5 ms·

“Try something else”, as in the complete polar opposite of what we were trying before? I cannot rationalize such a decision.

joshka 5y ago
What would you do instead?
- buzzert 5y ago
  In my city (San Francisco), the Tenderloin is nationally famous for having an "open-air drug market", which means a place you can go to _buy_ drugs with impunity. It also happens to be one of the most dystopian parts of the city, rampent with crime, overdoses, unsanitary conditions, and needles everywhere. It seems like any rational person could see the connection between drugs and the dystopian aspects of the Tenderloin. What I would do instead is precisely what I would do if my children were addicted to drugs; tough love. I would make it impossible for them to acquire drugs and deal with the consequences of withdrawl. Japan and Singapore are examples of countries that are extremely tough on drugs. I believe it is no coincidence that these places also turned out to be essentially the opposite of the Tenderloin with regards to public safety and heigene.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    > I would make it impossible for them to acquire drugs and deal with the consequences of withdrawl. Depending on the drug and the severity of their addiction, that could kill them. Would you take it that far?
    - buzzert 5y ago
      Absolutely not, but we have tools at our disposal for that as well (Methadone comes to mind).
      - samatman 5y ago
        Good! You're most of the way to a rational and compassionate response to drug addiction. Let's see if we can get you further. Methadone maintenance therapy leaves several problems, starting with the fact that other opioids still feel good and are still being profitably sold on the street. There's supply and demand, right there. The illegality makes it expensive. Most opioid users start with pills, and continue to injection because heroin and analogues are expensive, and injection works better. Unfortunately it's also a much better way to kill yourself, as is taking what you think is one drug (such as heroin) and lacing it with a stronger one (such as fentanyl). It's possible to kill yourself with a bunch of pills of a known opioid of a guaranteed strength, but it's pretty tough to do by accident. So let's remove the profit motive, by letting the state take over the sale of opioids. No advertising, of course, and this is done in settings where help can be made available to anyone who wants to quit being addicted to drugs. Make it expensive enough that it isn't the cheapest way to have a good time (opioids cost basis is very low), but not so high that constant petty crime is the only way to stay high. Limit purchase quantities; maybe give known addicts a license, so they can have a slightly higher limit to account for their tolerance. A little bit will leak onto the street, sure, that's tolerable compared to a hundred kilos at once arriving from overseas or the southern border. This puts the dealers out of business, clears out the Tenderloin, reduces opioid overdoses, puts addicts where they can get help, and reduces the burden on our overcrowded prisons. Evidence from Switzerland and Portugal suggest that over time it will also reduce the number of opioid addicts. All in all, pretty big win.
        klyrs 5y ago
        Having known somebody on methadone... it's not great. It's just as addictive as heroin, but instead of making you feel good, it makes you feel like shit. And then if you don't take the drug that makes you feel like shit, you go into withdrawal again. If the goal is to punish somebody for the rest of their life for having fun on an illegal substance, then mission accomplished. If the goal is to remediate the user so that they can be a productive member of society, then it's an utter failure. Sometimes people don't get hooked on the methadone itself, but it's a very delicate balancing act and not at all guaranteed
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    > I would make it impossible for them to acquire drugs But how? Drugs are already illegal. There is currently a vast government apparatus designed to make drugs impossible to acquire. The US has the largest prison population on the planet due in no small part to the war on drugs. It's not like we go easy on drugs. And yet, in your city there is an "open-air drug market". Making drugs illegal doesn't make drugs harder to get, because drugs are profitable. To paraphrase Ian Malcom from Jurassic Park "drugs will find a way." I think you're noticing a correlation and labeling it a causation. If people had a place to safely do drugs, would they be overdosing in the street? If SF had more public restrooms would people defecate in the streets? If the city had more affordable housing would people be living in the streets? If people had access to jobs so they could earn a living, would they be committing crimes? You blame the drugs for the problems, but I see them as a symptom of larger societal causes.
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      > But how? Drugs are already illegal. Now do automatic weapons, straw purchases, felons getting guns, etc. Both sides have their political bugaboos about problems that haven't been completely solved by existing approaches. Both sides want to try something different by cracking down on their own citizens; both sides want to try something different by lessening the burdens on good people who don't hurt others. Unfortunately, the two major political parties take opposite positions on which approach to take with which issue. Maybe our political discourse wouldn't get quite to the level of talking about secession if we tried to understand one another's values a little better.
      - ModernMech 5y ago
        I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with guns? I don't think anyone in this thread brought up guns at all.
        chrononaut 5y ago
        They are providing an example of another situation that has been difficult as the two parties can take polar opposite positions on (1) whether something is an issue, and (2) how to solve that issue, often without understanding each other's view point and how they came to that view point. I see the outside reference fitting here.
  - joshka 5y ago
    > It seems like any rational person could see the connection between drugs and the dystopian aspects of the Tenderloin. There seems to be a correlation vs causation issue there though. An equally plausible rational explanation is that the criminal act of selling drugs tends to make more sense in a place where that act is overlooked. If drug sales were decriminalized then those areas would tend to be less focused. Case in point is the proliferation of legal marijuana dispensaries. At least in the places that I've seen these (in Seattle), they don't seem to induce a higher criminal / unsanitary / dystopian atmosphere. Perhaps my perspective is unique. >Japan and Singapore are examples of countries that are extremely tough on drugs. I believe it is no coincidence that these places also turned out to be essentially the opposite of the Tenderloin with regards to public safety and heigene. Yes, and Singapore's approach still regards possession / use as a medical with an initial focus on rehabilitation, not just punishment. Singapore has some pretty big advantages over the US in its administration of the law (single jurisdiction / set of laws, single highly populous city). The laws vary widely in the US (consider Marijuana legalization an obvious example).
ncallaway 5y ago
We tried a strategy. All evidence point to that strategy being a complete failure at accomplishing any of its goals. Yes, let’s try a different strategy. Yes, that different strategy might be the opposite of the thing we were trying before. That’s because the thing we were trying before has failed in almost every metric for decades (including drug overdose deaths, as you’ve noted). Honestly, I genuinely don’t know how one could rationalize preserving the existing strategy. Can you explain the desire to continue applying the same failed strategy? What’s the logical argument for continuing to do the same thing?
klyrs 5y ago
We tried prohibition of alcohol for a time, and then rolled that back when it was obvious that the experiment failed. Decriminalization has its own issues, to be sure. I'd prefer legalization (the actual polar opposite). I want addicts to be able to buy a clean supply from a legitimate business. The US won't see a reduction in organized crime until we offer a path to legitimacy. Decriminalization is the easiest, but least effective middle ground.

joshka 5y ago

What would you do instead?

buzzert 5y ago
In my city (San Francisco), the Tenderloin is nationally famous for having an "open-air drug market", which means a place you can go to _buy_ drugs with impunity. It also happens to be one of the most dystopian parts of the city, rampent with crime, overdoses, unsanitary conditions, and needles everywhere. It seems like any rational person could see the connection between drugs and the dystopian aspects of the Tenderloin. What I would do instead is precisely what I would do if my children were addicted to drugs; tough love. I would make it impossible for them to acquire drugs and deal with the consequences of withdrawl. Japan and Singapore are examples of countries that are extremely tough on drugs. I believe it is no coincidence that these places also turned out to be essentially the opposite of the Tenderloin with regards to public safety and heigene.
- klyrs 5y ago
  > I would make it impossible for them to acquire drugs and deal with the consequences of withdrawl. Depending on the drug and the severity of their addiction, that could kill them. Would you take it that far?
  - buzzert 5y ago
    Absolutely not, but we have tools at our disposal for that as well (Methadone comes to mind).
    - samatman 5y ago
      Good! You're most of the way to a rational and compassionate response to drug addiction. Let's see if we can get you further. Methadone maintenance therapy leaves several problems, starting with the fact that other opioids still feel good and are still being profitably sold on the street. There's supply and demand, right there. The illegality makes it expensive. Most opioid users start with pills, and continue to injection because heroin and analogues are expensive, and injection works better. Unfortunately it's also a much better way to kill yourself, as is taking what you think is one drug (such as heroin) and lacing it with a stronger one (such as fentanyl). It's possible to kill yourself with a bunch of pills of a known opioid of a guaranteed strength, but it's pretty tough to do by accident. So let's remove the profit motive, by letting the state take over the sale of opioids. No advertising, of course, and this is done in settings where help can be made available to anyone who wants to quit being addicted to drugs. Make it expensive enough that it isn't the cheapest way to have a good time (opioids cost basis is very low), but not so high that constant petty crime is the only way to stay high. Limit purchase quantities; maybe give known addicts a license, so they can have a slightly higher limit to account for their tolerance. A little bit will leak onto the street, sure, that's tolerable compared to a hundred kilos at once arriving from overseas or the southern border. This puts the dealers out of business, clears out the Tenderloin, reduces opioid overdoses, puts addicts where they can get help, and reduces the burden on our overcrowded prisons. Evidence from Switzerland and Portugal suggest that over time it will also reduce the number of opioid addicts. All in all, pretty big win.
      - klyrs 5y ago
        Having known somebody on methadone... it's not great. It's just as addictive as heroin, but instead of making you feel good, it makes you feel like shit. And then if you don't take the drug that makes you feel like shit, you go into withdrawal again. If the goal is to punish somebody for the rest of their life for having fun on an illegal substance, then mission accomplished. If the goal is to remediate the user so that they can be a productive member of society, then it's an utter failure. Sometimes people don't get hooked on the methadone itself, but it's a very delicate balancing act and not at all guaranteed
- ModernMech 5y ago
  > I would make it impossible for them to acquire drugs But how? Drugs are already illegal. There is currently a vast government apparatus designed to make drugs impossible to acquire. The US has the largest prison population on the planet due in no small part to the war on drugs. It's not like we go easy on drugs. And yet, in your city there is an "open-air drug market". Making drugs illegal doesn't make drugs harder to get, because drugs are profitable. To paraphrase Ian Malcom from Jurassic Park "drugs will find a way." I think you're noticing a correlation and labeling it a causation. If people had a place to safely do drugs, would they be overdosing in the street? If SF had more public restrooms would people defecate in the streets? If the city had more affordable housing would people be living in the streets? If people had access to jobs so they could earn a living, would they be committing crimes? You blame the drugs for the problems, but I see them as a symptom of larger societal causes.
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    > But how? Drugs are already illegal. Now do automatic weapons, straw purchases, felons getting guns, etc. Both sides have their political bugaboos about problems that haven't been completely solved by existing approaches. Both sides want to try something different by cracking down on their own citizens; both sides want to try something different by lessening the burdens on good people who don't hurt others. Unfortunately, the two major political parties take opposite positions on which approach to take with which issue. Maybe our political discourse wouldn't get quite to the level of talking about secession if we tried to understand one another's values a little better.
    - ModernMech 5y ago
      I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with guns? I don't think anyone in this thread brought up guns at all.
      - chrononaut 5y ago
        They are providing an example of another situation that has been difficult as the two parties can take polar opposite positions on (1) whether something is an issue, and (2) how to solve that issue, often without understanding each other's view point and how they came to that view point. I see the outside reference fitting here.
- joshka 5y ago
  > It seems like any rational person could see the connection between drugs and the dystopian aspects of the Tenderloin. There seems to be a correlation vs causation issue there though. An equally plausible rational explanation is that the criminal act of selling drugs tends to make more sense in a place where that act is overlooked. If drug sales were decriminalized then those areas would tend to be less focused. Case in point is the proliferation of legal marijuana dispensaries. At least in the places that I've seen these (in Seattle), they don't seem to induce a higher criminal / unsanitary / dystopian atmosphere. Perhaps my perspective is unique. >Japan and Singapore are examples of countries that are extremely tough on drugs. I believe it is no coincidence that these places also turned out to be essentially the opposite of the Tenderloin with regards to public safety and heigene. Yes, and Singapore's approach still regards possession / use as a medical with an initial focus on rehabilitation, not just punishment. Singapore has some pretty big advantages over the US in its administration of the law (single jurisdiction / set of laws, single highly populous city). The laws vary widely in the US (consider Marijuana legalization an obvious example).

ncallaway 5y ago

We tried a strategy. All evidence point to that strategy being a complete failure at accomplishing any of its goals. Yes, let’s try a different strategy. Yes, that different strategy might be the opposite of the thing we were trying before. That’s because the thing we were trying before has failed in almost every metric for decades (including drug overdose deaths, as you’ve noted). Honestly, I genuinely don’t know how one could rationalize preserving the existing strategy. Can you explain the desire to continue applying the same failed strategy? What’s the logical argument for continuing to do the same thing?

klyrs 5y ago

We tried prohibition of alcohol for a time, and then rolled that back when it was obvious that the experiment failed. Decriminalization has its own issues, to be sure. I'd prefer legalization (the actual polar opposite). I want addicts to be able to buy a clean supply from a legitimate business. The US won't see a reduction in organized crime until we offer a path to legitimacy. Decriminalization is the easiest, but least effective middle ground.