6 ms·

It's really frustrating to see this headline. The officials decriminalized drugs, wiped their hands and backed off from any follow-up legislation to keep it wor

It's really frustrating to see this headline. The officials decriminalized drugs, wiped their hands and backed off from any follow-up legislation to keep it working correctly. It reminds me a lot of the ACA. Officials got the bill passed and have collectively stopped making updates to the program to keep it healthy, but then constantly criticize its faults. American politics are sad in that it's hard to celebrate any victories when you know those victories are doomed to mismanagement anyway.

jdminhbg 3y ago
> The officials decriminalized drugs, No, the voters decriminalized drugs with a constitutional amendment.
kepler1 3y ago
If decriminalization relies on a whole raft of practically infeasible (or very expensive) associated programs to make it work, is it really a viable strategy?
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago
  What are these "practically infeasible (or very expensive) associated programs" in your view (genuine question)
  - kepler1 3y ago
    The treatment / rehab / injection / addict housing programs (and more) that are required when you decide that having people use drugs isn't something that they believe they will be punished for anymore and no longer exercise some measure of self-caution to avoid falling into. The near-hospital-like facilities and salaries of people you have to pay for to replace that self- or state-policing, and now have to clean up after those who have been given free license to use drugs, and get them back on some productive life track. As GP was alluding to, all the things that require spending $ on, which people aren't apparently willing to spend after the symbol of voting for decriminalization. Which, if they're a mandatory part of decriminalization, but people never end up paying for, mean that decriminalization isn't actually a viable policy.
    - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
      A few minutes ago I posted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38605643#38606523 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38605643#38606523 in response to a poor quality pro-legalisation post. TBH yours is anti-legalisation with really no more factual content in it either. I was really hoping that for once we might have a reasoned debate about decriminalisation (or not). I can see we are yet again going down the same route of many people simply relaunching their pro/anti positions. If you ever despair of politics, this is why; this is politics done badly.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  So what, we continue empowering our state-sponsored thugs to harass, detain, charge and imprison more and more people for the use of substances we've decided are too bad for them, while we continue selling cigarettes, alcohol, etc. to everyone else? Decriminalization is the only ethical way to move forwards. For decades now we have abused our own populace and those of other countries to the point of parody in the name of this prohibition, and, shock of shocks, it has failed, just like prohibition did, with the added benefit of we have the documents from the Nixon administration who were quite ready to say, behind closed doors anyway, that the entire point from the start of the war on drugs was openly to fuck with hippies and black people at scale, and that was before the CIA was flooding ghettos across the country with drugs to find/launder money for their operations. None of this has ever been about the fucking drugs, it has always been yet another cudgel wielded by the state to further it's own ends. IF we decide we need to regulate substances based on actual scientific documented evidence, not puritan sensibilities of sin and vice, then so be it and we can figure that out after the fact. But until then, the entire existing systemic infrastructure for it is frankly, poisoned. It is not fit for the task it is entrusted and should be destroyed. Burn it down, and start over.
  - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
    While I personally tend towards decriminalisation, a raging, emotive and fact-free posts like this is just plain counter-productive.
    - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
      Rage is the correct response to decades of systemic injustice and abuse of power.
  - tick_tock_tick 3y ago
    > it has failed, just like prohibition did Prohibition was a massive success where did you get the impression it didn't work? Nothing has ever reduced domestic violence or alcohol related deaths as much. Even after being repealed it fundamentally changed how Americans interact with alcohol; how much people drink is still massively below what is was pre-prohibition. > Burn it down, and start over. They did and the whole article is just about how much worse it made everything. Not just visible issues or people complaining about moral issues but OD deaths surged.
- strken 3y ago
  This embeds a lot of assumptions without offering any proof. The programs may or may not be too expensive to be practically feasible, but without supporting evidence there's nothing concrete to talk about.
- User23 3y ago
  But it doesn't. The troublemakers are a tiny percentage of the population. I guarantee the local cops know every single one of them. But there's no mechanism for diverting them from making trouble so here we are.
- namesbc 3y ago
  We tried this cruel inhumane expensive policy for the decades called thew war on drugs and it was one of the worst failures in US history The US has spent more than a trillion on the War on Drugs, we should use a fraction of that on housing and healthcare, instead of thinking about restarting the trillion dollar war on drugs
  - google234123 3y ago
    How much did china spend to end their opioid epidemic? How much have we spent on police in this time? I think it’s worth spending a trillion to fight the war on murder, theft and rape…
- wolverine876 3y ago
  What works better? The drug crisis has continued for decades, through 'wars', etc.
ToucanLoucan 3y ago
I'm curious, what's the "updates to the program" that were required? I'm not well informed on this issue.
nickff 3y ago
Perhaps they should have done the “follow-up legislation” before the decriminalization then? I think the problem is quite the opposite from your diagnosis. There are no standards for legislation “success” or “failure”. Very few bills actually achieve their stated aims, and all the ones that don’t are kept on the books, then the results are blamed on under-budgeting, or partisan politics (which should be foreseeable if true).
- redserk 3y ago
  How would this even work? A rehabilitation program requires a very high level of trust from those seeking help, especially so if the program is trying to pull people off of the streets. Re-criminalizing drug usage would make it difficult to convince people that they won't be arrested. Admittedly, I don't know how this problem has been approached elsewhere and what was needed to actually improve things.
- akira2501 3y ago
  I think the answer is a "follow up lawsuit." The administration had a duty to follow and implement the law as it was passed. They very clearly failed to do so, to the extent that I think it would be appropriate to begin a criminal investigation.
briffle 3y ago
The 'officials' did not do that. The voters did, it was state ballot measure. They decriminalized Drugs, to encourage treatment. And moved quite a large percentage of taxes from Marajuana dispenseries to help pay for it. Then left the Oregon Health Authority in charge of distributing the money to build all these new treatment facilities. (Oregon is near the bottom in treatment centers per capita in the US). The Oregon Health Authority then sat on that money for several years, bickering about procedures, policies, etc, and not a single dollar was sent out for several years after the law changed. Treatment centers are finally starting to get open, years late. In the meantime, we spent years decriminalizing the drugs, while then guiding people into treatment, with no actual treatment available to them (and literally amassing hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for it, before spending anything)
- briffle 3y ago
  The first facility expansion in the state opened this past September, with money from this bill that was passed in 2020. It has 16 beds. https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/homeless/new-se-portland-detox-center-measure-110-funding/283-fa52722f-97b8-4dfc-96b8-a25e98a8ba65 https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/homeless/new-se-portl...
the_optimist 3y ago
Sorry to hear of your sense of frustration. Can you please elaborate on what you believe was “working correctly,” and the associated superior cost-benefit tradeoffs.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
I still don't see how "Drugs should be decriminalized because taking drugs is a victimless crime" and "Society needs to sync a lot of resources in tackling drug abuse" are compatible positions to hold at the same time. Either let people do drugs and let them worry about the consequences, or, if society is going to be on the hook for the consequences, don't. There is no feasible way to hold both positions at the same time.
- wharvle 3y ago
  There’s no contradiction here. It may or may not be bad policy, but it’s not a contradiction. Nobody’s a victim when a kid falls and breaks an arm while skateboarding, but we have programs like CHIP to help kids have access to healthcare to get that arm treated, regardless.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    > Nobody’s a victim when a kid falls and breaks an arm while skateboarding, but we have programs like CHIP to help kids have access to healthcare to get that arm treated, regardless. The kid is going to be fine after they are in a cast for a few weeks/months. A fentanyl addict, even with million of dollars over a few years of treatment, is more than likely never going to be OK again. Both involve moral hazard (if society is responsible for the consequences), but the consequences of both aren't similar at all.
    - BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
      I’m gonna doubt that a million dollars couldn’t put a fent addict on their feet again. That’s a bold claim.
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        This is optimistic, the more common case is that the treatment still fails no matter how much money is dedicated to the task.
    - 3y ago
fasthands9 3y ago
I think the average person (including myself) is just skeptical this is a problem worth having. A rube goldberg where everything has to go right. It seems like the best case scenario is "We legalize drugs and then raise tax dollars and then use that money to fund programs so that people that are addicted aren't harmed too much in the long run" just seems not ideal. I get the arguments for personal liberty, but we wouldn't allow other risky behavior that has a such huge societal cost.
- wintogreen74 3y ago
  you mean like smoking and drinking?
  - fasthands9 3y ago
    There seems to be a major difference between "will pay taxes for 30 years and then be a burden on the system when you get liver disease at 60" and "will be a burden at age 30 when you need multiple mental health professionals and non-stop funds"
stillwithit 3y ago
Until recently Portland had a shitty local government structure that voters recently approved to modernize. Former city council members often railed against it; as a member they’d be assigned city bureaus (fire, police…) to basically manage day to day. Former members complained they were so busy dealing with office work rather than understanding Portlands problems in the abstract and crafting legislation. Also the mayor was on the council and did the same job. The hope is the new system (mayor and council are now separate entities, city manager oversees bureaus so mayor and council can focus on legislative matters). Also I’d like to point out every city in the US is a raging dumpster fire of homeless, collusion, graft, fraud… Portland isn’t unique and it’s hardly as bad as say PA cities. America is a shithole country full of FOMO obsessed fast fashion clothes, food, gadgets, and media and gives zero fucks about setting that aside to clean itself up. Garbage in garbage out
deviantbit 3y ago
Who do you think legalizing drugs is going to benefit? What followup are you looking for?

jdminhbg 3y ago

> The officials decriminalized drugs, No, the voters decriminalized drugs with a constitutional amendment.

kepler1 3y ago

If decriminalization relies on a whole raft of practically infeasible (or very expensive) associated programs to make it work, is it really a viable strategy?

_a_a_a_ 3y ago
What are these "practically infeasible (or very expensive) associated programs" in your view (genuine question)
- kepler1 3y ago
  The treatment / rehab / injection / addict housing programs (and more) that are required when you decide that having people use drugs isn't something that they believe they will be punished for anymore and no longer exercise some measure of self-caution to avoid falling into. The near-hospital-like facilities and salaries of people you have to pay for to replace that self- or state-policing, and now have to clean up after those who have been given free license to use drugs, and get them back on some productive life track. As GP was alluding to, all the things that require spending $ on, which people aren't apparently willing to spend after the symbol of voting for decriminalization. Which, if they're a mandatory part of decriminalization, but people never end up paying for, mean that decriminalization isn't actually a viable policy.
  - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
    A few minutes ago I posted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38605643#38606523 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38605643#38606523 in response to a poor quality pro-legalisation post. TBH yours is anti-legalisation with really no more factual content in it either. I was really hoping that for once we might have a reasoned debate about decriminalisation (or not). I can see we are yet again going down the same route of many people simply relaunching their pro/anti positions. If you ever despair of politics, this is why; this is politics done badly.
ToucanLoucan 3y ago
So what, we continue empowering our state-sponsored thugs to harass, detain, charge and imprison more and more people for the use of substances we've decided are too bad for them, while we continue selling cigarettes, alcohol, etc. to everyone else? Decriminalization is the only ethical way to move forwards. For decades now we have abused our own populace and those of other countries to the point of parody in the name of this prohibition, and, shock of shocks, it has failed, just like prohibition did, with the added benefit of we have the documents from the Nixon administration who were quite ready to say, behind closed doors anyway, that the entire point from the start of the war on drugs was openly to fuck with hippies and black people at scale, and that was before the CIA was flooding ghettos across the country with drugs to find/launder money for their operations. None of this has ever been about the fucking drugs, it has always been yet another cudgel wielded by the state to further it's own ends. IF we decide we need to regulate substances based on actual scientific documented evidence, not puritan sensibilities of sin and vice, then so be it and we can figure that out after the fact. But until then, the entire existing systemic infrastructure for it is frankly, poisoned. It is not fit for the task it is entrusted and should be destroyed. Burn it down, and start over.
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago
  While I personally tend towards decriminalisation, a raging, emotive and fact-free posts like this is just plain counter-productive.
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    Rage is the correct response to decades of systemic injustice and abuse of power.
- tick_tock_tick 3y ago
  > it has failed, just like prohibition did Prohibition was a massive success where did you get the impression it didn't work? Nothing has ever reduced domestic violence or alcohol related deaths as much. Even after being repealed it fundamentally changed how Americans interact with alcohol; how much people drink is still massively below what is was pre-prohibition. > Burn it down, and start over. They did and the whole article is just about how much worse it made everything. Not just visible issues or people complaining about moral issues but OD deaths surged.
strken 3y ago
This embeds a lot of assumptions without offering any proof. The programs may or may not be too expensive to be practically feasible, but without supporting evidence there's nothing concrete to talk about.
User23 3y ago
But it doesn't. The troublemakers are a tiny percentage of the population. I guarantee the local cops know every single one of them. But there's no mechanism for diverting them from making trouble so here we are.
namesbc 3y ago
We tried this cruel inhumane expensive policy for the decades called thew war on drugs and it was one of the worst failures in US history The US has spent more than a trillion on the War on Drugs, we should use a fraction of that on housing and healthcare, instead of thinking about restarting the trillion dollar war on drugs
- google234123 3y ago
  How much did china spend to end their opioid epidemic? How much have we spent on police in this time? I think it’s worth spending a trillion to fight the war on murder, theft and rape…
wolverine876 3y ago
What works better? The drug crisis has continued for decades, through 'wars', etc.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

I'm curious, what's the "updates to the program" that were required? I'm not well informed on this issue.

nickff 3y ago

Perhaps they should have done the “follow-up legislation” before the decriminalization then? I think the problem is quite the opposite from your diagnosis. There are no standards for legislation “success” or “failure”. Very few bills actually achieve their stated aims, and all the ones that don’t are kept on the books, then the results are blamed on under-budgeting, or partisan politics (which should be foreseeable if true).

redserk 3y ago
How would this even work? A rehabilitation program requires a very high level of trust from those seeking help, especially so if the program is trying to pull people off of the streets. Re-criminalizing drug usage would make it difficult to convince people that they won't be arrested. Admittedly, I don't know how this problem has been approached elsewhere and what was needed to actually improve things.
akira2501 3y ago
I think the answer is a "follow up lawsuit." The administration had a duty to follow and implement the law as it was passed. They very clearly failed to do so, to the extent that I think it would be appropriate to begin a criminal investigation.

briffle 3y ago

The 'officials' did not do that. The voters did, it was state ballot measure. They decriminalized Drugs, to encourage treatment. And moved quite a large percentage of taxes from Marajuana dispenseries to help pay for it. Then left the Oregon Health Authority in charge of distributing the money to build all these new treatment facilities. (Oregon is near the bottom in treatment centers per capita in the US). The Oregon Health Authority then sat on that money for several years, bickering about procedures, policies, etc, and not a single dollar was sent out for several years after the law changed. Treatment centers are finally starting to get open, years late. In the meantime, we spent years decriminalizing the drugs, while then guiding people into treatment, with no actual treatment available to them (and literally amassing hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for it, before spending anything)

briffle 3y ago
The first facility expansion in the state opened this past September, with money from this bill that was passed in 2020. It has 16 beds. https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/homeless/new-se-portland-detox-center-measure-110-funding/283-fa52722f-97b8-4dfc-96b8-a25e98a8ba65 https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/homeless/new-se-portl...

the_optimist 3y ago

Sorry to hear of your sense of frustration. Can you please elaborate on what you believe was “working correctly,” and the associated superior cost-benefit tradeoffs.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

I still don't see how "Drugs should be decriminalized because taking drugs is a victimless crime" and "Society needs to sync a lot of resources in tackling drug abuse" are compatible positions to hold at the same time. Either let people do drugs and let them worry about the consequences, or, if society is going to be on the hook for the consequences, don't. There is no feasible way to hold both positions at the same time.

wharvle 3y ago
There’s no contradiction here. It may or may not be bad policy, but it’s not a contradiction. Nobody’s a victim when a kid falls and breaks an arm while skateboarding, but we have programs like CHIP to help kids have access to healthcare to get that arm treated, regardless.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  > Nobody’s a victim when a kid falls and breaks an arm while skateboarding, but we have programs like CHIP to help kids have access to healthcare to get that arm treated, regardless. The kid is going to be fine after they are in a cast for a few weeks/months. A fentanyl addict, even with million of dollars over a few years of treatment, is more than likely never going to be OK again. Both involve moral hazard (if society is responsible for the consequences), but the consequences of both aren't similar at all.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
    I’m gonna doubt that a million dollars couldn’t put a fent addict on their feet again. That’s a bold claim.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      This is optimistic, the more common case is that the treatment still fails no matter how much money is dedicated to the task.
  - 3y ago

fasthands9 3y ago

I think the average person (including myself) is just skeptical this is a problem worth having. A rube goldberg where everything has to go right. It seems like the best case scenario is "We legalize drugs and then raise tax dollars and then use that money to fund programs so that people that are addicted aren't harmed too much in the long run" just seems not ideal. I get the arguments for personal liberty, but we wouldn't allow other risky behavior that has a such huge societal cost.

wintogreen74 3y ago
you mean like smoking and drinking?
- fasthands9 3y ago
  There seems to be a major difference between "will pay taxes for 30 years and then be a burden on the system when you get liver disease at 60" and "will be a burden at age 30 when you need multiple mental health professionals and non-stop funds"

stillwithit 3y ago

Until recently Portland had a shitty local government structure that voters recently approved to modernize. Former city council members often railed against it; as a member they’d be assigned city bureaus (fire, police…) to basically manage day to day. Former members complained they were so busy dealing with office work rather than understanding Portlands problems in the abstract and crafting legislation. Also the mayor was on the council and did the same job. The hope is the new system (mayor and council are now separate entities, city manager oversees bureaus so mayor and council can focus on legislative matters). Also I’d like to point out every city in the US is a raging dumpster fire of homeless, collusion, graft, fraud… Portland isn’t unique and it’s hardly as bad as say PA cities. America is a shithole country full of FOMO obsessed fast fashion clothes, food, gadgets, and media and gives zero fucks about setting that aside to clean itself up. Garbage in garbage out

deviantbit 3y ago

Who do you think legalizing drugs is going to benefit? What followup are you looking for?