4 ms·

I don't understand the Western approach to drugs. If what you value is individual liberty and the principles of self-ownership and not punishing victimless crim

I don't understand the Western approach to drugs. If what you value is individual liberty and the principles of self-ownership and not punishing victimless crimes, you decriminalize drug use. If what you value is the elimination of the individual and societal harms of drug addiction, you jail users and execute dealers like Singapore. The half-measures taken by Western governments seem to combine the worst aspects of every possible approach, both disrespecting the individual and failing to protect society.

monero-xmr 2y ago
Individual freedom should be restricted where your actions begin to harm the quality of life for others. Meaning camping on public sidewalks and parks, injecting drugs openly, panhandling, and other nuisances. Children shouldn’t have to walk through drug addict encampments on the way to school.
- ashconnor 2y ago
  So drug use is OK as long as you can do it off the streets?
  - squigz 2y ago
    And of course, some drugs are more okay to do in public than others.
    - coffeebeqn 2y ago
      Some drugs lead to a lot more of anti social behaviors in public than others
  - kazinator 2y ago
    Yes? Like shitting is OK as long as you do it in a toilet, and not on the sidewalk.
  - pedalpete 2y ago
    Drug use is ok as long as you are not harming/impeding the public. Children shouldn't be afraid to walk down the street because it is filled with zombified addicts. We don't allow public nudity, hate speech, etc etc. You should be allowed to do as you wish in your private residence, as long as you are not harming society.
    - ashconnor 2y ago
      Seems like more of a homelessness problem than a public drug use problem. Are we going to enforce public drunkenness laws too?
      - bombcar 2y ago
        Public drunkenness laws are often more enforced than some of the drug laws (to be fair, some drugs just turn you into a comatose zombie).
      - pedalpete 2y ago
        We can point to homelessness, mental health, lots of things are related. However, the key is that the public need to be protected first, AND then we need to solve the other issues. If public drunkenness was an issue and we had drunk people causing public safety issues, than yes, we would enforce public drunkenness, but that doesn't seem to be the issue.
      - wetpaws 2y ago
        [dead]
  - anon291 2y ago
    Of course. I fully support weirdo silicon valley types taking drugs out in some desert far away from other people. Please just keep it there.
- squigz 2y ago
  I find it notable that you threw in panhandling and "other nuisances" right up there with doing drugs in public. They don't seem comparable.
  - andy99 2y ago
    Why? The point is that it's all behavior that causes people to fear for their safety. I could care less if someone is on drugs or a drug user. What I do care about is public spaces being not safe because of the behavior of people in them.
    - squigz 2y ago
      Panhandling makes people fear for their safety?
      - all2 2y ago
        Yes. Homeless folks are often erratic and dangerous to others.
        swatcoder 2y ago
        So are teenagers, but I suspect you don't get spooked when they try to sell you candy bars or nag you for a signature. There's value in being discerning about one's fears, and it's probably best to get a handle on the less justifiable ones before sending the state after people.
        all2 2y ago
        Normal teenagers are much less likely to assault you, in my experience.
        squigz 2y ago
        And it wouldn't be reasonable or fair to judge all teenagers like those who are likely to, would it?
- beaeglebeachh 2y ago
  Some would argue their quality of life goes down more from not being able to get high in the street than everyone else's does from watching it. Ultimately it's more a property rights issue imo.
- rufus_foreman 2y ago
  >> injecting drugs openly How does someone injecting drugs openly harm the quality of life for others? I can see it for the other things you mentioned. Is it just, "I don't want to see that"? Because there are many things I don't want to see. Not saying we shouldn't throw people in jail for drug possession. I'm OK with that. But if you're going to criminalize injecting drugs openly, you've got to live up to the fact that you're not a libertarian anymore.
  - roskelld 2y ago
    Navigating around discarded needles is fun, even better when you have a curious dog that likes to sniff around.
    - rufus_foreman 2y ago
      If you want to enforce littering, enforce littering.
      - anon291 2y ago
        It would have the same effect as the drug laws?
        rufus_foreman 2y ago
        Enforcing laws has a different effect than not enforcing laws.
        anon291 2y ago
        What I mean to say is that when you start arresting homeless drug users for littering and public defecation and removing encampments due to environmental issues (which Portland has started doing since they can't just do it for being homeless), the same activist types come out and accuse the city of the same things as the drug legalization people. You can say "oh well just enforce public disorder laws" and I actually agree with you, but the same groups behind drug legalization do not. I spoke at the Portland city council hearing on this issue on Wednesday and the majority of groups there were criticizing the city's approach to removing individuals who were leaving needles or blocking sidewalks or setting up drug tents on school property. The drug legalization is a dog whistle for what they really want.
jolmg 2y ago
It's easier to understand if you see people as divided rather than unified in a single direction. Stuff like this are the compromises between the 2 halves.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kube-system 2y ago
> victimless crimes There's a grey area between 'completely victimless' and 'there was an individually identifiable victim'. Some things harm an undefined number of people by harming a collective resource. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons These aren't 'half-measures', they're a recognition of nuance.
andy99 2y ago
I don't understand it either really, but this is about drug use in public spaces. In principle the focus isn't really even the drug use, it's the public order issue of having a bunch of people behaving badly in a public space. For some reason we've given all the power to people who want to abuse public spaces in the false name of compassion.
Sparkle-san 2y ago
We've definitely tried the Singaporean approach for decades in the US during the war on drugs. There's people currently serving life sentences for possessing a meager amount of Marijuana. It turns out it's far more complicated than "just throw them in jail and the problem will fix itself." Singapore is almost the polar opposite of the US (and to a lesser extent Canada) and what works there won't necessarily work here because of that fact.
- skissane 2y ago
  > We've definitely tried the Singaporean approach for decades in the US during the war on drugs. There's people currently serving life sentences for possessing a meager amount of Marijuana. That’s not the Singaporean approach. The Singaporean approach is executing people for drug crimes. The US has never (to the best of my knowledge) executed anybody for a drug crime, as opposed to drug-related murders/etc. Not saying the US should emulate Singapore - I personally believe the death penalty is immoral and should be abolished - but the US has never adopted Singapore’s approach
  - Sparkle-san 2y ago
    Fair enough and some how I don't think that's the missing piece here given the number of drug users and dealers we've locked away for extended periods of time.
  - ashconnor 2y ago
    If life imprisonment is not a deterrent then why would the death penalty be?
    - skissane 2y ago
      I don't think anything is much of a deterrent, because that overestimates the extent to which criminals are rational agents. But there is a massive difference between life imprisonment and the death penalty – with life imprisonment, there is always the possibility of some day getting out due to a commutation, a change in the law, etc. Whereas, once someone is executed, they are dead.
steve76 2y ago
[dead]

monero-xmr 2y ago

Individual freedom should be restricted where your actions begin to harm the quality of life for others. Meaning camping on public sidewalks and parks, injecting drugs openly, panhandling, and other nuisances. Children shouldn’t have to walk through drug addict encampments on the way to school.

ashconnor 2y ago
So drug use is OK as long as you can do it off the streets?
- squigz 2y ago
  And of course, some drugs are more okay to do in public than others.
  - coffeebeqn 2y ago
    Some drugs lead to a lot more of anti social behaviors in public than others
- kazinator 2y ago
  Yes? Like shitting is OK as long as you do it in a toilet, and not on the sidewalk.
- pedalpete 2y ago
  Drug use is ok as long as you are not harming/impeding the public. Children shouldn't be afraid to walk down the street because it is filled with zombified addicts. We don't allow public nudity, hate speech, etc etc. You should be allowed to do as you wish in your private residence, as long as you are not harming society.
  - ashconnor 2y ago
    Seems like more of a homelessness problem than a public drug use problem. Are we going to enforce public drunkenness laws too?
    - bombcar 2y ago
      Public drunkenness laws are often more enforced than some of the drug laws (to be fair, some drugs just turn you into a comatose zombie).
    - pedalpete 2y ago
      We can point to homelessness, mental health, lots of things are related. However, the key is that the public need to be protected first, AND then we need to solve the other issues. If public drunkenness was an issue and we had drunk people causing public safety issues, than yes, we would enforce public drunkenness, but that doesn't seem to be the issue.
    - wetpaws 2y ago
      [dead]
- anon291 2y ago
  Of course. I fully support weirdo silicon valley types taking drugs out in some desert far away from other people. Please just keep it there.
squigz 2y ago
I find it notable that you threw in panhandling and "other nuisances" right up there with doing drugs in public. They don't seem comparable.
- andy99 2y ago
  Why? The point is that it's all behavior that causes people to fear for their safety. I could care less if someone is on drugs or a drug user. What I do care about is public spaces being not safe because of the behavior of people in them.
  - squigz 2y ago
    Panhandling makes people fear for their safety?
    - all2 2y ago
      Yes. Homeless folks are often erratic and dangerous to others.
      - swatcoder 2y ago
        So are teenagers, but I suspect you don't get spooked when they try to sell you candy bars or nag you for a signature. There's value in being discerning about one's fears, and it's probably best to get a handle on the less justifiable ones before sending the state after people.
        all2 2y ago
        Normal teenagers are much less likely to assault you, in my experience.
        squigz 2y ago
        And it wouldn't be reasonable or fair to judge all teenagers like those who are likely to, would it?
beaeglebeachh 2y ago
Some would argue their quality of life goes down more from not being able to get high in the street than everyone else's does from watching it. Ultimately it's more a property rights issue imo.
rufus_foreman 2y ago
>> injecting drugs openly How does someone injecting drugs openly harm the quality of life for others? I can see it for the other things you mentioned. Is it just, "I don't want to see that"? Because there are many things I don't want to see. Not saying we shouldn't throw people in jail for drug possession. I'm OK with that. But if you're going to criminalize injecting drugs openly, you've got to live up to the fact that you're not a libertarian anymore.
- roskelld 2y ago
  Navigating around discarded needles is fun, even better when you have a curious dog that likes to sniff around.
  - rufus_foreman 2y ago
    If you want to enforce littering, enforce littering.
    - anon291 2y ago
      It would have the same effect as the drug laws?
      - rufus_foreman 2y ago
        Enforcing laws has a different effect than not enforcing laws.
        anon291 2y ago
        What I mean to say is that when you start arresting homeless drug users for littering and public defecation and removing encampments due to environmental issues (which Portland has started doing since they can't just do it for being homeless), the same activist types come out and accuse the city of the same things as the drug legalization people. You can say "oh well just enforce public disorder laws" and I actually agree with you, but the same groups behind drug legalization do not. I spoke at the Portland city council hearing on this issue on Wednesday and the majority of groups there were criticizing the city's approach to removing individuals who were leaving needles or blocking sidewalks or setting up drug tents on school property. The drug legalization is a dog whistle for what they really want.

jolmg 2y ago

It's easier to understand if you see people as divided rather than unified in a single direction. Stuff like this are the compromises between the 2 halves.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kube-system 2y ago

> victimless crimes There's a grey area between 'completely victimless' and 'there was an individually identifiable victim'. Some things harm an undefined number of people by harming a collective resource. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons These aren't 'half-measures', they're a recognition of nuance.

andy99 2y ago

I don't understand it either really, but this is about drug use in public spaces. In principle the focus isn't really even the drug use, it's the public order issue of having a bunch of people behaving badly in a public space. For some reason we've given all the power to people who want to abuse public spaces in the false name of compassion.

Sparkle-san 2y ago

We've definitely tried the Singaporean approach for decades in the US during the war on drugs. There's people currently serving life sentences for possessing a meager amount of Marijuana. It turns out it's far more complicated than "just throw them in jail and the problem will fix itself." Singapore is almost the polar opposite of the US (and to a lesser extent Canada) and what works there won't necessarily work here because of that fact.

skissane 2y ago
> We've definitely tried the Singaporean approach for decades in the US during the war on drugs. There's people currently serving life sentences for possessing a meager amount of Marijuana. That’s not the Singaporean approach. The Singaporean approach is executing people for drug crimes. The US has never (to the best of my knowledge) executed anybody for a drug crime, as opposed to drug-related murders/etc. Not saying the US should emulate Singapore - I personally believe the death penalty is immoral and should be abolished - but the US has never adopted Singapore’s approach
- Sparkle-san 2y ago
  Fair enough and some how I don't think that's the missing piece here given the number of drug users and dealers we've locked away for extended periods of time.
- ashconnor 2y ago
  If life imprisonment is not a deterrent then why would the death penalty be?
  - skissane 2y ago
    I don't think anything is much of a deterrent, because that overestimates the extent to which criminals are rational agents. But there is a massive difference between life imprisonment and the death penalty – with life imprisonment, there is always the possibility of some day getting out due to a commutation, a change in the law, etc. Whereas, once someone is executed, they are dead.

steve76 2y ago

[dead]