7 ms·

> Voters don't understand how they can be asked to liberalize hard drug use (and even decriminalize dealing) on the one hand, and are asked for billions of doll

> Voters don't understand how they can be asked to liberalize hard drug use (and even decriminalize dealing) on the one hand, and are asked for billions of dollars for drug addiction treatment on the other. It's easy to communicate this: We spend billions to incarcerate people for drug crimes, and then send them out with a criminal record that pushes them right back toward drug use. OR we spend fewer billions on drug addiction treatment and housing. It's not confusing or contradictory at all. People who end up in prison don't get help, and people who get help don't end up in prison. "Voters" wouldn't be confused if certain interests didn't keep them confused. It's profitable to keep housing scarce and prisons full. Until we start prioritizing sick people over profiteers we won't fix this problem.

schrectacular 4y ago
In prison or dead means they aren't on the streets and people don't have to face or interact with the problem. I would guess that many voters are much happier with "out of sight, out of mind"
- moonchrome 4y ago
  Also not a risk to you. Most drug addicts are not the kind of people you want around. There are highly functioning ones, but it often exacerbates mental health issues. Not sure prohibition is the correct approach but let's not strawman the other side of the argument.
  - kerkeslager 4y ago
    > Most drug addicts are not the kind of people you want around. True, but how much time does the average non-addict spend in drug rehabs? Both prisons and rehab facilities isolate addicts from the general population.
jibe 4y ago
California has been at the vanguard of reducing prison population, and decriminalizing drug use, and so far the results look disastrous. That’s not a policy that needs any confusion to be unappealing.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Is it a disaster throughout the state or only in some metros?
  - throwayyy479087 4y ago
    I've heard San Diego is more or less totally normal. SF is a fucking disaster.
- lostlogin 4y ago
  Aren't other states exporting those they don't want to California?
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    People are mobile. They go where they need to be to survive. Texan prisons will give you an open bus ticket on discharge, people head west for services, charity, and a better chance of not going back to prison.
    - Scoundreller 4y ago
      > a better chance of not going back to prison but mostly a better chance of not going back to the sending state's prison.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  > California has been at the vanguard of reducing prison population California’s prison population has been stable since 2017. 13 of 35 state-owned facilities operate beyond capacity. Source: https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-prison-population/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-prison-populati...
seanmcdirmid 4y ago
How does "we need to spend billions to get these people" translate into "people shouldn't be responsible for their choices?" Because if they aren't responsible for their choices, I am? It isn't even less money, we passed that mark a long time ago. The average junkie in Seattle costs King County around $100k/year (w/o making any progress on their addiction), while we can put them in prison for around half that. This isn't about saving money anymore, its about throwing money into a bottomless pit and seeing nothing improving at all.
- zenta 4y ago
  Really curious where those numbers come from. Do you have a link you can share?
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    https://www.city-journal.org/seattle-homelessness https://www.city-journal.org/seattle-homelessness > At the same time, according to the Puget Sound Business Journal, the Seattle metro area spends more than $1 billion fighting homelessness every year. That’s nearly $100,000 for every homeless man, woman, and child in King County, yet the crisis seems only to have deepened, with more addiction, more crime, and more tent encampments in residential neighborhoods. By any measure, the city’s efforts are not working. For incarceration costs: https://www.doc.wa.gov/docs/publications/reports/200-AR001.pdf https://www.doc.wa.gov/docs/publications/reports/200-AR001.p... About $110/day (so $40,150/year)
    - lynx23 4y ago
      How inefficient is this system, actually? I doubt one homeless man in seattle can cost 2 times as much as I earn per year. What are you spending all these dollars on? A free visit to a prostitute every week? Oh, I forgot, thats illegal in the US...
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      I'm familiar with stats like this for other cities, but in my experience, it's common for those statistics to be misinterpreted. Often these funds go towards housing people so they are no longer homeless, so you might have X people who are currently homeless, but Y people relying on that $1B to remain housed. Because of that, it's inaccurate to divide $1B by X and then claim that's how much going towards individuals who are still homeless anyway, when it is more accurate to divide that figure by X+Y.
labster 4y ago
No, you seem to be confused as to what voters actually want. Sure we could do drug treatment for less money and more social benefit, but how does that punish the baddies? If we give them free treatment and forgiveness, what does that say about me? I was good and they did the bad thing, and yet you want to throw a feast for your prodigal son. Taxes are high enough already, too high to give money to those fallen souls. Or something like that. At least the first half. Most of us here are engineers, scientists, and tech leaders who can see how disruption can make a better system. But a lot of people see the opioid crisis not as health crisis but as a moral dilemma.
- rusk 4y ago
  Well the key word is “Baddies” we need to stop looking at drug addicts as “bad” but merely sick. The actual “baddies” would lose their funding if you cure the junkies. The problem is the system as it is is profitable for other more socially acceptable “baddies” who stand to lose out. e.g sacklers
  - largepeepee 4y ago
    He is pointing out the voters perspective which is valid and rarely reflected on social media since it is innately selfish. At it's core this is a social issue that is swept under the rug for decades since the real solutions requires harsh reform that will likely destroy careers for pursuing it. Drugs are a strong form of control, not just for the peddlers but to appease the masses from their painful reality, something that certain branches might like with AI and stuff reducing the usefulness of labor.
    - rusk 4y ago
      And the reason for that is the drug users as criminals narrative has been promoted by a combination of well meaning misinformed people and mere neerdowell grifters. The solution is to promote this alternative narrative, something which is happening now thanks in part to successful activism and better education, but also an increasing wariness on the part of the public on the true motives behind public drug policy. I don’t think it’s a pure coincidence that this is all happening at the tail end of the opioid pandemic!
lenkite 4y ago
I am very confused on why the US can't stop drugs entering the nation.
- andruby 4y ago
  A lot of opiates are produced in the US.
  - lenkite 4y ago
    This is minor compared to the hundreds of tonnes of drugs (possibly thousands) crossing the border of which only a small portion are seized. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/drug-seizure-statistics https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/drug-seizure-statistics
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    The legal ones are produced in the USA. The illegal ones are mainly produced in China.
- refurb 4y ago
  Really? Singapore finds kilograms of smuggled heroin every month or so inside the country, not at border checks. And it’s an island country with only a single airport, a couple ports and 2 bridges into the country and the death penalty for smuggling. They throw a ton of resources at trying to stop it from coming in in the first place. If they cant stop it, i dont know how a country like the US with thousands of miles of undefended borders can.
  - lenkite 4y ago
    If Singapore is only finding kilograms of smuggled heroin every month, then they are very, very successful even for a single city. Hell, thats an extraordinary achievement. Likely the best in the whole world I think by a wide margin. The U.S. is failing to stop multiple TONNES of drugs. (actually >100 tonnes if you look at DEA extrapolated figures). Border policy is clearly non-existent.

schrectacular 4y ago

In prison or dead means they aren't on the streets and people don't have to face or interact with the problem. I would guess that many voters are much happier with "out of sight, out of mind"

moonchrome 4y ago
Also not a risk to you. Most drug addicts are not the kind of people you want around. There are highly functioning ones, but it often exacerbates mental health issues. Not sure prohibition is the correct approach but let's not strawman the other side of the argument.
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  > Most drug addicts are not the kind of people you want around. True, but how much time does the average non-addict spend in drug rehabs? Both prisons and rehab facilities isolate addicts from the general population.

jibe 4y ago

California has been at the vanguard of reducing prison population, and decriminalizing drug use, and so far the results look disastrous. That’s not a policy that needs any confusion to be unappealing.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
Is it a disaster throughout the state or only in some metros?
- throwayyy479087 4y ago
  I've heard San Diego is more or less totally normal. SF is a fucking disaster.
lostlogin 4y ago
Aren't other states exporting those they don't want to California?
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  People are mobile. They go where they need to be to survive. Texan prisons will give you an open bus ticket on discharge, people head west for services, charity, and a better chance of not going back to prison.
  - Scoundreller 4y ago
    > a better chance of not going back to prison but mostly a better chance of not going back to the sending state's prison.
andsoitis 4y ago
> California has been at the vanguard of reducing prison population California’s prison population has been stable since 2017. 13 of 35 state-owned facilities operate beyond capacity. Source: https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-prison-population/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-prison-populati...

seanmcdirmid 4y ago

How does "we need to spend billions to get these people" translate into "people shouldn't be responsible for their choices?" Because if they aren't responsible for their choices, I am? It isn't even less money, we passed that mark a long time ago. The average junkie in Seattle costs King County around $100k/year (w/o making any progress on their addiction), while we can put them in prison for around half that. This isn't about saving money anymore, its about throwing money into a bottomless pit and seeing nothing improving at all.

zenta 4y ago
Really curious where those numbers come from. Do you have a link you can share?
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  https://www.city-journal.org/seattle-homelessness https://www.city-journal.org/seattle-homelessness > At the same time, according to the Puget Sound Business Journal, the Seattle metro area spends more than $1 billion fighting homelessness every year. That’s nearly $100,000 for every homeless man, woman, and child in King County, yet the crisis seems only to have deepened, with more addiction, more crime, and more tent encampments in residential neighborhoods. By any measure, the city’s efforts are not working. For incarceration costs: https://www.doc.wa.gov/docs/publications/reports/200-AR001.pdf https://www.doc.wa.gov/docs/publications/reports/200-AR001.p... About $110/day (so $40,150/year)
  - lynx23 4y ago
    How inefficient is this system, actually? I doubt one homeless man in seattle can cost 2 times as much as I earn per year. What are you spending all these dollars on? A free visit to a prostitute every week? Oh, I forgot, thats illegal in the US...
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    I'm familiar with stats like this for other cities, but in my experience, it's common for those statistics to be misinterpreted. Often these funds go towards housing people so they are no longer homeless, so you might have X people who are currently homeless, but Y people relying on that $1B to remain housed. Because of that, it's inaccurate to divide $1B by X and then claim that's how much going towards individuals who are still homeless anyway, when it is more accurate to divide that figure by X+Y.

labster 4y ago

No, you seem to be confused as to what voters actually want. Sure we could do drug treatment for less money and more social benefit, but how does that punish the baddies? If we give them free treatment and forgiveness, what does that say about me? I was good and they did the bad thing, and yet you want to throw a feast for your prodigal son. Taxes are high enough already, too high to give money to those fallen souls. Or something like that. At least the first half. Most of us here are engineers, scientists, and tech leaders who can see how disruption can make a better system. But a lot of people see the opioid crisis not as health crisis but as a moral dilemma.

rusk 4y ago
Well the key word is “Baddies” we need to stop looking at drug addicts as “bad” but merely sick. The actual “baddies” would lose their funding if you cure the junkies. The problem is the system as it is is profitable for other more socially acceptable “baddies” who stand to lose out. e.g sacklers
- largepeepee 4y ago
  He is pointing out the voters perspective which is valid and rarely reflected on social media since it is innately selfish. At it's core this is a social issue that is swept under the rug for decades since the real solutions requires harsh reform that will likely destroy careers for pursuing it. Drugs are a strong form of control, not just for the peddlers but to appease the masses from their painful reality, something that certain branches might like with AI and stuff reducing the usefulness of labor.
  - rusk 4y ago
    And the reason for that is the drug users as criminals narrative has been promoted by a combination of well meaning misinformed people and mere neerdowell grifters. The solution is to promote this alternative narrative, something which is happening now thanks in part to successful activism and better education, but also an increasing wariness on the part of the public on the true motives behind public drug policy. I don’t think it’s a pure coincidence that this is all happening at the tail end of the opioid pandemic!

lenkite 4y ago

I am very confused on why the US can't stop drugs entering the nation.

andruby 4y ago
A lot of opiates are produced in the US.
- lenkite 4y ago
  This is minor compared to the hundreds of tonnes of drugs (possibly thousands) crossing the border of which only a small portion are seized. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/drug-seizure-statistics https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/drug-seizure-statistics
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  The legal ones are produced in the USA. The illegal ones are mainly produced in China.
refurb 4y ago
Really? Singapore finds kilograms of smuggled heroin every month or so inside the country, not at border checks. And it’s an island country with only a single airport, a couple ports and 2 bridges into the country and the death penalty for smuggling. They throw a ton of resources at trying to stop it from coming in in the first place. If they cant stop it, i dont know how a country like the US with thousands of miles of undefended borders can.
- lenkite 4y ago
  If Singapore is only finding kilograms of smuggled heroin every month, then they are very, very successful even for a single city. Hell, thats an extraordinary achievement. Likely the best in the whole world I think by a wide margin. The U.S. is failing to stop multiple TONNES of drugs. (actually >100 tonnes if you look at DEA extrapolated figures). Border policy is clearly non-existent.