6 ms·

The best way to solve the drug problem is legalizing all drugs (or at least decriminalizing them) so let's do that too. There's high-quality precedent, and Por

The best way to solve the drug problem is legalizing all drugs (or at least decriminalizing them) so let's do that too. There's high-quality precedent, and Portugal is the classic example. They decriminalized all drugs back in 2001 and went from one of the worst in the EU to one of the best in the EU along basically every major measure of drug harm. [1] [edit] > The opioid crisis soon stabilised, and the ensuing years saw dramatic drops in problematic drug use, HIV and hepatitis infection rates, overdose deaths, drug-related crime and incarceration rates. HIV infection plummeted from an all-time high in 2000 of 104.2 new cases per million to 4.2 cases per million in 2015. This was achieved in conjunction with some rehab social programs. The article is worth a read. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radic...

samatman 4y ago
The paper I linked to had several case studies, I think the Zurich and Portugal model both have a lot to teach the USA. But step one is to stop pretending that open drugs scenes are caused by homelessness. They're caused by open-air markets for drugs, and the US in fact does a fairly good job of caring for the unhoused except for the open drug scene problem. End those, the rest of the unhoused have enough available solutions, and it's easier to do more when more is needed. There's no ending them without a health care policy for addiction, either. Treating drug addiction as a criminal matter just leads back to open drug scenes. Keeping them gone requires a different approach.
- maxwell 4y ago
  What, if any, approaches or policies are you actually advocating for when you talk about "ending" open drug scenes? DEA raids and incarceration of the homeless? Universal healthcare and ending scheduling of drugs? State/federal bans on overly-restrictive local zoning and international building codes, which prevent the construction of affordable new housing?
  - samatman 4y ago
    Is it really too much to expect you to read the paper, which I've referenced, and pointed to two of the case studies as particularly valuable? I'm not an expert, it doesn't make sense for me to do more than point to the expert opinions which I consider valuable here. It's none of the things in your paragraph. Open drug scenes are not caused by homelessness so housing the unhoused does not in itself solve the problem. It takes more than that. One of the reasons I care about this is the evidence that housing-first policies fail if and when there are open drug scenes.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    I've encountered OP before as a commenter. They use verbose diatribes to try to shuffle their own (quite radical) personal moral convictions past the HN crowd. For what reason, I do not know, but it is to me indistinguishable from a lack of real understanding. It reminds me of economists who grow up only reading Hayek, never having seen the inside of day-to-day business operations.
    - maxwell 4y ago
      Unclear if "OP" is them or me ( ͝סּ ͜ʖ͡סּ)
Manu40 4y ago
Edit: I'm not entirely sure anymore, but I think my comment was made before the edit was made by arcticbull. Just saying so that if anyone wonders why it looks like I am disagreeing with someone who is making part of my own argument (now) ... that's why. I only remember there being legalization brought up. -------Original Comment Below------ Sorry, but I cannot agree. Legalization just gives government reason to profit off the harm of the individual. If you really want to remove the crime from drug use, go with decriminalization only. Just make it not a crime, that's all. I know this seems like its the same thing called a different thing to some, but after marijuana legalization and how that went in Canada, I think you all should really take note of why "legalization" is just a ploy by governments to get more tax dollars. I have no issue with people doing what they want with their own body freely of their own choice; but I have much issue with giving government any form of power and/or profit over that choice. So you won't be budging me on this. Besides, there's really only like 3 or 4 drugs that deserve to be removed from criminality; the rest are so damn harmful to a person that if they are taking those drugs... they're already pretty much at the bottom of the pit of hell they dug for themselves. There won't be any helping them unless you are willing to ignore their rights as a human being and force them into some sort of rehab system that is removed from urban centers entirely; so they can't get easy access to those drugs anymore. Might even have to swallow the bill as tax payers to have them housed for a few years as well afterwards, still outside of urban centers, so they can pick their life back up and stand on their own two feet again. But that's just my opinion on the matter. It's a real shame none of you will actually listen to it.
- bananarchist 4y ago
  What if we just had legalization without taxation? Also if you think people get clean in the country side that would suggest to me you’ve never spent time outside of these urban areas whence you’re trying to banish addicts. Anecdotally, the loneliness of the country side, being away from loved ones and familiar social and cultural institutions, made my own struggles worse.
  - Manu40 4y ago
    > What if we just had legalization without taxation? I'm pretty sure that's what we generally refer to as decriminalization. (lol) > Also if you think people get clean in the country side that would suggest to me you’ve never spent time outside of these urban areas... (rest of comment redacted) Alright, so... yes I have actually. And we had one of the rehab centers near our town, and while there was still some heavy drug use by some people in said town, it was never anything close to similar as what would be found in more urban centers. Furthermore, those people had to go to the city to get those drugs, which was my entire point. If you can't even get the drugs, cause you can't even get to the city, then you have to somehow get friendly with those people that everyone knows you shouldn't be hanging out with. My condolences for your struggles friend, but just because you struggled with a situation that many others find to be a center of peace and comfort for themselves doesn't mean that I am wrong. It just means that my approach wouldn't work for you, possibly. Sad as it may seem, sometimes loved ones are the problem. They can be quite enabling, when they should be disabling. And it's those familiar social and cultural circles you bring up that are also sometimes part of why the harm exists to begin with. For some at least. So perhaps my solution doesn't work 100% for everyone, but you are not the rule here either. You are an exception to it, in my books. Finally, the country side is only lonely if you are the type to never interact with other country bumpkins. If that's you, then I am sorry, but that's more of a you problem... Try hanging out with some random people once in a while? Go to a bar and shoot some pool and meet some folk? I dunno, but staying at home itself only will definitely drive anyone nuts. I only suggest it for the severely addicted at all, because they can't really help themselves in regard to not falling back into old bad habits. But again, there are no 100% fix all solutions. There will always be caveats, like yourself.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
_c5eq 4y ago
In response to the edit I must have missed. 1. Crime rates reduced: I mean, of course they did. It was not longer a crime to be using those drugs, so there was no reason to be arresting people for possessing them. I don't know about you, but that seems pretty simple to me. 2. HIV rates reduced: I remember reading something once upon a time ago that made mention about how HIV rates plummeted all around the world (except in Africa) during that same time frame. Yet the rest of the world definitely hasn't decrimed/legalized all drugs. Might be worth looking into that more and see if maybe Portugal just had a happy coincidence. >> Link: Not what I read, but shows some of the same or similar data I remember. https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/fact-sheet/the-glob https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/fact-sheet/the-glob.... 3. Overdose deaths: Strangely enough with humans, once something is no longer illicit, they want it less. They are also less likely to overdose on said drugs because they aren't having to risk a bad batch from a bad dealer as much, that sort of thing. So this is a win for legalization, I must admit; but it's a pretty loose one, since the whole "can't have it, thus want it" effect is pretty strong with humanity. Not having it anymore cause they can have it could be part of this reduction. Needs more looking into. (I would hope that before downvoting, people would look into things like the reduction of marijuana use among some people because it was no longer against the law, thus 'cool' to be a user of marijuana here in Canada and I think some American states as well. This applies to basically any drug due to how human psychology operates.) 4. I think most of those reductions are going to have more to do with happy coincidences, and the conjunction of rehab use, since the use of said drugs isn't as socially stigmatized anymore, thus neither is rehab. (Edit: Look, folks. I get it, some of you really don't like what I have to say here. That's fine. But please, give me a break. I'm a new person here, and I'm just trying to add context to the conversation. Thanks for understanding, hopefully.)
- samatman 4y ago
  Anyone with 500 karma has the right. Downvoting comments you disagree with is allowed in the guidelines. Complaining about downvotes will reliably get you downvoted. Welcome to Hacker News.
  - Manu40 4y ago
avidiax 4y ago
I would say that we could go one step further. The government can issue drug tests. If someone demonstrates addiction through these tests, they get a tapering supply of their drug in pharmaceutical grade at zero cost. Drug dealers can't compete with free, and the government's supply tapers to zero, so street supply and addiction should plummet. You can prevent diversion of the government supply to the street by tagging it. Test positive on the government supply and you get nothing. Tighten or loosen policy as needed if street dealing returns.
- codemonkey-zeta 4y ago
  This assumes people want to end their drug abuse. Even having the will, ending severe addiction with a tapering supply is extremely difficult, and painful. Like slowly peeling off a band-aid for months, or even years. Odds are that proposed solution would help some people, but would fail in the majority of cases and cost an absolute fortune.
  - avidiax 4y ago
    There's no way that some pills and vials and tracking will cost more than an entire drug war. If free is too expensive, just make it cheaper than the street. And I don't think that the users have to want much. They are addicted, addiction is expensive, enter a free alternative that they will have to accept eventually when their drug dealers can't make ends meet and quit the game. The taper comes after the drug dealers have all found something else to do. Give it some time for all their drug routes and contacts to go cold. And be prepared to ramp supply back up if they come back. It will be a multi-round game, but it's one that the drug dealers just can't win, for simple economic reasons.
- xorfish 4y ago
  I don't think it is a good idea to reduce the supply over time. It may make sense in some cases, but some addicts are better of by having a constant supply. Pharmaceutical grade opioids are pretty safe. Far safer than legal drugs like tobacco or alcohol.
  - 4y ago

samatman 4y ago

The paper I linked to had several case studies, I think the Zurich and Portugal model both have a lot to teach the USA. But step one is to stop pretending that open drugs scenes are caused by homelessness. They're caused by open-air markets for drugs, and the US in fact does a fairly good job of caring for the unhoused except for the open drug scene problem. End those, the rest of the unhoused have enough available solutions, and it's easier to do more when more is needed. There's no ending them without a health care policy for addiction, either. Treating drug addiction as a criminal matter just leads back to open drug scenes. Keeping them gone requires a different approach.

maxwell 4y ago
What, if any, approaches or policies are you actually advocating for when you talk about "ending" open drug scenes? DEA raids and incarceration of the homeless? Universal healthcare and ending scheduling of drugs? State/federal bans on overly-restrictive local zoning and international building codes, which prevent the construction of affordable new housing?
- samatman 4y ago
  Is it really too much to expect you to read the paper, which I've referenced, and pointed to two of the case studies as particularly valuable? I'm not an expert, it doesn't make sense for me to do more than point to the expert opinions which I consider valuable here. It's none of the things in your paragraph. Open drug scenes are not caused by homelessness so housing the unhoused does not in itself solve the problem. It takes more than that. One of the reasons I care about this is the evidence that housing-first policies fail if and when there are open drug scenes.
- uoaei 4y ago
  I've encountered OP before as a commenter. They use verbose diatribes to try to shuffle their own (quite radical) personal moral convictions past the HN crowd. For what reason, I do not know, but it is to me indistinguishable from a lack of real understanding. It reminds me of economists who grow up only reading Hayek, never having seen the inside of day-to-day business operations.
  - maxwell 4y ago
    Unclear if "OP" is them or me ( ͝סּ ͜ʖ͡סּ)

Manu40 4y ago

Edit: I'm not entirely sure anymore, but I think my comment was made before the edit was made by arcticbull. Just saying so that if anyone wonders why it looks like I am disagreeing with someone who is making part of my own argument (now) ... that's why. I only remember there being legalization brought up. -------Original Comment Below------ Sorry, but I cannot agree. Legalization just gives government reason to profit off the harm of the individual. If you really want to remove the crime from drug use, go with decriminalization only. Just make it not a crime, that's all. I know this seems like its the same thing called a different thing to some, but after marijuana legalization and how that went in Canada, I think you all should really take note of why "legalization" is just a ploy by governments to get more tax dollars. I have no issue with people doing what they want with their own body freely of their own choice; but I have much issue with giving government any form of power and/or profit over that choice. So you won't be budging me on this. Besides, there's really only like 3 or 4 drugs that deserve to be removed from criminality; the rest are so damn harmful to a person that if they are taking those drugs... they're already pretty much at the bottom of the pit of hell they dug for themselves. There won't be any helping them unless you are willing to ignore their rights as a human being and force them into some sort of rehab system that is removed from urban centers entirely; so they can't get easy access to those drugs anymore. Might even have to swallow the bill as tax payers to have them housed for a few years as well afterwards, still outside of urban centers, so they can pick their life back up and stand on their own two feet again. But that's just my opinion on the matter. It's a real shame none of you will actually listen to it.

bananarchist 4y ago
What if we just had legalization without taxation? Also if you think people get clean in the country side that would suggest to me you’ve never spent time outside of these urban areas whence you’re trying to banish addicts. Anecdotally, the loneliness of the country side, being away from loved ones and familiar social and cultural institutions, made my own struggles worse.
- Manu40 4y ago
  > What if we just had legalization without taxation? I'm pretty sure that's what we generally refer to as decriminalization. (lol) > Also if you think people get clean in the country side that would suggest to me you’ve never spent time outside of these urban areas... (rest of comment redacted) Alright, so... yes I have actually. And we had one of the rehab centers near our town, and while there was still some heavy drug use by some people in said town, it was never anything close to similar as what would be found in more urban centers. Furthermore, those people had to go to the city to get those drugs, which was my entire point. If you can't even get the drugs, cause you can't even get to the city, then you have to somehow get friendly with those people that everyone knows you shouldn't be hanging out with. My condolences for your struggles friend, but just because you struggled with a situation that many others find to be a center of peace and comfort for themselves doesn't mean that I am wrong. It just means that my approach wouldn't work for you, possibly. Sad as it may seem, sometimes loved ones are the problem. They can be quite enabling, when they should be disabling. And it's those familiar social and cultural circles you bring up that are also sometimes part of why the harm exists to begin with. For some at least. So perhaps my solution doesn't work 100% for everyone, but you are not the rule here either. You are an exception to it, in my books. Finally, the country side is only lonely if you are the type to never interact with other country bumpkins. If that's you, then I am sorry, but that's more of a you problem... Try hanging out with some random people once in a while? Go to a bar and shoot some pool and meet some folk? I dunno, but staying at home itself only will definitely drive anyone nuts. I only suggest it for the severely addicted at all, because they can't really help themselves in regard to not falling back into old bad habits. But again, there are no 100% fix all solutions. There will always be caveats, like yourself.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

_c5eq 4y ago

In response to the edit I must have missed. 1. Crime rates reduced: I mean, of course they did. It was not longer a crime to be using those drugs, so there was no reason to be arresting people for possessing them. I don't know about you, but that seems pretty simple to me. 2. HIV rates reduced: I remember reading something once upon a time ago that made mention about how HIV rates plummeted all around the world (except in Africa) during that same time frame. Yet the rest of the world definitely hasn't decrimed/legalized all drugs. Might be worth looking into that more and see if maybe Portugal just had a happy coincidence. >> Link: Not what I read, but shows some of the same or similar data I remember. https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/fact-sheet/the-glob https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/fact-sheet/the-glob.... 3. Overdose deaths: Strangely enough with humans, once something is no longer illicit, they want it less. They are also less likely to overdose on said drugs because they aren't having to risk a bad batch from a bad dealer as much, that sort of thing. So this is a win for legalization, I must admit; but it's a pretty loose one, since the whole "can't have it, thus want it" effect is pretty strong with humanity. Not having it anymore cause they can have it could be part of this reduction. Needs more looking into. (I would hope that before downvoting, people would look into things like the reduction of marijuana use among some people because it was no longer against the law, thus 'cool' to be a user of marijuana here in Canada and I think some American states as well. This applies to basically any drug due to how human psychology operates.) 4. I think most of those reductions are going to have more to do with happy coincidences, and the conjunction of rehab use, since the use of said drugs isn't as socially stigmatized anymore, thus neither is rehab. (Edit: Look, folks. I get it, some of you really don't like what I have to say here. That's fine. But please, give me a break. I'm a new person here, and I'm just trying to add context to the conversation. Thanks for understanding, hopefully.)

samatman 4y ago
Anyone with 500 karma has the right. Downvoting comments you disagree with is allowed in the guidelines. Complaining about downvotes will reliably get you downvoted. Welcome to Hacker News.
- Manu40 4y ago

avidiax 4y ago

I would say that we could go one step further. The government can issue drug tests. If someone demonstrates addiction through these tests, they get a tapering supply of their drug in pharmaceutical grade at zero cost. Drug dealers can't compete with free, and the government's supply tapers to zero, so street supply and addiction should plummet. You can prevent diversion of the government supply to the street by tagging it. Test positive on the government supply and you get nothing. Tighten or loosen policy as needed if street dealing returns.

codemonkey-zeta 4y ago
This assumes people want to end their drug abuse. Even having the will, ending severe addiction with a tapering supply is extremely difficult, and painful. Like slowly peeling off a band-aid for months, or even years. Odds are that proposed solution would help some people, but would fail in the majority of cases and cost an absolute fortune.
- avidiax 4y ago
  There's no way that some pills and vials and tracking will cost more than an entire drug war. If free is too expensive, just make it cheaper than the street. And I don't think that the users have to want much. They are addicted, addiction is expensive, enter a free alternative that they will have to accept eventually when their drug dealers can't make ends meet and quit the game. The taper comes after the drug dealers have all found something else to do. Give it some time for all their drug routes and contacts to go cold. And be prepared to ramp supply back up if they come back. It will be a multi-round game, but it's one that the drug dealers just can't win, for simple economic reasons.
xorfish 4y ago
I don't think it is a good idea to reduce the supply over time. It may make sense in some cases, but some addicts are better of by having a constant supply. Pharmaceutical grade opioids are pretty safe. Far safer than legal drugs like tobacco or alcohol.
- 4y ago