6 ms·

>Didn't both Seattle and Portland try Portugal-style decriminalization + treatment incentives, only to see a massive spike in drug overdose deaths They didn't

>Didn't both Seattle and Portland try Portugal-style decriminalization + treatment incentives, only to see a massive spike in drug overdose deaths They didn't do 'Portugal-style' decriminalization/treatment because in Portugal a drug addict can be forced into drug treatment, fined or mandated community service. Open drug use is also not allowed.

nonethewiser 3y ago
> a drug addict can be forced into drug treatment, fined or mandated community service. Open drug use is also not allowed. Was this always the case ( I would assume so), or did it come with the decriminalization changes? These policies seem not only reasonable but obvious. But I don’t think the motivations in the US for decriminalizing are consistent with committing addicts and stopping open drug use. And unfortunately they arent standards in Portland, Seattle, or anywhere else with this problem in the US really. So basically, i dont see that happening in the US. Its the same story for mental and behavioral health. People that were dangers to themselves and society used to be committed to institutions but we decided it was more humane to empty these institutions out on the streets.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  We also decided it was cheaper. It was expensive to keep whole institutional systems, and it was expensive to keep them in jail. A lot of recent sentencing reform was motivated by the desire to lower the cost of running prisons, and started off Republican-led. Whenever people talk about solving mental health crises with jail time, no one is willing to put up the money.
  - macspoofing 3y ago
    >Whenever people talk about solving mental health crises with jail time, no one is willing to put up the money. This is not a question of resources but of political will. There is no appetite, especially on the left, for any kind of forced institutionalization. There is an ideological aspect to this as well, where it is more ideologically aligned to pretend that homelessness is mainly (or wholly) caused by a lack of affordable housing, and therefore _only_ affordable housing polices are put forth as a solution.
- sergiosgc 3y ago
  > Was this always the case ( I would assume so), or did it come with the decriminalization changes? I can bring a bit of context. I'm Portuguese, I know the history well. The intervention was centered in the SNS (our national health service), and soft touch. No mandatory treatments, no punitive approach. Fundamentally, we approached addicts. Safe consumption spaces, with free syringes, drug testing kits, and staffed with personnel who got to know the addicts personally. This staff, slowly but effectively, pushed those who accepted treatment onto SNS programs. It turns out addicts want to get better, as a general trend in the medium term. Give it time, this technique works. Decriminalization is a part of it. Essential to allow the rest of the program, but a small part of it, effort-wise.
WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> because in Portugal a drug addict can be forced into drug treatment, fined or mandated community service. Each of these things seems more reasonable than US's two options 1) ignore them or 2) dispense varying lengths of the same punishment that brutally awful convicts get.
zeroCalories 3y ago
The problem, and why we will never get these programs, is that no one actually wants to put up the resources to help drug addicts. If you've actually talked to the gen-x population that has control over these cities, you'll find someone that likes to pretend they're an enlightened progressive hippie, that scoffs at southern and middle american conservatives, but is just as selfish and careless. They harbour deep resentment at having to pay so much in taxes, and sabotage any policy that could move resources away from them. This kind of hands-off policy is exactly the kind that the gen-x Hillary loving house wives can trick themselves into feeling good about, while not costing them anything substantial.
- nxm 3y ago
  It turned out that many addicts simply do not want any help if offered… it’s not a resource issue and lots of money has been spent already.
  - zeroCalories 3y ago
    You don't offer help to addicts, you force it. That's the Portugal model.
    - defrost 3y ago
      These seems contrary to first hand local account: I can bring a bit of context. I'm Portuguese, I know the history well. The intervention was centered in the SNS (our national health service), and soft touch. No mandatory treatments, no punitive approach. Fundamentally, we approached addicts. Safe consumption spaces, with free syringes, drug testing kits, and staffed with personnel who got to know the addicts personally. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39498028 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39498028
  - pseudocomposer 3y ago
    Because, in America, it’s worse to be sober and poor than to be an addict.
- 3y ago
cardy31 3y ago
Are they forced in? I thought they were given a choice of pursuing a treatment program funded by the state, or getting a more conventional punishment such as jail time.
- macspoofing 3y ago
  For all intents and purposes, it doesn't matter because there is no option to stay on the street and continue open drug use.

nonethewiser 3y ago

> a drug addict can be forced into drug treatment, fined or mandated community service. Open drug use is also not allowed. Was this always the case ( I would assume so), or did it come with the decriminalization changes? These policies seem not only reasonable but obvious. But I don’t think the motivations in the US for decriminalizing are consistent with committing addicts and stopping open drug use. And unfortunately they arent standards in Portland, Seattle, or anywhere else with this problem in the US really. So basically, i dont see that happening in the US. Its the same story for mental and behavioral health. People that were dangers to themselves and society used to be committed to institutions but we decided it was more humane to empty these institutions out on the streets.

bobthepanda 3y ago
We also decided it was cheaper. It was expensive to keep whole institutional systems, and it was expensive to keep them in jail. A lot of recent sentencing reform was motivated by the desire to lower the cost of running prisons, and started off Republican-led. Whenever people talk about solving mental health crises with jail time, no one is willing to put up the money.
- macspoofing 3y ago
  >Whenever people talk about solving mental health crises with jail time, no one is willing to put up the money. This is not a question of resources but of political will. There is no appetite, especially on the left, for any kind of forced institutionalization. There is an ideological aspect to this as well, where it is more ideologically aligned to pretend that homelessness is mainly (or wholly) caused by a lack of affordable housing, and therefore _only_ affordable housing polices are put forth as a solution.
sergiosgc 3y ago
> Was this always the case ( I would assume so), or did it come with the decriminalization changes? I can bring a bit of context. I'm Portuguese, I know the history well. The intervention was centered in the SNS (our national health service), and soft touch. No mandatory treatments, no punitive approach. Fundamentally, we approached addicts. Safe consumption spaces, with free syringes, drug testing kits, and staffed with personnel who got to know the addicts personally. This staff, slowly but effectively, pushed those who accepted treatment onto SNS programs. It turns out addicts want to get better, as a general trend in the medium term. Give it time, this technique works. Decriminalization is a part of it. Essential to allow the rest of the program, but a small part of it, effort-wise.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago

> because in Portugal a drug addict can be forced into drug treatment, fined or mandated community service. Each of these things seems more reasonable than US's two options 1) ignore them or 2) dispense varying lengths of the same punishment that brutally awful convicts get.

zeroCalories 3y ago

The problem, and why we will never get these programs, is that no one actually wants to put up the resources to help drug addicts. If you've actually talked to the gen-x population that has control over these cities, you'll find someone that likes to pretend they're an enlightened progressive hippie, that scoffs at southern and middle american conservatives, but is just as selfish and careless. They harbour deep resentment at having to pay so much in taxes, and sabotage any policy that could move resources away from them. This kind of hands-off policy is exactly the kind that the gen-x Hillary loving house wives can trick themselves into feeling good about, while not costing them anything substantial.

nxm 3y ago
It turned out that many addicts simply do not want any help if offered… it’s not a resource issue and lots of money has been spent already.
- zeroCalories 3y ago
  You don't offer help to addicts, you force it. That's the Portugal model.
  - defrost 3y ago
    These seems contrary to first hand local account: I can bring a bit of context. I'm Portuguese, I know the history well. The intervention was centered in the SNS (our national health service), and soft touch. No mandatory treatments, no punitive approach. Fundamentally, we approached addicts. Safe consumption spaces, with free syringes, drug testing kits, and staffed with personnel who got to know the addicts personally. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39498028 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39498028
- pseudocomposer 3y ago
  Because, in America, it’s worse to be sober and poor than to be an addict.
3y ago

cardy31 3y ago

Are they forced in? I thought they were given a choice of pursuing a treatment program funded by the state, or getting a more conventional punishment such as jail time.

macspoofing 3y ago
For all intents and purposes, it doesn't matter because there is no option to stay on the street and continue open drug use.