4 ms·

I don’t want people locked in jail, but I do think that something akin to the Baker Act needs to be implemented. There are clearly many people who need help but

I don’t want people locked in jail, but I do think that something akin to the Baker Act needs to be implemented. There are clearly many people who need help but are not willing to seek help themselves. It’s safe to say that they aren’t in control of their own actions and are a danger to everyone around them. It’s not compassion to simply let them rot on the street.

hutzlibu 3y ago
But some people actually do prefer to rot on the street on their own terms, than rot in some asylum cell locked up. Still, I think other people have a right to walk the streets undisturbed, so I don't see an easy, clean solution solving everything at once. But banning public drug use, is very fine with me.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
  Of course some people prefer a to b. It doesn't automatically mean they are entitled to it. I could build myself a really cool James Bond-style tent house in Central Park and live there in the summers for basically free. I'd like that. I'm not entitled to it. Voters can easily decide that the sidewalk is no longer a place for people to rot on.
  - john-radio 3y ago
    When does James Bond live in a tent house?
    - onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
      The house at the beginning of No Time to Die is roughly a tent house like those in the Four Seasons in Chiang Rai.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    Yeah, I agree and that is what I said .. "I think other people have a right to walk the streets undisturbed" And when you ban public drug use and enforce it, you automatically remove all junkies from public spaces.
    - onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
      > And when you ban public drug use and enforce it, you automatically remove all junkies from public spaces. Depends on your definition of "use". I can do a bunch of meth somewhere discreet, and then party on the streets without actively "using" drugs for hours - days even!
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        I think the legal definition is, if you have drugs in your blood, for which there are simple tests for. And people bothering other people on the streets is not alright and should be stopped any way, drugs in their blood or not.
        morelisp 3y ago
        In one comment thread you've gone from "some people may need to be forced to accept treatment" to "anyone taking drugs on the street should be arrested" to "anyone doing anything that bothers anyone else in a public space, or who has done something in the recent past that bothers someone now near them, should be arrested."
        hutzlibu 3y ago
        "some people may need to be forced to accept treatment" I did not say that, you probably confused my comment with someone else.
        morelisp 3y ago
        [flagged]
infecto 3y ago
I have been in the same boat while living in SF. I don’t believe addicts and even to extension a lot of dealers should be locked up. I agree generally that nonviolent crimes probably don’t net benefit the community by locking people up. Assuming we are talking about our existing prison system. For addicts unfortunately I don’t know what else is possible beyond locking them up in mental health institutions. Perhaps we need to try out new types of addiction centers that we can enroll people into? I don’t know what the answer is and I am not sure if we have the help of history. We certainly had drugs in the past but most of the time it sounds like people were drunks. Now we have a crisis of addicts using drugs that are unstoppable. I wish I had a better idea but everything so far has not worked. There is probably a cutoff. You have the individuals that are not possible to bring back and the ones that could maybe become recovering addicts. The ones that are not coming back just need to go to state institutions.
- tim333 3y ago
  We used to have a system in the uk where the addicts were prescribed drugs by government sponsored medics. It actually worked quite well, and you can give them a bonus if they get a productive job. Sadly that sort of stuff while effective at helping drug addicts tends to be an easy target for politicians wanting to be 'tough on drugs'. As well as getting addicts off the street and not killed it means less money for drug dealers so the whole thing dwindles.
- sumtechguy 3y ago
  Addiction counseling works on some people. But you have to address root cause. The drugs are the symptom. For some they just like to get messed up. For some they use it to tune out. For some they just do not want to feel sick. For some the like the idea that they live the way they want to. Sometimes a pause in being messed up lets people see they have hit the bottom. But there is always more bottom which can cause more of the cycle.

hutzlibu 3y ago

But some people actually do prefer to rot on the street on their own terms, than rot in some asylum cell locked up. Still, I think other people have a right to walk the streets undisturbed, so I don't see an easy, clean solution solving everything at once. But banning public drug use, is very fine with me.

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
Of course some people prefer a to b. It doesn't automatically mean they are entitled to it. I could build myself a really cool James Bond-style tent house in Central Park and live there in the summers for basically free. I'd like that. I'm not entitled to it. Voters can easily decide that the sidewalk is no longer a place for people to rot on.
- john-radio 3y ago
  When does James Bond live in a tent house?
  - onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
    The house at the beginning of No Time to Die is roughly a tent house like those in the Four Seasons in Chiang Rai.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  Yeah, I agree and that is what I said .. "I think other people have a right to walk the streets undisturbed" And when you ban public drug use and enforce it, you automatically remove all junkies from public spaces.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
    > And when you ban public drug use and enforce it, you automatically remove all junkies from public spaces. Depends on your definition of "use". I can do a bunch of meth somewhere discreet, and then party on the streets without actively "using" drugs for hours - days even!
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      I think the legal definition is, if you have drugs in your blood, for which there are simple tests for. And people bothering other people on the streets is not alright and should be stopped any way, drugs in their blood or not.
      - morelisp 3y ago
        In one comment thread you've gone from "some people may need to be forced to accept treatment" to "anyone taking drugs on the street should be arrested" to "anyone doing anything that bothers anyone else in a public space, or who has done something in the recent past that bothers someone now near them, should be arrested."
        hutzlibu 3y ago
        "some people may need to be forced to accept treatment" I did not say that, you probably confused my comment with someone else.
        morelisp 3y ago
        [flagged]

infecto 3y ago

I have been in the same boat while living in SF. I don’t believe addicts and even to extension a lot of dealers should be locked up. I agree generally that nonviolent crimes probably don’t net benefit the community by locking people up. Assuming we are talking about our existing prison system. For addicts unfortunately I don’t know what else is possible beyond locking them up in mental health institutions. Perhaps we need to try out new types of addiction centers that we can enroll people into? I don’t know what the answer is and I am not sure if we have the help of history. We certainly had drugs in the past but most of the time it sounds like people were drunks. Now we have a crisis of addicts using drugs that are unstoppable. I wish I had a better idea but everything so far has not worked. There is probably a cutoff. You have the individuals that are not possible to bring back and the ones that could maybe become recovering addicts. The ones that are not coming back just need to go to state institutions.

tim333 3y ago
We used to have a system in the uk where the addicts were prescribed drugs by government sponsored medics. It actually worked quite well, and you can give them a bonus if they get a productive job. Sadly that sort of stuff while effective at helping drug addicts tends to be an easy target for politicians wanting to be 'tough on drugs'. As well as getting addicts off the street and not killed it means less money for drug dealers so the whole thing dwindles.
sumtechguy 3y ago
Addiction counseling works on some people. But you have to address root cause. The drugs are the symptom. For some they just like to get messed up. For some they use it to tune out. For some they just do not want to feel sick. For some the like the idea that they live the way they want to. Sometimes a pause in being messed up lets people see they have hit the bottom. But there is always more bottom which can cause more of the cycle.