6 ms·

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.

_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.