3 ms·

Oregon legalized it and then skipped doing any of the other stuff that was advertised as coming with it, like free addiction treatment, social programs, etc. It

Oregon legalized it and then skipped doing any of the other stuff that was advertised as coming with it, like free addiction treatment, social programs, etc. It's a 'we've done nothing and we're all out of ideas' approach consistent with the state's approach to homelessness at various levels, where agencies won't even spend the money they already have because they don't even know roughly how many homeless people there are per county.

rayiner 3y ago
The argument was that the drug problem was caused by prohibition, but obviously that wasn’t the whole of it. The argument that the public should pay a bunch of money to deal with drug problems is a different argument.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > argument was that the drug problem was caused by prohibition To be fair, Oregon never reached the point of legal sales channels for drugs. Drug users still had to purchase drugs from a dealer. Their supply chains were the same as in other states. Actual legalisation would establish a legal purchase channel. That would come with quality controls, et cetera.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    Fair point. We should have Purdue make fentanyl.
    - goldcd 3y ago
      Oxy is a pretty good example of the pros and cons of legalizing it. Deaths from prescriptions were relatively rare - but it created a huge number of addicts with escalating tolerances. Then as progressive efforts were made to reduce distribution, pill-mills and secondary markets appeared (i.e. crime). Then with further restrictions, addicts moved off oxy entirely, onto heroin, and then fentanyl flooded in - and bodies piled up. Just "legalizing" might reduce the harm, but would increase number of addicts. Prescriptions for existing addicts is good for them - but dealers aren't just going to give up, they'll focus on creating new users. I don't think I've ever seen a perfect solution - but things like distributing naloxone or creating supervised places to self-administer seem like no-brainers in the meantime. Resistance seems to come from a somewhat ugly place where people see users dying as the problem being solved.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Some people say we should legalize drugs and then spend billions on drug addiction treatment, because somehow people should feel free to try and get addicted to drugs, because society will pay the bill to make them better afterwards? Either people should take responsibility for their own actions, or we should disallow the actions, I’m not sure how allowing the actions without personal responsibility for the consequences was ever going to workout from a moral hazard standpoint. The problem with local approaches to dealing with the homeless crisis is that the better you do, the worse your problem becomes. Portland doesn’t just grow homeless on trees, they have one of the busiest greyhound stations in the country, and everyone else is just so much at dealing with the problem.
- worik 3y ago
  Drug addiction is a social problem Criminalising drug users does nothing about the social problems, and makes them worse
throwaway74432 3y ago
Are we at the "real legalization has never been tried" stage already?

rayiner 3y ago

The argument was that the drug problem was caused by prohibition, but obviously that wasn’t the whole of it. The argument that the public should pay a bunch of money to deal with drug problems is a different argument.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> argument was that the drug problem was caused by prohibition To be fair, Oregon never reached the point of legal sales channels for drugs. Drug users still had to purchase drugs from a dealer. Their supply chains were the same as in other states. Actual legalisation would establish a legal purchase channel. That would come with quality controls, et cetera.
- rayiner 3y ago
  Fair point. We should have Purdue make fentanyl.
  - goldcd 3y ago
    Oxy is a pretty good example of the pros and cons of legalizing it. Deaths from prescriptions were relatively rare - but it created a huge number of addicts with escalating tolerances. Then as progressive efforts were made to reduce distribution, pill-mills and secondary markets appeared (i.e. crime). Then with further restrictions, addicts moved off oxy entirely, onto heroin, and then fentanyl flooded in - and bodies piled up. Just "legalizing" might reduce the harm, but would increase number of addicts. Prescriptions for existing addicts is good for them - but dealers aren't just going to give up, they'll focus on creating new users. I don't think I've ever seen a perfect solution - but things like distributing naloxone or creating supervised places to self-administer seem like no-brainers in the meantime. Resistance seems to come from a somewhat ugly place where people see users dying as the problem being solved.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

Some people say we should legalize drugs and then spend billions on drug addiction treatment, because somehow people should feel free to try and get addicted to drugs, because society will pay the bill to make them better afterwards? Either people should take responsibility for their own actions, or we should disallow the actions, I’m not sure how allowing the actions without personal responsibility for the consequences was ever going to workout from a moral hazard standpoint. The problem with local approaches to dealing with the homeless crisis is that the better you do, the worse your problem becomes. Portland doesn’t just grow homeless on trees, they have one of the busiest greyhound stations in the country, and everyone else is just so much at dealing with the problem.

worik 3y ago
Drug addiction is a social problem Criminalising drug users does nothing about the social problems, and makes them worse

throwaway74432 3y ago

Are we at the "real legalization has never been tried" stage already?