6 ms·

> Basically I think this is the right approach. Drug use at low levels in endemic. I don't think it makes sense for huge swathes of otherwise law abiding citize

by dvt 3y ago

> Basically I think this is the right approach. Drug use at low levels in endemic. I don't think it makes sense for huge swathes of otherwise law abiding citizens to be technically criminals. While I do agree that prohibition is probably not the answer, calling the Portuguese policy a "success" kind of misses the forest for the trees[1]. The most obvious problem is funding (which Porto is running out of): life-long support for a drug addict is going to be significantly more expensive than throwing them in jail for a few years. Not to mention that the latter is also more popular with voters. [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/once-hailed-for-decriminalizing-drugs-portugal-is-now-having-doubts/ar-AA1dxFl3 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/once-hailed-for-decrimi...

fireflash38 3y ago
Do you think the person pops out of jail completely cured of their addiction? Or would they consume more societal resources afterwards.
Turskarama 3y ago
>life-long support for a drug addict is going to be significantly more expensive than throwing them in jail for a few years Citation needed, you might be underestimating how much it costs to jail someone. If a drug user actually manages to get clean (which with proper support, most can) then the cost of support is basically checking up on them a couple of times a year. Meanwhile they can hold down a job and live a normal life. That's as opposed to the significant costs of keeping someone in prison, which is significantly more than they would be earning if they were free.
- dvt 3y ago
  > If a drug user actually manages to get clean... Ah, I was assuming the drug addict (or at least a signification portion) wouldn't be getting clean. A large part of Portugal's policy is focused on safe drug use (decriminalization, clean needles, drug dispensaries, etc.).
  - Turskarama 3y ago
    The primary purpose of these policies is that they actually do help people get clean. It's harder to fix up your life when you're also going through the criminal justice system, or otherwise trying to avoid all forms of authority. Consider this: if drug use is criminalised, then seeking help increases your risk of getting arrested!
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > That's as opposed to the significant costs of keeping someone in prison, which is significantly more than they would be earning if they were free. It's worse than that. If someone is working a productive job, even if they don't make much, they're doing something useful. Someone has their dishes washed or their floors swept and there is a surplus that accrues not only to the worker but also the rest of society. If someone is in prison, not only do you lose that surplus, you have to extract tax dollars from some other productive activity and use it to pay prison guards and consume real estate, which money could have been used by the government to do something useful, or to lower taxes so the taxpayer can do something useful. Prison is an enormous net loss on both ends.
  - Terr_ 3y ago
    > even if they don't make much, they're doing something useful. While I agree that the prison-scenario costs are probably underestimated and underappreciated... If we're going to try to measure the "doing something useful" part, we should also consider the other side of "doing something destructive to other people and property" part. Someone could hold down a job and be cutting catalytic converters out of other people's cars.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      The underlying assumption being that the only alternatives are prison and crime. Suppose nonviolent criminals get sentenced to restitution and community service and only go to prison if they fail to complete their community service. Now you want to go out stealing catalytic converters and you're going to find that doing a bunch of free labor while giving half the wages from your paid labor to your victims is a lot less profitable than just doing honest work.
monocasa 3y ago
> life-long support for a drug addict is going to be significantly more expensive than throwing them in jail for a few years. There are plenty of drugs in jails. Sticking someone in jail is a very expensive and unlikely to be effective way to treat their addiction.
- dvt 3y ago
  True, though I suspect most people do this calculus: would I rather want a drug addict to be on the streets or in jail? (Especially if the crime is violent.) Keep in mind that I have no idea how to "fix" this, and it's a very complicated issue, so I'm just trying to spark conversation. If we look at historical examples (e.g. opium dens), it's rarely these societal issues fixed themselves with more lenient social policies (they often, in fact, got worse). The counter-example is Prohibition (which was an abject failure), but maybe this is (at least in part) due to the cultural importance of alcohol of so many people. I don't really think cocaine or meth are such cultural lynchpins.
  - monocasa 3y ago
    > it's rarely these societal issues fixed themselves with more lenient social policies (they often, in fact, got worse). Opium was prohibited even after the opium wars. That's not a good example of non-prohibition but instead the knockon effects of worst of both worlds informal, capricious quasi-legality. > The counter-example is Prohibition (which was an abject failure), but maybe this is (at least in part) due to the cultural importance of alcohol of so many people. I don't really think cocaine or meth are such cultural lynchpins. I mean, people haven't really stopped doing Cocaine or Meth, and the most negative effects of prohibition (extremely violent organized crime) still seem to be present.
    - dvt 3y ago
      > That's not a good example of non-prohibition Yep, which is why I used the term "more lenient policies," not necessarily non-prohibition. Opium dens were getting more and more problematic in San Francisco[1] until they were criminalized in the late 19th century. > I mean, people haven't really stopped doing Cocaine or Meth I don't think the end goal of prohibition is zero use of said substance, but rather its control as to prevent large-scale societal disruption. [1] https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Chinatown%27s_Opium_Dens https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Chinatown%27s_Opium_...

by dvt 3y ago

fireflash38 3y ago

Do you think the person pops out of jail completely cured of their addiction? Or would they consume more societal resources afterwards.

Turskarama 3y ago

>life-long support for a drug addict is going to be significantly more expensive than throwing them in jail for a few years Citation needed, you might be underestimating how much it costs to jail someone. If a drug user actually manages to get clean (which with proper support, most can) then the cost of support is basically checking up on them a couple of times a year. Meanwhile they can hold down a job and live a normal life. That's as opposed to the significant costs of keeping someone in prison, which is significantly more than they would be earning if they were free.

dvt 3y ago
> If a drug user actually manages to get clean... Ah, I was assuming the drug addict (or at least a signification portion) wouldn't be getting clean. A large part of Portugal's policy is focused on safe drug use (decriminalization, clean needles, drug dispensaries, etc.).
- Turskarama 3y ago
  The primary purpose of these policies is that they actually do help people get clean. It's harder to fix up your life when you're also going through the criminal justice system, or otherwise trying to avoid all forms of authority. Consider this: if drug use is criminalised, then seeking help increases your risk of getting arrested!
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> That's as opposed to the significant costs of keeping someone in prison, which is significantly more than they would be earning if they were free. It's worse than that. If someone is working a productive job, even if they don't make much, they're doing something useful. Someone has their dishes washed or their floors swept and there is a surplus that accrues not only to the worker but also the rest of society. If someone is in prison, not only do you lose that surplus, you have to extract tax dollars from some other productive activity and use it to pay prison guards and consume real estate, which money could have been used by the government to do something useful, or to lower taxes so the taxpayer can do something useful. Prison is an enormous net loss on both ends.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  > even if they don't make much, they're doing something useful. While I agree that the prison-scenario costs are probably underestimated and underappreciated... If we're going to try to measure the "doing something useful" part, we should also consider the other side of "doing something destructive to other people and property" part. Someone could hold down a job and be cutting catalytic converters out of other people's cars.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    The underlying assumption being that the only alternatives are prison and crime. Suppose nonviolent criminals get sentenced to restitution and community service and only go to prison if they fail to complete their community service. Now you want to go out stealing catalytic converters and you're going to find that doing a bunch of free labor while giving half the wages from your paid labor to your victims is a lot less profitable than just doing honest work.

monocasa 3y ago

> life-long support for a drug addict is going to be significantly more expensive than throwing them in jail for a few years. There are plenty of drugs in jails. Sticking someone in jail is a very expensive and unlikely to be effective way to treat their addiction.

dvt 3y ago
True, though I suspect most people do this calculus: would I rather want a drug addict to be on the streets or in jail? (Especially if the crime is violent.) Keep in mind that I have no idea how to "fix" this, and it's a very complicated issue, so I'm just trying to spark conversation. If we look at historical examples (e.g. opium dens), it's rarely these societal issues fixed themselves with more lenient social policies (they often, in fact, got worse). The counter-example is Prohibition (which was an abject failure), but maybe this is (at least in part) due to the cultural importance of alcohol of so many people. I don't really think cocaine or meth are such cultural lynchpins.
- monocasa 3y ago
  > it's rarely these societal issues fixed themselves with more lenient social policies (they often, in fact, got worse). Opium was prohibited even after the opium wars. That's not a good example of non-prohibition but instead the knockon effects of worst of both worlds informal, capricious quasi-legality. > The counter-example is Prohibition (which was an abject failure), but maybe this is (at least in part) due to the cultural importance of alcohol of so many people. I don't really think cocaine or meth are such cultural lynchpins. I mean, people haven't really stopped doing Cocaine or Meth, and the most negative effects of prohibition (extremely violent organized crime) still seem to be present.
  - dvt 3y ago
    > That's not a good example of non-prohibition Yep, which is why I used the term "more lenient policies," not necessarily non-prohibition. Opium dens were getting more and more problematic in San Francisco[1] until they were criminalized in the late 19th century. > I mean, people haven't really stopped doing Cocaine or Meth I don't think the end goal of prohibition is zero use of said substance, but rather its control as to prevent large-scale societal disruption. [1] https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Chinatown%27s_Opium_Dens https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Chinatown%27s_Opium_...