3 ms·

I respect that person's perspective, but more failed drug war is the completely wrong answer. It has solved nothing and has exacerbated many of the complaints m

I respect that person's perspective, but more failed drug war is the completely wrong answer. It has solved nothing and has exacerbated many of the complaints mentioned on the twitter feed. Comparing pill mills and online sales of drugs to safe injection sites is a bad take. The staff at the safe injection site make no additional money for getting more people addicted. Being under professional supervision all but eliminates the risk of overdose. The real answer is prevention: strengthening communities, increasing opportunity, and mitigating hopeless situtations for everyone, so they don't get ensnared in addiction in the first place. For those who are already addicted, harm reduction while exploring paths to recovery is the most effective way to help people.

olivermarks 5y ago
If you've been anywhere near California recently you will have seen we are facing a rapidly building tsunamai of street addiction and deaths. there would be even more dead were it not for endless od revivals with narcan buddys. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/05/15/last-year-more-people-in-san-francisco-died-of-overdoses-than-of-covid-19 https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/05/15/last-year...
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  That's the dilemma of the drug war, isn't it? It is not exactly going to become easier over time to keep street drugs out of the hands of people who really want them. We can let people ruin their own lives through addiction and self-harm... or we can ruin their lives for them by throwing (some of) them in prison. I prefer the first strategy, but it sounds like you prefer the second. It sounds like a false dichotomy, but it really isn't. No one has come up with any other solutions that scale. Supervised usage is probably the only workable compromise in the long run.
  - olivermarks 5y ago
    The binary idea of living and dying on the streets OR going to jail is equally hopeless, but allowing open drug scenes in places like SF is a disaster whichever way you look at it. Places like Amsterdam, Lisbon have liberal drug law but are v strict on public consumption and drug dealing. I believe the answer is rural sobriety camps far from the dealers with rewards for those who have achieved sobriety. California spent 13 billion on homeless services in the last 3 years with even more spent since then. the result has been an explosion of homeless and drug usage. We are headed very rapidly in the wrong direction.
    - CamperBob2 5y ago
      I tend to agree, in that physical separation or exile is ideal, but (a) they won't be "sobriety camps," considering we can't even keep drugs out of secure prison facilities; and (b) putting people in camps comes with a LOT of well-earned baggage. It would arguably cost us what little moral authority we have left.
      - olivermarks 5y ago
        https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr233/psw_gtr233_167.pdf https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr233/... Back to the future. Well paid for clearing forestry fuels, a path out of addiction.

olivermarks 5y ago

If you've been anywhere near California recently you will have seen we are facing a rapidly building tsunamai of street addiction and deaths. there would be even more dead were it not for endless od revivals with narcan buddys. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/05/15/last-year-more-people-in-san-francisco-died-of-overdoses-than-of-covid-19 https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/05/15/last-year...

CamperBob2 5y ago
That's the dilemma of the drug war, isn't it? It is not exactly going to become easier over time to keep street drugs out of the hands of people who really want them. We can let people ruin their own lives through addiction and self-harm... or we can ruin their lives for them by throwing (some of) them in prison. I prefer the first strategy, but it sounds like you prefer the second. It sounds like a false dichotomy, but it really isn't. No one has come up with any other solutions that scale. Supervised usage is probably the only workable compromise in the long run.
- olivermarks 5y ago
  The binary idea of living and dying on the streets OR going to jail is equally hopeless, but allowing open drug scenes in places like SF is a disaster whichever way you look at it. Places like Amsterdam, Lisbon have liberal drug law but are v strict on public consumption and drug dealing. I believe the answer is rural sobriety camps far from the dealers with rewards for those who have achieved sobriety. California spent 13 billion on homeless services in the last 3 years with even more spent since then. the result has been an explosion of homeless and drug usage. We are headed very rapidly in the wrong direction.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    I tend to agree, in that physical separation or exile is ideal, but (a) they won't be "sobriety camps," considering we can't even keep drugs out of secure prison facilities; and (b) putting people in camps comes with a LOT of well-earned baggage. It would arguably cost us what little moral authority we have left.
    - olivermarks 5y ago
      https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr233/psw_gtr233_167.pdf https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr233/... Back to the future. Well paid for clearing forestry fuels, a path out of addiction.