4 ms·

The tactic of using criminalization and legal threats to solve the problem of drug addiction has been thoroughly, inarguably disproven to work. Decriminalizatio

The tactic of using criminalization and legal threats to solve the problem of drug addiction has been thoroughly, inarguably disproven to work. Decriminalization allows that incredible amount of money being spent towards prosecuting people who need Help, and instead frees that up to spend it towards something that will actually improve the situation, which is treating this as the public health issue that it is. BC can take that exact same money that it's currently spending to lock people up, and instead spend it on public health solutions that have been shown time and time again to improve outcomes and make significant progress towards this issue. From an outcome-based policy perspective, this is an obvious choice.

refurb 4y ago
I think the point is BC isnt prosecuting or jailing people now. I have family there and even big time dealers rarely do prison time unless it some bigger criminal conspiracy. Users? Never. Even when repeated charged.
- Tiktaalik 4y ago
  The key distinction between previous "decriminalization" and this change to real decriminalization, is that previously it was only a prosecutorial and policing policy to not charge users, but it wasn't a criminal code change. Drug users were still actively policed with users reporting feeling "harassed" as their drugs were often confiscated, which simply made their life worse and didn't help them at all. With this change police can no longer confiscate drugs, so the intent is to reduce police pressure on drug users. As there are still limits to the amount of drugs that can carried, there remains the possibility for severely active policing, harassment and street checks in police actively checking people to see how much drugs they're carrying.
  - refurb 4y ago
    But again, nobody was even being charge. Open air drug use is common. Cops don't do anything. It's like when marijuana was legalized in CA a few year back. You could walk down the street smoking a joint for a couple decades before that. This does nothing but updates the law to reflect how it was already being enforced. Thus no real change. As I mentioned, in BC, not long ago a prolific dealer, caught with kgs of meth was convicted to only at-home observation. Basically "pinky promise you won't commit more crimes". If a huge dealer isn't going to prison, it's pretty clear users aren't even being bothered.
    - netizen-936824 4y ago
      There are countries where drinking in public is fine, why are other drugs different
      - refurb 4y ago
        Is drinking to the point of unconsciousness or running around naked trying to hit people legal where you are?
dontbenebby 4y ago
You're assuming they will redirect that money. At least in America, even if you decriminalize something, there's something akin to the military industrial complex with healthcare -- they think becauase they felt ENTITLED to work in the medical field, and racked up debt, they should able to cause people to die of depression as they're punished for making healthy decisions. For example, if I'd woken up yesterday and had a bowl of CBG rich, high THC indica, then did email for two hours, then did two hours of coding, I could do enough knowledge work to earn my housing and food for the week. Instead I'm running around throwing coffees on credit cards because when I tried to do things "by the book" in my home state of PA, anytime I start to make a healthy decision, someone with a vested interst tries to knock me off kilter. (Congrats! I'm sitting in a café in my neighborhood nursing wounds from a hate crime, with a can of mace in my backpack, as the entire world seems to lose their minds. Is this the cyberpunk future we envisioned, or are Netflix and weed the new bread and circuses?)
- anaisbetts 4y ago
  In America, you're right - this entire strategy falls on its face because there is no guaranteed public healthcare. America cannot solve the drug problem until it solves its healthcare problem
  - zackees 4y ago
    Right and the supply of drugs is not a factor and should be allowed to flow freely because science.
- redanddead 4y ago
  You code while high? How's it like? Do you feel more creative and are able to solve problems?
  - spiralx 4y ago
    I can code on ketamine as long as I'm not doing anything novel nor dealing with something that requires a global, holistic view of a system and its interactions. Once you've done something for long enough it becomes subconscious, so as long as I'm still able to type code in and see what I've typed (to correct all the mistakes lol) it's possible to program while under the influence.
itsoktocry 4y ago
>that have been shown time and time again to improve outcomes and make significant progress towards this issue. I'm all for doing this, and I hope it works, but "time and time again" is a stretch. Where, Portugal and Oregon? Where else? This is still experimental and by no means a "no-brainer".
- swearwolf 4y ago
  As a resident of Oregon, I can tell you that it’s done anything except work here. If anything, it’s made things much worse.
  - anaisbetts 4y ago
    Places like Oregon and SF only do a half measure - they stop the policing but don't step up the public health, mainly because there is no sensible way to do so, since health care in America is privatized
    - swearwolf 4y ago
      Oregon is working on stepping up the public health offering, albeit at a glacial pace. The ballot measure which decriminalized drugs specifically earmarked the money formerly used for enforcement to be used to expand drug treatment offerings. However, without the active intervention and dissuasion that Portugal uses to encourage people to get treatment, I seriously doubt it’s going to make a difference.
    - 908B64B197 4y ago
      Hint: Most of the very visible users aren't seeking nor interested in treatment.
  - beej71 4y ago
    As a fellow Oregonian, I have been unwilling to continue the classic, expensive, ineffective, and problematic war on drugs for a long time. I'm hard-pressed to come up with a worse system. (That old system works really well for drug lords, which really should be enough reason to give us pause.) So anything else would be better, like what we've done in Oregon. But you're right that we haven't pushed the treatment aspect hard enough. So let's fix that. But I'm not paying for the old broken system anymore. Pure boondoggle.
arroz 4y ago
Please don’t just say it was “proven” without showing proof

refurb 4y ago

I think the point is BC isnt prosecuting or jailing people now. I have family there and even big time dealers rarely do prison time unless it some bigger criminal conspiracy. Users? Never. Even when repeated charged.

Tiktaalik 4y ago
The key distinction between previous "decriminalization" and this change to real decriminalization, is that previously it was only a prosecutorial and policing policy to not charge users, but it wasn't a criminal code change. Drug users were still actively policed with users reporting feeling "harassed" as their drugs were often confiscated, which simply made their life worse and didn't help them at all. With this change police can no longer confiscate drugs, so the intent is to reduce police pressure on drug users. As there are still limits to the amount of drugs that can carried, there remains the possibility for severely active policing, harassment and street checks in police actively checking people to see how much drugs they're carrying.
- refurb 4y ago
  But again, nobody was even being charge. Open air drug use is common. Cops don't do anything. It's like when marijuana was legalized in CA a few year back. You could walk down the street smoking a joint for a couple decades before that. This does nothing but updates the law to reflect how it was already being enforced. Thus no real change. As I mentioned, in BC, not long ago a prolific dealer, caught with kgs of meth was convicted to only at-home observation. Basically "pinky promise you won't commit more crimes". If a huge dealer isn't going to prison, it's pretty clear users aren't even being bothered.
  - netizen-936824 4y ago
    There are countries where drinking in public is fine, why are other drugs different
    - refurb 4y ago
      Is drinking to the point of unconsciousness or running around naked trying to hit people legal where you are?

dontbenebby 4y ago

You're assuming they will redirect that money. At least in America, even if you decriminalize something, there's something akin to the military industrial complex with healthcare -- they think becauase they felt ENTITLED to work in the medical field, and racked up debt, they should able to cause people to die of depression as they're punished for making healthy decisions. For example, if I'd woken up yesterday and had a bowl of CBG rich, high THC indica, then did email for two hours, then did two hours of coding, I could do enough knowledge work to earn my housing and food for the week. Instead I'm running around throwing coffees on credit cards because when I tried to do things "by the book" in my home state of PA, anytime I start to make a healthy decision, someone with a vested interst tries to knock me off kilter. (Congrats! I'm sitting in a café in my neighborhood nursing wounds from a hate crime, with a can of mace in my backpack, as the entire world seems to lose their minds. Is this the cyberpunk future we envisioned, or are Netflix and weed the new bread and circuses?)

anaisbetts 4y ago
In America, you're right - this entire strategy falls on its face because there is no guaranteed public healthcare. America cannot solve the drug problem until it solves its healthcare problem
- zackees 4y ago
  Right and the supply of drugs is not a factor and should be allowed to flow freely because science.
redanddead 4y ago
You code while high? How's it like? Do you feel more creative and are able to solve problems?
- spiralx 4y ago
  I can code on ketamine as long as I'm not doing anything novel nor dealing with something that requires a global, holistic view of a system and its interactions. Once you've done something for long enough it becomes subconscious, so as long as I'm still able to type code in and see what I've typed (to correct all the mistakes lol) it's possible to program while under the influence.

itsoktocry 4y ago

>that have been shown time and time again to improve outcomes and make significant progress towards this issue. I'm all for doing this, and I hope it works, but "time and time again" is a stretch. Where, Portugal and Oregon? Where else? This is still experimental and by no means a "no-brainer".

swearwolf 4y ago
As a resident of Oregon, I can tell you that it’s done anything except work here. If anything, it’s made things much worse.
- anaisbetts 4y ago
  Places like Oregon and SF only do a half measure - they stop the policing but don't step up the public health, mainly because there is no sensible way to do so, since health care in America is privatized
  - swearwolf 4y ago
    Oregon is working on stepping up the public health offering, albeit at a glacial pace. The ballot measure which decriminalized drugs specifically earmarked the money formerly used for enforcement to be used to expand drug treatment offerings. However, without the active intervention and dissuasion that Portugal uses to encourage people to get treatment, I seriously doubt it’s going to make a difference.
  - 908B64B197 4y ago
    Hint: Most of the very visible users aren't seeking nor interested in treatment.
- beej71 4y ago
  As a fellow Oregonian, I have been unwilling to continue the classic, expensive, ineffective, and problematic war on drugs for a long time. I'm hard-pressed to come up with a worse system. (That old system works really well for drug lords, which really should be enough reason to give us pause.) So anything else would be better, like what we've done in Oregon. But you're right that we haven't pushed the treatment aspect hard enough. So let's fix that. But I'm not paying for the old broken system anymore. Pure boondoggle.

arroz 4y ago

Please don’t just say it was “proven” without showing proof