6 ms·

If you decriminalize hard drugs, all that happens is that addicts stay addicts, have a higher likely hood of becoming homeless and higher chance of dying. Hard

If you decriminalize hard drugs, all that happens is that addicts stay addicts, have a higher likely hood of becoming homeless and higher chance of dying. Hard drugs for the most part outside of controlled environments have almost no positive qualities. Drugs like cannabis have medical attributes and can provide benefits. People addicted to hard drugs require treatment, leaving them to their own devices is likely to have negative results. Problem is, who is going to pay for that treatment and for how long? On top of that, is it ok for Bob the local heroine addict to shoot up in front of peoples homes in a local residential community or school? Do we really want to worry about Bob dropping his needles on the ground? I'm not a fan of sending people to jail for drug use but when balanced against the very real repercussions to peoples lives regarding hard drug use and the affect on communities, not sure what the alternative is. Rendering down town areas unwalkable due to an infestation of addicts, and the associated uptick in property crime and robbery is not acceptable either. Plus once drugs are legal, its very likely the first thing to be chopped in a budget crunch is going to be treatment programs as illustrated in Portugal. Not sure what the answer is but just waving a wand and making hard drugs legal is not it.

soligern 3y ago
They should couple decriminalization with stringent arrests for public use and public intoxication. It’s so damn simple, why won’t they do it. Set a limit above which you’re not allowed to be loitering on the streets like they do with alcohol.
- wonderwonder 3y ago
  This is definitely part of the answer. Walking through the streets of San Francisco a while ago with my kids I was shocked to see people just lying on the side walk in pools of their own vomit. Also was very protective of my kids walking past people that were obviously on drugs and out of their minds. These people became not so much people but just a threat. It seemed inhumane to just leave them like that. With that said, I would not want the job of dealing with them for what I am sure is a relatively low salary with the reward of seeing most people you help back on drugs the next week.
  - skyyler 3y ago
    >These people became not so much people but just a threat. This is part of the problem. They are a threat, but they're also still people.
    - wonderwonder 3y ago
      Sure but I very much value my kids over strangers engaging in destructive behavior on the street. Why risk myself and my family for them?
      - skyyler 3y ago
        Don't value them over your family. Just don't think of them as less than human.
        wonderwonder 3y ago
        Thats the thing, I don't. With that said, there is almost nothing more dangerous to a human than another human. I wish them nothing but happiness in life but I am also not going to ignore the fact that they are on drugs and potentially mentally compromised. A danger to themselves and others.
        skyyler 3y ago
        You literally commented "These people became not so much people". I'm not sure how else to take that. I can tell you're frustrated about having to see homeless people. Let's just drop it there, then. I hope your community heals.
        wonderwonder 3y ago
        Not my community, I was just visiting San Francisco
  - 1letterunixname 3y ago
- anon84873628 3y ago
  That's one of the interesting things I noticed about Amsterdam. It is notorious for the availability of cannabis, but it's very clear that you don't consume in public or around the neighborhood. (Modulo a group of teens I saw passing a joint around in the park). The coffeeshops are clearly intended to contain the drug use. Unlike California where you smell weed everywhere.
  - 1letterunixname 3y ago
    There is so much absurd regulation of marijuana in California, that the gray and black markets are still thriving. There is too much demand and not enough legal supply because of bullshit red tape. Making it easier to grow legally is the path to taking organized crime and violence out of it.
01100011 3y ago
I hate to be that HN guy who nitpicks an otherwise spot-on comment, but anyway... One correction: many opiate users, yes, even heroin users, can be functional members of society. There are many folks you would never know use H, at least until they accidentally get some fentanyl and die. Same thing with meth(which is actually a prescription medication). I'll say that there is always a very high probability that some life stress transforms a casual usage pattern into full-blown addiction though. I've seen it first hand with a family member who used meth for years "on the weekends, to get things done" until some stress in their mid-40s turned them into a hallucinating IV meth user. More or less though, I think we should maintain criminalization of public usage of most drugs, but I'm open to whatever pragmatic approach maximizes public health and safety while lowering crime.
- wonderwonder 3y ago
  Fair point. This I think goes along with the idea of a functional alcoholic. People can be functional and fine for a very long time, until they aren't. This likely has less affect on the community during their 'functional' phase. I am for the most part against public use and intoxication.
- goatlover 3y ago
  You’re ignoring the right of someone to do with their body as they see fit, in favor of giving power to governments over people’s bodies. Prohibition didn’t work for alcohol despite’s its negative effects. Doesn’t work for prostitution or gambling either.
  - wonderwonder 3y ago
    Sure, as long as those people don't negatively affect others. Who cleans up after the addict? Who pays for their property crimes or aggression? Who has to clean up their body after an OD or discover it? I'm open to decriminalizing everything, start with steroids. As long as there are harsh punishments for public intoxication, property damage, theft and all the adjacent crimes that addiction causes, have at it. It can't result in a wasteland of addicts in every down town though
- 3y ago
api 3y ago
My take is that we're going from a criminalization based "screw them, warehouse them in jail and ruin their lives with felony convictions" policy to a laissez-faire "screw them, let them die on the street" policy. The part that hasn't changed is "screw them." Nobody really cares about these people. They're viewed as an inconvenience and the debate is over the least costly way to either warehouse them or shove them aside somewhere. Most people view addiction as a moral failing and think addicts deserve whatever they get. I've never been in favor of drug criminalization except possibly in the case of the most addictive and deadly hard drugs (crystal meth, fentanyl, concentrated opiates), but I always hoped that legalization would come with a redirection of funding from prisons and police into treatment. The latter part just isn't happening, or isn't happening with any effectiveness. My take is that nobody gives a damn and decriminalization is more about saving money than freedom or better treatment approaches.
- foobarian 3y ago
  The movie Traffic already said it. "Treatment of addiction? Addicts treat themselves. They overdose and then there's one less to worry about."
- collaborative 3y ago
  The problem as I see it is that any "treatment" requires the addict wanting to be treated You could argue that the Taliban are the government that cares the most about addicts, because they are actually making addicts change the way a parent corrects a child But addicts are grown ups with free will
  - ddingus 3y ago
    Truth and I would change that statement just a bit: Any * successful * treatment requires the patient to want treatment. In addition, the triggers for it all need to be addressed. Those can be: Simple pain, trauma More complex financial issues, housing, etc... PTSD of various kinds, war, abuse and the like. Without a plan to address triggers and desire to be done with it all, treatment success is extremely unlikely.
taeric 3y ago
Referencing Portugal feels weird. Most reports I see are still very favorable to the outcomes they are seeing, is that changing? Decriminalizing doesn't change people with a drug problem into not having a drug problem, true. It does, at least, free them from also having a legal problem. Idea being that they can seek and get treatment for their drug problem, now. Something they can't do when it is criminal. (Indeed, reading the Wikipedia page for Portugal shows increased treatments as their first bullet in favor.) I'd also guess that it makes it easier for treatments to be offered. As, right now, offering help there is basically aiding illegal activity.
- fragmede 3y ago
  Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-dru... discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36638752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36638752
  - taeric 3y ago
    Thanks for the link, I'll try and take a deeper dive later. Cursory read is not favorable to the article, though. Problems include, * Having to concede that Portugal is still doing better than most of Europe. * Leaning on pandemic years for a lot of the excess growth. * A passing discussion of funding and other costs. I see most of this was covered in the discussion here. Will see what else is mentioned.
ikrenji 3y ago
problem with this kind of reasoning is that there is very little real data on a world where drugs are decriminalised / legal. while the things you listed could all be negative consequences of such a world, since it was never tried we don't know and its just a conjecture...
- wonderwonder 3y ago
  There's also a genie out of the bottle problem. Once you decriminalize drugs and people start using them it's very hard to flip a switch and make them stop. To get the data could very well require a massive sacrifice if it turns out to be a very bad idea
  - ikrenji 3y ago
    Possibly. On the other hand - all drugs started out decriminalised and the reasons for the criminalisation were not always or even usually out of concern for the well being of the user, but racism against the chinese (opium) and black people (marijuana)
chronofar 3y ago
> Not sure what the answer is but just waving a wand and making hard drugs legal is not it. Make them actually legal (and thus more safe), tax them heavily, use a portion of said taxation to educate properly and then support and rehabilitate those who need it. Don't allow unsafe activities in public places that cause an unsafe environment. This really isn't that complicated, we've just been under the spell of prohibition for so long waking up can be a bit disorienting.
- hcks 3y ago
  Yeah, it's not complicated when you can make up stuff with 0 evidence and have no responsability anyway.
  - chronofar 3y ago
    What did I make up and what did I say that requires evidence? And what responsibility do you imagine I’d require to have the opinion I relayed? Of course nothing is simple if given a close enough look, but there are also rather straightforward solutions here such that we shouldn’t feel just totally stumped about what to do.
DoreenMichele 3y ago
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. -- Albert Einstein In a later comment you ask ...how should I provide help & compassion? I would say one-on-one as an individual walking the streets, you probably shouldn't, especially if you have children in tow. We need to address our nationwide affordable housing crisis. California is disproportionately impacted and takes a lot of the blame for it, but I think they are basically the dumping ground and whipping boy for a national failure. Decriminalization is helpful in part because if you criminalize use of the drug, it makes it harder to seek treatment. People who expect to go to jail for trying to get the help they need are more likely to not come forward and to continue to try to fix their problems themselves. We need a better understanding of why people do drugs, what the underlying root causes are. It's hard to solve a problem without knowing why it exists. Given our long track record of not getting results, I think we have room for improvement in how we frame this problem.
- wonderwonder 3y ago
  I agree with you for the most part. There is a massive housing cost crisis. I bought my house 5 years ago for $320k and its worth just under $600k now. For the same house. It makes no sense. Plus its not like I can sell it and get 2 more at the original price. I don't know how entry level salary people could even consider home ownership now. I don't think decriminalization of hard drugs works without an ample amount of long term money set aside for treatment. Plus money for additional law enforcement to aggressively enforce existing property, violence and public intoxication laws. People should not have to endure a slipping down life because others choose to do drugs. As far as the why people do drugs, I'm not sure we need that much study. It starts out fun, then it turns into something to numb the pain, then its something that is needed. I've done a myriad of drugs in my time, thankfully I never passed the fun phase. I don't presume to know what drove people to the 'numb the pain' phase and I do feel for them. I am not willing to upend my life or endanger my kids to find out. There is also a limit, how much money should society be expected to spend to constantly on an individual who keeps going through treatment and keeps going back to using? With that said, I do think the number is above zero. My patience fails though at those that endanger others and commit crimes to further their addiction.

soligern 3y ago

They should couple decriminalization with stringent arrests for public use and public intoxication. It’s so damn simple, why won’t they do it. Set a limit above which you’re not allowed to be loitering on the streets like they do with alcohol.

wonderwonder 3y ago
This is definitely part of the answer. Walking through the streets of San Francisco a while ago with my kids I was shocked to see people just lying on the side walk in pools of their own vomit. Also was very protective of my kids walking past people that were obviously on drugs and out of their minds. These people became not so much people but just a threat. It seemed inhumane to just leave them like that. With that said, I would not want the job of dealing with them for what I am sure is a relatively low salary with the reward of seeing most people you help back on drugs the next week.
- skyyler 3y ago
  >These people became not so much people but just a threat. This is part of the problem. They are a threat, but they're also still people.
  - wonderwonder 3y ago
    Sure but I very much value my kids over strangers engaging in destructive behavior on the street. Why risk myself and my family for them?
    - skyyler 3y ago
      Don't value them over your family. Just don't think of them as less than human.
      - wonderwonder 3y ago
        Thats the thing, I don't. With that said, there is almost nothing more dangerous to a human than another human. I wish them nothing but happiness in life but I am also not going to ignore the fact that they are on drugs and potentially mentally compromised. A danger to themselves and others.
        skyyler 3y ago
        You literally commented "These people became not so much people". I'm not sure how else to take that. I can tell you're frustrated about having to see homeless people. Let's just drop it there, then. I hope your community heals.
        wonderwonder 3y ago
        Not my community, I was just visiting San Francisco
- 1letterunixname 3y ago
anon84873628 3y ago
That's one of the interesting things I noticed about Amsterdam. It is notorious for the availability of cannabis, but it's very clear that you don't consume in public or around the neighborhood. (Modulo a group of teens I saw passing a joint around in the park). The coffeeshops are clearly intended to contain the drug use. Unlike California where you smell weed everywhere.
- 1letterunixname 3y ago
  There is so much absurd regulation of marijuana in California, that the gray and black markets are still thriving. There is too much demand and not enough legal supply because of bullshit red tape. Making it easier to grow legally is the path to taking organized crime and violence out of it.

01100011 3y ago

I hate to be that HN guy who nitpicks an otherwise spot-on comment, but anyway... One correction: many opiate users, yes, even heroin users, can be functional members of society. There are many folks you would never know use H, at least until they accidentally get some fentanyl and die. Same thing with meth(which is actually a prescription medication). I'll say that there is always a very high probability that some life stress transforms a casual usage pattern into full-blown addiction though. I've seen it first hand with a family member who used meth for years "on the weekends, to get things done" until some stress in their mid-40s turned them into a hallucinating IV meth user. More or less though, I think we should maintain criminalization of public usage of most drugs, but I'm open to whatever pragmatic approach maximizes public health and safety while lowering crime.

wonderwonder 3y ago
Fair point. This I think goes along with the idea of a functional alcoholic. People can be functional and fine for a very long time, until they aren't. This likely has less affect on the community during their 'functional' phase. I am for the most part against public use and intoxication.
goatlover 3y ago
You’re ignoring the right of someone to do with their body as they see fit, in favor of giving power to governments over people’s bodies. Prohibition didn’t work for alcohol despite’s its negative effects. Doesn’t work for prostitution or gambling either.
- wonderwonder 3y ago
  Sure, as long as those people don't negatively affect others. Who cleans up after the addict? Who pays for their property crimes or aggression? Who has to clean up their body after an OD or discover it? I'm open to decriminalizing everything, start with steroids. As long as there are harsh punishments for public intoxication, property damage, theft and all the adjacent crimes that addiction causes, have at it. It can't result in a wasteland of addicts in every down town though
3y ago

api 3y ago

My take is that we're going from a criminalization based "screw them, warehouse them in jail and ruin their lives with felony convictions" policy to a laissez-faire "screw them, let them die on the street" policy. The part that hasn't changed is "screw them." Nobody really cares about these people. They're viewed as an inconvenience and the debate is over the least costly way to either warehouse them or shove them aside somewhere. Most people view addiction as a moral failing and think addicts deserve whatever they get. I've never been in favor of drug criminalization except possibly in the case of the most addictive and deadly hard drugs (crystal meth, fentanyl, concentrated opiates), but I always hoped that legalization would come with a redirection of funding from prisons and police into treatment. The latter part just isn't happening, or isn't happening with any effectiveness. My take is that nobody gives a damn and decriminalization is more about saving money than freedom or better treatment approaches.

foobarian 3y ago
The movie Traffic already said it. "Treatment of addiction? Addicts treat themselves. They overdose and then there's one less to worry about."
collaborative 3y ago
The problem as I see it is that any "treatment" requires the addict wanting to be treated You could argue that the Taliban are the government that cares the most about addicts, because they are actually making addicts change the way a parent corrects a child But addicts are grown ups with free will
- ddingus 3y ago
  Truth and I would change that statement just a bit: Any * successful * treatment requires the patient to want treatment. In addition, the triggers for it all need to be addressed. Those can be: Simple pain, trauma More complex financial issues, housing, etc... PTSD of various kinds, war, abuse and the like. Without a plan to address triggers and desire to be done with it all, treatment success is extremely unlikely.

taeric 3y ago

Referencing Portugal feels weird. Most reports I see are still very favorable to the outcomes they are seeing, is that changing? Decriminalizing doesn't change people with a drug problem into not having a drug problem, true. It does, at least, free them from also having a legal problem. Idea being that they can seek and get treatment for their drug problem, now. Something they can't do when it is criminal. (Indeed, reading the Wikipedia page for Portugal shows increased treatments as their first bullet in favor.) I'd also guess that it makes it easier for treatments to be offered. As, right now, offering help there is basically aiding illegal activity.

fragmede 3y ago
Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-dru... discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36638752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36638752
- taeric 3y ago
  Thanks for the link, I'll try and take a deeper dive later. Cursory read is not favorable to the article, though. Problems include, * Having to concede that Portugal is still doing better than most of Europe. * Leaning on pandemic years for a lot of the excess growth. * A passing discussion of funding and other costs. I see most of this was covered in the discussion here. Will see what else is mentioned.

ikrenji 3y ago

problem with this kind of reasoning is that there is very little real data on a world where drugs are decriminalised / legal. while the things you listed could all be negative consequences of such a world, since it was never tried we don't know and its just a conjecture...

wonderwonder 3y ago
There's also a genie out of the bottle problem. Once you decriminalize drugs and people start using them it's very hard to flip a switch and make them stop. To get the data could very well require a massive sacrifice if it turns out to be a very bad idea
- ikrenji 3y ago
  Possibly. On the other hand - all drugs started out decriminalised and the reasons for the criminalisation were not always or even usually out of concern for the well being of the user, but racism against the chinese (opium) and black people (marijuana)

chronofar 3y ago

> Not sure what the answer is but just waving a wand and making hard drugs legal is not it. Make them actually legal (and thus more safe), tax them heavily, use a portion of said taxation to educate properly and then support and rehabilitate those who need it. Don't allow unsafe activities in public places that cause an unsafe environment. This really isn't that complicated, we've just been under the spell of prohibition for so long waking up can be a bit disorienting.

hcks 3y ago
Yeah, it's not complicated when you can make up stuff with 0 evidence and have no responsability anyway.
- chronofar 3y ago
  What did I make up and what did I say that requires evidence? And what responsibility do you imagine I’d require to have the opinion I relayed? Of course nothing is simple if given a close enough look, but there are also rather straightforward solutions here such that we shouldn’t feel just totally stumped about what to do.

DoreenMichele 3y ago

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. -- Albert Einstein In a later comment you ask ...how should I provide help & compassion? I would say one-on-one as an individual walking the streets, you probably shouldn't, especially if you have children in tow. We need to address our nationwide affordable housing crisis. California is disproportionately impacted and takes a lot of the blame for it, but I think they are basically the dumping ground and whipping boy for a national failure. Decriminalization is helpful in part because if you criminalize use of the drug, it makes it harder to seek treatment. People who expect to go to jail for trying to get the help they need are more likely to not come forward and to continue to try to fix their problems themselves. We need a better understanding of why people do drugs, what the underlying root causes are. It's hard to solve a problem without knowing why it exists. Given our long track record of not getting results, I think we have room for improvement in how we frame this problem.

wonderwonder 3y ago
I agree with you for the most part. There is a massive housing cost crisis. I bought my house 5 years ago for $320k and its worth just under $600k now. For the same house. It makes no sense. Plus its not like I can sell it and get 2 more at the original price. I don't know how entry level salary people could even consider home ownership now. I don't think decriminalization of hard drugs works without an ample amount of long term money set aside for treatment. Plus money for additional law enforcement to aggressively enforce existing property, violence and public intoxication laws. People should not have to endure a slipping down life because others choose to do drugs. As far as the why people do drugs, I'm not sure we need that much study. It starts out fun, then it turns into something to numb the pain, then its something that is needed. I've done a myriad of drugs in my time, thankfully I never passed the fun phase. I don't presume to know what drove people to the 'numb the pain' phase and I do feel for them. I am not willing to upend my life or endanger my kids to find out. There is also a limit, how much money should society be expected to spend to constantly on an individual who keeps going through treatment and keeps going back to using? With that said, I do think the number is above zero. My patience fails though at those that endanger others and commit crimes to further their addiction.