4 ms·

a) It's cheaper to fund the new resources than it is to continue the pointless war b) You may be able to tax the activity too, further offsetting costs c) Rui

by Nursie 3y ago

a) It's cheaper to fund the new resources than it is to continue the pointless war b) You may be able to tax the activity too, further offsetting costs c) Ruining lives by attaching criminal charges to activities should not solely be a cost-benefit analysis anyway. Or if it is, it needs to take into account the lost opportunities and lost years of those who are caught up in the criminal system

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
I get decriminalization, let people be responsible for their own choices that don’t affect others. But I don’t see why we are also expected to pony up billions, probably more like trillions of dollars to fix the consequences of those decisions. This isn’t cheap at all, supporting an unhoused neighbor with a fent problem runs around $100k/year just to shelter (before treatment can even start, usually they just keep doing drugs because no incentive to stop), sucking the air, empathy, and resources out for the rest of our homelessness problem. And…fent is cheap, taxing it via legalization is a non-starter (the illicit questionable stuff would still exist because the users don’t want to and cannot pay high prices). If we just decriminalize and let people reap the consequences of their actions, the problem also goes away. I can really admire countries like China that don’t coddle their addicts and instead apply pure tough love.
- Anticlockwise 3y ago
  If you're going to make this argument, I really wish you'd make it more explicit. I think what you're suggesting makes cities unlivable. The homeless drug users have to exist in space somewhere. What do you propose to do with these people? There's nowhere to ship them to that's not owned by someone who objects to their presence.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    It is just really expensive, it would be better if they didn't do drugs rather than just letting them do it and having society responsible for picking up the pieces. If society has to be responsible for paying for these problems, then its no longer a personal decision with personal effect. We as a society have to decide whether we are going to allow hard drug abuse and "pay the bill for that decision" or not.
    - electricmonk 3y ago
      The point others are making is that it appears to be a zero-sum game, i.e., we're paying one way or the other, so the more compassionate option with better outcomes should win out. As I have seen it stated, the options appear to be to pay for: (i) criminalization and its effects/expenses, e.g., court system burden, incarceration, etc.; (ii) de-criminalization (potentially with legalization/taxation) to offset the cost of keeping cities livable by mitigating its effects/expenses, e.g., treatment and housing for addicts that may become homeless; or (iii) de-criminalization without paying for mitigations, leading to unlivable cities. Your comment reads like you see some way of simply not paying to deal with addicts, while also not having the consequences of a bunch of (potentially homeless) addicts living in society. If that's an accurate description of your point, how does that work? If it's not, then what do you mean?
      - Ajedi32 3y ago
        You can't get addicted to a substance that you don't have the ability to obtain in the first place, or that you could obtain but choose not to because you're afraid of punishment. That's the whole theory behind criminalization: that it's not a zero sum game! I think you're probably right that the criminal justice system isn't the most effective way of dealing with people who are already addicted, but how do you propose we stop people from getting addicted in the first place if hard drugs are perfectly legal, and the government is actively working to minimize the personal downsides of being addicted to them? Why not become an addict if the only consequence is that it means you get free food and housing for the rest of your life?
        amanaplanacanal 3y ago
        So is your theory is that the drug war was a success, and nobody could get drugs when they were illegal? How do you propose to make them go away? That way was tried, and failed.
        Ajedi32 3y ago
        A success relative to what? Criminalization of homicide hasn't eliminated homicide either; that's not an argument for legalizing it.
- Nursie 3y ago
  > But I don’t see why we are also expected to pony up billions You already are ponying up billions. What's more, what you're ponying up for is making things worse. Doing nothing at all is hardly likely to be an economically optimal strategy either, but at least we wouldn't be sinking billions in actually making it worse, as we are now. The argument that we should take some or all of the enforcement money and spend it on services can be a utilitarian one. Think about why we educate children whose parents couldn't afford to pay for it otherwise, why we have social security programs. It benefits us all to have a functional, productive population. > usually they just keep doing drugs because no incentive to stop Firstly, no, oddly enough a most people don't want to spend their entire lives addicted to opioids. When given access to things like a stable supply and clean places to satisfy their addiction, many are able to hold down jobs, take steps to get clean and become productive members of society. The constant need for money and the insecurity of the supply seem to ensure that addicts are in a state of perpetual turmoil and instability, which makes their situation worse and their chances of recovery slimmer. Second - you'd rather that addicts still commit petty crime to support their habits, when we know better and cheaper ways for both them and us? > If we just decriminalize and let people reap the consequences of their actions, the problem also goes away. No, it really doesn't. You'll end up with a different set of social problems. Not as bad without the legal consequences attached, but not simply "gone away" either. > I can really admire countries like China... That don't value human life? That dictate what people can do, how many kids they can have, that sort of thing? By all means, go live in an authoritarian paradise. And from your other comment - > it would be better if they didn't do drugs Yes, and it would be better if people didn't drink, or smoke, or hurt each other, or steal stuff, or crash cars, or rape each other, or... But we don't live in that world, and we never will. We have to deal with the world we live in and the human race as it is, and try to figure out how to get the best outcomes. And that includes messy things like addiction and the fallout of that. You know what really cuts down on the number of young people getting addicted to opioids? Seeing a load of middle-aged addicts queuing up for their morning hit at the local clinic. Knocks the glamour right out of it, and has worked very well in Switzerland.
  - TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
    Addiction is also a symptom of other social issues. The problem isn't that some people are weak willed. It's more that there are many cultural elements that covertly value antagonism and hostility, and the poor bear the brunt of that. The rich bear the brunt in other ways. No one much cares if $billionaire is clearly off his head on coke, because he/she has the protective support system that makes prosecution unlikely - even though their decision-making can be ridiculous, self-harming, and catastrophic for millions. That aside - wealth really doesn't mean they're models of mental and emotional health. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/poverty-homelessness-and-social-stigma-make-addiction-more-deadly-202109282602 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/poverty-homelessness-and...
- vidarh 3y ago
  Have the overall societal costs of dealing with the consequences of drug use gone up due to decriminalization? Furthermore, you could use the same argument about the effects of a whole lot of other mental health and healthcare issues. It'd be cheaper to let a whole lot of people suffer or die. It'd also be grossly inhumane. Like China.
- fungiblecog 3y ago
  people have to pony up to mitigate the consequences of alcohol being legal and many other things...
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  You seem to be pretending that the "pure tough love" option is somehow NOT billions of dollars? How much do you think we have spent on the DEA, ATF, and 2 million prisoners?

by Nursie 3y ago

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

I get decriminalization, let people be responsible for their own choices that don’t affect others. But I don’t see why we are also expected to pony up billions, probably more like trillions of dollars to fix the consequences of those decisions. This isn’t cheap at all, supporting an unhoused neighbor with a fent problem runs around $100k/year just to shelter (before treatment can even start, usually they just keep doing drugs because no incentive to stop), sucking the air, empathy, and resources out for the rest of our homelessness problem. And…fent is cheap, taxing it via legalization is a non-starter (the illicit questionable stuff would still exist because the users don’t want to and cannot pay high prices). If we just decriminalize and let people reap the consequences of their actions, the problem also goes away. I can really admire countries like China that don’t coddle their addicts and instead apply pure tough love.

Anticlockwise 3y ago
If you're going to make this argument, I really wish you'd make it more explicit. I think what you're suggesting makes cities unlivable. The homeless drug users have to exist in space somewhere. What do you propose to do with these people? There's nowhere to ship them to that's not owned by someone who objects to their presence.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  It is just really expensive, it would be better if they didn't do drugs rather than just letting them do it and having society responsible for picking up the pieces. If society has to be responsible for paying for these problems, then its no longer a personal decision with personal effect. We as a society have to decide whether we are going to allow hard drug abuse and "pay the bill for that decision" or not.
  - electricmonk 3y ago
    The point others are making is that it appears to be a zero-sum game, i.e., we're paying one way or the other, so the more compassionate option with better outcomes should win out. As I have seen it stated, the options appear to be to pay for: (i) criminalization and its effects/expenses, e.g., court system burden, incarceration, etc.; (ii) de-criminalization (potentially with legalization/taxation) to offset the cost of keeping cities livable by mitigating its effects/expenses, e.g., treatment and housing for addicts that may become homeless; or (iii) de-criminalization without paying for mitigations, leading to unlivable cities. Your comment reads like you see some way of simply not paying to deal with addicts, while also not having the consequences of a bunch of (potentially homeless) addicts living in society. If that's an accurate description of your point, how does that work? If it's not, then what do you mean?
    - Ajedi32 3y ago
      You can't get addicted to a substance that you don't have the ability to obtain in the first place, or that you could obtain but choose not to because you're afraid of punishment. That's the whole theory behind criminalization: that it's not a zero sum game! I think you're probably right that the criminal justice system isn't the most effective way of dealing with people who are already addicted, but how do you propose we stop people from getting addicted in the first place if hard drugs are perfectly legal, and the government is actively working to minimize the personal downsides of being addicted to them? Why not become an addict if the only consequence is that it means you get free food and housing for the rest of your life?
      - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
        So is your theory is that the drug war was a success, and nobody could get drugs when they were illegal? How do you propose to make them go away? That way was tried, and failed.
        Ajedi32 3y ago
        A success relative to what? Criminalization of homicide hasn't eliminated homicide either; that's not an argument for legalizing it.
Nursie 3y ago
> But I don’t see why we are also expected to pony up billions You already are ponying up billions. What's more, what you're ponying up for is making things worse. Doing nothing at all is hardly likely to be an economically optimal strategy either, but at least we wouldn't be sinking billions in actually making it worse, as we are now. The argument that we should take some or all of the enforcement money and spend it on services can be a utilitarian one. Think about why we educate children whose parents couldn't afford to pay for it otherwise, why we have social security programs. It benefits us all to have a functional, productive population. > usually they just keep doing drugs because no incentive to stop Firstly, no, oddly enough a most people don't want to spend their entire lives addicted to opioids. When given access to things like a stable supply and clean places to satisfy their addiction, many are able to hold down jobs, take steps to get clean and become productive members of society. The constant need for money and the insecurity of the supply seem to ensure that addicts are in a state of perpetual turmoil and instability, which makes their situation worse and their chances of recovery slimmer. Second - you'd rather that addicts still commit petty crime to support their habits, when we know better and cheaper ways for both them and us? > If we just decriminalize and let people reap the consequences of their actions, the problem also goes away. No, it really doesn't. You'll end up with a different set of social problems. Not as bad without the legal consequences attached, but not simply "gone away" either. > I can really admire countries like China... That don't value human life? That dictate what people can do, how many kids they can have, that sort of thing? By all means, go live in an authoritarian paradise. And from your other comment - > it would be better if they didn't do drugs Yes, and it would be better if people didn't drink, or smoke, or hurt each other, or steal stuff, or crash cars, or rape each other, or... But we don't live in that world, and we never will. We have to deal with the world we live in and the human race as it is, and try to figure out how to get the best outcomes. And that includes messy things like addiction and the fallout of that. You know what really cuts down on the number of young people getting addicted to opioids? Seeing a load of middle-aged addicts queuing up for their morning hit at the local clinic. Knocks the glamour right out of it, and has worked very well in Switzerland.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  Addiction is also a symptom of other social issues. The problem isn't that some people are weak willed. It's more that there are many cultural elements that covertly value antagonism and hostility, and the poor bear the brunt of that. The rich bear the brunt in other ways. No one much cares if $billionaire is clearly off his head on coke, because he/she has the protective support system that makes prosecution unlikely - even though their decision-making can be ridiculous, self-harming, and catastrophic for millions. That aside - wealth really doesn't mean they're models of mental and emotional health. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/poverty-homelessness-and-social-stigma-make-addiction-more-deadly-202109282602 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/poverty-homelessness-and...
vidarh 3y ago
Have the overall societal costs of dealing with the consequences of drug use gone up due to decriminalization? Furthermore, you could use the same argument about the effects of a whole lot of other mental health and healthcare issues. It'd be cheaper to let a whole lot of people suffer or die. It'd also be grossly inhumane. Like China.
fungiblecog 3y ago
people have to pony up to mitigate the consequences of alcohol being legal and many other things...
mrguyorama 3y ago
You seem to be pretending that the "pure tough love" option is somehow NOT billions of dollars? How much do you think we have spent on the DEA, ATF, and 2 million prisoners?