8 ms·

After decades of decriminalized drug use, people are finally fed up with it, see through the limitations of compassion that is largely driven by political ideol

by spxneo 2y ago

After decades of decriminalized drug use, people are finally fed up with it, see through the limitations of compassion that is largely driven by political ideology and are voting for stronger laws. Yet I question whether we will see actual enforcement.

smt88 2y ago
It's mindblowing that you think compassion is a political ideology and not, you know, a normal human emotion that motivates people to push for certain policies. A cynical person would never push for (largely unpopular) compassionate/harm-reducing policies.
- zachmu 2y ago
  Of course the boundless compassion of the kind that permits public spaces to be littered with needles and fentanyl smoke is driven by a political ideology, come on.
  - Grum9 2y ago
    [dead]
- mindblowing65 2y ago
  It’s mindblowing that you think compassion means letting s hoard of people absolutely destroy areas of a major cities and not, you know, an over correction to “war on drugs”-like awful policies. For the individual drug user things might be “better”, but for cities/society they are absolutely not.
  - andy99 2y ago
    Yes, I was reflecting on this recently, it feels like public drug use (as well as homeless encampments, aggressive panhandling etc) is putting the rights of the individual drug user well above the rights of society, which seems incongruous for the people that support it.
- rayiner 2y ago
  It's a bizarre inversion to say that enabling a small antisocial minority to terrorize the majority and strip away their enjoyment of public spaces is "compassionate."
- anon291 2y ago
  There is nothing compassionate about seeing someone destroy their life and their sanity and refusing to help them by jailing them.
  - zuminator 2y ago
    I'm curious what studies you have seen that jailing people helps them improve their life or stay off drugs. From what I can tell, that is not the case. "The theory of deterrence would suggest, for instance, that states with higher rates of drug imprisonment would experience lower rates of drug use among their residents... higher rates of drug imprisonment did not translate into lower rates of drug use, arrests, or overdose deaths." [0]https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2018/03/more-imprisonment-does-not-reduce-state-drug-problems https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-bri... Perhaps if prisoners actually received the drug treatment they needed. "To be effective for this population, treatment must begin in prison and be sustained after release through participation in community treatment programs. By engaging in a continuing therapeutic process, people can learn how to avoid relapse and withdraw from a life of crime. However, only a small percentage of those who need treatment while behind bars actually receive it, and often the treatment provided is inadequate." [1]https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/criminal-justice https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/criminal-justice But as things currently stand there appears to be "higher rates of substance use disorders in prisons and jails compared to the total population." [2]https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2024/01/30/punishing-drug-use/ https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2024/01/30/punishing-drug-...
    - anon291 2y ago
      It improves everyone else's quality of life and it means they have the potential to access services. The individual homeless are certainly stakeholders but they are neither the only one nor the most important
- spxneo 2y ago
  harm reduction doesn't work when somebody actively/constantly seeks harm. we've put the personal liberties of a small group of people addicted to hard drugs above the rest. that is the misplaced compassion I'm talking about that hasn't worked.
  - vasco 2y ago
    Harm reduction sounds like putting padding on a rope noose so your skin doesn't get itchy when you break your own neck from a ceiling beam.
olliej 2y ago
There hasn't been decades of decriminalization though? There have been decades of extremely harsh enforcement, far exceeding that applied to, for example, alcohol, fraud, sexual assault, ... What there has been is decades of "maybe years in jail for drug use is excessive?", to which some places said "let's have less restrictions on drug use than we do on alcohol" which is absurd though I suspect less harmful in the long term, but many have doubled down on punishment. That is ignoring the demonstrable bias in enforcement of drug crimes, that meant that even in heavily policed and restrictive areas the drug laws primarily act as a method to criminalize specific social groups (drugs used by the wealthy generally have lower penalties than those use by everyone else, enforcement of drug crimes means that despite every study on the topic showing little racial split in use, the overwhelming majority of people in prison for weed use in the US are black). Treat drugs the same way we treat alcohol: taxed, regulated, age restricted, etc (and please get people to stop smoking joints at concerts. I don't understand why people who would never consider smoking a cigarette inside then light up a joint in a crowded hall.)
- akira2501 2y ago
  > decades of "maybe years in jail for drug use is excessive?", Which is why we have a massive network of treatment and diversion programs often initiated by courts directly. It's been a long time since we've had a true "black and white" enforcement regime. > drugs used by the wealthy generally have lower penalties than those use by everyone else Wealthy people smoke crack too. What they can afford is to insulate themselves from the risk by being several layers removed from the transactions. > Treat drugs the same way we treat alcohol There are dry counties. There are states with specific ABV prohibitions in certain products and with dispensing limits in establishments. Some states have state operated liquor stores. The way we treat alcohol is not homogenous. Then we'd have to get into product safety, licensing and liability concerns. What process should a "herion shop" be required to submit to before opening?
  - squigz 2y ago
    > Wealthy people smoke crack too. Do you mind linking to some data on this?
kazinator 2y ago
Decades? Are you still talking about British Columbia, Canada?
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  The grandparent might be referring to various degrees of decriminalization, not just the more recent experiment of decriminalizing possession of 2.5 grams of drugs and the allowance of drug consumption in public spaces that was backed by the BC court injunction last year. For example, Insite (a supervised drug injection site which opened 21 years ago) could be considered an early step in decriminalization, including acquiring a legal exemption allowing it to operate.
  - kazinator 2y ago
    Insite can almost be seen as a medical clinic. A hospital OR is a "supervised drug injection site" where you can be legally knocked out with propofol and fentanyl.
    - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
      Yes, in the same sense that a street drug user could almost be seen as an amateur anaesthesiologist subjecting themselves to a controlled dosage of opioids for medical purposes. But despite that, street drug use and supervised injection at Insite would both have been criminal offenses if not for changes and exemptions made by legal system to allow them. That's precisely what "decriminalization" is, and a large part of this is the idea that drug abuse should be seen as a medical matter rather than a criminal one.
    - spxneo 2y ago
      medical clinic is an interesting choice of words. One might think there is a licensed medical doctor prescribing hard drugs without fear of prosecution, free from law enforcement. Chinatown residents would certainly disagree whether it has been beneficial for them. Yaletown residents certainly disagree
- nickff 2y ago
jmyeet 2y ago
When people make this point they usually refer to Vancouver, Seattle, Portland (OR) or San Francisco. What they do--and waht all politicians do--is completely ignore the root problem: unaffordable housing. Lack of affordable housing is the number one cause of homelessness and it's not even close (eg [1]). California, in particular, votes in measures to fund housing the homeless but it doesn't really get spent. Why? Because residents, developers and politicians do everything they can to resist building anything to house the homeless in any capacity. We have decades of long-term incarceration for minor drug possession to show this is not an effective strategy. That's what led to drug decriminzation after the crime panic of the 1980s and 1990s. Decriminalizing drug use is good. If people don't want to see it (which I get), maybe they should do something to house such people, particularly because homelessness itself is a major cause of drug abuse as such people turn to self-medication. [1]: https://caplinnews.fiu.edu/lack-of-affordable-housing-a-leading-cause-of-homelessness-in-new-york-and-miami/ https://caplinnews.fiu.edu/lack-of-affordable-housing-a-lead...
- colechristensen 2y ago
  I’m really in favor of the opposite: zone for fewer jobs. Set limits on headcount per sq ft. Limit zoning of anything that provides jobs to be no more than local housing. If the locals want to keep their residential density, fine, no more commercial development.
  - klyrs 2y ago
    This is such a bad idea, I nearly spit out my coffee, which I drank several hours ago. You want to build a building? Sorry, there's too many jobs in this area already, so you can't hire people to do that. Seriously, please draft a law to enact this policy. It sounds hilarious.
- stufffer 2y ago
  >Lack of affordable housing is the number one cause of homelessness Homelessness isn't a monolith. Treating someone who gets evicted after job loss the same as mentally ill drug addicts is making the problem worse. Homeless assistant programs are successful at helping people who accept the help. The drug addicts you see on the streets are engaging in destructive antisocial behavior. Sadly the only effective remedy for this behavior is to be roughed up by police and thrown in jail.

by spxneo 2y ago

smt88 2y ago

It's mindblowing that you think compassion is a political ideology and not, you know, a normal human emotion that motivates people to push for certain policies. A cynical person would never push for (largely unpopular) compassionate/harm-reducing policies.

zachmu 2y ago
Of course the boundless compassion of the kind that permits public spaces to be littered with needles and fentanyl smoke is driven by a political ideology, come on.
- Grum9 2y ago
  [dead]
mindblowing65 2y ago
It’s mindblowing that you think compassion means letting s hoard of people absolutely destroy areas of a major cities and not, you know, an over correction to “war on drugs”-like awful policies. For the individual drug user things might be “better”, but for cities/society they are absolutely not.
- andy99 2y ago
  Yes, I was reflecting on this recently, it feels like public drug use (as well as homeless encampments, aggressive panhandling etc) is putting the rights of the individual drug user well above the rights of society, which seems incongruous for the people that support it.
rayiner 2y ago
It's a bizarre inversion to say that enabling a small antisocial minority to terrorize the majority and strip away their enjoyment of public spaces is "compassionate."
anon291 2y ago
There is nothing compassionate about seeing someone destroy their life and their sanity and refusing to help them by jailing them.
- zuminator 2y ago
  I'm curious what studies you have seen that jailing people helps them improve their life or stay off drugs. From what I can tell, that is not the case. "The theory of deterrence would suggest, for instance, that states with higher rates of drug imprisonment would experience lower rates of drug use among their residents... higher rates of drug imprisonment did not translate into lower rates of drug use, arrests, or overdose deaths." [0]https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2018/03/more-imprisonment-does-not-reduce-state-drug-problems https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-bri... Perhaps if prisoners actually received the drug treatment they needed. "To be effective for this population, treatment must begin in prison and be sustained after release through participation in community treatment programs. By engaging in a continuing therapeutic process, people can learn how to avoid relapse and withdraw from a life of crime. However, only a small percentage of those who need treatment while behind bars actually receive it, and often the treatment provided is inadequate." [1]https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/criminal-justice https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/criminal-justice But as things currently stand there appears to be "higher rates of substance use disorders in prisons and jails compared to the total population." [2]https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2024/01/30/punishing-drug-use/ https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2024/01/30/punishing-drug-...
  - anon291 2y ago
    It improves everyone else's quality of life and it means they have the potential to access services. The individual homeless are certainly stakeholders but they are neither the only one nor the most important
spxneo 2y ago
harm reduction doesn't work when somebody actively/constantly seeks harm. we've put the personal liberties of a small group of people addicted to hard drugs above the rest. that is the misplaced compassion I'm talking about that hasn't worked.
- vasco 2y ago
  Harm reduction sounds like putting padding on a rope noose so your skin doesn't get itchy when you break your own neck from a ceiling beam.

olliej 2y ago

There hasn't been decades of decriminalization though? There have been decades of extremely harsh enforcement, far exceeding that applied to, for example, alcohol, fraud, sexual assault, ... What there has been is decades of "maybe years in jail for drug use is excessive?", to which some places said "let's have less restrictions on drug use than we do on alcohol" which is absurd though I suspect less harmful in the long term, but many have doubled down on punishment. That is ignoring the demonstrable bias in enforcement of drug crimes, that meant that even in heavily policed and restrictive areas the drug laws primarily act as a method to criminalize specific social groups (drugs used by the wealthy generally have lower penalties than those use by everyone else, enforcement of drug crimes means that despite every study on the topic showing little racial split in use, the overwhelming majority of people in prison for weed use in the US are black). Treat drugs the same way we treat alcohol: taxed, regulated, age restricted, etc (and please get people to stop smoking joints at concerts. I don't understand why people who would never consider smoking a cigarette inside then light up a joint in a crowded hall.)

akira2501 2y ago
> decades of "maybe years in jail for drug use is excessive?", Which is why we have a massive network of treatment and diversion programs often initiated by courts directly. It's been a long time since we've had a true "black and white" enforcement regime. > drugs used by the wealthy generally have lower penalties than those use by everyone else Wealthy people smoke crack too. What they can afford is to insulate themselves from the risk by being several layers removed from the transactions. > Treat drugs the same way we treat alcohol There are dry counties. There are states with specific ABV prohibitions in certain products and with dispensing limits in establishments. Some states have state operated liquor stores. The way we treat alcohol is not homogenous. Then we'd have to get into product safety, licensing and liability concerns. What process should a "herion shop" be required to submit to before opening?
- squigz 2y ago
  > Wealthy people smoke crack too. Do you mind linking to some data on this?

kazinator 2y ago

Decades? Are you still talking about British Columbia, Canada?

mitthrowaway2 2y ago
The grandparent might be referring to various degrees of decriminalization, not just the more recent experiment of decriminalizing possession of 2.5 grams of drugs and the allowance of drug consumption in public spaces that was backed by the BC court injunction last year. For example, Insite (a supervised drug injection site which opened 21 years ago) could be considered an early step in decriminalization, including acquiring a legal exemption allowing it to operate.
- kazinator 2y ago
  Insite can almost be seen as a medical clinic. A hospital OR is a "supervised drug injection site" where you can be legally knocked out with propofol and fentanyl.
  - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
    Yes, in the same sense that a street drug user could almost be seen as an amateur anaesthesiologist subjecting themselves to a controlled dosage of opioids for medical purposes. But despite that, street drug use and supervised injection at Insite would both have been criminal offenses if not for changes and exemptions made by legal system to allow them. That's precisely what "decriminalization" is, and a large part of this is the idea that drug abuse should be seen as a medical matter rather than a criminal one.
  - spxneo 2y ago
    medical clinic is an interesting choice of words. One might think there is a licensed medical doctor prescribing hard drugs without fear of prosecution, free from law enforcement. Chinatown residents would certainly disagree whether it has been beneficial for them. Yaletown residents certainly disagree
nickff 2y ago

jmyeet 2y ago

When people make this point they usually refer to Vancouver, Seattle, Portland (OR) or San Francisco. What they do--and waht all politicians do--is completely ignore the root problem: unaffordable housing. Lack of affordable housing is the number one cause of homelessness and it's not even close (eg [1]). California, in particular, votes in measures to fund housing the homeless but it doesn't really get spent. Why? Because residents, developers and politicians do everything they can to resist building anything to house the homeless in any capacity. We have decades of long-term incarceration for minor drug possession to show this is not an effective strategy. That's what led to drug decriminzation after the crime panic of the 1980s and 1990s. Decriminalizing drug use is good. If people don't want to see it (which I get), maybe they should do something to house such people, particularly because homelessness itself is a major cause of drug abuse as such people turn to self-medication. [1]: https://caplinnews.fiu.edu/lack-of-affordable-housing-a-leading-cause-of-homelessness-in-new-york-and-miami/ https://caplinnews.fiu.edu/lack-of-affordable-housing-a-lead...

colechristensen 2y ago
I’m really in favor of the opposite: zone for fewer jobs. Set limits on headcount per sq ft. Limit zoning of anything that provides jobs to be no more than local housing. If the locals want to keep their residential density, fine, no more commercial development.
- klyrs 2y ago
  This is such a bad idea, I nearly spit out my coffee, which I drank several hours ago. You want to build a building? Sorry, there's too many jobs in this area already, so you can't hire people to do that. Seriously, please draft a law to enact this policy. It sounds hilarious.
stufffer 2y ago
>Lack of affordable housing is the number one cause of homelessness Homelessness isn't a monolith. Treating someone who gets evicted after job loss the same as mentally ill drug addicts is making the problem worse. Homeless assistant programs are successful at helping people who accept the help. The drug addicts you see on the streets are engaging in destructive antisocial behavior. Sadly the only effective remedy for this behavior is to be roughed up by police and thrown in jail.