the murder of one person is saving 5 others.
Once again, I'm not endorsing or condoning this, just trying to show you how they conceptualize their form of justice.
This is disgusting, dehumanizing, and when applied to any group at any scale will cause atrocity. Says incredibly much about this site that this comment is welcome here. Straight up eliminationist. How about I advocate for your death as a matter of policy?
I have been thinking about how I (and many others) go to work for a corporate job that has ultimately no meaning in life just to be able to get paid to provide for a family that i only get to hang with on saturday and sunday and if i'm lucky 2 weeks straight out of the year. am i alive?
Presumably you at lease derive meaning from your family; not all of us even have that.
I often hear “Had a wife in kids in Baltimore, Jack. I went out for a ride and I never went back” from “Hungry Heart” by Bruce Springsteen in my head when I think about mid-life discontent. That and “Office Space”; it seems to be the rule that we experience it rather than the exception.
If extreme penalties for illicit drug use were the part of the equation that worked, then why does Saudi Arabia's drug problem continue to get worse? They've had a marked increase in the abuse of amphetamines, cocaine, and opioids over the last two decades.
Maybe stop cherry picking the parts that you like and pretending like they're the parts that worked?
If Singapore's economic and social policies were successful, surely people would want to move there? Perhaps skepticism is warranted from teh evil republicanz - the subject of this submission, decriminalization of drug use, was touted largely by left-wingers based on a few similar, seemingly-successful, small-scale efforts in Europe. Now we know how that turned out.
I think perhaps that because solutions have become so partisanly labled, we continue to fail on this. People in this thread are merely asking for common sense policies that exist in basically all other developed countries. This includes socialist countries, where oddly enough disincentives to junkie behavior mean that everyday people can live normal lives in urban places without the constant storm of drug induced bullshit degrading basically everything. Why the American progressives refuse to course correct is inscrutable to me.
Prohibition increased alcohol-related deaths and created a black-market of products so much worse than the regulated market before or after[0]. I would say that, in fact, prohibition did not work.
And neither does current drug prohibition. Fentanyl deaths are directly caused by the black-market supply of drugs in the US, and it isn't "decriminalized" cities like Portland that are leading these charts[1]. The current drug prohibition just means that the demand that will always exist is being supplied by mis-dosed poison instead of a well-regulated market like modern alcohol (and marijuana in some states).
Your article only counts alcohol-caused deaths. Indeed, it fails to account for domestic violence deaths. Although it's true that hundreds of alcoholics died, their children were spared their violent tendencies. One could argue that prohibition pushed the consequence of death on the guilty instead of the innocent, which, if we have to choose between the two, seems the appropriate direction.
So while a few hundred alcoholics died, many more children and women lived. Why is this even a debate? The data are so abundantly clear.
This discourse is so tiresome. There are low crime jurisdictions on this planet that do not have drug epidemics. We know what policies work. They're not pretty, but they're effective. Harden your heart and implement them, or live with the consequences.
Effective at what? The whole reason Portland tried something different is that the last 50 years have proven drugs laws to be largely ineffective at preventing drug abuse and its related issues. Clearly this style of decriminalizing has also proven ineffective, but it’s not like we had a working system before.
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.
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.
If you think drug abuse isn't a problem in Muslim countries I invite you to go to Pakistan and talk to all the heroin addicts who will tell you straight to your face that the Prophet only forbade alcohol. I don't know why people downvoted pokerface_86 (maybe the abusive language) but he had a good rejoinder.
> To this day I know no relative or close friend of mine who ever drank any alcohol, nor one which used any drugs.
That's pretty normal for even some secular (non religious) Americans of European ancestry and their friend groups, I (as one) observe. We were far more interested in sports so that booze would be an interruption in ... sports, for example. I do not know how common that is.
> But ofc this is the unthinkable for West.
No, it's not. (See above.) The thing is that "westerners" that match your friend groups definitely exist with their own matching westerner friend groups, which i guess is a happy surprise. it might be we're not obvious though, to your point.
Forcing people into your religion is highly unethical in my moral framework. Even though it's criminalized here in the west we still see people finding ways to do it.
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 to locking people in jail just for being addicts, cities still need to be a place that people actually want to live in. Revenue prospects for the city are becoming horrid and there is not a lot of runway to continue throwing money at the problem.