4 ms·

I really don’t understand how someone could walk around the streets of San Francisco and think that we need _more_ drugs in our society. With a nearly 6 times

I really don’t understand how someone could walk around the streets of San Francisco and think that we need _more_ drugs in our society. With a nearly 6 times as many people dying from overdoses versus COVID-19[0], it absolutely baffles me that drugs are continuously being decriminalized and legalized while pandemic restrictions are some of the strictest in the nation. Do these politicians really have a lot of public support? [0]: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-12-overdose-deaths-outpace-covid-san.html https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-12-overdose-deaths-outpa...

linuxhansl 6y ago
I hear you. The down-votes are unfair since you just voiced your opinion. At the same time... ODs frequently happen because of lack quality control. You get this stuff from some shady folks, who got it from other shady folks, you have no idea whether you can trust the dosage, or whether you even get the drug you paid for. The drugs themselves are often not the problem. You can kill yourself with alcohol and nicotine is one of _the_ most additive substances we know. Should be prohibit these as well? The key is regulation and quality control, and that you can only do within a legal framework.
- buzzert 6y ago
  > You can kill yourself with alcohol and nicotine is one of _the_ most additive substances we know. Should be prohibit these as well? I understand this is a relatively extreme viewpoint, but yes. I believe nicotine should be prohibited. I think society would be better off if alcohol was prohibited too, but I understand the historical context behind that. Nicotine, unlike psychedelics, does not “open one’s mind” or have any long term benefits to anyone’s life like MDMA supposedly does. In fact, it seems to be one of the only drugs I can think of where everyone is constantly trying to get off of it, and literally no one is promoting it’s usage.
  - mancerayder 6y ago
    The trouble with your reasoning here is the idea you can protect people from themselves. The second problem is that heart disease is the biggest killer, and there's no rational way to use the law to stop that. Extreme sports, fast cars, alcohol, boxing, hell, even gymnastics, unprotected sex.. you see where I'm going with this. What's moral is a separate question of, what's the best policy for society to keep people as safe as possible. Bootleg cigarettes and fines (prison?) are probably not those things. Besides, some people can smoke moderately or rarely and not get addicted or die. Finally, you're too soft on your alcohol prohibition stance, where you're saying you can see the benefits. Empirically, do you see the benefits in the creation of a criminal syndicate that still exists, a century later? History has spoken, prohibition causes harm.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> I really don’t understand how someone could walk around the streets of San Francisco and think that we need _more_ drugs in our society. People opposed to criminalization don't necessarily think we need more drugs, they often just think that the criminal justice system is not a good choice for controlling the adverse consequences of drugs.
chickenpotpie 6y ago
I really don’t understand how someone could look at our criminal justice system and think we need more innocent people in jail
azernik 6y ago
1. This specific effort is for psychedelics like LSD and ketamine; the overdose problem is with opioids. 2. For opioid and cocaine decriminalization efforts, the mentality isn't that policymakers want more drugs in society; it's the experience of how criminal prohibition isn't helping deal with the problem. Specifically, it makes it harder to deliver social services (including both rehab and safety measures) when the targets for those social services are worried about getting arrested.
Mistri 6y ago
You should probably read about the Prohibition[0] and the disadvantages of prohibiting addictive substances like alcohol. [0]: https://www.history.com/topics/roaring-twenties/prohibition https://www.history.com/topics/roaring-twenties/prohibition
sep_field 6y ago
It is important not to lump all drugs together. Personally, I think heroin and amphetamines are extremely dangerous and would hope people stop taking them. Addicting children to amphetamines as part of treating ADHD is very worrying to me. Drugs like ibogaine in particular, and LSD and psilocybin to a lesser degree, on the other hand, have shown great efficacy in helping people overcome addictions. So by greater access to psychedelic therapy we could massively reduce the impact of the drugs that are causing harm. Furthermore, it is very difficult to overdose on most psyechedelics as most people don't want to trip again right away after an experience, and also that the amount you need for an experience is often orders of magnitude lower than the dangerous amount (for instance you can have a significant trip on 100 micrograms of LSD, an overwhelming experience on 300 micrograms, but it would take many grams to be fatal).
- astrange 6y ago
  Amphetamine is not addictive at therapeutic doses. The effects are much smaller than caffeine. Actually, non-stimulant ADHD drugs like guanfacine really are physically addictive and it's unpleasant if you run out of them, which is easy to do if you have ADHD and forget to pick up your refill.
matthewmacleod 6y ago
Okay, so there are a few separate issues to tackle here. First off, your numbers are misleading. Even if we took the literal numbers directly from your citation, it would suggest that less than 3.6x the number of deaths were attributable to overdoses versus COVID. This is not "nearly 6". These numbers also cover different periods, and a comparison between them offers very little information of use. Second – this bill is specifically with regard to psychedelics. So far as I can see, there are no drug deaths attributable to psychedelic drugs in San Francisco this year. The majority of deaths involve fentanyl overdose, which is a much more specific and worrying problem. Third – it's obvious that prohibition can't solve the problem of drug overdoses, simply because prohibition currently exists and yet overdose deaths continue to increase. Solving a complex problem like widespread fentanyl overdoses requires effort and joined-up thinking. You will not solve it with shallow observations like "there are already too many drugs". You might have a chance of solving it through safe drug consumption facilities with support for users, systems for ensuring the safety of drugs, and efforts to keep them out of the criminal justice system.
xvedejas 6y ago
I'll answer the part of your question nobody else has: Yes, this legislator (Scott Wiener) gets a lot of public support. He won a closely contested election by two percentage points in 2016 against another Democrat to enter the state senate, and last year was re-elected in a high-turnout election by 14 percentage points. I would characterize Scott as one of the few people in our state senate who is even trying to address the most major problems in California, like the housing crisis. He stands out as one of the best California politicians, which I grant may not be saying much.

linuxhansl 6y ago

I hear you. The down-votes are unfair since you just voiced your opinion. At the same time... ODs frequently happen because of lack quality control. You get this stuff from some shady folks, who got it from other shady folks, you have no idea whether you can trust the dosage, or whether you even get the drug you paid for. The drugs themselves are often not the problem. You can kill yourself with alcohol and nicotine is one of _the_ most additive substances we know. Should be prohibit these as well? The key is regulation and quality control, and that you can only do within a legal framework.

buzzert 6y ago
> You can kill yourself with alcohol and nicotine is one of _the_ most additive substances we know. Should be prohibit these as well? I understand this is a relatively extreme viewpoint, but yes. I believe nicotine should be prohibited. I think society would be better off if alcohol was prohibited too, but I understand the historical context behind that. Nicotine, unlike psychedelics, does not “open one’s mind” or have any long term benefits to anyone’s life like MDMA supposedly does. In fact, it seems to be one of the only drugs I can think of where everyone is constantly trying to get off of it, and literally no one is promoting it’s usage.
- mancerayder 6y ago
  The trouble with your reasoning here is the idea you can protect people from themselves. The second problem is that heart disease is the biggest killer, and there's no rational way to use the law to stop that. Extreme sports, fast cars, alcohol, boxing, hell, even gymnastics, unprotected sex.. you see where I'm going with this. What's moral is a separate question of, what's the best policy for society to keep people as safe as possible. Bootleg cigarettes and fines (prison?) are probably not those things. Besides, some people can smoke moderately or rarely and not get addicted or die. Finally, you're too soft on your alcohol prohibition stance, where you're saying you can see the benefits. Empirically, do you see the benefits in the creation of a criminal syndicate that still exists, a century later? History has spoken, prohibition causes harm.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> I really don’t understand how someone could walk around the streets of San Francisco and think that we need _more_ drugs in our society. People opposed to criminalization don't necessarily think we need more drugs, they often just think that the criminal justice system is not a good choice for controlling the adverse consequences of drugs.

chickenpotpie 6y ago

I really don’t understand how someone could look at our criminal justice system and think we need more innocent people in jail

azernik 6y ago

1. This specific effort is for psychedelics like LSD and ketamine; the overdose problem is with opioids. 2. For opioid and cocaine decriminalization efforts, the mentality isn't that policymakers want more drugs in society; it's the experience of how criminal prohibition isn't helping deal with the problem. Specifically, it makes it harder to deliver social services (including both rehab and safety measures) when the targets for those social services are worried about getting arrested.

Mistri 6y ago

You should probably read about the Prohibition[0] and the disadvantages of prohibiting addictive substances like alcohol. [0]: https://www.history.com/topics/roaring-twenties/prohibition https://www.history.com/topics/roaring-twenties/prohibition

sep_field 6y ago

It is important not to lump all drugs together. Personally, I think heroin and amphetamines are extremely dangerous and would hope people stop taking them. Addicting children to amphetamines as part of treating ADHD is very worrying to me. Drugs like ibogaine in particular, and LSD and psilocybin to a lesser degree, on the other hand, have shown great efficacy in helping people overcome addictions. So by greater access to psychedelic therapy we could massively reduce the impact of the drugs that are causing harm. Furthermore, it is very difficult to overdose on most psyechedelics as most people don't want to trip again right away after an experience, and also that the amount you need for an experience is often orders of magnitude lower than the dangerous amount (for instance you can have a significant trip on 100 micrograms of LSD, an overwhelming experience on 300 micrograms, but it would take many grams to be fatal).

astrange 6y ago
Amphetamine is not addictive at therapeutic doses. The effects are much smaller than caffeine. Actually, non-stimulant ADHD drugs like guanfacine really are physically addictive and it's unpleasant if you run out of them, which is easy to do if you have ADHD and forget to pick up your refill.

matthewmacleod 6y ago

Okay, so there are a few separate issues to tackle here. First off, your numbers are misleading. Even if we took the literal numbers directly from your citation, it would suggest that less than 3.6x the number of deaths were attributable to overdoses versus COVID. This is not "nearly 6". These numbers also cover different periods, and a comparison between them offers very little information of use. Second – this bill is specifically with regard to psychedelics. So far as I can see, there are no drug deaths attributable to psychedelic drugs in San Francisco this year. The majority of deaths involve fentanyl overdose, which is a much more specific and worrying problem. Third – it's obvious that prohibition can't solve the problem of drug overdoses, simply because prohibition currently exists and yet overdose deaths continue to increase. Solving a complex problem like widespread fentanyl overdoses requires effort and joined-up thinking. You will not solve it with shallow observations like "there are already too many drugs". You might have a chance of solving it through safe drug consumption facilities with support for users, systems for ensuring the safety of drugs, and efforts to keep them out of the criminal justice system.

xvedejas 6y ago

I'll answer the part of your question nobody else has: Yes, this legislator (Scott Wiener) gets a lot of public support. He won a closely contested election by two percentage points in 2016 against another Democrat to enter the state senate, and last year was re-elected in a high-turnout election by 14 percentage points. I would characterize Scott as one of the few people in our state senate who is even trying to address the most major problems in California, like the housing crisis. He stands out as one of the best California politicians, which I grant may not be saying much.