9 ms·

So much sympathy for drug users and business owners, but what about the private citizens who get victimized by these drug users? I was beaten nearly to death (

So much sympathy for drug users and business owners, but what about the private citizens who get victimized by these drug users? I was beaten nearly to death (in broad daylight, in a residential neighborhood) in Seattle in 2020 by two men enabled to descend into meth addiction by permissive policies. In my victim support group I met so many people - innocent people - permanently injured & disfigured like me, or raped, or psychologically destroyed by meth users who had been allowed to live in tents in their neighborhoods and use hard drugs undisturbed until it was too late. It's easy to treat this like a philosophical topic when you've had the privilege not to pay any personal price. For some of us it's more than an argument on the internet. If you think we should allow people to sell/buy/use meth please have the courage to attend a support group for victims of violent crimes. I doubt you'd claim a moral high ground for decriminalization to the faces of victims like me who have had our lives destroyed by meth users.

rjbwork 3y ago
I actually don't think we should decriminalize. Just legalize it and let people get pure product at dirt cheap prices. There's no reason to fund crime (drug dealers/organized crime), maim and kill users, push users into poverty, and generate and push the externalizes of drug use onto the rest of society. This is the choice we have made and continue to make a society under a prohibitionist regime, decriminalization or not.
- losteric 3y ago
  That's an orthogonal issue to dealing with addiction, which would be a problem regardless of legalization status...
- running101 3y ago
  Illogical thinking
- chmod600 3y ago
  What does "legalize and regulate" mean? Isn't that true of most drugs? We are talking about what those regulations should be and what to do when people break the regulations.
  - rjbwork 3y ago
    Probably as many regulations as there are on alcohol or tobacco or pharmaceuticals (which I'm also not a fan of the doctor/pharmaceutical gated access to other drugs). If you produce it has to be pure, tested, not adulterated, with standards for production facilities. If you consume, only in particular establishments or at home, and you can't drive while under the influence. If someone breaks those regulations, then they face similar kinds of penalties as people who produce and consume alcohol would. I really do not understand why people do not draw the same conclusion as if we don't already have a terribly destructive drug that society has more or less made peace with.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - chmod600 3y ago
      So you'd arrest all of the homeless addicts and put them in jail for consuming in an unapproved place?
      - amluto 3y ago
        If it’s genuinely dangerous for passersby when people are on the streets and have high doses of meth in them, then maybe? I don’t know nearly enough about the behavior of mentally ill homeless people and how it varies with addiction status and current meth levels, but I think there is no shortage of recent reports of dangerous addicts in various cities.
        chmod600 3y ago
        You're the one who proposed the regulation ("particular establishments or at home"), and now you are already second-guessing whether it should actually be enforced (asking if it's "genuinely dangerous... maybe"). Regulation sounds good, but it doesn't just happen because it's written down. Enforcement is the messy part.
        3y ago
- boh 3y ago
  Oxycontin was legal, how well did that go?
  - amluto 3y ago
    It’s not clear to me that making it legal was the problem. The marketing was catastrophic. The amount of messaging, in doctors’ offices and otherwise, about using long-acting painkillers, getting ahead of the pain, making sure your pain was treated, etc was ridiculous. Nowadays, the messaging is quite different. And we’re starting to learn that the opioids may not even work for the things people like using them for, regardless of how dangerous they are: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)00404-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Yes, that’s an RCT with oxycodone users reporting more pain after 6 weeks compared to placebo.
    - boh 3y ago
      I'm sure the marketing for legalized Meth will be more responsible (just like it is for everything else that isn't good for us). What is the compulsion to find some tiny fragment of an argument to go against the obvious? Maybe it's because you'd need an absolutely idealized scenario to take legalizing drug use seriously. You know those countries that legalized drugs? Feel free to look up how well that's going.
      - overgard 3y ago
        Well, legalized meth is essentially ritalin/adderall (not exactly the same thing, but same class)
        boh 3y ago
        Thankfully those have posed absolutely zero problems so I guess we should legalize meth.
        overgard 3y ago
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  You may have survivorship bias. Most humans can't handle it being legal.
- billy99k 3y ago
  Selling hard drugs as a legitimate business owner has lots of liability attached, so prices will never be 'dirt cheap'. In addition to this, drug legalization is only sold to the masses if the cities/states that legalize them get tax revenue. Again, this will not lead to less expensive drugs. What's already started happening is that the black market prices continue to be cheaper (because dealers don't have to pay taxes, insurance, or any other costs associated with legitimate businesses) and legitimate businesses can't compete, and they go under. It's interesting to me that the same people the scream about muh socialism and want legal drugs aren't willing to pay the price for it.
  - pcthrowaway 3y ago
    Socialize the drug distribution then. The government can manufacture and distribute drugs at dirt cheap prices. I don't want legal drugs for me, but to get rid of the criminal distribution networks, and reduce the lengths addicts need to go to in order to procur drugs (which may often culminate in robbery and theft)
    - boh 3y ago
      Why can "the government" distribute drugs at dirt cheap prices? Maybe you come from a country where that happens but in the US the government couldn't distribute masks during a pandemic. Plus cheaper, easier accessible drugs lower crime, overdoses...how?
      - magicalhippo 3y ago
        The way Ive heard this done is you get a prescription from you doctor, you go to a dedicated facility where you get your prescribed dose and fresh gear, and you have to take your dose there under supervision by medical staff. This lets the addicts get their hits without overdosing, without them having to steal or sell themselves to buy the next hit, and they're not funding narco cartels and terrorists.
    - ilikehurdles 3y ago
      Sweet, let’s have a government that profiteers off providing their people with extremely addictive, life-destroying, undeniably harmful substances. I’m sure that’ll work out great and not be corrupted ever. As long as you short-sighted folks keep this idiotic social experimentation out of Oregon, go nuts. We’ve had enough of being the nation’s testbed of half-assed radical policy.
- graeme 3y ago
  This doesn't really address the comment. Decriminalize = production is criminal, consumption is legal. Legalize = production is legal, consumption is legal. The parent comment was complaining that legal consumption made the environment threatening. >maim and kill users, push users into poverty, and generate and push the externalizes of drug use onto the rest of society. None of these appear to hinge on decriminalization vs. legalization. Alcohol, for example, maims and kills users, pushes severely addicted users into poverty, and externalizes the problems of its use onto society. Use went down during prohibition, use went up during legalization. So in effect you're proposing we increase these problems as related to meth and other hard drugs. (This is not an argument for prohibition of alcohol, it is merely listing the cons of legalization)
  - jorvi 3y ago
    > The parent comment was complaining that legal consumption made the environment threatening. What the top comment is implying as far as I can see is that going soft on drugs (“philosophical”, “internet argument”) is a solution for pen-pushers. Fucked up as his story may be, what has the war on drugs really ended up accomplishing? Do we really think amping it up will make things better? Legalization combined with harm reduction and strictly regulated point of sales (think how Sweden treats alcohol by selling it through systembogalets) is what will ultimately pull us out of the pit. Nothing else will. A good chunk of society wants to get high, as long as they’re not serviced legally they are financing criminal empires. Not only are you getting no tax on those sales, you have to spend buckets of money on law enforcement to fight those criminal empires. Not to mention you’ll also have to spend money on police, EMT, hospital hours etc to cope with the less stable subsect of drug users, because they are currently out of government purview and thus unmanageable. It shouldn’t even be a partisan thing, the right could easily sell it as increasing government revenue and restoring law and order. All without it costing the regular taxpayer a penny, as you can fund the new system with the drug tax.
    - chmod600 3y ago
      "what has the war on drugs really ended up accomplishing?" A lot of comments here have a "Portland was a lot better before decriminalization" theme. So at least some people might think the war on drugs was working out better than the current policies. I'm not saying we should bring back the war on drugs, but the argument you are making can no longer be taken for granted.
- Aurornis 3y ago
  > Just legalize it and let people get pure product at dirt cheap prices. Having traveled to Portland recently and witnessed the public drug problem first hand, I have no idea how anyone would think that increasing availability of the drugs would improve the situation. The only thing legalization and widespread availability would help is reducing deaths from tainted drugs. While that is a significant problem, anything that increases the availability and reduces the price of a drug addiction will also fuel drug use among the public. I've heard people try to argue the inverse, but removing penalties, decreasing prices, and improving availability simply cannot do anything other than increase consumption.
  - randombits0 3y ago
    The biggest problem with dying by overdose is measuring the dose. Legal drugs presume quality control and standardized dosing. This, alone, could prevent the majority of opioid deaths.
    - Aurornis 3y ago
      > This, alone, could prevent the majority of opioid deaths Reduce, yes, but it's not a magic bullet. Many opioid deaths are from people taking pharmaceuticals in precisely measured doses, often in conjunction with other drugs. Others are from people who misjudge their tolerance after extended breaks, such as after relapsing. Regardless, it's an entirely separate discussion than the problem in the main article: Increasing availability of drugs will worsen the societal problems in places like Portland. I suspect increased availability of drugs would also lead to more deaths from polydrug abuse. People who normally take one drug might be more tempted to start mixing drugs if it's as easy as picking up some extra pills at the drug center down the street.
    - bloaf 3y ago
      You're missing the point. If you're a politician, "making drug addicts not poison themselves" is a nice-to-have, but "making drug users not victimize others" is basically mandatory. Zero political parties are going to win on a platform of "its ok that drug addicts are making the streets unsafe, the real problem is that their drugs are not affordable or high enough quality."
- thegrim33 3y ago
  There are countries all over the world that take a much stricter prohibitionist approach, and overwhelmingly do not have the same problem with drugs. Your claims instantly fall apart given the numerous counter examples of countries that DO successfully criminalize drugs.
- clnq 3y ago
  I think selling hard drugs being criminal is OK. But the US should actually do something with the severe addicts rather than just tossing them in prison, or creating laws against that and leaving them on the streets. Mandatory rehabilitation would do a lot. But rehabilitation would work much worse in an environment where relapse is easily attainable, anyone who has had any kind of addiction will tell you that. I think part of the problem is people with no real experience pushing their narrative. Many honest drug addicts will tell you the actual solutions that will be around wholistic rehabilitation: withdrawals treatments, reintegration into society, no permanent records, removing stigma. And some would prefer to be funneled into that rather than go to rehabilitation by free will. Free will stands no chance against a heroin or meth addiction. My family member works in a psychiatric clinic in Central Europe. They deal with severe addictions. They have proper rehabilitation programs with dedicated facilities where people with severe addictions that have led to mental disorders learn to reintegrate with life, attend job interviews, take care of themselves, and so on. I have spent my childhood around these people as family members of clinicians would attend various events (Christmas parties, weddings, funerals, other outings, etc) and I have not felt threatened by anyone in rehabilitation. But yeah, what I see in West Coast cities is threatening. It’s a day and night difference between that and proper care for hard drug addicts though. West Coast is what ignoring the problem looks like. Central Europe is what solving the problem looks like. In both cases, hard drug sales are not legal. And the solution is ridiculously simple. If someone is acting out in public due to drugs, police would be called. The police would deliver them to a psychiatric clinic in a municipal hospital. The clinic would put them in a ward and on a rehab program, start withdrawals management, set up a social worker for employment, and so on. It would take several months to rehabilitate someone and some people would go through the program a few times. Not all of it is easy and the taxpayer pays for the healthcare. But that’s the cost of solving this problem, and that does solve it.
pj_mukh 3y ago
Were they ever caught? This seems like assault (and battery?) all already illegal. Your problem doesn’t seem to be drugs but (probably) the defacto police work stoppage? That’s the problem in the Bay Area atleast [1] https://missionlocal.org/2023/03/police-staffing-crisis-san-francisco/ https://missionlocal.org/2023/03/police-staffing-crisis-san-...
- losteric 3y ago
  Getting assaulted sounds like the main problem. Police are a reactive force, they're useless to prevent or break up an assault unless it's a very ineffective (slow) attack
  - toofy 3y ago
    > Police are a reactive force, they're useless to prevent or break up an assault unless it's a very ineffective (slow) attack This seems like you’re implying that stricter enforcement and tougher punishments are useless? I tend to agree, we saw bright and clear as day with the “war on drugs” that being more vicious to addicts didn’t work and the problem only grew. Im certainly no expert though, and what often seems to be missing from these conversations is actual experts who research and actively work amongst these addicted and homeless people. It’s wild how often we have conversations about incredibly complicated and wildly nuanced subjects with very little back and forth from those with far more expertise than ourselves. Then we scratch our heads and tilt our heads in confusion.
    - argiopetech 3y ago
      Addiction may have been the root cause of GP's assault, but there are any number of reasons you may be attacked in broad daylight. Despite the risk of prosecution to the perpetrator, many thousands are assaulted every year. Not even the threat of the noose kept the Old West safe. In the face of imminent threat, only personal preparedness is of value.
    - graeme 3y ago
      >I tend to agree, we saw bright and clear as day with the “war on drugs” that being more vicious to addicts didn’t work and the problem only grew. Drug use has grown much faster under the current regime of tolerance of drug use. There were lots of problems with the war on drugs, but the idea that it didn't reduce drug use isn't based on evidence. As an analogy, skin cancer had been rising despite sunscreen.
BizarreByte 3y ago
I'm a Canadian who travelled to Seattle recently and I found that city legitimately scary downtown. The addicts were unstable and violent like nothing I'd ever seen, even in some of the worst parts of our country. Walking through downtown Seattle at night with a suitcase trying to find my hotel is the first time in my life I thought I was about to be attacked or robbed, but thankfully I only had stuff thrown at me by the junkies.
- ecshafer 3y ago
  The west coast cities of the US post covid are significantly more dangerous feeling than the east coast cities. In the past couple years Ive been in portland, seattle, chicago, philly, nyc, detroit, boston, washington dc and smaller cities. Seattle and Portland top the list as the cities that seem the most run down, and with the most visible violent crime.
- Aurornis 3y ago
  I'm an American with decades of history traveling to West coast cities. Portland and Seattle in the past few years look completely different than they did even a few years ago. Both cities have always had run down parts, but now it feels like the blight permeates almost everything. Some of my favorite places to visit have either closed entirely or now have limited hours and require me to buzz in at the front door so someone can visually verify that I'm not a threat. I can't explain how strange it feels for this shift to have happened in a matter of years.
  - UberFly 3y ago
    It really trickles down so much. You can't use a public restroom anymore with the ease you once could. Items in stores are locked or just not available, employees feel unsafe, including my family members who are just trying to work college jobs. It's possible to help people without fully enabling them but too many who have been voted into office don't see or care to see the consequences of their policy. And the sad thing is they keep getting the green light from voters. I quit trying to understand a while ago.
  - hedora 3y ago
smeagull 3y ago
That's terrible. I'm glad that never happens in places with harsher policies.
- fbuslop 3y ago
  It does though lol
  - liamwire 3y ago
    I’d say that’s the point of the comment.
acover 3y ago
[removed]
- felizuno 3y ago
  Like I said, please go to a victim support group and summon the courage to say that to somebody's face.
  - onionisafruit 3y ago
    I’ve never been to a support group, and you have, so take this from that perspective. It seems to me that the support group wouldn’t want outsiders dropping by to share their opinions.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    In these groups is the consensus view you've all come to that addiction is to blame and nothing else of note? Any shared group feeling about overall policy solutions? Or everyone thinks if drugs were maximally criminalized they wouldn't be there? I'm genuinely curious but I'm also biased. I was a homeless street addict myself for a long time and the only way I ever got out was a combination of harm reduction and expensive medical attention I am in no way entitled to as an american. Most of my problems were ultimately caused by carceral violence and I can't really see how more of it would have helped me. But idk, open to other views I guess.
    - felizuno 3y ago
      Thanks for your comment, it's good to have perspectives from other people with real life experiences. It sounds like you're in a better place which is great to hear :) Me and most people I met who were victimized by drug users "blame addiction" in the narrow sense that we don't think the people who victimized us would have behaved that way in the absence of the drugs. I don't think the general attitude was that drug users are bad people, more that drug use can result in people acting in ways that they otherwise wouldn't. I certainly don't think using any drug reduces a person's human value. I'm in support of targeting pathways and outcomes that I think might be similar to yours. We probably have different perspectives on some forms of harm reduction and agree on others, which I think is inevitable based on our different experiences. I think we agree that medical attention and pathways to overcoming addiction outside of jail are important ingredients to a successful recovery. To me it's not so much about punishing drug use (jail time), it's about stopping drug addiction (intervention and recovery). For example I think intervening in such a way that a user is confirmed to get at least a few hours of sleep before potentially using meth again would be a big start. I'll admit that I support confiscating drugs when found, but I'm not advocating that arrest is always appropriate. I am in favor of punishing selling meth, which I acknowledge is perhaps hypocritical given my other beliefs knowing that plenty of people sell to support their habits. I do think it's important to have a mechanism of mandatory intervention, and my non-lawyer understanding is that criminalizing drugs is really the only way to put mandatory intervention on the table. I met mothers who could not force their children into rehab, for example. I should be clear that I don't feel this way about all drugs, but I think that methamphetamine specifically poses a risk to the safety of both users and people around them that merits mandatory intervention. If we had functional mechanisms to to enact mandatory interventions for users that were non-criminal I'm definitely open to that. Depending on the targeted success rate it seems like inpatient detox + rehab would be required in many cases, and I am simply not aware of non-judicial way we can force a person into those circumstances against their will (which in the case of meth I admit I support even if that opinion is controversial). I am not an expert, but nonetheless I'm now entangled with the topic as one that defines significant aspects of my life (loss of smell and hearing, PTSD, facial disfiguration). I think we can do better than we have been, both recently and since Nixon, but I think that having tough conversations is part of how we'll get better. My experience is that people in my situation frequently have our perspectives invalidated as "politically incorrect" or otherwise irrelevant (not what you're doing BTW thank you for your perspective), and I wanted to speak up to make sure people know that we exist and we don't want our numbers to grow. Congratulations on your recovery, and FWIW I really like your your username/giraffes :)
KennyBlanken 3y ago
[flagged]
- barney54 3y ago
  Nice victim blaming here.
  - KennyBlanken 3y ago
    Literally nowhere did I blame the victim for anything that happened to them. Nowhere.
  - thomastjeffery 3y ago
    If everyone is a victim, does no one get the blame? Or does everyone? Surely it isn't just one.
- ars 3y ago
  Just take away their meth. That's it. All the rest of what you wrote is just pointless exaggeration.
  - KennyBlanken 3y ago
    And how do you propose to do that? By isolating them? Okay, how do you do that? Put them in already overcrowded prisons where there aren't free cells, because the prisons are full of people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses? Put them in treatment centers...that don't have the beds? Or the staff? Or do you intend to cut the supply, using some technique which has been undiscovered by US law enforcement, fifty years into the "war on drugs"? Or, any other developed nation for that matter? "just" take away their meth, and you have the nerve to accuse me of pointless exaggeration
    - ars 3y ago
      I'm not proposing doing anything at all to "them". I would enforce the laws making it illegal to sell. It won't remove everything, it would just reduce supply. > Put them in already overcrowded prisons where there aren't free cells, because the prisons are full of people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses? You don't want to put them in prison because they are already there? Hu? > Put them in treatment centers...that don't have the beds? Or the staff? This isn't even true. > which has been undiscovered by US law enforcement, fifty years into the "war on drugs" And yet somehow every city that isn't Portland manages to do it sufficiently well.
arandomsapien 3y ago
I'm severely visually impaired. I walk and use public transit. Currently in the pacific northwest. My quality of life has decreased so much since covid and when these policies came into effect. I tripped over someone asleep on the train floor and they lost their shit. I was really scared. One of dozens of instances. And the cities in general must become less walkable to avoid crime. Fences around apartments that mean less sidewalk access, store entrances near transit that close early, and people camping on the sidewalk that block access. At this moment, it feels society cares less about me and others who want to use public services than the addicts. It's been an especially hard couple of months here in Portland. I've traveled around, hoping to find a new place to live. But all the big US cities with good transit suffer the same issues. At best, I wish I could move to another country I could live in and feel I had a sense of agency, if anyone would have me. But at this point I'm feeling like it's time to give up.
- mikhael 3y ago
  hopefully this doesn’t sound insulting - have you considered cities outside of the US, like Tokyo or others in Japan?
  - chrischen 3y ago
    Japan is probably one of the most blind/disabled friendly cities I’ve seen. Sometimes there are people sleeping on the floor of the trains too but if you trip over them they’d likely continue sleeping or apologize to you.
  - biggestlou 3y ago
    Emigration to Japan is well nigh impossible
  - thefourthchime 3y ago
    Austin is quite visually impaired friendly. The Texas School for the Blind is here and I often see people walking around with canes. You also won't trip over anyone sleeping on the streets, save a couple of places downtown.
  - 3y ago
joemazerino 3y ago
Thank you for your bravery in putting your statement out there.
Inward 3y ago
Stay strapped. Sorry to be harsh, but it’s not policies that keep you and yours safe. You need to protect you and yours and government policies aren’t going to protect you from hard drug users. Sorry you had a terrible experience but since ancient times people have weapons to defend against any enemy.
- noselasd 3y ago
  Yet most western countries has found ways to improve upon those ancient times.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  Quick addendum that Washington state is open carry, as far as I know.
- lolinder 3y ago
  > Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man. ... > In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; ... no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short. — Hobbes, Leviathan Notably, Hobbes's point is that we entered a social contract—placing a Power above ourselves—in order to avoid this eternal warfare. The kind of environment you describe, where the government cannot protect you from violence and so you have to protect yourself, is the definition of a failed state. It's not a normal situation that happens with normal governments.
- felizuno 3y ago
  I will say here what I have said many times in real life: if I had been carrying a gun I would probably have been shot with it - dead men tell no tales and they certainly ran my pockets. I was jumped from in front and behind by two people by complete surprise and tackled to the ground. The amount of time between the beginning of the assault and losing consciousness was only a few seconds. From the video it looks like they already tried to kill me by repeatedly stomping on my head and kicking me in the face. I'm speculating but I think if they found a gun on me they would have just shot me with it.
paulddraper 3y ago
Yeah...it's all fine and good until you get slapped in the face by reality.
gnramires 3y ago
I live in Sao Paulo, Brazil. We have quite bad drug abuse issues as well. I have helped a group that rescued several people (I believe most with drug addiction) from the streets[1]. What they do, and several other groups, and also government institutes do, is offer voluntary recovery programs that are legitimately very good. You can go there and they'll take care of you, including professional psychologist/psychiatrist support (and medicine to help get off drugs); in the main institution we're working with[2], former homeless and former drug dependents help directly in welcoming people. I'm not sure that's the whole solution to the drug problem, but I think it's part of the solution -- getting out in the streets, offering help to the homeless and addicts, and if they want, taking them somewhere that'll offer shelter and recovery from addiction. [3] There's one rule in those places: you can't go in with drugs with you. Of course, if the person becomes too violent then they might not be able to deal with them either. Please, go out there and help (while staying safe too, preferably in a group) -- or help institutions that do this kind of work (like we say, everyone can play a role, be it in a kitchen, on the streets, or with donations). I think it's groups like this that keep things from falling apart. There are many people on the streets for whom drugs are just a quick escape mechanism, and have economic issues, mental health issues, or health issues (or all together), and a compassionate community/institutions that helps everyone recover is what really is needed I think. Pretending they don't exist or as a friend calls "shuffling them around" doesn't work. [1] Our group offers a meal once a week (Sunday nights, where they have difficulty finding something to eat), and we offer taking them off the streets. It's incredible what genuinely caring about people will do: I've seen people cry when you hand them a plate of food. [2] It's this one: https://www.missaobelem.org/ https://www.missaobelem.org/; This one is state funded and excellent as well: https://hub.spdmafiliadas.org.br/ https://hub.spdmafiliadas.org.br/ (called HUB) [3] Other important parts being, educating people about the tragedy of drug abuse, and providing community and support so they don't resort to drugs, and also preventing selling.
silw0001 3y ago
[flagged]
roenxi 3y ago
I don't think this particular issue has actually been debated on the internet all that much because I haven't seen it come up that much; the obvious solution is to draw a parallel to alcohol. It is illegal to be drunk and driving. Similarly it can be illegal to be high on something exotic and out in public. As hot takes go that seems fairly cool. The issue with drug criminalisation is that people get arrested who weren't going to hurt anyone, weren't any threat to themselves, haven't done anything objectionable and nevertheless were risking prison. The wins on that front should be preserved.
- lmm 3y ago
  > Similarly it can be illegal to be high on something exotic and out in public. As hot takes go that seems fairly cool. Nope, try suggesting that in much of the mainstream/popular internet and you'll be immediately pounced on for discriminating against the homeless (and then the people who said that will get pounced on for saying homeless rather than "unhoused"). "So you think it should be legal for rich people to get high but not poor people". Pretty soon someone will bring race into it too.
  - wholinator2 3y ago
    Just adding my context that i have had this conversion on the "mainstream internet" (reddit front page threads) and not been attacked for it. Honestly it seems to me like that stuff is happening less and less often. It just comes with not talking to literal children all the time. I'm all for privacy but i think in these arguments we should really be allowed to know who is 14 and who isn't. I think a big part of the toxicity and radicalism on the internet is that we're now having to have political discussions invaded by literal high schoolers. No one would privilege their ridiculous opinions at the Thanksgiving dinner table
    - lmm 3y ago
      I'd say just the opposite. People who think age means they have life experience are doing the most to damage the quality of discussion. Nowadays if you're born in the right class you can reach age 30 - hell, you can make it all the way to retirement - while never being exposed to any real consequences for your actions (and in fact everyone around you will go out of their way to prevent that happening). There are plenty of literal 14 year olds who have a lot more to contribute than a PMC "excellent sheep" who coasted right through school, university, and a not-quite-clearly-nepotism career in middle management or consulting.
notfed 3y ago
I'm sorry for your experience, but consider this: in central and south America, drug cartels are murdering and beating people every day. I think it would be an understatement to say there are more beatings and murders being dealt by drug cartels than meth-induced psychos. Why do drug cartels thrive? Simple: because drugs are illegal in the USA. By legalizing drugs, we would bankrupt them.
- lacrimacida 3y ago
  There’s one thing to have legal drugs and another to turn a blind eye on people shooting or smoking crack in broad daylight in the public, defecating everywhere and attacking random people. That’s a bit too much for the rest of us to bear. Common sense seems to be upside down and inside out these days.
- oreally 3y ago
  Bankrupt them? The drug cartels in mexico have other means of income, don't be daft. Still it's really amazing what mental gymnastics people make to justify the norms. You've got fear instilled in your decision to go outside your house and still call yourself the land of the free.
- golergka 3y ago
  I have been travelling through Latin America, going through Cancun, Bogota, Lima and Buenos Aires, spent a few weeks in each city. I've been walking around these cities a lot, including at night. I've never seen any people who looked dangerous or felt afraid for my safety. I really think that a lot of stereotypes about the region are outdated by about 20 or 30 years by this point.
bbor 3y ago
Do you have some stats to back up the implied claim that homeless drug users significantly raise assault rates? Portland is a very safe city AFAIK. Either way It’s less about “we should let people sell meth” and “we should let people sell meth if the only other option is just jailing them” IMO. obviously no one wants to see or be homeless drug addicts taking up public space. But we don’t really have a ton of options without systemic change
coldtea 3y ago
>So much sympathy for drug users and business owners, but what about the private citizens who get victimized by these drug users? That doesn't score virtue points in hipster society.
water556 3y ago
“Enabled to descend into meth addiction” Sorry this happened to you but every human has the god given right to use whatever substances they please and no government can tell them otherwise. Perhaps your anger should be focused at the government officials and local policies for allowing these people to live in tents on public property and use drugs in public. Drugs are for people with jobs to enjoy.
WalterBright 3y ago
What happened to the people who assaulted you? Were they fully prosecuted?
- felizuno 3y ago
  no, the prosecutors office cut deals with both of them because they were a) only able to schedule murder trials and b) scared to face a jury in Seattle
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    Awful. It's worse than I thought. When I first moved to Seattle for my first real job, eons ago, my car was stolen. The police came right out, and found my car (they didn't find the thief). I got the car back. I guess those days are long gone.
hellotheretoday 3y ago
A core element of the problem is that Americans are vehemently opposed to involuntary long term psychiatric treatment. Long term, in this context, meaning anything longer than 72 hours or so. So there’s a push to decriminalize because the alternative is jailing non violent drug offenders. This is counterproductive in many ways and keeps them in cycles that enable addiction like preventing gainful employment, increasing access to network of people that can provide hard drugs, increase hopelessness and worthlessness, increase likelihood of violent behavior, etc. A better system would be to decriminalize with the alternative of connecting people with serious and persistent mental health issues to significant inpatient mental health supports. Not someone that smokes pot or drops acid every once and a while, but the people like you describe that abuse hard drugs like methamphetamine or fentanyl to the point that they become homeless and frequently experience psychosis. Programs that provide housing, counseling, rehab, etc. but again most people vehemently oppose this for various reasons. Distrust of psychiatry, refusal to fund government programs, a libertarian belief that a person should be able to let themselves self destruct even if it destroys the community around them, etc So here we are
knallfrosch 3y ago
This aspect of the discussion truly baffles me. It's like there's noone but the drug users to consider. Oh, do the addicts get enough treatment? Ah, they want to camp next to a school because they find more 'shelter' from the rain there? No problemo! Aren't tax-paying citizens allowed to demand that they be able to walk into a train station that doesn't smell like urine and fecal matter?
- silent_cal 3y ago
  They think that if you are a peaceful citizen with a place to live and a job, you are privileged and so the government doesn't have to help you. And if you are a homeless addict or criminal, you are an oppressed victim and deserve the help of the government. I agree with you, the government is supposed to serve the tax-paying and law abiding citizens. But this oppressor-victim ideology that's spreading everywhere is blinding everyone from seeing it.

rjbwork 3y ago

I actually don't think we should decriminalize. Just legalize it and let people get pure product at dirt cheap prices. There's no reason to fund crime (drug dealers/organized crime), maim and kill users, push users into poverty, and generate and push the externalizes of drug use onto the rest of society. This is the choice we have made and continue to make a society under a prohibitionist regime, decriminalization or not.

losteric 3y ago
That's an orthogonal issue to dealing with addiction, which would be a problem regardless of legalization status...
running101 3y ago
Illogical thinking
chmod600 3y ago
What does "legalize and regulate" mean? Isn't that true of most drugs? We are talking about what those regulations should be and what to do when people break the regulations.
- rjbwork 3y ago
  Probably as many regulations as there are on alcohol or tobacco or pharmaceuticals (which I'm also not a fan of the doctor/pharmaceutical gated access to other drugs). If you produce it has to be pure, tested, not adulterated, with standards for production facilities. If you consume, only in particular establishments or at home, and you can't drive while under the influence. If someone breaks those regulations, then they face similar kinds of penalties as people who produce and consume alcohol would. I really do not understand why people do not draw the same conclusion as if we don't already have a terribly destructive drug that society has more or less made peace with.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - chmod600 3y ago
    So you'd arrest all of the homeless addicts and put them in jail for consuming in an unapproved place?
    - amluto 3y ago
      If it’s genuinely dangerous for passersby when people are on the streets and have high doses of meth in them, then maybe? I don’t know nearly enough about the behavior of mentally ill homeless people and how it varies with addiction status and current meth levels, but I think there is no shortage of recent reports of dangerous addicts in various cities.
      - chmod600 3y ago
        You're the one who proposed the regulation ("particular establishments or at home"), and now you are already second-guessing whether it should actually be enforced (asking if it's "genuinely dangerous... maybe"). Regulation sounds good, but it doesn't just happen because it's written down. Enforcement is the messy part.
        3y ago
boh 3y ago
Oxycontin was legal, how well did that go?
- amluto 3y ago
  It’s not clear to me that making it legal was the problem. The marketing was catastrophic. The amount of messaging, in doctors’ offices and otherwise, about using long-acting painkillers, getting ahead of the pain, making sure your pain was treated, etc was ridiculous. Nowadays, the messaging is quite different. And we’re starting to learn that the opioids may not even work for the things people like using them for, regardless of how dangerous they are: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)00404-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Yes, that’s an RCT with oxycodone users reporting more pain after 6 weeks compared to placebo.
  - boh 3y ago
    I'm sure the marketing for legalized Meth will be more responsible (just like it is for everything else that isn't good for us). What is the compulsion to find some tiny fragment of an argument to go against the obvious? Maybe it's because you'd need an absolutely idealized scenario to take legalizing drug use seriously. You know those countries that legalized drugs? Feel free to look up how well that's going.
    - overgard 3y ago
      Well, legalized meth is essentially ritalin/adderall (not exactly the same thing, but same class)
      - boh 3y ago
        Thankfully those have posed absolutely zero problems so I guess we should legalize meth.
        overgard 3y ago
mensetmanusman 3y ago
You may have survivorship bias. Most humans can't handle it being legal.
billy99k 3y ago
Selling hard drugs as a legitimate business owner has lots of liability attached, so prices will never be 'dirt cheap'. In addition to this, drug legalization is only sold to the masses if the cities/states that legalize them get tax revenue. Again, this will not lead to less expensive drugs. What's already started happening is that the black market prices continue to be cheaper (because dealers don't have to pay taxes, insurance, or any other costs associated with legitimate businesses) and legitimate businesses can't compete, and they go under. It's interesting to me that the same people the scream about muh socialism and want legal drugs aren't willing to pay the price for it.
- pcthrowaway 3y ago
  Socialize the drug distribution then. The government can manufacture and distribute drugs at dirt cheap prices. I don't want legal drugs for me, but to get rid of the criminal distribution networks, and reduce the lengths addicts need to go to in order to procur drugs (which may often culminate in robbery and theft)
  - boh 3y ago
    Why can "the government" distribute drugs at dirt cheap prices? Maybe you come from a country where that happens but in the US the government couldn't distribute masks during a pandemic. Plus cheaper, easier accessible drugs lower crime, overdoses...how?
    - magicalhippo 3y ago
      The way Ive heard this done is you get a prescription from you doctor, you go to a dedicated facility where you get your prescribed dose and fresh gear, and you have to take your dose there under supervision by medical staff. This lets the addicts get their hits without overdosing, without them having to steal or sell themselves to buy the next hit, and they're not funding narco cartels and terrorists.
  - ilikehurdles 3y ago
    Sweet, let’s have a government that profiteers off providing their people with extremely addictive, life-destroying, undeniably harmful substances. I’m sure that’ll work out great and not be corrupted ever. As long as you short-sighted folks keep this idiotic social experimentation out of Oregon, go nuts. We’ve had enough of being the nation’s testbed of half-assed radical policy.
graeme 3y ago
This doesn't really address the comment. Decriminalize = production is criminal, consumption is legal. Legalize = production is legal, consumption is legal. The parent comment was complaining that legal consumption made the environment threatening. >maim and kill users, push users into poverty, and generate and push the externalizes of drug use onto the rest of society. None of these appear to hinge on decriminalization vs. legalization. Alcohol, for example, maims and kills users, pushes severely addicted users into poverty, and externalizes the problems of its use onto society. Use went down during prohibition, use went up during legalization. So in effect you're proposing we increase these problems as related to meth and other hard drugs. (This is not an argument for prohibition of alcohol, it is merely listing the cons of legalization)
- jorvi 3y ago
  > The parent comment was complaining that legal consumption made the environment threatening. What the top comment is implying as far as I can see is that going soft on drugs (“philosophical”, “internet argument”) is a solution for pen-pushers. Fucked up as his story may be, what has the war on drugs really ended up accomplishing? Do we really think amping it up will make things better? Legalization combined with harm reduction and strictly regulated point of sales (think how Sweden treats alcohol by selling it through systembogalets) is what will ultimately pull us out of the pit. Nothing else will. A good chunk of society wants to get high, as long as they’re not serviced legally they are financing criminal empires. Not only are you getting no tax on those sales, you have to spend buckets of money on law enforcement to fight those criminal empires. Not to mention you’ll also have to spend money on police, EMT, hospital hours etc to cope with the less stable subsect of drug users, because they are currently out of government purview and thus unmanageable. It shouldn’t even be a partisan thing, the right could easily sell it as increasing government revenue and restoring law and order. All without it costing the regular taxpayer a penny, as you can fund the new system with the drug tax.
  - chmod600 3y ago
    "what has the war on drugs really ended up accomplishing?" A lot of comments here have a "Portland was a lot better before decriminalization" theme. So at least some people might think the war on drugs was working out better than the current policies. I'm not saying we should bring back the war on drugs, but the argument you are making can no longer be taken for granted.
Aurornis 3y ago
> Just legalize it and let people get pure product at dirt cheap prices. Having traveled to Portland recently and witnessed the public drug problem first hand, I have no idea how anyone would think that increasing availability of the drugs would improve the situation. The only thing legalization and widespread availability would help is reducing deaths from tainted drugs. While that is a significant problem, anything that increases the availability and reduces the price of a drug addiction will also fuel drug use among the public. I've heard people try to argue the inverse, but removing penalties, decreasing prices, and improving availability simply cannot do anything other than increase consumption.
- randombits0 3y ago
  The biggest problem with dying by overdose is measuring the dose. Legal drugs presume quality control and standardized dosing. This, alone, could prevent the majority of opioid deaths.
  - Aurornis 3y ago
    > This, alone, could prevent the majority of opioid deaths Reduce, yes, but it's not a magic bullet. Many opioid deaths are from people taking pharmaceuticals in precisely measured doses, often in conjunction with other drugs. Others are from people who misjudge their tolerance after extended breaks, such as after relapsing. Regardless, it's an entirely separate discussion than the problem in the main article: Increasing availability of drugs will worsen the societal problems in places like Portland. I suspect increased availability of drugs would also lead to more deaths from polydrug abuse. People who normally take one drug might be more tempted to start mixing drugs if it's as easy as picking up some extra pills at the drug center down the street.
  - bloaf 3y ago
    You're missing the point. If you're a politician, "making drug addicts not poison themselves" is a nice-to-have, but "making drug users not victimize others" is basically mandatory. Zero political parties are going to win on a platform of "its ok that drug addicts are making the streets unsafe, the real problem is that their drugs are not affordable or high enough quality."
thegrim33 3y ago
There are countries all over the world that take a much stricter prohibitionist approach, and overwhelmingly do not have the same problem with drugs. Your claims instantly fall apart given the numerous counter examples of countries that DO successfully criminalize drugs.
clnq 3y ago
I think selling hard drugs being criminal is OK. But the US should actually do something with the severe addicts rather than just tossing them in prison, or creating laws against that and leaving them on the streets. Mandatory rehabilitation would do a lot. But rehabilitation would work much worse in an environment where relapse is easily attainable, anyone who has had any kind of addiction will tell you that. I think part of the problem is people with no real experience pushing their narrative. Many honest drug addicts will tell you the actual solutions that will be around wholistic rehabilitation: withdrawals treatments, reintegration into society, no permanent records, removing stigma. And some would prefer to be funneled into that rather than go to rehabilitation by free will. Free will stands no chance against a heroin or meth addiction. My family member works in a psychiatric clinic in Central Europe. They deal with severe addictions. They have proper rehabilitation programs with dedicated facilities where people with severe addictions that have led to mental disorders learn to reintegrate with life, attend job interviews, take care of themselves, and so on. I have spent my childhood around these people as family members of clinicians would attend various events (Christmas parties, weddings, funerals, other outings, etc) and I have not felt threatened by anyone in rehabilitation. But yeah, what I see in West Coast cities is threatening. It’s a day and night difference between that and proper care for hard drug addicts though. West Coast is what ignoring the problem looks like. Central Europe is what solving the problem looks like. In both cases, hard drug sales are not legal. And the solution is ridiculously simple. If someone is acting out in public due to drugs, police would be called. The police would deliver them to a psychiatric clinic in a municipal hospital. The clinic would put them in a ward and on a rehab program, start withdrawals management, set up a social worker for employment, and so on. It would take several months to rehabilitate someone and some people would go through the program a few times. Not all of it is easy and the taxpayer pays for the healthcare. But that’s the cost of solving this problem, and that does solve it.

pj_mukh 3y ago

Were they ever caught? This seems like assault (and battery?) all already illegal. Your problem doesn’t seem to be drugs but (probably) the defacto police work stoppage? That’s the problem in the Bay Area atleast [1] https://missionlocal.org/2023/03/police-staffing-crisis-san-francisco/ https://missionlocal.org/2023/03/police-staffing-crisis-san-...

losteric 3y ago
Getting assaulted sounds like the main problem. Police are a reactive force, they're useless to prevent or break up an assault unless it's a very ineffective (slow) attack
- toofy 3y ago
  > Police are a reactive force, they're useless to prevent or break up an assault unless it's a very ineffective (slow) attack This seems like you’re implying that stricter enforcement and tougher punishments are useless? I tend to agree, we saw bright and clear as day with the “war on drugs” that being more vicious to addicts didn’t work and the problem only grew. Im certainly no expert though, and what often seems to be missing from these conversations is actual experts who research and actively work amongst these addicted and homeless people. It’s wild how often we have conversations about incredibly complicated and wildly nuanced subjects with very little back and forth from those with far more expertise than ourselves. Then we scratch our heads and tilt our heads in confusion.
  - argiopetech 3y ago
    Addiction may have been the root cause of GP's assault, but there are any number of reasons you may be attacked in broad daylight. Despite the risk of prosecution to the perpetrator, many thousands are assaulted every year. Not even the threat of the noose kept the Old West safe. In the face of imminent threat, only personal preparedness is of value.
  - graeme 3y ago
    >I tend to agree, we saw bright and clear as day with the “war on drugs” that being more vicious to addicts didn’t work and the problem only grew. Drug use has grown much faster under the current regime of tolerance of drug use. There were lots of problems with the war on drugs, but the idea that it didn't reduce drug use isn't based on evidence. As an analogy, skin cancer had been rising despite sunscreen.

BizarreByte 3y ago

I'm a Canadian who travelled to Seattle recently and I found that city legitimately scary downtown. The addicts were unstable and violent like nothing I'd ever seen, even in some of the worst parts of our country. Walking through downtown Seattle at night with a suitcase trying to find my hotel is the first time in my life I thought I was about to be attacked or robbed, but thankfully I only had stuff thrown at me by the junkies.

ecshafer 3y ago
The west coast cities of the US post covid are significantly more dangerous feeling than the east coast cities. In the past couple years Ive been in portland, seattle, chicago, philly, nyc, detroit, boston, washington dc and smaller cities. Seattle and Portland top the list as the cities that seem the most run down, and with the most visible violent crime.
Aurornis 3y ago
I'm an American with decades of history traveling to West coast cities. Portland and Seattle in the past few years look completely different than they did even a few years ago. Both cities have always had run down parts, but now it feels like the blight permeates almost everything. Some of my favorite places to visit have either closed entirely or now have limited hours and require me to buzz in at the front door so someone can visually verify that I'm not a threat. I can't explain how strange it feels for this shift to have happened in a matter of years.
- UberFly 3y ago
  It really trickles down so much. You can't use a public restroom anymore with the ease you once could. Items in stores are locked or just not available, employees feel unsafe, including my family members who are just trying to work college jobs. It's possible to help people without fully enabling them but too many who have been voted into office don't see or care to see the consequences of their policy. And the sad thing is they keep getting the green light from voters. I quit trying to understand a while ago.
- hedora 3y ago

smeagull 3y ago

That's terrible. I'm glad that never happens in places with harsher policies.

fbuslop 3y ago
It does though lol
- liamwire 3y ago
  I’d say that’s the point of the comment.

acover 3y ago

[removed]

felizuno 3y ago
Like I said, please go to a victim support group and summon the courage to say that to somebody's face.
- onionisafruit 3y ago
  I’ve never been to a support group, and you have, so take this from that perspective. It seems to me that the support group wouldn’t want outsiders dropping by to share their opinions.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  In these groups is the consensus view you've all come to that addiction is to blame and nothing else of note? Any shared group feeling about overall policy solutions? Or everyone thinks if drugs were maximally criminalized they wouldn't be there? I'm genuinely curious but I'm also biased. I was a homeless street addict myself for a long time and the only way I ever got out was a combination of harm reduction and expensive medical attention I am in no way entitled to as an american. Most of my problems were ultimately caused by carceral violence and I can't really see how more of it would have helped me. But idk, open to other views I guess.
  - felizuno 3y ago
    Thanks for your comment, it's good to have perspectives from other people with real life experiences. It sounds like you're in a better place which is great to hear :) Me and most people I met who were victimized by drug users "blame addiction" in the narrow sense that we don't think the people who victimized us would have behaved that way in the absence of the drugs. I don't think the general attitude was that drug users are bad people, more that drug use can result in people acting in ways that they otherwise wouldn't. I certainly don't think using any drug reduces a person's human value. I'm in support of targeting pathways and outcomes that I think might be similar to yours. We probably have different perspectives on some forms of harm reduction and agree on others, which I think is inevitable based on our different experiences. I think we agree that medical attention and pathways to overcoming addiction outside of jail are important ingredients to a successful recovery. To me it's not so much about punishing drug use (jail time), it's about stopping drug addiction (intervention and recovery). For example I think intervening in such a way that a user is confirmed to get at least a few hours of sleep before potentially using meth again would be a big start. I'll admit that I support confiscating drugs when found, but I'm not advocating that arrest is always appropriate. I am in favor of punishing selling meth, which I acknowledge is perhaps hypocritical given my other beliefs knowing that plenty of people sell to support their habits. I do think it's important to have a mechanism of mandatory intervention, and my non-lawyer understanding is that criminalizing drugs is really the only way to put mandatory intervention on the table. I met mothers who could not force their children into rehab, for example. I should be clear that I don't feel this way about all drugs, but I think that methamphetamine specifically poses a risk to the safety of both users and people around them that merits mandatory intervention. If we had functional mechanisms to to enact mandatory interventions for users that were non-criminal I'm definitely open to that. Depending on the targeted success rate it seems like inpatient detox + rehab would be required in many cases, and I am simply not aware of non-judicial way we can force a person into those circumstances against their will (which in the case of meth I admit I support even if that opinion is controversial). I am not an expert, but nonetheless I'm now entangled with the topic as one that defines significant aspects of my life (loss of smell and hearing, PTSD, facial disfiguration). I think we can do better than we have been, both recently and since Nixon, but I think that having tough conversations is part of how we'll get better. My experience is that people in my situation frequently have our perspectives invalidated as "politically incorrect" or otherwise irrelevant (not what you're doing BTW thank you for your perspective), and I wanted to speak up to make sure people know that we exist and we don't want our numbers to grow. Congratulations on your recovery, and FWIW I really like your your username/giraffes :)

KennyBlanken 3y ago

[flagged]

barney54 3y ago
Nice victim blaming here.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  Literally nowhere did I blame the victim for anything that happened to them. Nowhere.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  If everyone is a victim, does no one get the blame? Or does everyone? Surely it isn't just one.
ars 3y ago
Just take away their meth. That's it. All the rest of what you wrote is just pointless exaggeration.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  And how do you propose to do that? By isolating them? Okay, how do you do that? Put them in already overcrowded prisons where there aren't free cells, because the prisons are full of people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses? Put them in treatment centers...that don't have the beds? Or the staff? Or do you intend to cut the supply, using some technique which has been undiscovered by US law enforcement, fifty years into the "war on drugs"? Or, any other developed nation for that matter? "just" take away their meth, and you have the nerve to accuse me of pointless exaggeration
  - ars 3y ago
    I'm not proposing doing anything at all to "them". I would enforce the laws making it illegal to sell. It won't remove everything, it would just reduce supply. > Put them in already overcrowded prisons where there aren't free cells, because the prisons are full of people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses? You don't want to put them in prison because they are already there? Hu? > Put them in treatment centers...that don't have the beds? Or the staff? This isn't even true. > which has been undiscovered by US law enforcement, fifty years into the "war on drugs" And yet somehow every city that isn't Portland manages to do it sufficiently well.

arandomsapien 3y ago

I'm severely visually impaired. I walk and use public transit. Currently in the pacific northwest. My quality of life has decreased so much since covid and when these policies came into effect. I tripped over someone asleep on the train floor and they lost their shit. I was really scared. One of dozens of instances. And the cities in general must become less walkable to avoid crime. Fences around apartments that mean less sidewalk access, store entrances near transit that close early, and people camping on the sidewalk that block access. At this moment, it feels society cares less about me and others who want to use public services than the addicts. It's been an especially hard couple of months here in Portland. I've traveled around, hoping to find a new place to live. But all the big US cities with good transit suffer the same issues. At best, I wish I could move to another country I could live in and feel I had a sense of agency, if anyone would have me. But at this point I'm feeling like it's time to give up.

mikhael 3y ago
hopefully this doesn’t sound insulting - have you considered cities outside of the US, like Tokyo or others in Japan?
- chrischen 3y ago
  Japan is probably one of the most blind/disabled friendly cities I’ve seen. Sometimes there are people sleeping on the floor of the trains too but if you trip over them they’d likely continue sleeping or apologize to you.
- biggestlou 3y ago
  Emigration to Japan is well nigh impossible
- thefourthchime 3y ago
  Austin is quite visually impaired friendly. The Texas School for the Blind is here and I often see people walking around with canes. You also won't trip over anyone sleeping on the streets, save a couple of places downtown.
- 3y ago

joemazerino 3y ago

Thank you for your bravery in putting your statement out there.

Inward 3y ago

Stay strapped. Sorry to be harsh, but it’s not policies that keep you and yours safe. You need to protect you and yours and government policies aren’t going to protect you from hard drug users. Sorry you had a terrible experience but since ancient times people have weapons to defend against any enemy.

noselasd 3y ago
Yet most western countries has found ways to improve upon those ancient times.
ethbr1 3y ago
Quick addendum that Washington state is open carry, as far as I know.
lolinder 3y ago
> Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man. ... > In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; ... no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short. — Hobbes, Leviathan Notably, Hobbes's point is that we entered a social contract—placing a Power above ourselves—in order to avoid this eternal warfare. The kind of environment you describe, where the government cannot protect you from violence and so you have to protect yourself, is the definition of a failed state. It's not a normal situation that happens with normal governments.
felizuno 3y ago
I will say here what I have said many times in real life: if I had been carrying a gun I would probably have been shot with it - dead men tell no tales and they certainly ran my pockets. I was jumped from in front and behind by two people by complete surprise and tackled to the ground. The amount of time between the beginning of the assault and losing consciousness was only a few seconds. From the video it looks like they already tried to kill me by repeatedly stomping on my head and kicking me in the face. I'm speculating but I think if they found a gun on me they would have just shot me with it.

paulddraper 3y ago

Yeah...it's all fine and good until you get slapped in the face by reality.

gnramires 3y ago

I live in Sao Paulo, Brazil. We have quite bad drug abuse issues as well. I have helped a group that rescued several people (I believe most with drug addiction) from the streets[1]. What they do, and several other groups, and also government institutes do, is offer voluntary recovery programs that are legitimately very good. You can go there and they'll take care of you, including professional psychologist/psychiatrist support (and medicine to help get off drugs); in the main institution we're working with[2], former homeless and former drug dependents help directly in welcoming people. I'm not sure that's the whole solution to the drug problem, but I think it's part of the solution -- getting out in the streets, offering help to the homeless and addicts, and if they want, taking them somewhere that'll offer shelter and recovery from addiction. [3] There's one rule in those places: you can't go in with drugs with you. Of course, if the person becomes too violent then they might not be able to deal with them either. Please, go out there and help (while staying safe too, preferably in a group) -- or help institutions that do this kind of work (like we say, everyone can play a role, be it in a kitchen, on the streets, or with donations). I think it's groups like this that keep things from falling apart. There are many people on the streets for whom drugs are just a quick escape mechanism, and have economic issues, mental health issues, or health issues (or all together), and a compassionate community/institutions that helps everyone recover is what really is needed I think. Pretending they don't exist or as a friend calls "shuffling them around" doesn't work. [1] Our group offers a meal once a week (Sunday nights, where they have difficulty finding something to eat), and we offer taking them off the streets. It's incredible what genuinely caring about people will do: I've seen people cry when you hand them a plate of food. [2] It's this one: https://www.missaobelem.org/ https://www.missaobelem.org/; This one is state funded and excellent as well: https://hub.spdmafiliadas.org.br/ https://hub.spdmafiliadas.org.br/ (called HUB) [3] Other important parts being, educating people about the tragedy of drug abuse, and providing community and support so they don't resort to drugs, and also preventing selling.

silw0001 3y ago

[flagged]

roenxi 3y ago

I don't think this particular issue has actually been debated on the internet all that much because I haven't seen it come up that much; the obvious solution is to draw a parallel to alcohol. It is illegal to be drunk and driving. Similarly it can be illegal to be high on something exotic and out in public. As hot takes go that seems fairly cool. The issue with drug criminalisation is that people get arrested who weren't going to hurt anyone, weren't any threat to themselves, haven't done anything objectionable and nevertheless were risking prison. The wins on that front should be preserved.

lmm 3y ago
> Similarly it can be illegal to be high on something exotic and out in public. As hot takes go that seems fairly cool. Nope, try suggesting that in much of the mainstream/popular internet and you'll be immediately pounced on for discriminating against the homeless (and then the people who said that will get pounced on for saying homeless rather than "unhoused"). "So you think it should be legal for rich people to get high but not poor people". Pretty soon someone will bring race into it too.
- wholinator2 3y ago
  Just adding my context that i have had this conversion on the "mainstream internet" (reddit front page threads) and not been attacked for it. Honestly it seems to me like that stuff is happening less and less often. It just comes with not talking to literal children all the time. I'm all for privacy but i think in these arguments we should really be allowed to know who is 14 and who isn't. I think a big part of the toxicity and radicalism on the internet is that we're now having to have political discussions invaded by literal high schoolers. No one would privilege their ridiculous opinions at the Thanksgiving dinner table
  - lmm 3y ago
    I'd say just the opposite. People who think age means they have life experience are doing the most to damage the quality of discussion. Nowadays if you're born in the right class you can reach age 30 - hell, you can make it all the way to retirement - while never being exposed to any real consequences for your actions (and in fact everyone around you will go out of their way to prevent that happening). There are plenty of literal 14 year olds who have a lot more to contribute than a PMC "excellent sheep" who coasted right through school, university, and a not-quite-clearly-nepotism career in middle management or consulting.

notfed 3y ago

I'm sorry for your experience, but consider this: in central and south America, drug cartels are murdering and beating people every day. I think it would be an understatement to say there are more beatings and murders being dealt by drug cartels than meth-induced psychos. Why do drug cartels thrive? Simple: because drugs are illegal in the USA. By legalizing drugs, we would bankrupt them.

lacrimacida 3y ago
There’s one thing to have legal drugs and another to turn a blind eye on people shooting or smoking crack in broad daylight in the public, defecating everywhere and attacking random people. That’s a bit too much for the rest of us to bear. Common sense seems to be upside down and inside out these days.
oreally 3y ago
Bankrupt them? The drug cartels in mexico have other means of income, don't be daft. Still it's really amazing what mental gymnastics people make to justify the norms. You've got fear instilled in your decision to go outside your house and still call yourself the land of the free.
golergka 3y ago
I have been travelling through Latin America, going through Cancun, Bogota, Lima and Buenos Aires, spent a few weeks in each city. I've been walking around these cities a lot, including at night. I've never seen any people who looked dangerous or felt afraid for my safety. I really think that a lot of stereotypes about the region are outdated by about 20 or 30 years by this point.

bbor 3y ago

Do you have some stats to back up the implied claim that homeless drug users significantly raise assault rates? Portland is a very safe city AFAIK. Either way It’s less about “we should let people sell meth” and “we should let people sell meth if the only other option is just jailing them” IMO. obviously no one wants to see or be homeless drug addicts taking up public space. But we don’t really have a ton of options without systemic change

coldtea 3y ago

>So much sympathy for drug users and business owners, but what about the private citizens who get victimized by these drug users? That doesn't score virtue points in hipster society.

water556 3y ago

“Enabled to descend into meth addiction” Sorry this happened to you but every human has the god given right to use whatever substances they please and no government can tell them otherwise. Perhaps your anger should be focused at the government officials and local policies for allowing these people to live in tents on public property and use drugs in public. Drugs are for people with jobs to enjoy.

WalterBright 3y ago

What happened to the people who assaulted you? Were they fully prosecuted?

felizuno 3y ago
no, the prosecutors office cut deals with both of them because they were a) only able to schedule murder trials and b) scared to face a jury in Seattle
- WalterBright 3y ago
  Awful. It's worse than I thought. When I first moved to Seattle for my first real job, eons ago, my car was stolen. The police came right out, and found my car (they didn't find the thief). I got the car back. I guess those days are long gone.

hellotheretoday 3y ago

A core element of the problem is that Americans are vehemently opposed to involuntary long term psychiatric treatment. Long term, in this context, meaning anything longer than 72 hours or so. So there’s a push to decriminalize because the alternative is jailing non violent drug offenders. This is counterproductive in many ways and keeps them in cycles that enable addiction like preventing gainful employment, increasing access to network of people that can provide hard drugs, increase hopelessness and worthlessness, increase likelihood of violent behavior, etc. A better system would be to decriminalize with the alternative of connecting people with serious and persistent mental health issues to significant inpatient mental health supports. Not someone that smokes pot or drops acid every once and a while, but the people like you describe that abuse hard drugs like methamphetamine or fentanyl to the point that they become homeless and frequently experience psychosis. Programs that provide housing, counseling, rehab, etc. but again most people vehemently oppose this for various reasons. Distrust of psychiatry, refusal to fund government programs, a libertarian belief that a person should be able to let themselves self destruct even if it destroys the community around them, etc So here we are

knallfrosch 3y ago

This aspect of the discussion truly baffles me. It's like there's noone but the drug users to consider. Oh, do the addicts get enough treatment? Ah, they want to camp next to a school because they find more 'shelter' from the rain there? No problemo! Aren't tax-paying citizens allowed to demand that they be able to walk into a train station that doesn't smell like urine and fecal matter?

silent_cal 3y ago
They think that if you are a peaceful citizen with a place to live and a job, you are privileged and so the government doesn't have to help you. And if you are a homeless addict or criminal, you are an oppressed victim and deserve the help of the government. I agree with you, the government is supposed to serve the tax-paying and law abiding citizens. But this oppressor-victim ideology that's spreading everywhere is blinding everyone from seeing it.