Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/
641 comments
Talk about burying the lede, 11 years ago they privatized their drug oversight operation and cut funding by over 80%. Gee, I wonder if that could have an impact?
> After years of economic crisis, Portugal decentralized its drug oversight operation in 2012. A funding drop from 76 million euros ($82.7 million) to 16 million euros ($17.4 million) forced Portugal’s main institution to outsource work previously done by the state to nonprofit groups, including the street teams that engage with people who use drugs.
> After years of economic crisis, Portugal decentralized its drug oversight operation in 2012. A funding drop from 76 million euros ($82.7 million) to 16 million euros ($17.4 million) forced Portugal’s main institution to outsource work previously done by the state to nonprofit groups, including the street teams that engage with people who use drugs.
What about the other quotes from the article that have nothing to do with funding...
> “When you first back off enforcement, there are not many people walking over the line that you’ve removed. And the public think it’s working really well,” said Keith Humphreys, former senior drug policy adviser in the Obama administration and a professor of psychiatry at Stanford University. “Then word gets out that there’s an open market, limits to penalties, and you start drawing in more drug users. Then you’ve got a more stable drug culture, and, frankly, it doesn’t look as good anymore.”
> Of two dozen street people who use drugs and were asked by The Post, not one said they’d ever appeared before one of Portugal’s Dissuasion Commissions, envisioned as conduits to funnel people with addiction into rehab.
And in Oregon...
> extremely few people are seeking voluntary rehabilitation. Meanwhile, overdoses this year in Portland, the state’s largest city, have surged 46 percent.
Why fund services that go unused?...Tent cities don't exist solely in places without access to housing, and giving an addict 4 walls and privacy is a death sentence.
> “When you first back off enforcement, there are not many people walking over the line that you’ve removed. And the public think it’s working really well,” said Keith Humphreys, former senior drug policy adviser in the Obama administration and a professor of psychiatry at Stanford University. “Then word gets out that there’s an open market, limits to penalties, and you start drawing in more drug users. Then you’ve got a more stable drug culture, and, frankly, it doesn’t look as good anymore.”
> Of two dozen street people who use drugs and were asked by The Post, not one said they’d ever appeared before one of Portugal’s Dissuasion Commissions, envisioned as conduits to funnel people with addiction into rehab.
And in Oregon...
> extremely few people are seeking voluntary rehabilitation. Meanwhile, overdoses this year in Portland, the state’s largest city, have surged 46 percent.
Why fund services that go unused?...Tent cities don't exist solely in places without access to housing, and giving an addict 4 walls and privacy is a death sentence.
> Of two dozen street people who use drugs and were asked by The Post, not one said they’d ever appeared before one of Portugal’s Dissuasion Commissions, envisioned as conduits to funnel people with addiction into rehab.
This is entirely driven by funding. The article explained its a multi year wait for treatment (funding issue) and so the police aren't making people appear before the commissions because all they can do is release them.
Meanwhile, the article says when it was funded 20 years ago, it effectively reduced the amount of heroin used.
This is entirely driven by funding. The article explained its a multi year wait for treatment (funding issue) and so the police aren't making people appear before the commissions because all they can do is release them.
Meanwhile, the article says when it was funded 20 years ago, it effectively reduced the amount of heroin used.
The first is a hand wavey opinion, the second is basically an anecdote and the third relates to a very different implementation of decriminalisation than Portugal's.
It replies to a post that's even more hand-waivy. At least threshold lowering effects exist (eg. in gambling, alcohol and nicotine addiction).
> and giving an addict 4 walls and privacy is a death sentence.
sounds very plausible, where is the fallacy?
sounds very plausible, where is the fallacy?
Many things sound plausible without having any real connection to reality, we shouldn't rely on trust-me-bro when we're talking about people's lives.
In San Francisco, where I am most familiar, SROs which are used to house homeless junkies are the primary location of overdose deaths, even though they house fewer junkies than the streets surrounding them.
Different populations, you really need to randomly assign people to each group to discover if it’s harmful or a side effect of the selection criteria.
I would expect people in SF SROs to OD more for multiple reasons, but I haven’t seen any research on the specifics.
I would expect people in SF SROs to OD more for multiple reasons, but I haven’t seen any research on the specifics.
While it's true that shelter placement has some advantages for high needs folks (e.g. older, women, or disabled), those themselves don't correlate with opioid overdose deaths. There was a randomized trial of permanent supportive housing, which is a stronger intervention than simple housing, in Santa Clara (DOI 10.1111/1475-6773.13553) where those who received PSH died at slightly higher rates than those did not and never found housing of their own.
Thanks for finding that, looks like it might indeed increase risks.
> We enrolled 423 participants (199 intervention; 224 control). Eighty-six percent of those randomized to PSH received housing compared with 36 percent in usual care.
> Seventy (37 treatment; 33 control) participants died.
That’s a very high risk population.
> We found a similar high mortality rate in both treatment and control groups. Individuals experiencing homelessness have a greater age-adjusted mortality rate than housed counterparts.25 Among those who died, 89 percent of those in the intervention group had been housed compared with 28 percent in the control group.
I really want to pattern match, but it’s just not enough data. Worse they may have undercounted deaths in the control group. “Abode provided data on death for all participants who died while living in Abode housing. We queried County death certificate data on all participants who did not appear in any source of study data for 6 or more months.”
> We enrolled 423 participants (199 intervention; 224 control). Eighty-six percent of those randomized to PSH received housing compared with 36 percent in usual care.
> Seventy (37 treatment; 33 control) participants died.
That’s a very high risk population.
> We found a similar high mortality rate in both treatment and control groups. Individuals experiencing homelessness have a greater age-adjusted mortality rate than housed counterparts.25 Among those who died, 89 percent of those in the intervention group had been housed compared with 28 percent in the control group.
I really want to pattern match, but it’s just not enough data. Worse they may have undercounted deaths in the control group. “Abode provided data on death for all participants who died while living in Abode housing. We queried County death certificate data on all participants who did not appear in any source of study data for 6 or more months.”
[deleted]
It's easy to find fallacies if you think about it. For example I could say the opposite
> giving an addict 4 walls and privacy is the key that unlocks recovery
I've constructed my argument identically and provided the same amount of evidence for my position.
When you compare both positions side by side, I think you can easily see that neither is valuable. They are both opinions being presented as facts (begging the question / assumption of truth / unwarranted assumption).
> giving an addict 4 walls and privacy is the key that unlocks recovery
I've constructed my argument identically and provided the same amount of evidence for my position.
When you compare both positions side by side, I think you can easily see that neither is valuable. They are both opinions being presented as facts (begging the question / assumption of truth / unwarranted assumption).
> giving an addict 4 walls and privacy is the key that unlocks recovery
except that when we talk about privacy for addicts, we are actually talking about extreme loneliness.
which is the fastest route towards OD.
evidence show that
adults with mental health issues are more than twice as likely to experience loneliness as those with strong mental health [1]
Loneliness can increase the risk of early mortality by 26% [2]
editor's note: loneliness alone, imagine loneliness + mental health issues + severe drug addiction.
addicts don't need privacy, on the contrary, they need sociality. 4 walls shared with other people could provide that, 4 walls alone won't and will probably make things worse.
[1] https://newsroom.thecignagroup.com/loneliness-epidemic-persi...
[2] Holt-Lunstad et al., ‘Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review’, Perspectives on psychological science 10.2 (2015), pp. 227-237.
except that when we talk about privacy for addicts, we are actually talking about extreme loneliness.
which is the fastest route towards OD.
evidence show that
adults with mental health issues are more than twice as likely to experience loneliness as those with strong mental health [1]
Loneliness can increase the risk of early mortality by 26% [2]
editor's note: loneliness alone, imagine loneliness + mental health issues + severe drug addiction.
addicts don't need privacy, on the contrary, they need sociality. 4 walls shared with other people could provide that, 4 walls alone won't and will probably make things worse.
[1] https://newsroom.thecignagroup.com/loneliness-epidemic-persi...
[2] Holt-Lunstad et al., ‘Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review’, Perspectives on psychological science 10.2 (2015), pp. 227-237.
The 4 walls they get are literally a single room... If you put another person in there outcomes will be even worse.
What everyone's missing is the Quality of the housing.
If the place is so roach infested and you fight bed bugs others bring in and you constantly lose everything you own to the conditions of the building, then in what mind would that have better outcomes than on the street?
The depression that they term loneliness isn't just loneliness, it's a complete sense of defeat and pointlessness resultant directly from environment.
Really....
What everyone's missing is the Quality of the housing.
If the place is so roach infested and you fight bed bugs others bring in and you constantly lose everything you own to the conditions of the building, then in what mind would that have better outcomes than on the street?
The depression that they term loneliness isn't just loneliness, it's a complete sense of defeat and pointlessness resultant directly from environment.
Really....
> The 4 walls they get are literally a single room.
Theoretically yes.
In practice, no.
I've dealt with heroin addiction in my family, believe me when I say that privacy is not the solution, the solution is giving people a purpose outside of their constant quest to find ways to shoot up.
As I said, 4 walls can be beneficial, unless it's 4 walls to hide and keep everybody else out, except their dealers.
I'm all for reducing the damage, it works, but it doesn't mean simply giving them a hone, it means giving them a home to go back to, after they did something useful outside of that home.
The 4 walls should represent going back to a normal life.
> If the place is so roach infested and you fight bed bugs others bring in and you constantly lose everything you own to the conditions of the building, then in what mind would that have better outcomes than on the street?
if addicts cared about that, there would be no problem.
Theoretically yes.
In practice, no.
I've dealt with heroin addiction in my family, believe me when I say that privacy is not the solution, the solution is giving people a purpose outside of their constant quest to find ways to shoot up.
As I said, 4 walls can be beneficial, unless it's 4 walls to hide and keep everybody else out, except their dealers.
I'm all for reducing the damage, it works, but it doesn't mean simply giving them a hone, it means giving them a home to go back to, after they did something useful outside of that home.
The 4 walls should represent going back to a normal life.
> If the place is so roach infested and you fight bed bugs others bring in and you constantly lose everything you own to the conditions of the building, then in what mind would that have better outcomes than on the street?
if addicts cared about that, there would be no problem.
Society can't have it both ways - they can't be both receiving constant direct intervention and be invisible at the same time.
So long as the majority just want them out of sight or dead, we need to focus on ensuring that they are seen as members of the community rather than a blight, right?
So long as the majority just want them out of sight or dead, we need to focus on ensuring that they are seen as members of the community rather than a blight, right?
> that they are seen as members of the community rather than a blight, right?
I don't know how it works in the US, but they are primarily people in need of care, like a person with a disease, they need to be cured before they can go back to the society and be part of it or they will return to segregate themselves and die alone sooner or later.
Putting them behind 4 walls is exactly making them invisible, so that the general population won't be upset.
Not exactly a solution in my eyes.
I don't know how it works in the US, but they are primarily people in need of care, like a person with a disease, they need to be cured before they can go back to the society and be part of it or they will return to segregate themselves and die alone sooner or later.
Putting them behind 4 walls is exactly making them invisible, so that the general population won't be upset.
Not exactly a solution in my eyes.
So, before we can get funding for treatment we need public will, right?
So long as they are viewed as degenerates unwilling to engage in basic care, there will never be the public will. And for some they wouldn't take the help even if it was available, because for a minority it is in fact a lifestyle choice.
Given both those facts, the first step to getting public will for treatment is to minimize the negative perceptions of the class, which is best achieved in the immediate term by reducing visibility, specifically of the street drug addicts.
Combine with safe supply and direct interventionist supports (room checks, emergency buttons, etc) and there would be both an immediate improvement in QoL, individual outcomes and public sentiment towards further supports.
A key is to not permit use in rooms but only at safe sites within the building. Rule violation would mean switching to a monitored room (camera to ensure no drug abuse).
One issue underlying all of this though so that such systems simply can't work for those who suffered abuse by the system in the past, there's too many of our visible homeless and drug users who are where they are almost exclusively because of abuses in foster care or imprisonment (borne of false conviction). Those people will almost never participate in a gov or NGO program which includes facilities and monitoring.... And I don't really blame them.
The truth is we need to stop the problem before it starts and the only real way is to prevent traumas, treats those we can't prevent and bring justice against those who use the system to abuse others or protect abusers.
Sadly, in many ways most drug addicts are a "lost cause" before they even start using, just as so many alcoholics are.
That's the consequences of systemic willful ignorance of trauma.
So long as they are viewed as degenerates unwilling to engage in basic care, there will never be the public will. And for some they wouldn't take the help even if it was available, because for a minority it is in fact a lifestyle choice.
Given both those facts, the first step to getting public will for treatment is to minimize the negative perceptions of the class, which is best achieved in the immediate term by reducing visibility, specifically of the street drug addicts.
Combine with safe supply and direct interventionist supports (room checks, emergency buttons, etc) and there would be both an immediate improvement in QoL, individual outcomes and public sentiment towards further supports.
A key is to not permit use in rooms but only at safe sites within the building. Rule violation would mean switching to a monitored room (camera to ensure no drug abuse).
One issue underlying all of this though so that such systems simply can't work for those who suffered abuse by the system in the past, there's too many of our visible homeless and drug users who are where they are almost exclusively because of abuses in foster care or imprisonment (borne of false conviction). Those people will almost never participate in a gov or NGO program which includes facilities and monitoring.... And I don't really blame them.
The truth is we need to stop the problem before it starts and the only real way is to prevent traumas, treats those we can't prevent and bring justice against those who use the system to abuse others or protect abusers.
Sadly, in many ways most drug addicts are a "lost cause" before they even start using, just as so many alcoholics are.
That's the consequences of systemic willful ignorance of trauma.
> So, before we can get funding for treatment we need public will, right?
Again, that's a different problem entirely.
In my Country healthcare is public and funded by taxation.
We also have publicly funded damage reduction centers where they provide methadone to heroin addicts, problem is most of the time they do not show up voluntarily because of the stigma associated with it, secondly because those willingly participating are already in recover and take it to minimize the effects of abstinence. They are already on the path of healing.
> So long as they are viewed as degenerates unwilling to engage in basic care
They aren't all degenerates, you are putting emphasis on something no one ever said, but they are obviously unwilling or they would not need special treatments.
If they are able to take care of themselves, they don't need external help.
But only a very small minority is.
> A key is to not permit use in rooms but only at safe sites within the building
Which, again, as I've said before, is exactly why they do not need "4 walls with privacy"
Methadone is permitted only in person and they have to assume it in the facility that provides it under medical check, otherwise the first thing most of them would do is trade the methadone with something else.
> Rule violation would mean switching to a monitored room
That's the one thing that makes everything worse: basically it's an house arrest. We do not arrest as many addicts as in the US, but we still have jails full of people that used drugs that would be much better of somewhere else outside a cell (which basically is the 4 walls with privacy minus the drugs plus the suicide opportunity)
> The truth is we need to stop the problem before it starts and the only real way is to prevent traumas
We need to do both.
Again, that's a different problem entirely.
In my Country healthcare is public and funded by taxation.
We also have publicly funded damage reduction centers where they provide methadone to heroin addicts, problem is most of the time they do not show up voluntarily because of the stigma associated with it, secondly because those willingly participating are already in recover and take it to minimize the effects of abstinence. They are already on the path of healing.
> So long as they are viewed as degenerates unwilling to engage in basic care
They aren't all degenerates, you are putting emphasis on something no one ever said, but they are obviously unwilling or they would not need special treatments.
If they are able to take care of themselves, they don't need external help.
But only a very small minority is.
> A key is to not permit use in rooms but only at safe sites within the building
Which, again, as I've said before, is exactly why they do not need "4 walls with privacy"
Methadone is permitted only in person and they have to assume it in the facility that provides it under medical check, otherwise the first thing most of them would do is trade the methadone with something else.
> Rule violation would mean switching to a monitored room
That's the one thing that makes everything worse: basically it's an house arrest. We do not arrest as many addicts as in the US, but we still have jails full of people that used drugs that would be much better of somewhere else outside a cell (which basically is the 4 walls with privacy minus the drugs plus the suicide opportunity)
> The truth is we need to stop the problem before it starts and the only real way is to prevent traumas
We need to do both.
This is a big valid point here - absolutely none of us (myself included) have presented any real evidence. So it's all just circlejerking.
Alcoholics
Most use until they die of "old age" or long term damage from use.
Key terms being Old Age and Long Term.
Most use until they die of "old age" or long term damage from use.
Key terms being Old Age and Long Term.
"Then word gets out that there’s an open market, limits to penalties, and you start drawing in more drug users. Then you’ve got a more stable drug culture, and, frankly, it doesn’t look as good anymore.”
What's wrong with having a "drug culture" exactly?
"Meanwhile, overdoses this year in Portland, the state’s largest city, have surged 46 percent."
First, Portland is not Portugal.
Second, are the overdoses happening in people who use legal drugs?
From what I understand, overdoses usually happen when people don't know the dose they're getting, which is a consequence of them using illegal drugs which have no quality control and no reliable labeling as to dosage. So not only do you not know what you're getting, but may get a dose that's much larger than you anticipated.
Having access to legal, high quality drugs which are clearly labeled should eliminate most of the risks of unintentional overdose.
What's wrong with having a "drug culture" exactly?
"Meanwhile, overdoses this year in Portland, the state’s largest city, have surged 46 percent."
First, Portland is not Portugal.
Second, are the overdoses happening in people who use legal drugs?
From what I understand, overdoses usually happen when people don't know the dose they're getting, which is a consequence of them using illegal drugs which have no quality control and no reliable labeling as to dosage. So not only do you not know what you're getting, but may get a dose that's much larger than you anticipated.
Having access to legal, high quality drugs which are clearly labeled should eliminate most of the risks of unintentional overdose.
I've made that argument for years. Decriminalization doesn't work because it enables the black market - people should do everything in their power to eliminate the black market. This means real legalization. It's the only way to actually fix the overdose problem. Our number 1 priority should be to keep people from dying. I'm open to harsh penalties on public use, though. This shouldn't be happening in front of schools and in parks.
Imagine still thinking the war on drugs is a good idea in 2023
I have read that some overdoses occur when an addict gets clean for a while then relapses. They think they can tolerate the same dosage they were taking when they quit but their body can't handle tolerate it now, ie, they have to work back up to that dosage. Not sure how common that is, but better labeling and higher-quality drugs wouldn't help, though I agree, letting pharma companies manufacture street drugs and selling them legally would be a good thing.
Anyone who was hooked when they enter jail should have a one-day class on habituation to reduce how many fall into this trap.
> Of two dozen street people who use drugs and were asked by The Post, not one said they’d ever appeared before one of Portugal’s Dissuasion Commissions, envisioned as conduits to funnel people with addiction into rehab.
This feels like it could be a direct result of no funding.
This feels like it could be a direct result of no funding.
https://msdh.ms.gov/page/44,0,382.html
Drug overdoses are a nationwide problem in the USA. Mississippi also had a 49% increase in overdoses in 2020. Shelter is a basic human need and depriving people of it on the grounds that they might overdose doesn't seem like it follows. I know plenty of addicts who take care of their things just fine. They're addicted to coffee and alcohol and cigarettes. It's possible that the problem is not the drug itself but the social stigma attached to the drug.
Although I suspect both you and I know people addicted to other things, and we are simply unaware because we don't see any of the outward signs that we associate with "bad drug" addiction.
Drug overdoses are a nationwide problem in the USA. Mississippi also had a 49% increase in overdoses in 2020. Shelter is a basic human need and depriving people of it on the grounds that they might overdose doesn't seem like it follows. I know plenty of addicts who take care of their things just fine. They're addicted to coffee and alcohol and cigarettes. It's possible that the problem is not the drug itself but the social stigma attached to the drug.
Although I suspect both you and I know people addicted to other things, and we are simply unaware because we don't see any of the outward signs that we associate with "bad drug" addiction.
> They're addicted to coffee and alcohol and cigarettes. It's possible that the problem is not the drug itself but the social stigma attached to the drug.
I assure you there is a difference between coffee/cigarettes and methamphetamine beyond just stigma.
Coffee and tobacco both improve your mental capabilities without short-term downsides. No one’s been fired for showing up with a coffee or tobacco buzz and being more productive.
Very few people would rob their friends and families for mocha money were Starbucks suddenly illicit.
Alcohol is obviously less defensible as many people do end up on the streets over it.
I assure you there is a difference between coffee/cigarettes and methamphetamine beyond just stigma.
Coffee and tobacco both improve your mental capabilities without short-term downsides. No one’s been fired for showing up with a coffee or tobacco buzz and being more productive.
Very few people would rob their friends and families for mocha money were Starbucks suddenly illicit.
Alcohol is obviously less defensible as many people do end up on the streets over it.
When meth was literally 15$ a gram back in my youth (shipping hub) there was no one robbing anyone for it, as an hour or two at any job would pay for a GRAM (large amount) of Pure meth (and I mean high quality pure without any opacity nor color).
Back then most people I knew were using it, in the same way they would use an energy drink, and there were nearly no problems aside from the morons who wouldn't stop parting for a week at a time (but those folks would do the same with Any substance).
Really... Where I grew up the literal mayor was doing coke on the regular and also owned many businesses including the baseball team... And so were most of the successful people doing lots of drugs particularly uppers.
What happened was as they pushed enforcement against the drugs the quality decreased and the cost went up, posing a more immediate health risk and inducing crimes respectively.
I know from first hand experience with both the products and the propel that the biggest issue is the mere fact of thier illegality and extreme markups.
A key is to not have the government view the drug as a profit centre, as Canada did with pot, as that only grows the black market and strengthens them rather than destroy them.
Back then most people I knew were using it, in the same way they would use an energy drink, and there were nearly no problems aside from the morons who wouldn't stop parting for a week at a time (but those folks would do the same with Any substance).
Really... Where I grew up the literal mayor was doing coke on the regular and also owned many businesses including the baseball team... And so were most of the successful people doing lots of drugs particularly uppers.
What happened was as they pushed enforcement against the drugs the quality decreased and the cost went up, posing a more immediate health risk and inducing crimes respectively.
I know from first hand experience with both the products and the propel that the biggest issue is the mere fact of thier illegality and extreme markups.
A key is to not have the government view the drug as a profit centre, as Canada did with pot, as that only grows the black market and strengthens them rather than destroy them.
I'm sorry, but what? Meth is not an "energy drink". Meth is a highly addictive substance, both physiologically and psychologically. Its use destroys the human body and mind. Meth is too dangerous to be used casually, in the same way that Russian Roulette is too dangerous to be played at board game night.
See, that there is what we call failure to engage in basic reading comprehension.
I didn't say meth is like an energy drink, I said these people Used it Like an energy drink...
Reading comprehension, it's important.
And btw ephedra laced drinks were the norm at the time, so they were actually far more similar than now.
I didn't say meth is like an energy drink, I said these people Used it Like an energy drink...
Reading comprehension, it's important.
And btw ephedra laced drinks were the norm at the time, so they were actually far more similar than now.
To my point though, if you took away cheep coffee, everything is fine. Take away cheap meth, everything is not fine.
I dare you to take away cheap coffee.... Things will most certainly Not be fine...
I think you severely underestimate the importance of coffee to the stability of many people's psychology....
I know I'd be far more prone to violent outbursts during the first half of my day if my brain wasn't jump started by coffee.... Literally, I suffer from sleep drunkenness and without coffee my first four hours I'm little more than a drunken moron who is prone to irrational outbursts of instinctive rage at sensory triggers (loudness, brightness, unexpected touch etc).
For me that definitely part of a disorder resultant from a combo of genetics and multiple brain injuries but given what I've seen of others I highly doubt it's any different for many.
A quickly accessed link kind of supports this https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2014/08/22/neighborhood-in...
Theres a reason tea and coffee shops were the birth places of revolutions: Coffee stimulates the mind and brings clarity and calm many can't find absent it. The absence would be felt in increased consumption of alcohol and the resulting problems.
And really, do you think banning coffee would actually eliminate it? No. It would just become another meth and people would be killed to protect the industry etc, just like with every other substance.
Disbelieve? Look at chinese "medicine" and it's absurd contraband items that are still ridiculously prevalent despite there being literally zero effects from it, no high no health boost just bullshit. And still we have poachers and traffickers murdering thousands of people a year over that shit...
But coffee, it's an exception /s
I think you severely underestimate the importance of coffee to the stability of many people's psychology....
I know I'd be far more prone to violent outbursts during the first half of my day if my brain wasn't jump started by coffee.... Literally, I suffer from sleep drunkenness and without coffee my first four hours I'm little more than a drunken moron who is prone to irrational outbursts of instinctive rage at sensory triggers (loudness, brightness, unexpected touch etc).
For me that definitely part of a disorder resultant from a combo of genetics and multiple brain injuries but given what I've seen of others I highly doubt it's any different for many.
A quickly accessed link kind of supports this https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2014/08/22/neighborhood-in...
Theres a reason tea and coffee shops were the birth places of revolutions: Coffee stimulates the mind and brings clarity and calm many can't find absent it. The absence would be felt in increased consumption of alcohol and the resulting problems.
And really, do you think banning coffee would actually eliminate it? No. It would just become another meth and people would be killed to protect the industry etc, just like with every other substance.
Disbelieve? Look at chinese "medicine" and it's absurd contraband items that are still ridiculously prevalent despite there being literally zero effects from it, no high no health boost just bullshit. And still we have poachers and traffickers murdering thousands of people a year over that shit...
But coffee, it's an exception /s
However, even if there is, why does that mean the answer needs to be the _specific_ extraordinarily-severe-by-nature method of criminal punishment? It seems the article, again, was basically suggesting the problem was there is no sort of incentive AT ALL, when it should be that we should be looking for "neither-nor" solutions that are neither the old method nor "just sit back and do nothing".
107,000 people in the US died of drug overdoses in the 2022.
400,000 US service members died in WW2.
I think the problem has become so large we are basically in a state of denial and can't put the size of the problem in the proper context.
400,000 US service members died in WW2.
I think the problem has become so large we are basically in a state of denial and can't put the size of the problem in the proper context.
When the Netherlands had a heroine junkie problem in the 80s/early 90s the solution was to accept that most of them were going to die. So the government tried to make their death reasonably comfortable.
Economic fortunes turned and the nation became decadent and filthy rich again so the problem was fixed.
Drug use is correlated to the economy and the happiness of the population. Portugal needs to fix unemployment and get some economic growth going.
Drug use is correlated to the economy and the happiness of the population. Portugal needs to fix unemployment and get some economic growth going.
Alcohol is an interesting parallel. Probably most people know, or know of someone who is an alcoholic. How many of them want to quit? How many think they have a problem?
It’s not surprising that many addicts of other drugs don’t seek treatment.
It’s like obesity. Just stop eating so much! Just stop drinking! Just stop smoking crack! Just say no!
How well is that going?
Human psychology is nuts. Big is beautiful! Track marks are sexy!
I have no idea how you solve this sort of thing. Does anyone?
It’s not surprising that many addicts of other drugs don’t seek treatment.
It’s like obesity. Just stop eating so much! Just stop drinking! Just stop smoking crack! Just say no!
How well is that going?
Human psychology is nuts. Big is beautiful! Track marks are sexy!
I have no idea how you solve this sort of thing. Does anyone?
Which sort of thing? Capitalism? Because the article we're commenting on is about the privatization and the cutting of funding to the systems that are necessary to support the legalization of heroine and cocaine. We have problems with the government privatizing industries everywhere there is capitalism.
Solving drug addiction as a society in the world is possible if the western world had the political capital to do so. But like you said, human psychology is nuts. the thing to look at is Hong Kong back in '97. 1897, that is. It was a British colony in the wake of the Opium wars, for 100 years. The allure of being high on opium was a significant drag on the economy and the Chinese government wasn't putting up with that. While they lost the war, and Hong Kong's current political situation is fraught, a country fighting an enemy, the British, is able to unite in a way that war against concepts like war or poverty can't. (Communism is an exception because there were countries with that system to unite against.
We'll note that opium dens still exist, but not in the same capacity as before, and while China also has its share of drug addicts, they don't have downtown Philly or San Francisco.
So how do we fight it? Well, a war on drugs, but not one fought by men with guns and illegalization and demonization, but one fought by therapists and psychologists, with harm reduction and governmental and societal support. It's a radically different shape of society if the government genuinely cares about its people. You'd have to give everyone housing and feed everybody. and not just a subsistence living but thriving community. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can't be had without a life worth living, and a life without hope for a better future is not worth living.
Solving drug addiction as a society in the world is possible if the western world had the political capital to do so. But like you said, human psychology is nuts. the thing to look at is Hong Kong back in '97. 1897, that is. It was a British colony in the wake of the Opium wars, for 100 years. The allure of being high on opium was a significant drag on the economy and the Chinese government wasn't putting up with that. While they lost the war, and Hong Kong's current political situation is fraught, a country fighting an enemy, the British, is able to unite in a way that war against concepts like war or poverty can't. (Communism is an exception because there were countries with that system to unite against.
We'll note that opium dens still exist, but not in the same capacity as before, and while China also has its share of drug addicts, they don't have downtown Philly or San Francisco.
So how do we fight it? Well, a war on drugs, but not one fought by men with guns and illegalization and demonization, but one fought by therapists and psychologists, with harm reduction and governmental and societal support. It's a radically different shape of society if the government genuinely cares about its people. You'd have to give everyone housing and feed everybody. and not just a subsistence living but thriving community. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can't be had without a life worth living, and a life without hope for a better future is not worth living.
China did solve it in the 50s.
Those "other quotes" are personal hunches and random people on the street? "I asked random people on the street", really? Come on...
The simple fact is that after drug decriminalisation in 1999 the number of (1) new HIV infections and (2) overdose deaths fell to less than half in a couple years.
After cuts in funding, it started performing worse. Who would have think.
The simple fact is that after drug decriminalisation in 1999 the number of (1) new HIV infections and (2) overdose deaths fell to less than half in a couple years.
After cuts in funding, it started performing worse. Who would have think.
Yep, exactly - get rid of the alternative methods and leave no method and then that's a problem.
which, governments behave stupidly because that's patiently obvious but what did the US do with that opioid crisis? got rid the method, oxycontin, left no legal supported method, leading to street heroin, and hey guess what we have a huge problem with today.
> Why fund services that go unused?...Tent cities don't exist solely in places without access to housing, and giving an addict 4 walls and privacy is a death sentence.
Sounds like they've already dying.
Would you suggest we stop all drug treatment and let the fire burn itself out so to speak?
Sounds like they've already dying.
Would you suggest we stop all drug treatment and let the fire burn itself out so to speak?
One of the quotes being discussed is a concrete budgetary cut. The other is the opinion of a drug warrior on the losing side of the war. Oh and for some reason you included some anecdata collected by the (I would argue) compromised reporter.
I thought the implementations in the US were very different from those in Portugal though?
Tent cities don't exist solely in places without access to housing
"Access to housing" isn't enough. You might have "access" to health care but unable to afford it. You need housing as a right - even without payment - alongside enough adequate housing for everyone. And allow folks to do things in their own home. If they cannot do it at their home with other people, the person in question does not have adequate housing.
And that last bit - about a death sentence? That is only for a few addicts. A subset of addicts die.
If you have to get clean to get housing, housing is inadequate. I'd probably not go for rehab if I were homeless: I'd just have to be sober for the misery.
And that's what we give people. That's what we are offering. Various forms of misery.
"Access to housing" isn't enough. You might have "access" to health care but unable to afford it. You need housing as a right - even without payment - alongside enough adequate housing for everyone. And allow folks to do things in their own home. If they cannot do it at their home with other people, the person in question does not have adequate housing.
And that last bit - about a death sentence? That is only for a few addicts. A subset of addicts die.
If you have to get clean to get housing, housing is inadequate. I'd probably not go for rehab if I were homeless: I'd just have to be sober for the misery.
And that's what we give people. That's what we are offering. Various forms of misery.
This is a real question, not a retort.
But I have known addicts, they don’t exactly take care of their things. It’s very easy to imagine that much of the state supplied housing would quickly become unsafe and or destroyed.
How do you handle that?
But I have known addicts, they don’t exactly take care of their things. It’s very easy to imagine that much of the state supplied housing would quickly become unsafe and or destroyed.
How do you handle that?
I’m almost scared to post this but — have you been in / around public housing in the US? (Genuine not rhetorical)
It’s not uncommon for it to be unsafe and destroyed.
It’s not uncommon for it to be unsafe and destroyed.
That’s the reasoning for my question. Just last night I was reading about a local homeless man who was scared to go to the local shelter and had things stolen when he had.
But I also wanted to ask the OP (who mentioned housing as a right) how that could be avoided.
But I also wanted to ask the OP (who mentioned housing as a right) how that could be avoided.
Fix things. You know, by spending money. And do better than we do now with state supplied housing. Plus, not everyone is going to fall into this category and we don't always have to use state housing, depending on the person. I think we should do the same with everyone, not just addicts.
And have different sorts of housing. Some folks - not just addicts - could really benefit from a place modeled after a motel or hotel: Cleaning services and so on, private room and private bath. Some folks could do with a kitchen or provided food. Some folks could use these things yet would be better with a seperate bedroom and living room... well, you get the picture.
At no time is everyone - addict or not - going to be able to take care of things. We should help those folks.
And have different sorts of housing. Some folks - not just addicts - could really benefit from a place modeled after a motel or hotel: Cleaning services and so on, private room and private bath. Some folks could do with a kitchen or provided food. Some folks could use these things yet would be better with a seperate bedroom and living room... well, you get the picture.
At no time is everyone - addict or not - going to be able to take care of things. We should help those folks.
[deleted]
Spend more of your hard earned cash to do the upkeep. YOU suffer a little more for it and I'm all down for that happening to you because we gotta spread the burden around given it's going to be there, period.
it becomes assisted living, like for seniors. they can't live like that, so you get a maid service in every week. it works if just pour money into it, just like rasing children by the government.
the 70's abolition of mental asylums by Regan. We closed the thing with no alternative and expected anything but a disaster?
the 70's abolition of mental asylums by Regan. We closed the thing with no alternative and expected anything but a disaster?
Concrete. Everything concrete. Anything not concrete is removable.
Concrete has poor tensile strength and is wash to damage with a hammer. Also as a building material is very expensive...
"And that last bit - about a death sentence? That is only for a few addicts. A subset of addicts die."
Not only that, but most drug users aren't addicts.
To the general public, when they hear the words "drug user" they immediately equate that with "addict", and many can't even imagine that people could use drugs and not get addicted.
But that's not true, as addicts are a small minority of drug users.
Drug policy affects far more than just addicts. Lots of non-addicted users are affected too.
Not only that, but most drug users aren't addicts.
To the general public, when they hear the words "drug user" they immediately equate that with "addict", and many can't even imagine that people could use drugs and not get addicted.
But that's not true, as addicts are a small minority of drug users.
Drug policy affects far more than just addicts. Lots of non-addicted users are affected too.
> addicts are a small minority of drug users.
Do you have any reliable data to back up that claim? In my experience users who purport to not be addicts are indeed addicts in massive denial about their poor choices.
Do you have any reliable data to back up that claim? In my experience users who purport to not be addicts are indeed addicts in massive denial about their poor choices.
For one argument, consider the disparities between the # of people who've used a type of drug at some point in their life, vs the # that have used them in the past year, vs the # that have used them in the past month.
While some % of those are people who got help and quit in the past year, or people on the start of a downward spiral/addiction, plenty of those seem to just be infrequent users.
Unless the drug kills you so frequently/quickly that you can't sustain use for long or is rapidly gaining users for a new addiction crisis, the level of greater than monthly users should be higher if most of those infrequent users are going to become addicts.
https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt3...
You can further see that the spread of yearly vs monthly use is closer for substances typically considered more addictive and wider for those less thought to be. (not a lot of LSD addicts out there, relatively speaking).
-------
My experience is that a lot of people are very quiet about their drug use outside the environment where they dabble in it and never mention it at all in company where they're uncertain about how it'll be viewed, so I also suspect that you may not recognize most of those people as people who'd use drugs at all.
I'm a big live music person and being around people using drugs somewhat comes with the territory, especially festival-type environments. But most of the people I've met at those things don't do much of those substances otherwise aside from possibly weed. They've got their once or twice a year time of hitting up the party drugs for their weekend of fun + music, but that's it.
While some % of those are people who got help and quit in the past year, or people on the start of a downward spiral/addiction, plenty of those seem to just be infrequent users.
Unless the drug kills you so frequently/quickly that you can't sustain use for long or is rapidly gaining users for a new addiction crisis, the level of greater than monthly users should be higher if most of those infrequent users are going to become addicts.
https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt3...
You can further see that the spread of yearly vs monthly use is closer for substances typically considered more addictive and wider for those less thought to be. (not a lot of LSD addicts out there, relatively speaking).
-------
My experience is that a lot of people are very quiet about their drug use outside the environment where they dabble in it and never mention it at all in company where they're uncertain about how it'll be viewed, so I also suspect that you may not recognize most of those people as people who'd use drugs at all.
I'm a big live music person and being around people using drugs somewhat comes with the territory, especially festival-type environments. But most of the people I've met at those things don't do much of those substances otherwise aside from possibly weed. They've got their once or twice a year time of hitting up the party drugs for their weekend of fun + music, but that's it.
I've known a lot of folks that smoke pot on the weekends. I don't always mind heavy pot users: Generally better than alcoholics.
I've known a lot of folks that use hallucinogens: You aren't addicted to those, in general.
I've known a lot of folks with a liking to cocaine, but they can't afford to use more than a couple times a year. Or it just isn't something they want to feel every day. This applies to a lot of drug use.
I've met a lot of folks that only use drugs (or alcohol) when they have a sitter for their children.
You probably don't have reliable data to back up your claim either, and have the added mental block of deciding that all of the folks have poor choices. And unfortunately, you aren't using what you know about, say, alcohol and applying that to other druts. Most folks that drink alcohol aren't addicts or alcoholics. Even if they drink more than you, it doesn't mean they are alcoholics.
I've known a lot of folks that use hallucinogens: You aren't addicted to those, in general.
I've known a lot of folks with a liking to cocaine, but they can't afford to use more than a couple times a year. Or it just isn't something they want to feel every day. This applies to a lot of drug use.
I've met a lot of folks that only use drugs (or alcohol) when they have a sitter for their children.
You probably don't have reliable data to back up your claim either, and have the added mental block of deciding that all of the folks have poor choices. And unfortunately, you aren't using what you know about, say, alcohol and applying that to other druts. Most folks that drink alcohol aren't addicts or alcoholics. Even if they drink more than you, it doesn't mean they are alcoholics.
I think both are true.
Different drugs have wildly different addiction rates. Most people who use drugs are using the non-addictive stuff.
However, the people we traditionally view as addicts are almost certainly addicts even if they pretend they could quit anytime.
Different drugs have wildly different addiction rates. Most people who use drugs are using the non-addictive stuff.
However, the people we traditionally view as addicts are almost certainly addicts even if they pretend they could quit anytime.
A billion people across the world may want a house "as right" in San Francisco. It may only fit three order of magnitudes people realistically, though.
Why would the right to housing stop in san francisco?
Most places can do this. The US can do it. Everything contrary is just excuses.
Most places can do this. The US can do it. Everything contrary is just excuses.
San Francisco has better placement than 99,9% of Earth.
Most of places on Earth has snow, heat waves, no coasts, biting insects, or a combination of that. They are also not located in the richest country, in a place which historically produces jobs.
So, under this regime specifically San Francisco will get population influx until it is not usable for absolute majority of people (think a bro dormitory the size of SF), and that process will be repeated for many other lucrative locations on Earth (heck, many cities are arguably already going that route).
I don't see how free housing differs from sacrificing every place you like to tragedy of the commons on grand scale, until there is nothing for you to like there anymore and you move on yourself.
Other than that, there are places on Earth with basically free housing. Check out Vorkuta.
Most of places on Earth has snow, heat waves, no coasts, biting insects, or a combination of that. They are also not located in the richest country, in a place which historically produces jobs.
So, under this regime specifically San Francisco will get population influx until it is not usable for absolute majority of people (think a bro dormitory the size of SF), and that process will be repeated for many other lucrative locations on Earth (heck, many cities are arguably already going that route).
I don't see how free housing differs from sacrificing every place you like to tragedy of the commons on grand scale, until there is nothing for you to like there anymore and you move on yourself.
Other than that, there are places on Earth with basically free housing. Check out Vorkuta.
orangepurple(3)
Life is misery by default, as a natural consequence of life itself. The never ending tyranny of the need to eat and avoid being eaten is the normal state of affairs.
Honestly, if a person isn’t up for it, we need to stop trying to convince them to stay around and be miserable. Elective suicide should be a basic right, and drugs are one way out. We only create misery by “helping” people that don’t want hep.
Criminalize public drug use.
Provide basic unregulated housing, not unlike squattable buildings. Set up AI monitored surveillance and prohibit attempts to form any kind of exploitative enterprise. Self registration with biometric access. Provide fentanyl dispensers. Come through once a day and dispose of the dead.
Create an exit ramp where those that wish to can easily climb out through rehab into a viable path forward. Just by walking out they can register for rehab and get on a bus to a facility with an on-ramp to society.
Let them live in the stark misery that they choose so they can confront it head on and decide if that’s what they want. But keep them outside of the general population during their self destruction process.
Provide stepping-stone housing, mental health services, and educational on-ramps for people that need housing and can test clean of the typical death-spiral drugs.
It should be made clear that certain kinds of drug use are part of a suicide process. Make it unattractive to flirt with, and limit it to private spaces.
Social drugs such as alcohol and thc are not so incompatible with society and don’t really need regulatory interference aside from limiting access to minors.
Honestly, if a person isn’t up for it, we need to stop trying to convince them to stay around and be miserable. Elective suicide should be a basic right, and drugs are one way out. We only create misery by “helping” people that don’t want hep.
Criminalize public drug use.
Provide basic unregulated housing, not unlike squattable buildings. Set up AI monitored surveillance and prohibit attempts to form any kind of exploitative enterprise. Self registration with biometric access. Provide fentanyl dispensers. Come through once a day and dispose of the dead.
Create an exit ramp where those that wish to can easily climb out through rehab into a viable path forward. Just by walking out they can register for rehab and get on a bus to a facility with an on-ramp to society.
Let them live in the stark misery that they choose so they can confront it head on and decide if that’s what they want. But keep them outside of the general population during their self destruction process.
Provide stepping-stone housing, mental health services, and educational on-ramps for people that need housing and can test clean of the typical death-spiral drugs.
It should be made clear that certain kinds of drug use are part of a suicide process. Make it unattractive to flirt with, and limit it to private spaces.
Social drugs such as alcohol and thc are not so incompatible with society and don’t really need regulatory interference aside from limiting access to minors.
> Life is misery by default, as a natural consequence of life itself. The never ending tyranny of the need to eat and avoid being eaten is the normal state of affairs.
> Honestly, if a person isn’t up for it, we need to stop trying to convince them to stay around and be miserable. Elective suicide should be a basic right, and drugs are one way out. We only create misery by “helping” people that don’t want hep.
What an absolutely miserable outlook on life.
All life is precious and fleeting. We should respect it.
> Honestly, if a person isn’t up for it, we need to stop trying to convince them to stay around and be miserable. Elective suicide should be a basic right, and drugs are one way out. We only create misery by “helping” people that don’t want hep.
What an absolutely miserable outlook on life.
All life is precious and fleeting. We should respect it.
We should, I agree. But not everyone wants to participate.
I believe life is wonderful and precious… but it is , by default, misery.
If you do nothing (the default condition) to sustain or improve your existence, you will be miserable. That is the never ending tyranny of imperative action.
That is the fundamental nature of life, and not everyone is up for it. And that’s ok.
I believe life is wonderful and precious… but it is , by default, misery.
If you do nothing (the default condition) to sustain or improve your existence, you will be miserable. That is the never ending tyranny of imperative action.
That is the fundamental nature of life, and not everyone is up for it. And that’s ok.
As another commenter noted, you're making lots of assumptions. For example, your mindset sounds, to me, entirely "modern 'western'".
I would suggest that the fundamental issue with your assumptions is a blurring of the lines when it comes to the objective and subjective. Specifically, nature and certain realms of human existence ARE objectively "harsh", unforgiving, uncomfortable, etc. However, that does not mean that all who exist or have existed in such realms are miserable.
If you've not seen this before, this show is just one (of a great many materials not so prevalent in modern western intensely consumer / advertising / so-called "achievement"-oriented cultures) reference with some real views of massive differences in (subjective) experience people can have across various "objective" realities:
https://www.themoviedb.org/tv/83990-the-kindness-diaries?lan...
In any case, your policy proposals earlier would, IMO, add up to poor outcomes. Not because they are inherently so bad / worse than what's been tried - more just due to the nature of the problem. Our tools / these sorts of tools are incredibly blunt compared to the complexity of the problem. And, trying to put in place some of what you propose, would definitely harm some people - in part simply in making the changes.
I am not claiming to be able to do any better, though, for sure.
I would suggest that the fundamental issue with your assumptions is a blurring of the lines when it comes to the objective and subjective. Specifically, nature and certain realms of human existence ARE objectively "harsh", unforgiving, uncomfortable, etc. However, that does not mean that all who exist or have existed in such realms are miserable.
If you've not seen this before, this show is just one (of a great many materials not so prevalent in modern western intensely consumer / advertising / so-called "achievement"-oriented cultures) reference with some real views of massive differences in (subjective) experience people can have across various "objective" realities:
https://www.themoviedb.org/tv/83990-the-kindness-diaries?lan...
In any case, your policy proposals earlier would, IMO, add up to poor outcomes. Not because they are inherently so bad / worse than what's been tried - more just due to the nature of the problem. Our tools / these sorts of tools are incredibly blunt compared to the complexity of the problem. And, trying to put in place some of what you propose, would definitely harm some people - in part simply in making the changes.
I am not claiming to be able to do any better, though, for sure.
I didn’t mean to imply that living in harsh conditions is inherently miserable. I have lived in “natural” subsistence conditions in the Alaskan bush for extended periods of time, and while it was often acutely uncomfortable, it was not any kind of existential misery. Misery comes from unmanageable circumstances or personal outlook.
But, I agree with you that my off the cuff policy proposal has many flaws and would harm some people. I think it might do less harm than good, but without a good bit of (probably unethical) a/b testing I’m really not sure.
But, I agree with you that my off the cuff policy proposal has many flaws and would harm some people. I think it might do less harm than good, but without a good bit of (probably unethical) a/b testing I’m really not sure.
>If you do nothing (the default condition) to sustain or improve your existence, you will be miserable. That is the never ending tyranny of imperative action.
You're making LOTS of assumptions here.
You're making LOTS of assumptions here.
Im pretty sure you are correct, but I’m struggling with imagining situations where the statement “If you do nothing (the default condition) to sustain or improve your existence, you will be miserable. “ does not apply.
I would be genuinely greatful if you could provide me with realistic examples of where this statement is incorrect.
The only ones I can think of are ones where someone else does the sustenance and improvement of your existence, like in the case of being a child or a ward of the state, perhaps? Also obviously where you are paying others to do so, but there you have actually caused this to happen and therefore are “doing” it.
I would be genuinely greatful if you could provide me with realistic examples of where this statement is incorrect.
The only ones I can think of are ones where someone else does the sustenance and improvement of your existence, like in the case of being a child or a ward of the state, perhaps? Also obviously where you are paying others to do so, but there you have actually caused this to happen and therefore are “doing” it.
> Social drugs such as alcohol and thc are not so incompatible with society
Alcohol is very unsociable - calling it social seems odd to me. Anecdotally alcohol seems pretty destructive to me. I am middle-aged so perhaps I have seen more of the deeper long-term destructive effects than you? New Zealanders generally have quite a problem with alcohol abuse.
Alcohol is very unsociable - calling it social seems odd to me. Anecdotally alcohol seems pretty destructive to me. I am middle-aged so perhaps I have seen more of the deeper long-term destructive effects than you? New Zealanders generally have quite a problem with alcohol abuse.
It's both isn't it. It has to be. Have you ever been to a wedding or convention that is serving? Alcohol absolutely is a social lubricant
That does not make it social.
By your definition ecstasy is a social drug or any drug at a rave is social (Note I have never seen MDMA turn anti-social).
In my experience most drugs are “social” - the heroin users I knew were a tight crowd! Weed is definitely social for those that partake.
Serve cocaine, MDMA and meth at a wedding and everybody will have a social blast too.
By your definition ecstasy is a social drug or any drug at a rave is social (Note I have never seen MDMA turn anti-social).
In my experience most drugs are “social” - the heroin users I knew were a tight crowd! Weed is definitely social for those that partake.
Serve cocaine, MDMA and meth at a wedding and everybody will have a social blast too.
I don’t see an argument against the social merit of alcohol here. I dated an enabler who knew that alcohol helped ease my social anxiety around strangers. She told me we’d get a couple of drinks into me at the bar when going to office parties. It worked. Made me very sociable.
I’m genuinely curious how you define sociability of a drug or substance. I know alcohol is detrimental to society at large. On an individual basis, I find it quite attractive for social gatherings.
I’m genuinely curious how you define sociability of a drug or substance. I know alcohol is detrimental to society at large. On an individual basis, I find it quite attractive for social gatherings.
Calling alcohol social feels like an evil marketing gimmick - certainly our advertising pretends it is social.
Alcohol is deeply socially destructive - we know the stereotypical examples of damage in the the poor and the indigenous communities. The examples of damage in middle-class homes of the wealthy (e.g. doctors) and the average working class (tradies and nurses) is much less visible.
The words “social” and “alcohol” are immiscible.
Alcohol is deeply socially destructive - we know the stereotypical examples of damage in the the poor and the indigenous communities. The examples of damage in middle-class homes of the wealthy (e.g. doctors) and the average working class (tradies and nurses) is much less visible.
The words “social” and “alcohol” are immiscible.
We're very far apart on this issue. I feel like you must not drink socially, so you're not exposed to the milder effects of alcohol. Alcohol enables both social and anti-social behavior. It doesn't have to be black and white.
I drink at pubs and with friends.
I have an alcohol free home (I have seen too many friends slowly change from one small drink a night to a problem within a few years.
I have seen too many devastating consequences of “social” drinking to think it is safe. Of course we all mostly do unsafe things regularly!
I have an alcohol free home (I have seen too many friends slowly change from one small drink a night to a problem within a few years.
I have seen too many devastating consequences of “social” drinking to think it is safe. Of course we all mostly do unsafe things regularly!
For some people alcohol and even THC can be very negative. That is true.
But we have learned that the social costs of prohibition of those drugs is higher than the benefit to society.
The same may be true of certain classes of hallucinogenic substances, especially since people tragically turn to solvents and extremely toxic substances as substitutes.
But we have learned that the social costs of prohibition of those drugs is higher than the benefit to society.
The same may be true of certain classes of hallucinogenic substances, especially since people tragically turn to solvents and extremely toxic substances as substitutes.
Alcohol is the drug with the highest correlation with violence etc as well as producing the highest number of deaths and long term health problems...
It’s also the most readily available. The health problems don’t happen in a bubble. I’d bet heroin is far more destructive per user, but I’m just guessing at that.
Theres no need to guess, we can just look to before it was prohibited.
And it was alcohol that was worse.
Most people don't care to use it (heroin) at all let alone regularly. Opiates cause nausea and retching in most areas drug abuse levels....
Alcohol was far more popular and consistently harmful...
Just ask the wives of the time what they'd rather thier husbands use....
And it was alcohol that was worse.
Most people don't care to use it (heroin) at all let alone regularly. Opiates cause nausea and retching in most areas drug abuse levels....
Alcohol was far more popular and consistently harmful...
Just ask the wives of the time what they'd rather thier husbands use....
Alcohol is a potential catalyst and not a cause in these situations. There are underlying problems with people's psyche that lead to abusive outcomes. Add in centuries of religion supporting and encouraging the beating of wives and children who don't submit it's no wonder we as a species ended up where we are. Even Ghandi who was teetotaler hit his wife.
Point being, like anything, it's complex. Yes, alcohol is a factor in abuse. But it's not the cause.
Point being, like anything, it's complex. Yes, alcohol is a factor in abuse. But it's not the cause.
If you think harmful things it doesn't count. it's only when thoughts are verbalized or become actions that there's a problem. Where a person, when sober, isn't abusive and doesn't hit people, but does when drunk, is say alcohol is the cause. if they're mean abusive drunks who can lay off the sauce, then they're actually okay people and it doesn't matter that they're mean and abusive when drunk.
I say this as the grandchild of an alcoholic. Alcohol is the problem. You're right that there're underlying things, but they lie there, just beneath the surface, mostly untouched and undisturbing without alcohol.
I say this as the grandchild of an alcoholic. Alcohol is the problem. You're right that there're underlying things, but they lie there, just beneath the surface, mostly untouched and undisturbing without alcohol.
No sh-t
The context was the impacts of X substance vs Y substance, right?
In all cases the actual cause is the underlying problems but it's the substance that (is perceived as) causes the manifestation that otherwise wouldn't occur, right?
So what purpose did your comment actually serve into he thread other than to derail an extant line of discourse?
The context was the impacts of X substance vs Y substance, right?
In all cases the actual cause is the underlying problems but it's the substance that (is perceived as) causes the manifestation that otherwise wouldn't occur, right?
So what purpose did your comment actually serve into he thread other than to derail an extant line of discourse?
I suspect this is a case of under communication on both are parts.
What I saw, you ended on a very vague set of statements that I assume were supposed to support that you were saying.
"Alcohol was far more popular and consistently harmful..."
Implication of alcohol being more harmful without evidence to support the claim.
History tells us lots of stories. For example, just because the temperance movement existed doesn't mean anything other than a bunch of people got it in their head that alcohol was the devil's drink and caused all of society's ills.
You also ended with an appeal to emotion, "Just ask the wives..." Instead of again supporting your claim that alcohol is more damaging with evidence.
To be clear, I'm not saying alcohol is or isn't more damaging. I'm saying that there isn't any evidence in these comments (yours and others) to support a claim of "X being worse than Y".
What I saw, you ended on a very vague set of statements that I assume were supposed to support that you were saying.
"Alcohol was far more popular and consistently harmful..."
Implication of alcohol being more harmful without evidence to support the claim.
History tells us lots of stories. For example, just because the temperance movement existed doesn't mean anything other than a bunch of people got it in their head that alcohol was the devil's drink and caused all of society's ills.
You also ended with an appeal to emotion, "Just ask the wives..." Instead of again supporting your claim that alcohol is more damaging with evidence.
To be clear, I'm not saying alcohol is or isn't more damaging. I'm saying that there isn't any evidence in these comments (yours and others) to support a claim of "X being worse than Y".
Opium addicts pass out, alcoholics beat and rape thier wives.
That's a line straight out of the temperance era.
I don't know why I needed to be more explicit....
That's a line straight out of the temperance era.
I don't know why I needed to be more explicit....
Completely agree with you. The only reason drugs are expensive is because they've been made illegal. Don't get me started on the secondary aspects like people not being able to get pain killers after surgery. Legalize all of them and make them cheap or just hand them out. Public use should be met with harsh penalties. The war on drugs has been so expensive in cash money and the human cost. We need to try something radically different.
> should be met with harsh penalties
> war on drugs has been so expensive
> we need to try something radically different
You want something different and then advocate for the same?
> war on drugs has been so expensive
> we need to try something radically different
You want something different and then advocate for the same?
What!? Really!? That's your takeaway? I don't even know what to say other than taking select talking points and attempting to use those as a gotcha is disingenuous. Argue against what was posted. The point was I don't think children should be exposed to drug use. Why do you think that's a good idea? If it's not, then how do we keep children from seeing it?
If you say they are just self-destroying and "want to create suicide" and "don't want to help those who don't want help" then why not both not help AND not punish at the same time, and just let "nature" do it all? That is, you have elective suicide AND you say they have a free pass out of punishment (basically they can whinny out of public use without ANYTHING adverse), and because "life is misery" just you yourself endure the misery of living in a society where that dealing with the externalities of their highly public drug use as they die/don't "want to climb out" is just a part and parcel of YOUR life. Suffer a little by NOT punishing. You're already doing it, so just do more of it and screw your complaining.
Basically, that is, do everything you say while NOT punishing the public drug use and you just eating the social cost of that as part of life's natural consequences (or else, if you do criminalize it, make a criminal conviction for it both not affect the availability of rehab at all and make the conviction vanish entirely upon successful completion of the rehab and then eat and endure permanently the social consequences of THAT on the "life is misery by default" logic).
Basically, that is, do everything you say while NOT punishing the public drug use and you just eating the social cost of that as part of life's natural consequences (or else, if you do criminalize it, make a criminal conviction for it both not affect the availability of rehab at all and make the conviction vanish entirely upon successful completion of the rehab and then eat and endure permanently the social consequences of THAT on the "life is misery by default" logic).
Because their actions are endangering others. Our rights to self determination end where we infringe upon the rights of others. Public drug abuse has deleterious externalities. So just do it in your home, or go get a free home to do it in, no questions asked.
[deleted]
> Life is misery by default, as a natural consequence of life itself. The never ending tyranny of the need to eat and avoid being eaten is the normal state of affairs.
Edgy, I would definitely have posted that on myspace when I was 14. Of course, that's not true. We are not hunter-gatherers, or pre-industrial farmers. We have abundance of all of life's necessities and even more.
>We only create misery by “helping” people that don’t want help.
You clearly haven't met any addicts, only observed them from a sneering distance and concluded whatever you wanted to conclude.
Suffice to say: I have. Several people who were on self-destructive paths, of whom you could have said "well fuck him, the fucker doesn't want help and is a burden to those around him, why should I waste money and effort with him?". With the necessary support they are now entirely different persons.
>Provide basic unregulated housing, not unlike squattable buildings. Set up AI monitored surveillance and prohibit attempts to form any kind of exploitative enterprise. Self registration with biometric access. Provide fentanyl dispensers. Come through once a day and dispose of the dead.
I sure am glad you don't make public policy, but you might have a future in dystopian fiction.
Edgy, I would definitely have posted that on myspace when I was 14. Of course, that's not true. We are not hunter-gatherers, or pre-industrial farmers. We have abundance of all of life's necessities and even more.
>We only create misery by “helping” people that don’t want help.
You clearly haven't met any addicts, only observed them from a sneering distance and concluded whatever you wanted to conclude.
Suffice to say: I have. Several people who were on self-destructive paths, of whom you could have said "well fuck him, the fucker doesn't want help and is a burden to those around him, why should I waste money and effort with him?". With the necessary support they are now entirely different persons.
>Provide basic unregulated housing, not unlike squattable buildings. Set up AI monitored surveillance and prohibit attempts to form any kind of exploitative enterprise. Self registration with biometric access. Provide fentanyl dispensers. Come through once a day and dispose of the dead.
I sure am glad you don't make public policy, but you might have a future in dystopian fiction.
>Suffice to say: I have. Several people who were on self-destructive paths, of whom you could have said "well fuck him, the fucker doesn't want help and is a burden to those around him, why should I waste money and effort with him?". With the necessary support they are now entirely different persons.
I didn't get the impression that the parent was against help. He explicitly mentioned providing rehab programs to those who wanted them.
I didn't get the impression that the parent was against help. He explicitly mentioned providing rehab programs to those who wanted them.
Putting a bunch of addicts in an abandoned building so they can live in misery doesn't seem very helpful.
Addicts actively reject housing with rules and seek out abandoned buildings. The idea is to provide them with safe refuge where they do not have to be compliant except to be nonviolent, while keeping them in immediate proximity to a rehab on-ramp that would move them out of that situation into inpatient rehab.
They already move out of housing to seek out abandoned buildings because their choices are incompatible with society at large.
My idea is an attempt to align incentives for a better outcome.
They already move out of housing to seek out abandoned buildings because their choices are incompatible with society at large.
My idea is an attempt to align incentives for a better outcome.
As per the parent comment, they're free to move into rehab if they so choose. They're not forced to live in misery.
Maybe you missed the parts in my comments where anyone who wants to move back into society just has to walk outside and get on a bus?
And by default, I mean if you take no action. If you don’t believe me, try it some time. Do literally nothing to improve or maintain your living situation and see if that does not lead to misery.
People up inhere acting like I’m locking up addicts in death camps lol, but if you read my comment you can clearly see that what I am advocating is to let people do what they want without screwing up society at large.
And by default, I mean if you take no action. If you don’t believe me, try it some time. Do literally nothing to improve or maintain your living situation and see if that does not lead to misery.
People up inhere acting like I’m locking up addicts in death camps lol, but if you read my comment you can clearly see that what I am advocating is to let people do what they want without screwing up society at large.
With new diabetes drugs coming out they found them to have anti-addiction properties from food, smoking to shopping addiction, etc. You might say all these people don't want help but what if we just started putting them on anti-addiction drugs in the future? It could change their whole life, my diabetic mom now also has one of those stickers that tells her when her blood sugar gets too high and now she feels guilty when she eats badly because we all can hear it when her alarm goes off from the sticker and phone app. She also told me when she got on some of these drugs she doesn't feel as hungry anymore and started losing some weight. Her last doctor didn't care about her having diabetes so she didn't either, her new doctor is like, "yeah let's fix this, we'll get rid of this this year". And sometimes just having someone believe you can change makes all the difference.
Also what really makes people struggle with suicide can be quite different then just drug use.
Suicide thinking is an inflammation of the body that happens to all creatures when put under extreme stress. Their body is starting to control their mind. They aren't imagining pain, their body is literally in pain. Figuring what is causing the stress and how to reduce it is key.
Instead of saying oh they don't want to live, look at what is going on with their body. Overworked people get really suicidal would you want to get an exit ramp for them?
A lot of suicidal people also have been through a lot of unprocessed trauma that plain old consulting won't fix (as someone who went to 10 psychologist I personally find most of it useless as well, few people understand CPTSD and in fact I have had some psychologist blaming me for my problems and really badly mislabeling me. I was smart enough not to believe them but a lot of people might not. Most people don't understand what's like to live in bad circumstances for years they just think it's a personality disorder. This psychologist also never even asked if I grew up with a family history of violence because I seemed too normal in some ways. They were really bad at their job but at the time I thought if I could bully myself into changing myself with this psychologist help, maybe I could improve... It's only after some family died I realized what I was actually going through and found a term for it.)
Also by this logic of addicted users don't want to change it's like saying poor people choose to be poor, it's really hard to get out of systems and thought patterns to improve your circumstances. People spiral for a reason and it can be tough to overcome. Also really smart people can still be poor, being born in the wrong country or at the wrong time, or in the wrong circumstances etc etc can make a lot of difference. Having empathy for people and helping them understand themselves can make a lot of difference. I've helped a lot of suicidal people improve their circumstances (though it's hard), and it can be popular to be suicidal as a cultural thing too especially the more disconnected and trapped people feel. With suicide rates increasing you have to understand we have some systemic issues going on, it's not their fault they feel bad most of the time, it's just a bad system they are in, change the system change the people. Especially the youth. Also almost drug use abuse is because people feel disconnected from others. Which is largely a systemic issue now with loneliness shock rocketing.
Also what really makes people struggle with suicide can be quite different then just drug use.
Suicide thinking is an inflammation of the body that happens to all creatures when put under extreme stress. Their body is starting to control their mind. They aren't imagining pain, their body is literally in pain. Figuring what is causing the stress and how to reduce it is key.
Instead of saying oh they don't want to live, look at what is going on with their body. Overworked people get really suicidal would you want to get an exit ramp for them?
A lot of suicidal people also have been through a lot of unprocessed trauma that plain old consulting won't fix (as someone who went to 10 psychologist I personally find most of it useless as well, few people understand CPTSD and in fact I have had some psychologist blaming me for my problems and really badly mislabeling me. I was smart enough not to believe them but a lot of people might not. Most people don't understand what's like to live in bad circumstances for years they just think it's a personality disorder. This psychologist also never even asked if I grew up with a family history of violence because I seemed too normal in some ways. They were really bad at their job but at the time I thought if I could bully myself into changing myself with this psychologist help, maybe I could improve... It's only after some family died I realized what I was actually going through and found a term for it.)
Also by this logic of addicted users don't want to change it's like saying poor people choose to be poor, it's really hard to get out of systems and thought patterns to improve your circumstances. People spiral for a reason and it can be tough to overcome. Also really smart people can still be poor, being born in the wrong country or at the wrong time, or in the wrong circumstances etc etc can make a lot of difference. Having empathy for people and helping them understand themselves can make a lot of difference. I've helped a lot of suicidal people improve their circumstances (though it's hard), and it can be popular to be suicidal as a cultural thing too especially the more disconnected and trapped people feel. With suicide rates increasing you have to understand we have some systemic issues going on, it's not their fault they feel bad most of the time, it's just a bad system they are in, change the system change the people. Especially the youth. Also almost drug use abuse is because people feel disconnected from others. Which is largely a systemic issue now with loneliness shock rocketing.
That drug, btw, is Semaglutide, brand name Ozempic. it's been featured in a number of articles as being the cure for addiction and is having a bit of a Viagra moment. Weight loss is big business but curbing addiction to drugs (inc alcohol), gambling, and spending would be an even bigger one.
[deleted]
I’m gonna guess that most people on this board lead productive lives and can handle drugs and alcohol, so it’s going to cause some bias and self-selection. But there are folks out there that who have never had a drink in their lives, have one, and then immediately spiral out of control and become violent.
I’ve seen it first hand. Really nice guys, had no issues or violent tendencies, then got a hold of alcohol or drugs and it completely changed them. In the worst cases it went to the ultimate extreme and they wound up killing others.
Once you realize this, your perspective on the laissez-faire attitude changes. The reality is that some people are fundamentally incompatible with drugs and alcohol and society needs to put up boundaries to prevent collateral damage, even if we were OK with them killing themselves. I think some drugs are worse than others (For example I’ve never seen someone get violent after smoking Cannabis) but messing with your brain chemistry is not a trivial thing like the pro-legalize-everything camp wants to proclaim.
I’ve seen it first hand. Really nice guys, had no issues or violent tendencies, then got a hold of alcohol or drugs and it completely changed them. In the worst cases it went to the ultimate extreme and they wound up killing others.
Once you realize this, your perspective on the laissez-faire attitude changes. The reality is that some people are fundamentally incompatible with drugs and alcohol and society needs to put up boundaries to prevent collateral damage, even if we were OK with them killing themselves. I think some drugs are worse than others (For example I’ve never seen someone get violent after smoking Cannabis) but messing with your brain chemistry is not a trivial thing like the pro-legalize-everything camp wants to proclaim.
Same sort of thing happened with mental illness in california, probably a leading cause of homelessness problems.
Years ago, the law was changed to allow mentally-ill but benign or even non-ill people to escape the "snake pits", mental institutions that kept people incarcerated and drugged. This allowed lots of people to recover.
But then Ronald Reagan (as governor of california) cut state mental illness funding.
Now clearly mentally ill people - who needed help - were turned away unless they were clearly "a danger to themselves and others".
Many homeless people are these mentally ill people, and they can't get help (and they can't be forced in unless they are dangerous, which is usually how recovery begins)
Years ago, the law was changed to allow mentally-ill but benign or even non-ill people to escape the "snake pits", mental institutions that kept people incarcerated and drugged. This allowed lots of people to recover.
But then Ronald Reagan (as governor of california) cut state mental illness funding.
Now clearly mentally ill people - who needed help - were turned away unless they were clearly "a danger to themselves and others".
Many homeless people are these mentally ill people, and they can't get help (and they can't be forced in unless they are dangerous, which is usually how recovery begins)
This is a complete bullshit narrative, recently made popular by podcasts aimed at left leaning audiences ... because Reagan Bad is easy to sell when you're trying to run damage control for shitty governance/public policy. I have no doubt that's where you got it as well, and have parroted it many a time.
In reality, in the 1970s there was a series of landmark supreme court decisions that dealt with the civil rights of mentally ill, setting a very high bar for involuntary commitment. In California specifically, Short-Doyle act of '57 functionally defunded state run asylums, and Lanterman-Prentis-Short Act of '67 capped the length of involuntary commitment half a decade before the SCOTUS decisions.
http://n204xn214l.pbworks.com/f/Short-Doyle+Act.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanterman%E2%80%93Petris%E2%80...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addington_v._Texas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_v._Indiana
In reality, in the 1970s there was a series of landmark supreme court decisions that dealt with the civil rights of mentally ill, setting a very high bar for involuntary commitment. In California specifically, Short-Doyle act of '57 functionally defunded state run asylums, and Lanterman-Prentis-Short Act of '67 capped the length of involuntary commitment half a decade before the SCOTUS decisions.
http://n204xn214l.pbworks.com/f/Short-Doyle+Act.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanterman%E2%80%93Petris%E2%80...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addington_v._Texas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_v._Indiana
>> Lanterman-Prentis-Short Act of '67 capped the length of involuntary commitment half a decade before the SCOTUS decisions
Mostly agree with your argument and I'm a Reagan fanboy, but Reagan did put his signature on that law. It was a bi-partisan bill (Lanterman was a Republican, Petris and Short were Democrats), and it passed with veto-proof near unanimous majorities, but he put his name on it.
Mostly agree with your argument and I'm a Reagan fanboy, but Reagan did put his signature on that law. It was a bi-partisan bill (Lanterman was a Republican, Petris and Short were Democrats), and it passed with veto-proof near unanimous majorities, but he put his name on it.
Yes, this is pretty much how it played out in other countries as well. Involuntary commitment has a very nasty history associated with it - rampant abuse, suicides, forced sterilization and lobotomies, untested electroshock therapy, unethical medical experimentation, pretty much every horrible human rights abuse that you can think of, up to and including genocide. By the 70s it had become socially untenable, and by the end of the century most countries had shuttered their publicly-run mental health institutions.
What is fascinating to me is that you can plainly see this evolution of thought play out in books, music and film. The portrayal of involuntary commitment slowly shifts from something that is normalized and somewhat necessary for society at the beginning of the 20th century, to something that is unabashedly evil by the end of it.
What is fascinating to me is that you can plainly see this evolution of thought play out in books, music and film. The portrayal of involuntary commitment slowly shifts from something that is normalized and somewhat necessary for society at the beginning of the 20th century, to something that is unabashedly evil by the end of it.
And it's so obvious as to why/how in retrospect
Everyone knows sending an innocent person to prison is really bad. But if you throw "they're not well..." in front of it and you have all the green lights you need.
Everyone knows sending an innocent person to prison is really bad. But if you throw "they're not well..." in front of it and you have all the green lights you need.
https://www.kqed.org/news/11209729/did-the-emptying-of-menta...
This nice timelime adds to what this person said.
There's more that helped shape the publics perception of mental health. The movie "One flew over the cukcoos nest" seemed to create a negative perception about these facilities.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pr0.1983.53.1.1...
This study in 1983, though small, showed that 4 out of 5 people who were questioned before the film was released ,then after, changed their view of mental institutions to negative. They also showed them a TV documentary that was more factual about the mental health system but it didn't have an impact.
In my opinion this is case of the public hearing about a systemtic issue within a very nessacary institution, regardless of how frequent or serious, becoming upset, locking their view in, then the government taking action by either reducing or eliminating that institution.
This nice timelime adds to what this person said.
There's more that helped shape the publics perception of mental health. The movie "One flew over the cukcoos nest" seemed to create a negative perception about these facilities.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pr0.1983.53.1.1...
This study in 1983, though small, showed that 4 out of 5 people who were questioned before the film was released ,then after, changed their view of mental institutions to negative. They also showed them a TV documentary that was more factual about the mental health system but it didn't have an impact.
In my opinion this is case of the public hearing about a systemtic issue within a very nessacary institution, regardless of how frequent or serious, becoming upset, locking their view in, then the government taking action by either reducing or eliminating that institution.
There were a number of scandals and exposes during that time including Geraldo Rivera making a name for himself with his investigations of the Willowbrook State School in NY. The closure of such institutions was very much a national movement.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willowbrook_State_School
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willowbrook_State_School
If there were scandals at fire departments around the country would you eliminate some or all of them?
It's the same with mental institutions. There are people who should be committed for the rest of their lives and nothing, short of curing them, changes that
It's the same with mental institutions. There are people who should be committed for the rest of their lives and nothing, short of curing them, changes that
I don’t disagree that institutions should be part of the equation. I was just expanding on the earlier comment.
You're right. I read into your comment and assumed you meant that the closing were justified
There were movies before Cuckoo's Nest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titicut_Follies
Sure, but we've all heard of Cuckoo's Nest, very few have heard of the others.
Unironically good. Ken Kesey is a saint. For as bad as the current situation is, being stuck in mental institutions of that quality (which most were) is far worse.
How's it working out for these folks?
https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/couple-attacked-man-killed-...
https://www.king5.com/article/news/crime/suspect-charged-sou...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10492101/Moment-hom...
I guess, fine for them, bad for us.
They'll end up confined anyway, just a lot of collateral damage on the way.
https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/couple-attacked-man-killed-...
https://www.king5.com/article/news/crime/suspect-charged-sou...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10492101/Moment-hom...
I guess, fine for them, bad for us.
They'll end up confined anyway, just a lot of collateral damage on the way.
hmm like the effect Jaws had on sharks.
Reagan left office in 1975 and there have been several governors since then. But governors don’t set funding - state congresses do so you need to try to blame something else after about 45 years
> But then Ronald Reagan (as governor of california) cut state mental illness funding.
> Now clearly mentally ill people - who needed help - were turned away unless they were clearly "a danger to themselves and others".
It's been 50 years between then and now, so... why has no other politician increased it if the funding cut was the problem?
> Now clearly mentally ill people - who needed help - were turned away unless they were clearly "a danger to themselves and others".
It's been 50 years between then and now, so... why has no other politician increased it if the funding cut was the problem?
Because of a ballot initiative that essentially made it impossible to raise taxes.
Prop 63 did raise taxes and a budget proposal worth billions is now weaving its way through the legislature. So not true that they couldn’t raise taxes because they did
That is not the reason that spending on mental illness can not be increased.
I mean, yes it is, unless you have equivalent cuts somewhere else you're willing to make that can get through the legislature.
I know what you mean, it's just wrong. Spending on mental health is not tied to tax rates constitutionally such that politicians can't change it. They're probably glad not to change it because misinformed voters think it's still Reagan's fault.
“One flew over the cuckoo's nest” - back in the days, the state went a bit overboard with forced mental care, and there was a lot of political pressure to dismantle the system.
And how long has it been that Reagan is no longer the governor and why hasn't funding been restored?
Reagan was governor from 1967-1975. Clearly he changed this so permanently that it’s impossible for anyone to fix in 45 years.
I suppose that is an impressive feat to do something that no other governors can fix.
Or perhaps they don’t want to fix it since they can just blame Reagan and then pretend it’s unsolvable.
I suppose that is an impressive feat to do something that no other governors can fix.
Or perhaps they don’t want to fix it since they can just blame Reagan and then pretend it’s unsolvable.
CA also in that time passed a ballot initiative that made it essentially impossible to raise taxes. It's also the reason college got so expensive.
College became unreasonably expensive after student loan amounts were increased by the federal government and co-singers were eliminated. It was decided that everyone should have access to higher education and it's been a mess since then.
they don't need to raise taxes -- California has run huge budget surpluses
No the California budget is famously boom and bust (currently running large deficits) because it relies on income taxes instead of property taxes, the former of which vary a lot with economic conditions while the latter don’t.
They should start taxing wealth, as many of the wealthiest people have a tiny income in proportion to their wealth.
Wealth taxes* are economically inefficient, impossible to administer, and have little popular support. Consider this: a land value tax is the best (and only good) type of wealth tax, and the people of California hated it so much they voted it out on the ballot!
* Outside of LVT.
* Outside of LVT.
This is true, however it was still a property tax (appreciation of course is due to land but the disincentive on improvements is still there), it was poorly administered (long periods between assessments) and it was during the extreme inflation of the 70's.
This is definitely an issue with levying LVT at fairly low rates. Granted, at the time it was relatively high but it wasn't high enough. The 'ideal' LVT would bring down the price of land -considerably-, close to $0. The fact that land still has a large selling price means it is still largely financed with loans, and sensitive to interest rate adjustments.
This is definitely an issue with levying LVT at fairly low rates. Granted, at the time it was relatively high but it wasn't high enough. The 'ideal' LVT would bring down the price of land -considerably-, close to $0. The fact that land still has a large selling price means it is still largely financed with loans, and sensitive to interest rate adjustments.
Only very recently. We're talking about over the past half-century
I'm afraid that's not how bureaucracy works.
Then maybe it’s time to replace it with something that works.
So essentially the homeless and mentally ill in the U.S are incentivized to be dangerous, explains a lot
It was so even at the beginning of last century, if you believe O.Henry.
He has a short novel about man who tries to get arrested and convicted to be in jail for winter. He attempted to rob a person, broke the window glass and finally got his arrest for loitering, if I remember correctly.
He has a short novel about man who tries to get arrested and convicted to be in jail for winter. He attempted to rob a person, broke the window glass and finally got his arrest for loitering, if I remember correctly.
But then the question is why is there more mentally ill people than in other countries. I know that many homeless people come there from other states because of the easy winters, but then i would assume something similar in europe as well. Spain has many homeless people as well, but there is fewer of them.
There are the same number of mentally unwell people. Mental illness typically follows normal distributions sans PTSD in war torn countries. The difference is the approach. Most European countries use a carrot and stick approach. There are no laws guaranteeing the homeless the right to live on the sidewalk, as there is in California. They can be fined or arrested here in Denmark for doing that. Ditto for begging. So they don’t congregate in large numbers in cities and there are no tents. Further, drug possession and distribution is prosecuted. The penalties are scary enough for the hard drugs to discourage broad use.
That’s the stick. The carrot is a generous welfare system which isn’t afraid of invasive intervention. Those deemed a danger to others or themselves can be detained for treatment. Involuntary commitment has virtually disappeared in many US states. Mental health treatment is also free, so there isn’t a barrier to access (though lately it has become harder to access treatment which isn’t considered acute).
That’s the stick. The carrot is a generous welfare system which isn’t afraid of invasive intervention. Those deemed a danger to others or themselves can be detained for treatment. Involuntary commitment has virtually disappeared in many US states. Mental health treatment is also free, so there isn’t a barrier to access (though lately it has become harder to access treatment which isn’t considered acute).
Eh, the ban on begging in Denmark and other Scandinavian countries is so they can throw out the professional beggars. Often called anti-Roma laws since they're one of the main perpetrators of this type of organized begging.
That’s clearly part of the problem in both Denmark and California. However it seems to have solved almost all visible homelessness, including homelessness related to mental health.
I have no idea about the history of California's mental-illness funding, so I have no idea if your comment is accurate and Reagan is actually the bad guy (although I suspect it's more complicated).
However, California has run massive surpluses lately: The average ending balance from 2006 through the 2019-20 fiscal year was a surplus of about $2.8 billion; for 2020 through 2022-23 it was more than $37.5 billion.
So why doesn't Newsom, or his predecessors, re-establish the funding? Clearly it isn't a priority to them either.
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/06/13/californias-b...
However, California has run massive surpluses lately: The average ending balance from 2006 through the 2019-20 fiscal year was a surplus of about $2.8 billion; for 2020 through 2022-23 it was more than $37.5 billion.
So why doesn't Newsom, or his predecessors, re-establish the funding? Clearly it isn't a priority to them either.
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/06/13/californias-b...
I would not want my state to establish funding because then it would become other states’ dumping grounds.
California is in a weird place due to the weather, which almost guarantees the self dumping of people living outdoors. I'd be curious to see how this factors into these equations. Much of Europe gets pretty cold in winter.
Weird in what way? There's a dozen with higher average minimum temperatures, several with not signifiantly more rain (or less, Texas).
Iirc California has the most "nice" days on average of any state. "Nice" = between around 60°-80°F and Sunny. If you want to spend the whole year outdoors California is the best state to do it in.
Wet bulb temperatures and dew point are what determine how comfortable it is outdoors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100th_meridian_west
> In the United States, this meridian roughly marks the boundary between the semi-arid climate in the west and the humid continental and humid subtropical climates in the east and is used as shorthand to refer to that arid-humid boundary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100th_meridian_west
> In the United States, this meridian roughly marks the boundary between the semi-arid climate in the west and the humid continental and humid subtropical climates in the east and is used as shorthand to refer to that arid-humid boundary.
The average you’re looking for can hide a lot of distributions. Texas gets both extremely hot and cold in a way California does not.
Indeed. They slashed funding to successful parts of the strategy and now claim the strategy failed. A convenient narrative for politicians, but hardly truth.
Portuguese politicians are doing the same with the public healthcare system there (deliberately underfunding it to be able to claim that it "failed").
They want to follow the "good" example of the US, like most other EU member states are now doing.
They want to follow the "good" example of the US, like most other EU member states are now doing.
Healthcare will always be underfunded though. It costs too much to offer it to the extent we would like to and with the changing demographics and advancements in technology (more treatments that cost more $$$) it's going to only cost more.
For example, the UK's public healthcare funding has increased from below 3% of GDP to over 7% from the 1950s until 2018/2019 (so just before covid).[0] And yet the perception is that the NHS is always underfunded.
The UK's budget in 2018-19 was £842 billion and almost £160 billion went to essentially the NHS. I think that we will eventually have to settle into a reality of always underfunded public healthcare and it's going to get worse, because these problems plague essentially all European countries (and many others in the world).
[0] https://www.health.org.uk/sites/default/files/styles/full_wi...
For example, the UK's public healthcare funding has increased from below 3% of GDP to over 7% from the 1950s until 2018/2019 (so just before covid).[0] And yet the perception is that the NHS is always underfunded.
The UK's budget in 2018-19 was £842 billion and almost £160 billion went to essentially the NHS. I think that we will eventually have to settle into a reality of always underfunded public healthcare and it's going to get worse, because these problems plague essentially all European countries (and many others in the world).
[0] https://www.health.org.uk/sites/default/files/styles/full_wi...
most likely demographics willplay a huge role in this when we start having increased elder care.
While public healthcare is still quite ok in Portugal, anyone that actually wants to be treated in time, and not be stuck in waiting lists actually goes to a private doctor, or clinic.
Hence why having private insurance as part of the job benefits is widely appreciated, unless one is a public employee with nice health packages like ADSE.
I am approaching 50 now, and seldom ever had a family doctor for example.
However in Germany it is much worse, where public healthcare is almost managed as the private one, and where many doctor offices differ their treatments depending on which kind of insurance one has, public vs private. You get different waiting rooms, different treatment proposals, different appointment flexibility,...
Hence why having private insurance as part of the job benefits is widely appreciated, unless one is a public employee with nice health packages like ADSE.
I am approaching 50 now, and seldom ever had a family doctor for example.
However in Germany it is much worse, where public healthcare is almost managed as the private one, and where many doctor offices differ their treatments depending on which kind of insurance one has, public vs private. You get different waiting rooms, different treatment proposals, different appointment flexibility,...
People with private insurance skip the line. You're literally condemning a poor person to suffer more. Congratulations.
Doctors triage based on medical needs not your social status or financial wealth in the Netherlands. It's one of those things that ethically sets this country above others and I hope it never changes.
Doctors triage based on medical needs not your social status or financial wealth in the Netherlands. It's one of those things that ethically sets this country above others and I hope it never changes.
[deleted]
A lot of EU member states have high taxes too, there is not that much wiggle room to increase taxes to pay for ballooning health care costs. It is not surprising that they are trying to keep costs under control or privatize.
> They slashed funding to successful parts of the strategy and now claim the strategy failed.
Neoliberalism in a nutshell.
Neoliberalism in a nutshell.
It's a bit like the matrix, wherever something good and helpful starts to develop anywhere, an agent in a green suit appears to put a stop to it.
[deleted]
Crabs in a bucket?
I don't think so. The crabs are peers who pull each other down. This is more like the industrial seafood conglomerate that dragnetted the seabed, put you in the bucket, and now wants to push the lid down tighter.
Delegating to nonprofits is not the same as privatizing. Your argument creates a false dichotomy in which the only two possible actors are the state or private enterprises, but that’s not the case, even for the simple reasons that nonprofits are not the same as for-profit entities.
Common Pool Resources are a prime example of a paradigm that escapes this dichotomy.
Common Pool Resources are a prime example of a paradigm that escapes this dichotomy.
I don’t know how Portuguese law works but in the United States non-profits have private owners and are private corporations. The contrast they have is with “for-profit” corporations, not “private” corporations. Given the primary purpose of being designated a “non-profit” is a tax advantage for the corporation, I’m willing to bet Portuguese corporations likely don’t differ in this manner.
Privatize is an acceptable verbiage for a government or government-owned entity which has outsourced to a private corporation.
Privatize is an acceptable verbiage for a government or government-owned entity which has outsourced to a private corporation.
>Privatize is an acceptable verbiage for a government or government-owned entity which has outsourced to a private corporation.
Given how the term is conventionally used, 'privatize' implies that for-profit enterprise has taken over, and even pedantically - looking at what the root word of the term technically means instead of how the term is conventionally used - it implies for-profit enteprise, given private ownership, in the strictest sense of the term, means no restrictions on how the private actor who owns the property may use that property, including no restrictions on distributing profits to shareholders.
Given how the term is conventionally used, 'privatize' implies that for-profit enterprise has taken over, and even pedantically - looking at what the root word of the term technically means instead of how the term is conventionally used - it implies for-profit enteprise, given private ownership, in the strictest sense of the term, means no restrictions on how the private actor who owns the property may use that property, including no restrictions on distributing profits to shareholders.
> Given how the term is conventionally used, 'privatize' implies that for-profit enterprise has taken over, and even pedantically
Granted this would be an uncommon use of the verbiage given the situation, that does not mean it is incorrect usage. You are correct that typically privatization occurs when a government service is executed by or government infrastructure is transferred to a private for-profit corporation, it is not necessarily the case that it has to be a for-profit corporation for privatization to occur.
Non-profits can still be and are privately owned, what’s different about them is the accounting rules they are subject to and their status per statute. In exchange for their tax advantaged status, they give up their ability to return a profit to the owners, but it still has owners.
Also just a side note, I would be interested to hear if anyone wants to chime in if any of this is fundamentally different under Portuguese law.
Granted this would be an uncommon use of the verbiage given the situation, that does not mean it is incorrect usage. You are correct that typically privatization occurs when a government service is executed by or government infrastructure is transferred to a private for-profit corporation, it is not necessarily the case that it has to be a for-profit corporation for privatization to occur.
Non-profits can still be and are privately owned, what’s different about them is the accounting rules they are subject to and their status per statute. In exchange for their tax advantaged status, they give up their ability to return a profit to the owners, but it still has owners.
Also just a side note, I would be interested to hear if anyone wants to chime in if any of this is fundamentally different under Portuguese law.
A private non-profit is still not directly accountable in the way a public agency is, which is the important part.
I was just disputing the claim that 'privatization' connotes using non-government contractors, as opposed to specifically for-profit enterprise.
Whether non-profit private entities have the same properties that - in the case of for-profit enterprise - motivate critics of privatization to oppose government reliance on them, is orthogonal to that point. But on the subject, that might be true, but my take is that the important part to most critics of privatization is the entities are motivated by profit.
Whether non-profit private entities have the same properties that - in the case of for-profit enterprise - motivate critics of privatization to oppose government reliance on them, is orthogonal to that point. But on the subject, that might be true, but my take is that the important part to most critics of privatization is the entities are motivated by profit.
In most situations, a non-profit entity cannot be owned by a corporation in such a way that would give it controlling interest. If you are planning on filing for tax exemption, this is absolutely the case. A non-profit, however, can own (partially or completely) a for-profit corporation and have controlling interests.
> In most situations, a non-profit entity cannot be owned by a corporation in such a way that would give it controlling interest.
I think you mean to say, "a non-profit entity cannot be owned by a for-profit entity in such a way that would give it controlling interest"
A corporation can be non-profit (aka not-for-profit), and there is no problem with non-profit corporation A owning non-profit corporation B. Non-profit vs for-profit is orthogonal to corporate vs other (e.g. trust) legal structure.
I think you mean to say, "a non-profit entity cannot be owned by a for-profit entity in such a way that would give it controlling interest"
A corporation can be non-profit (aka not-for-profit), and there is no problem with non-profit corporation A owning non-profit corporation B. Non-profit vs for-profit is orthogonal to corporate vs other (e.g. trust) legal structure.
Yeah, I botched the specifics on that. My fault for not rereading what I wrote prior to posting.
Sure, but also that doesn’t contradict the nature of a non-profits as corporations with a private ownership structure. Non-profit is the colloquialism for a corporation with a certain status per a statute that grants the corporation some tax exemptions in exchange for their ability to return a profit. The corporation receives a benefit for this status and is subject to stricter accounting rules, but is still a private corporation in and of itself.
> Non-profit is the colloquialism for a corporation with a certain status per a statute that grants the corporation some tax exemptions in exchange for their ability to return a profit
Not all non-profits are corporations–many non-profits are trusts, and legally speaking trusts are not corporations (although it is not uncommon for them to own corporations, or to have corporations as their trustees–or even beneficiaries). Many small non-profits are unincorporated associations. Nonprofit versus for-profit status is an orthogonal dimension from corporate vs non-corporate legal structure.
Also, "non-profit" isn't a "colloquialism", it is an official legal term in several jurisdictions: for example, 37 US states have (at least partly) adopted the American Bar Association's "Model Nonprofit Corporation Act" [0]. And it isn't just an official legal term in the US, see section 48 of the Australian state of Victoria's Payroll Tax Act 2007, entitled "Non-profit organisations" [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Nonprofit_Corporation_Ac...
[1] https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/vic/consol_a...
Not all non-profits are corporations–many non-profits are trusts, and legally speaking trusts are not corporations (although it is not uncommon for them to own corporations, or to have corporations as their trustees–or even beneficiaries). Many small non-profits are unincorporated associations. Nonprofit versus for-profit status is an orthogonal dimension from corporate vs non-corporate legal structure.
Also, "non-profit" isn't a "colloquialism", it is an official legal term in several jurisdictions: for example, 37 US states have (at least partly) adopted the American Bar Association's "Model Nonprofit Corporation Act" [0]. And it isn't just an official legal term in the US, see section 48 of the Australian state of Victoria's Payroll Tax Act 2007, entitled "Non-profit organisations" [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Nonprofit_Corporation_Ac...
[1] https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/vic/consol_a...
[deleted]
In Portugal there are basically no non-profits, it's code for Catholic Church-adjacent institutions.
Hmm? A nonprofit is still a privately controlled entity. Many nonprofits and for-profits are given government grants and subsidies, this does not exclude them from being classified as private entities.
So this still qualifies as privatization, no?
If your contention is more rooted in the amount of direction that the government gives the private entity it is "delegating" to, then maybe that's something to explore?
That said, I would still say that using contractors like Blackwater or Lockheed Martin is "privatizing" various aspects of the military industrial complex, even if their actions are to greater or lesser degrees guided by government mandate.
So this still qualifies as privatization, no?
If your contention is more rooted in the amount of direction that the government gives the private entity it is "delegating" to, then maybe that's something to explore?
That said, I would still say that using contractors like Blackwater or Lockheed Martin is "privatizing" various aspects of the military industrial complex, even if their actions are to greater or lesser degrees guided by government mandate.
I think what he's pointing out is that the traditional meaning of "privatization" is linked to going to a for-profit organization rather than a non-profit-government one.
In this sense, the fact that this was delegated to non-profit organizations, which have the same objectives as the state (provide help, rather than profit) makes some difference.
So the issue here seem more the funding cuts rather than who manages them.
In this sense, the fact that this was delegated to non-profit organizations, which have the same objectives as the state (provide help, rather than profit) makes some difference.
So the issue here seem more the funding cuts rather than who manages them.
Smaller, disjointed entities have, by definition, higher overheads: if before you had 1 payroll accountant for 100 state employees, then you split duties over 5 nonprofits, now you have 5 payroll accountants.
The counter-argument is that the 5 orgs can be somewhat more efficient than the one monolith, but the key is the conditional: they can, but there is no guarantee, whereas the 4 extra overheads are guaranteed. That's one of the many systemic flaws of privatized/delegated systems.
The counter-argument is that the 5 orgs can be somewhat more efficient than the one monolith, but the key is the conditional: they can, but there is no guarantee, whereas the 4 extra overheads are guaranteed. That's one of the many systemic flaws of privatized/delegated systems.
It's true that larger organizations can be more efficient in theory. But it's largely just that: theory.
Because, as organizations scale up and enough time passes, the usual outcome is a gigantic web of inscrutable policies and procedures. And lots of people to write and enforce them. Getting something done that in a small organization can trivially be handled by the person originally seeing the need for it, will in a large organization often involve five other people in a messy chain of emails. Or it can't be done at all, unless one is willing and able to play politics to get it done.
Example: I work at a school/university with some 30 thousand students, that is the merger product of many smaller schools, each targeting different professions. These mergers were done for efficiency reasons. I'd estimate the teacher/support head count overhead for these originals schools to be somewhere between 30 and 50%. Currently, we're well over 100% overhead. So we employ more non-teachers than we employ teachers. (And on top of that, teachers handle a lot of non-teaching-related work, of course.) Somehow, the merger is seen as a success.
Small organizations are awesome. It's a shame that government rules and regulations often make them unsustainable.
/rant
Because, as organizations scale up and enough time passes, the usual outcome is a gigantic web of inscrutable policies and procedures. And lots of people to write and enforce them. Getting something done that in a small organization can trivially be handled by the person originally seeing the need for it, will in a large organization often involve five other people in a messy chain of emails. Or it can't be done at all, unless one is willing and able to play politics to get it done.
Example: I work at a school/university with some 30 thousand students, that is the merger product of many smaller schools, each targeting different professions. These mergers were done for efficiency reasons. I'd estimate the teacher/support head count overhead for these originals schools to be somewhere between 30 and 50%. Currently, we're well over 100% overhead. So we employ more non-teachers than we employ teachers. (And on top of that, teachers handle a lot of non-teaching-related work, of course.) Somehow, the merger is seen as a success.
Small organizations are awesome. It's a shame that government rules and regulations often make them unsustainable.
/rant
Non-profits are private.
Well, the american propaganda for ineffective War on Drugs needs to continue.
Yup, fictitious enemies are always needed to keep the machine running. Terrorists, gays, foreigners, trans people, drugs.
So long as people think that these are the problems in society (and not, say, billionaires) the government can keep creating ineffective policies to "fix" these problems (even though they haven't for god knows how many hundreds of years) and people lap it up.
So long as people think that these are the problems in society (and not, say, billionaires) the government can keep creating ineffective policies to "fix" these problems (even though they haven't for god knows how many hundreds of years) and people lap it up.
You should have added billionaires to your list then.
Whoever approved the cut in funding by 80% needs to be in prison for the harm they have caused.
That would probably be the IMF, the ECB and the European Commission, i.e. the Troika.
Yep, this is fear mongering with a clear agenda.
Good point.
Does anyone know how Norway has handled drugs and homelessness?
The reason I ask is that we should probably compare funding and outcomes between Portugal and Norway, no?
Two things are needed to change human behavior:
1. A strong deterrent
2. An equally strong support system (ie. Healthcare, housing, food, basic income)
You can’t do both of these without a strong financial investment unless…
You’re Singapore.
Does anyone know how Norway has handled drugs and homelessness?
The reason I ask is that we should probably compare funding and outcomes between Portugal and Norway, no?
Two things are needed to change human behavior:
1. A strong deterrent
2. An equally strong support system (ie. Healthcare, housing, food, basic income)
You can’t do both of these without a strong financial investment unless…
You’re Singapore.
You can't compare Portugal and Norway directly as you can survive as homeless in Portugal during winter time (10°C, 50°F) but Norway is so far north that you will likely die if you don't have insulated shelter during winter.
If the government in Norway don't provide shelter, it is the same as directly saying "we don't mind these people die".
If the government in Norway don't provide shelter, it is the same as directly saying "we don't mind these people die".
You can't be truly homeless and survive in Norway. The winters are far too cold. You will die.
and
> nongovernmental organizations that have largely taken over responding to the people with addiction seem less concerned with treatment than affirming that lifetime drug use should be seen as a human right.
You mean like a west-coast American city?
> nongovernmental organizations that have largely taken over responding to the people with addiction seem less concerned with treatment than affirming that lifetime drug use should be seen as a human right.
You mean like a west-coast American city?
That sounds like SF's outsourcing to nonprofits.
Why should the state spend any money here at all?
If you want the freedom from society to use drugs, then you shouldn't rely on society for that.
If you want the freedom from society to use drugs, then you shouldn't rely on society for that.
You seem to be acting as though addiction and the issues which give rise to it are somehow not part of society, and therefore should be discarded. Even ignoring why that's wrong, ignoring why letting people slip through the cracks still has an impact on your conception of society...
...how about basic human empathy?
...how about basic human empathy?
> ...how about basic human empathy?
How about empathy from your side? I have lost a friend due to addiction despite "care".
The best solution is not being exposed to some classes of drugs at all and fixing other issues that cause this.
How about empathy from your side? I have lost a friend due to addiction despite "care".
The best solution is not being exposed to some classes of drugs at all and fixing other issues that cause this.
> How about empathy from your side? I have lost a friend due to addiction despite "care". The best solution is not being exposed to some classes of drugs at all.
Maybe that's true, but the genie isn't going back into the bottle as like 50 years of the 'war on drugs' has so clearly demonstrated.
The war on drugs started 18 June 1971 with Richard Nixon's declaration that drug abuse is “public enemy number one.” At this point, drugs seem more available than ever. I strongly suspect we would minimize harm in the reality in which we live (rather than the pretend reality where drugs don't exist) by acknowledging that.
Maybe that's true, but the genie isn't going back into the bottle as like 50 years of the 'war on drugs' has so clearly demonstrated.
The war on drugs started 18 June 1971 with Richard Nixon's declaration that drug abuse is “public enemy number one.” At this point, drugs seem more available than ever. I strongly suspect we would minimize harm in the reality in which we live (rather than the pretend reality where drugs don't exist) by acknowledging that.
Think of the War on Drugs like a baked good. Just because we have failed attempting it doesn't mean we go around declaring we'll never try again! It just means we try harder.
Joking aside, look at Singapore for a success case.
Joking aside, look at Singapore for a success case.
Well, the whole world did it, and the whole world failed, for fifty years. Just as it failed with alcohol, a much more dangerous drug than most. [0]
I'm not sure how Singapore fares, but Japan is also known for its hard-line drug policy. This just pushes the harm underground. Just because you don't see it, and society turns a blind eye to it, doesn't mean it's not there. tl;dr: the hardline policy towards drug use in Japan created a massive underground meth problem. [1]
[edit] It doesn't take much research to find out something quite similar is happening in Singapore, too.
> “People think drugs are very hard to get in Singapore, but actually before the pandemic they were everywhere, and even now there are people selling them.” [2]
Hardline policies don't reduce the harm. They just stop people from asking for help.
[0] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/25/what-is-...
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/xg8q7k/how-stigma-created-ja...
[2] https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/young-an...
I'm not sure how Singapore fares, but Japan is also known for its hard-line drug policy. This just pushes the harm underground. Just because you don't see it, and society turns a blind eye to it, doesn't mean it's not there. tl;dr: the hardline policy towards drug use in Japan created a massive underground meth problem. [1]
[edit] It doesn't take much research to find out something quite similar is happening in Singapore, too.
> “People think drugs are very hard to get in Singapore, but actually before the pandemic they were everywhere, and even now there are people selling them.” [2]
Hardline policies don't reduce the harm. They just stop people from asking for help.
[0] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/25/what-is-...
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/xg8q7k/how-stigma-created-ja...
[2] https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/young-an...
> alcohol, a much more dangerous drug than most
The overall impact of alcohol on society is not because it is “much more dangerous than most”, but because it is consumed (and abused) by orders of magnitude more people than almost every other drug.
The overall impact of alcohol on society is not because it is “much more dangerous than most”, but because it is consumed (and abused) by orders of magnitude more people than almost every other drug.
That's partly the case, but part of the higher ranking of other drugs is due to lack of safe access. There's no perfect model, but I would argue alcohol is a drug like any other - with risk of dependence, with health consequences, and with mortality risk. So my question to the parent is: why would we separate alcohol? Would parent be in favor of returning to prohibition?
I think it's fair to say that alcohol does far more harm to the user than psychedelics.
I think it's fair to say that alcohol does far more harm to the user than psychedelics.
> I think it's fair to say that alcohol does far more harm to the user than psychedelics
I agree but also think that’s a very different statement from “alcohol is a much more dangerous drug than most”
I agree but also think that’s a very different statement from “alcohol is a much more dangerous drug than most”
Back then it was just a euphemism for people of a color.
> The best solution is not being exposed to some classes of drugs at all and fixing other issues that cause this.
Yes we should have a “War on Drugs”? What could possibly go wrong?
Yes we should have a “War on Drugs”? What could possibly go wrong?
Maybe look at Singapore and other places where it went right?
And Singapore is mostly homogenous….
If Singapore is homogeneous, the USA is too. Descendants of Chinese (majority), followed by Malay, and Indian make up most of the citizens. Couple that with the high number of expats from all over the world.
What? The country has four official languages. It is arguably close to the US level of diversity, especially when you consider the implications of how multiracial children are classified and the fact that 70 something percent of the country is put into a vague “Chinese” bucket.
> I have lost a friend due to addiction
So have I. The drug was alcohol. Adults make choices and live with the consequences. shrug
So have I. The drug was alcohol. Adults make choices and live with the consequences. shrug
That is ok, but what is not okay is making rest of society support those consequences.
Think of it abstractly like refusing vaccination. You messing up your life has outbound consequences for others (even if no money is spent on you).
Think of it abstractly like refusing vaccination. You messing up your life has outbound consequences for others (even if no money is spent on you).
EA-3167(2)
The argument for why the government should spend money is because not spending it would be more expensive or yield worse outcomes.
People don’t live isolated from each other. Drug consumption has knock on effect on the rest of the population: traffic props up organised crime, addicts can be violent. Plus there is a direct correlation between social issues and the risk of becoming an addict. All of this is squarely in the remit of the state.
Portugal was previously (1990s) spending money on police, courts, and jails. They had shifted the resources, and it had seemed to be successful until something changed in the past few years.
Why do the people need to fund the garbage habit of less than 1/8 of their citizens? You choose to do drugs, you’re on your own.
Because the effects on society extend well beyond that 1/8th. And simply hitting and imprisoning people hasn’t worked and never works. Support, compassion, treatment work to reduce the negative externalities.
Now apply what you said to the tax carve outs for billionaires and oil companies.
It's so annoying to read over and over this BS about the success of Portugal's old policies on drugs. It is blatantly false.
I grew up in a top drug spot in Portugal. Things were bad, really bad. I would say that worse was impossible, every extended family had drug problems. After the early 90's peak, slowly it got better, addicts' younger brothers and neighbors had real examples. Doing drugs was not "cool" anymore. That generation was eradicated from my home town (many died by counterfeit drugs or overdose, the rest after jail and detoxs eventually moved somewhere else to start over).
Politicians, as always, take positive results as their own but their influence here was negligible. The only positive policy was free syringe exchange. It certainly had a positive impact on AIDS control. Now drugs are coming back (not nearly as bad as once was). Younger generations didn't witness the human degradation as my generation did. It's a cycle.
I grew up in a top drug spot in Portugal. Things were bad, really bad. I would say that worse was impossible, every extended family had drug problems. After the early 90's peak, slowly it got better, addicts' younger brothers and neighbors had real examples. Doing drugs was not "cool" anymore. That generation was eradicated from my home town (many died by counterfeit drugs or overdose, the rest after jail and detoxs eventually moved somewhere else to start over).
Politicians, as always, take positive results as their own but their influence here was negligible. The only positive policy was free syringe exchange. It certainly had a positive impact on AIDS control. Now drugs are coming back (not nearly as bad as once was). Younger generations didn't witness the human degradation as my generation did. It's a cycle.
What you're talking about sounds just like the eb and flow of drug markets everywhere. So the policy did nothing either way? Far fewer people were incarcerated? That seems like a net positive and smashing success to me. Portugals policies were a success. It's blatantly true.
Despite the law, hardly ever (if ever), anyone was incarcerated because of consuming drugs. Addicts always were jailed because of petty crime. Police couldn't manage to enforce it so government just ditched it.
Like I said before, politicians always take positive results as their own but their influence here was negligible. I was there living next door, the cycle just passed. Now it's coming back and the policies are exactly the same but if you prefer to romanticize it, go ahead.
Like I said before, politicians always take positive results as their own but their influence here was negligible. I was there living next door, the cycle just passed. Now it's coming back and the policies are exactly the same but if you prefer to romanticize it, go ahead.
I'm not romanticizing anything, I'm just sick of the never ending cycle of locking people in cages. I've been to other countries with severe property crimes issues, and they can be awful at times to lose things, but people mostly doing okay. (btw, this is backed by violent crime stats)
So you have some people not having a thing, and compare it to torturing millions (hundreds of thousands?) of innocent people.
So you have some people not having a thing, and compare it to torturing millions (hundreds of thousands?) of innocent people.
> I'm just sick of the never ending cycle of locking people in cages.
So do I. That's why I prefer to lock 1% instead of locking the other 99%.
So do I. That's why I prefer to lock 1% instead of locking the other 99%.
Not a good idea to keep locking up the sick, poor, and children. Your acceptance, and here it seems like a celebration of locking people in cages for non-violent crimes is sick.
Portuguese courts hardly ever lock somebody with a sentence lower than 5 years. This implies an high degree of violence, not stealing a bike.
My life experience took me here. Yours took you somewhere else. We just have different worldviews that will never match.
My life experience took me here. Yours took you somewhere else. We just have different worldviews that will never match.
[deleted]
Anyone who thinks funding rehab centers and getting homeless drug addicts into free apartment units are people who have never been around homeless drug addicts. There may be some wonderful examples of this working but 99.8% of the people you will encounter on your commute are not about to participate in rehab, and if you ask them they will give you a history of apartments and homes they've been asked to leave due to destroying them. Even if you used the same enforcement to take other peoples money in taxes for funding in order to force them into homes and rehab centers you will find that the overlap (at least in the US) with severe mental illnesses is huge AND you cannot legally force these people into places to address it. The reality of drugs and homelessness in America is so bad that listening to people talk about government ran programs and some funding figures are naive or disingenuous - all of the state programs are closer to end of life hospice work than a solution.
The homeless drug addicts covers a huge range of people. Many actually claw their way back into normal society. No solution is going to fix everyone but you can minimize the externalities from homelessness.
It’s simply an optimization problem. Prison is horrendously expensive, and people on the street have real externalities for everyone in the area.
It’s simply an optimization problem. Prison is horrendously expensive, and people on the street have real externalities for everyone in the area.
I was with you until “simply”. Nothing about this problem is simple.
Being an optimization problem doesn’t mean it’s simple, just that there are tradeoffs.
If anything the complexity is why it’s an optimization problem.
If anything the complexity is why it’s an optimization problem.
It’s simply complex.
What if we make it not simple, but "simply" exclude just one solution - lifetime punishment (prison + 40,000 collateral consequences, life imprisonment, or a death penalty) - directed against the persons with the problem, from the mix, and leave everything else as wide open as ever for consideration?
What does commenting 3 asterisks mean? I’ve been noticing this more and more recently
I didn't see the original three asterisks, so I'm not sure. In general writing, three asterisks is used as a visual break between two sections in a document.
I assume the other commenter is referring to using "(((@name)))" on Twitter, and similar patterns, which is some social media thing I don't understand. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses.
I assume the other commenter is referring to using "(((@name)))" on Twitter, and similar patterns, which is some social media thing I don't understand. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses.
It’s an alt-right dog whistle.
Yeah I've seen the destruction that comes from removing legal/social consequences for drug abuse. Neglected and abandoned children is by far the most tragic. The community of non-addicts bears the responsibility for cleaning up the destruction, the addicts themselves cannot. That's the nature of addiction. To be clear I'm talking about the hard drugs; opiates, cocaine, meth.
I believe addiction is a disease, but treatment is elusive. Some have no desire to stop. There are also frequently other mental or emotional problems. Just feeding addiction's most obvious symptom (by continual drug use) does nothing - see this article.
I doubt whether there will ever be a neat and tidy "solution". Eventually the healthy part of society will have enough and some action will be taken, like prohibition or war on drugs, etc. Then it will wax the other way again.
I believe addiction is a disease, but treatment is elusive. Some have no desire to stop. There are also frequently other mental or emotional problems. Just feeding addiction's most obvious symptom (by continual drug use) does nothing - see this article.
I doubt whether there will ever be a neat and tidy "solution". Eventually the healthy part of society will have enough and some action will be taken, like prohibition or war on drugs, etc. Then it will wax the other way again.
Imagine you are suffering day in and day out in crushing poverty, that you see nothing but crime and hopelessness all around you, that your friends and family have been killed or are rotting away in jail, that you are looked down upon, spat upon, and despised, that you see no hope of bettering or escaping your situation.
Then imagine you've taken something that infinitely transforms your world and makes you feel amazing to such a degree that's absolutely unimaginable to someone who hasn't tried some of these substances ("better than sex" is an extreme understatement). All your pain is gone, all your misery forgotten, amazing vistas open before you, all is good.
After that brief stay in paradise, you come crashing down and back in to your miserable life. Everything is as before, your passion is back, only you now know it's possible for you to get back to that exalted state, to escape that prison of a life you've been living in, even if for a moment.
Is it evidence of a disease for someone who's gone through this to desperately want to experience that escape again? To be free and feel great?
Is the cause of such a desire -- the misery, the poverty, the hopelessness, the fantastic way these substances make you feel and the escape they offer -- can all that be justly summed up in the word "disease", or is there something else going on?
Then imagine you've taken something that infinitely transforms your world and makes you feel amazing to such a degree that's absolutely unimaginable to someone who hasn't tried some of these substances ("better than sex" is an extreme understatement). All your pain is gone, all your misery forgotten, amazing vistas open before you, all is good.
After that brief stay in paradise, you come crashing down and back in to your miserable life. Everything is as before, your passion is back, only you now know it's possible for you to get back to that exalted state, to escape that prison of a life you've been living in, even if for a moment.
Is it evidence of a disease for someone who's gone through this to desperately want to experience that escape again? To be free and feel great?
Is the cause of such a desire -- the misery, the poverty, the hopelessness, the fantastic way these substances make you feel and the escape they offer -- can all that be justly summed up in the word "disease", or is there something else going on?
This is a fantasy, a romance. It very little resembles the reality I've seen.
Many addicts I've known and seen come from stable environments and it isbecause of their incessant drug use that they end up poor, homeless and degraded.
Of course some addicts definitely start in "crushing poverty" but many do not. It affects people from every background, every social strata.
If your hypothesis were correct than the housing and support programs would work. They don't.
Many addicts I've known and seen come from stable environments and it isbecause of their incessant drug use that they end up poor, homeless and degraded.
Of course some addicts definitely start in "crushing poverty" but many do not. It affects people from every background, every social strata.
If your hypothesis were correct than the housing and support programs would work. They don't.
I come from a developing country, and I agree. very often, the people consuming drugs come from a stable socioeconomic background from middle to upper class. When my family and I lived in a poor neighborhood, we didn’t notice anyone with an addiction problem, Perhaps one well-known case, at most. Once we started to move into wealthier, neighborhoods, however, it became far more visible.
> I believe addiction is a disease, but treatment is elusive.
Treatment is elusive because it isn't possible in the traditional sense.
The phenomenon is the exploitation of two things: the vulnerability of humans to chemicals, and the inability of communities to protect their free spaces from the outcomes of humans abusing chemicals.
Free spaces are a sacrifice zone. Legalisation of addictive drugs, at scale, will destroy what we value as community.
Treatment is elusive because it isn't possible in the traditional sense.
The phenomenon is the exploitation of two things: the vulnerability of humans to chemicals, and the inability of communities to protect their free spaces from the outcomes of humans abusing chemicals.
Free spaces are a sacrifice zone. Legalisation of addictive drugs, at scale, will destroy what we value as community.
What if we make treatment basically consist of some sort of genetic or other biotechnological intervention that essentially tweaks the vulnerability? Can't be worse than a jail + thousands of never-terminating under any circumstance collateral penalties.
Someone elsewhere in this HN discussion compared the support of people destroying themselves with drugs to being like providing hospice (palliative) care.
If we legalised all drugs, we would need to protect our communities, not abandon our communities to people destroying themselves.
If we legalised all drugs, we would need to protect our communities, not abandon our communities to people destroying themselves.
The trick is to not assume that "feeding" it will solve it but to create alternative actions, doing research to do so while enduring the destruction patiently for as long as that takes.
The other day I read that in a Finish housing first programs they had a success rate of 4/5 and it was much less expensive than in the past. Not sure of the kpi’s, so grain of salt, but sounds promising
Adding, dealing with homelessness reduces healthcare costs [1], so by all means, a net positive to society.
[1] https://nlihc.org/resource/study-finds-affordable-housing-re...
[1] https://nlihc.org/resource/study-finds-affordable-housing-re...
What about not freezing to death? That sounds like a Key Performance Indicator to me.
I hate to say it but the type of folks who are homeless and suffer from mental illness usually have a fundamental incompatibility with society and should be forced into mental illness institutions. If they can be rehabilitated, great, if not, at least they are in a place that can help them and protect society from them.
[deleted]
Honest question: Why are mental issues so prevalent in USA?
Temptative hypothesis 1: People have less roots than in Europe, so they don’t belong somewhere, and have weak ties with close family and no ties with extended family, so they move, and when they fall off their life, there is no social safety net?
Temptative hypothesis 2: Americans classify any bad mood as a mental issue?
Temptative 3: Medical aid is too expensive when you’re, by definition, fallen off at the feet of the social ladder?
Temptative 4: Capitalism separates people? Financial success separates people?
Temptative 5: CIA needed off-network money to fund ISIS, so they traded drugs in Columbia, sold to poor schmocks in Texas, and got the money to pay ISIS? (everyone is a victim here)
Temptative hypothesis 1: People have less roots than in Europe, so they don’t belong somewhere, and have weak ties with close family and no ties with extended family, so they move, and when they fall off their life, there is no social safety net?
Temptative hypothesis 2: Americans classify any bad mood as a mental issue?
Temptative 3: Medical aid is too expensive when you’re, by definition, fallen off at the feet of the social ladder?
Temptative 4: Capitalism separates people? Financial success separates people?
Temptative 5: CIA needed off-network money to fund ISIS, so they traded drugs in Columbia, sold to poor schmocks in Texas, and got the money to pay ISIS? (everyone is a victim here)
I think part of it is how isolated the us is. We don't really have walkable neighborhoods in most of the country, which means less spur of the moment decisions to gather at a social place and more isolation since so many people are commuting in single occupancy vehicles and doing drive throughs.
Combine that with wealth stratification, Hussle culture, and the complete lack of any real social safety net and if anything I'm surprised we're doing as well as we are.
I don't think it's a single issue by far, but if I had to peg one aspect as the worst offender, it's isolationism. There's strong correlation between drug use, depression, suicide, and lower life expectancy in places with power population density (Alaska, Noth Dakota, pretty much any small rustbelt or mountain or southern town)
When there's nothing to fill the emptiness, people turn to drugs and overeating just to feel something.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2022472118
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States...
Combine that with wealth stratification, Hussle culture, and the complete lack of any real social safety net and if anything I'm surprised we're doing as well as we are.
I don't think it's a single issue by far, but if I had to peg one aspect as the worst offender, it's isolationism. There's strong correlation between drug use, depression, suicide, and lower life expectancy in places with power population density (Alaska, Noth Dakota, pretty much any small rustbelt or mountain or southern town)
When there's nothing to fill the emptiness, people turn to drugs and overeating just to feel something.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2022472118
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States...
Isolation is a big one. The classic study people bring up is the “cocaine rat”.
The rat in isolation was drawn to the bottle with cocaine water. When the rat was in a cage with activites and other rats, lost the preference for the cocaine water.
The rat in isolation was drawn to the bottle with cocaine water. When the rat was in a cage with activites and other rats, lost the preference for the cocaine water.
Do you have a citation? A search for "cocaine rat study" mostly turned up references to the Rat Park experiment, which used morphine. A later study comparing heroin and cocaine found that social isolation increased overall usage of heroin (apparently because the isolated rats picked up the habit faster) but not cocaine, and that by the fifth week of the study usage rates were similar between isolated and non-isolated groups for both drugs [1].
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2616610/
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2616610/
I would hope that "cocaine rat" is a major motion picture soon to be coming to theaters near you.
Give humans in a room together a vat of cocaine water and that vat will be quickly drained lol
Doing drugs in isolation is a coping mechanism, doing drugs with others is social bonding
Doing drugs in isolation is a coping mechanism, doing drugs with others is social bonding
So what if you remove the vat of cocaine water by just removing the vat instead of by permanently crippling the other "rats" with 40,000 life-long collateral penalties after a jail where they could easily have been killed inside of?
There has to be a basis for social unity. Family ties are the natural basis. Ethnic ties (which are defined more so by culture, though extended family ties still play a role) and religious belonging, all form this basis, this matrix. The US and countries like it are adoptive nations, oddballs in that they are not really rooted in ethnicity. Ethnic identity evaporates after a couple of generations, during which assimilation and intermarriage dilute the culture of origin. According to the triple melting pot theory, religious belonging becomes a stand-in for ethnic identity in "artificial" nations like the US (it was originally called "triple" because the three largest religious groups at the time in the US were Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, but this is incidental to the basic claim). With the atrophy of traditional religious affiliation in the US, you're seeing an identity crisis and the rise of various ideologies and subcultures as attempts to find a substitute.
Mental illness is a huge risk factor for becoming homeless, which in turn will escalate any mental health issue to a massive degree. Better access to treatment and better safeguards against homelessness for the affected do actually help a lot. OTOH, migration of the affected towards areas with comparatively good services can create perverse incentives for other areas to just dump their homeless and mentally ill. And then feel smug about solving the problem for themselves.
Lmao one of these things is not like the others.
#6 they're prevelant everywhere including Europe, and care for them is terrible everywhere, including Europe.
"Mental illness" is also a problem in France.
I recommend you check out reddit r/LateStageCapitalism .
There is so much to be said about how fuck up our world is, I don't wanna start or i'll write a brick.
Elon Musk said recently that school is a joke, and that he do home schooling. Well, he is not the first one to have said it, but he is damn right. Idriss Aberkane has some very good conferences on the subject.
In USA, compared to France, you can add the issue of student debt (slavery). And the city layout being made for cars, public transportation or bikes are scarce, meaning young ones have to heavely rely on parents to do any activitie.
Oh... and your president is not just bad and malevolent, like in France, he is also senile. But like in France, a lot of citizen have voted for him.
Finnaly, who is really sick here ?
"It is not a sign of good mental health to be well adapted to a sick society."
I recommend you check out reddit r/LateStageCapitalism .
There is so much to be said about how fuck up our world is, I don't wanna start or i'll write a brick.
Elon Musk said recently that school is a joke, and that he do home schooling. Well, he is not the first one to have said it, but he is damn right. Idriss Aberkane has some very good conferences on the subject.
In USA, compared to France, you can add the issue of student debt (slavery). And the city layout being made for cars, public transportation or bikes are scarce, meaning young ones have to heavely rely on parents to do any activitie.
Oh... and your president is not just bad and malevolent, like in France, he is also senile. But like in France, a lot of citizen have voted for him.
Finnaly, who is really sick here ?
"It is not a sign of good mental health to be well adapted to a sick society."
lol you can’t expect to be taken seriously if you are recommending that subreddit.
Meth induced psychosis. Meth is given to many people as children here.
An interesting part of the article:
"state-funded nongovernmental organizations that have largely taken over responding to the people with addiction seem less concerned with treatment than affirming that lifetime drug use should be seen as a human right."
It's almost like if NGOs that live off the existence of drug abuse didn't want to kill the cash cow. That's another case of why such public services shouldn't be externalized.
It's almost like if NGOs that live off the existence of drug abuse didn't want to kill the cash cow. That's another case of why such public services shouldn't be externalized.
The simple fact that neither them nor the police have enough funds/manpower/skills to directly rehabilitate addicts means that they do the bare minimum depending on what they see is their role.
When using is a crime then police does it job by picking up addicts and incarcerating them. (Which might be seen as an extreme form of stochastic harm reduction, with overall very harmful externalities.) When it's not, then these needle exchanges do probabilistic prevention of specific deadly circumstances.
When using is a crime then police does it job by picking up addicts and incarcerating them. (Which might be seen as an extreme form of stochastic harm reduction, with overall very harmful externalities.) When it's not, then these needle exchanges do probabilistic prevention of specific deadly circumstances.
> "state-funded nongovernmental organizations that have largely taken over responding to the people with addiction seem less concerned with treatment than affirming that lifetime drug use should be seen as a human right."
I don't understand why this is a problem. That is very sensible and a reasonable place to put most of your efforts.
I don't understand why this is a problem. That is very sensible and a reasonable place to put most of your efforts.
> Crime — including robbery in public spaces — spiked 14 percent from 2021 to 2022, a rise police blame partly on increased drug use.
Why not on economic hardship around the pandemic?
Am I the only one having the feeling that drog use was picked to blame for some of the troubles experienced (not all, visible use must be a burden, just like the visible alcoholismn on streets and related ill behaviour) and the article should have explored the alternative views some more.
Why not on economic hardship around the pandemic?
Am I the only one having the feeling that drog use was picked to blame for some of the troubles experienced (not all, visible use must be a burden, just like the visible alcoholismn on streets and related ill behaviour) and the article should have explored the alternative views some more.
Sure thing, e.g. Macron now blaming video games is in a similar ballpark, smokescreens left and right.
I have the same feeling. There are problems, so let's point at a marginalized group or a thing that people look down upon, and now we have less to explain!
“When you first back off enforcement, there are not many people walking over the line that you’ve removed. And the public think it’s working really well. Then word gets out that there’s an open market, limits to penalties, and you start drawing in more drug users. Then you’ve got a more stable drug culture, and, frankly, it doesn’t look as good anymore.”
There's the Singapore solution. "Singapore executes man for trafficking two pounds of cannabis", April 23, 2023.[1]
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/25/asia/singapore-cannabis-execu...
There's the Singapore solution. "Singapore executes man for trafficking two pounds of cannabis", April 23, 2023.[1]
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/25/asia/singapore-cannabis-execu...
SEA countries regularly execute drug mules. Does it work? Do they have drug problems? Is there any reliable data at all? How big is the deterrence effect?
Take the recent cases of human trafficking through the EU border (the Serbian-Hungarian in particular), over the past years about 600 traffickers were picked up by police and sentenced to so and so years in prison. And ... did it do anything to the trafficking numbers? Unlikely, because these low-level mules are also desperate individuals, not the ones organizing things and collecting the money.
Take the recent cases of human trafficking through the EU border (the Serbian-Hungarian in particular), over the past years about 600 traffickers were picked up by police and sentenced to so and so years in prison. And ... did it do anything to the trafficking numbers? Unlikely, because these low-level mules are also desperate individuals, not the ones organizing things and collecting the money.
The opposite of this is the UK where you can go to a festival and have any drugs you bought tested to make sure they are genuine and then handed back to you, no questions asked.
Obviously, the solution is somewhere between these two extremes. The softer end seems to be loosing though.
Obviously, the solution is somewhere between these two extremes. The softer end seems to be loosing though.
The opposite of what? The opposite of Singapore would be Portugal, the country we're discussing, not the UK.
Is Portugal actively promoting drug use?
Drug Checking is also done in some festivals in Portugal, example: https://boomfestival.org/boom2023/guide/kosmicare/#:~:text=D....
UK is not “the extreme”.
Err, they definitely won't hand them back. Some of them don't provide individual results either. They are broadcast in the festival.
Why is that extreme? How would you "moderate" it?
Punishing people for being addicted to drugs is miserable, and having people be addicted to drugs is also miserable. When drugs were criminalized, the state had to dole out a lot of misery in punishments, but this also depressed the addiction/usage rate, which consequently lowered the drug addiction misery by some amount as well (not necessarily by more than the extra misery that punishment brought, but not necessarily less either).
Decriminalizing removes that punishment misery, so total misery drops significantly. But the behavior it was suppressing - the drug use - rebounds in the absence of punishment, and the misery level creeps back up.
I don’t buy that it’s the handoff to NGOs that caused this. From the article’s description, the NGOs appear to be implementing the decriminalization policy much more faithfully than the police did - needles and supervision are provided by the NGOs “without judgment”, while I very much doubt the police were entirely without judgment in the months after decriminalization.
Decriminalizing removes that punishment misery, so total misery drops significantly. But the behavior it was suppressing - the drug use - rebounds in the absence of punishment, and the misery level creeps back up.
I don’t buy that it’s the handoff to NGOs that caused this. From the article’s description, the NGOs appear to be implementing the decriminalization policy much more faithfully than the police did - needles and supervision are provided by the NGOs “without judgment”, while I very much doubt the police were entirely without judgment in the months after decriminalization.
This is a good/interesting way to look at it ... add up the total misery level instead of pretending that in either case "the misery" has stopped because you deliberately exclude one or the other miseries from the accounting.
Punishment does deter things. Whether it is the only thing that can is a different matter. But I think a lot of those who want alternatives need to get out of the "punishment does not deter" narrative, which is about as silly as saying that oil and gas don't provide energy because they are bad for the environment.
Punishment does deter things. Whether it is the only thing that can is a different matter. But I think a lot of those who want alternatives need to get out of the "punishment does not deter" narrative, which is about as silly as saying that oil and gas don't provide energy because they are bad for the environment.
I think you need to go further than looking at the total misery, although that is definitely an important first step in preventing false accounting. You need to account for some basic “game theory / behavioral economics / control system”-type stuff: when you decrease or increase one variable, what happens to the other variables?
Applied at a crude level, this tells you that removing punishment misery will cause addiction misery to rise (which is an important refinement - a “total misery accounting” perspective that doesn’t have this included will believe that removing punishment misery would leave addiction misery unchanged, thus improving total misery).
Applied at a more sophisticated level, this gets you analyzing incremental changes in punishment or addiction policy: e.g. this new law adds x punishment misery, how much does it reduce addiction misery by? If the answer is “less than x”, you now have some objective basis for concluding this policy is “needlessly cruel”.
Applied at a crude level, this tells you that removing punishment misery will cause addiction misery to rise (which is an important refinement - a “total misery accounting” perspective that doesn’t have this included will believe that removing punishment misery would leave addiction misery unchanged, thus improving total misery).
Applied at a more sophisticated level, this gets you analyzing incremental changes in punishment or addiction policy: e.g. this new law adds x punishment misery, how much does it reduce addiction misery by? If the answer is “less than x”, you now have some objective basis for concluding this policy is “needlessly cruel”.
> add up the total misery level instead of pretending that in either case "the misery" has stopped because you deliberately exclude one or the other miseries from the accounting.
You can't do this. It is neither ethical or practical. There's plenty we could do as a society that may hypothetically "reduce misery", but we don't insofar as it violates their rights.
It's not even possible to do. This is highly subjective. For instance, how do you rate the genocide that's baked into prohibition? Does that just not count because you don't respect a part of our subculture? What about people that are now in pain and misery, but we're maybe hurting their health with illegal drugs (although some of them seemed to be doing fine and not increasing their dosages).
Does the fact that they were previously dependent on drugs, somehow negate their pain, or inability to function well. Is being addicted to drugs some kind of weird nightmare scenario, like the matrix, where the subject is always worse off?
You can't do this. It is neither ethical or practical. There's plenty we could do as a society that may hypothetically "reduce misery", but we don't insofar as it violates their rights.
It's not even possible to do. This is highly subjective. For instance, how do you rate the genocide that's baked into prohibition? Does that just not count because you don't respect a part of our subculture? What about people that are now in pain and misery, but we're maybe hurting their health with illegal drugs (although some of them seemed to be doing fine and not increasing their dosages).
Does the fact that they were previously dependent on drugs, somehow negate their pain, or inability to function well. Is being addicted to drugs some kind of weird nightmare scenario, like the matrix, where the subject is always worse off?
You can’t just decriminalize owning drugs, you have to legalize selling drugs. That’s how you get rid of the criminals in the system.
And selling drugs should not be a fabulous glamorous advertised social endevour like marijuana in the USA.
Drugs should be sold like tobacco in Australia…. behind the counter, zero advertising, zero branding.
And selling drugs should not be a fabulous glamorous advertised social endevour like marijuana in the USA.
Drugs should be sold like tobacco in Australia…. behind the counter, zero advertising, zero branding.
Another thing. The problem is addiction, so why not more directly target that? Much like with added sugar. We should not put people for years in jail then call them a permanent risk to kids no matter where they actually are after, simply for possessing sugar, but it should not be so cheap. So make the addictive stuff cost a lot of bank by heavy taxation (say 300%, of which 100% then goes to funding rehab and services), make mental health services very easily available by comparison, and if coercive interventions are to be added, make them in a form of actual restraint more than punishment, i.e. the intent is not to cause suffering so much as to physically keep the drug away (e.g. putting people around them and/or working with their surrounding community to literally keep the drugs away from them [incl. by snatching it from their hand if it comes to that] instead of putting them in a dungeon where they are fed food that is intentionally chosen to be dangerous or with rapists that could very well lead to a fatal outcome).
Ideally, it could also be great source of tax income, which could be further used to help people get rid of drugs.
Except people start reselling legal drugs to the jurisdiction where they remain illegal... For this to work out as intended it would have to be planet-wide.
Well, the criminal networks are planet-wide. The war on drugs is planet-wide. Thus, the legalisation of drugs can also be planet-wide.
a few things:
1) illegal drugs are still illegal, just like now.
2) the quality of the illegal drugs rise significantly if sourced from reliable, regulated manufactures
3) the "blood" cost of production drops precipitously
4) the end user cost drops as well.
Now without support, those addicted will still flounder. However they won't need to do as much crime to fund it (much better for society, worse for the individual)
1) illegal drugs are still illegal, just like now.
2) the quality of the illegal drugs rise significantly if sourced from reliable, regulated manufactures
3) the "blood" cost of production drops precipitously
4) the end user cost drops as well.
Now without support, those addicted will still flounder. However they won't need to do as much crime to fund it (much better for society, worse for the individual)
Sounds like a problem for that other jurisdiction.
[deleted]
Generalization of the term drugs is what is wrong.
This kind of post is in the same mind as the outdated anti drugs CIA drug money articles of the past.
The CIA needs a source of money so they made sure ignorant articles like those get published.
Cannabis != Cocaine != Heroine != Ketamine != you name it
Some "meds" are more dangerous and addictive than some "drugs".
So what, tourists now dictate what's good or bad in a country, not the native population?
Get outta here Washington Post
Some "meds" are more dangerous and addictive than some "drugs".
So what, tourists now dictate what's good or bad in a country, not the native population?
Get outta here Washington Post
Decriminalization is only marginally better than criminalization since it's still impossible to regulate the sellers.
It's better because at least it stops criminalizing addicts, but it still enables shady people to profit from and attract new users.
Please just allow pharmacies to sell the drugs in boring packages without any advertisement whatsoever.
It's better because at least it stops criminalizing addicts, but it still enables shady people to profit from and attract new users.
Please just allow pharmacies to sell the drugs in boring packages without any advertisement whatsoever.
The problem isn't homeless people who are addicts, it's politicians who are addicts.
Homeless and about-to-become homeless addicts are at the bottom of the food chain, with extremely limited agency. Their choices are basically improve (v. difficult), tread water (slightly less difficult) or die (not difficult at all.)
Politicians who are addicts can create and enforce disastrous irrational policies on an entire country.
Self-indulgence and law-breaking are one of the most popular benefits of privilege, and the fact that many "serious people" hide this behind a veneer of upper class respectability doesn't change how toxic this culture is.
I guarantee that any country that institutes mandatory drug tests for politicians, CEOs and senior executives, the entire financial industry, lawyers and judges, and other senior officials, is suddenly going to find itself making much more rational and sane decisions.
If anyone thinks I'm exaggerating, here's the former Chancellor of the UK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wo3hDtDs7g
Homeless and about-to-become homeless addicts are at the bottom of the food chain, with extremely limited agency. Their choices are basically improve (v. difficult), tread water (slightly less difficult) or die (not difficult at all.)
Politicians who are addicts can create and enforce disastrous irrational policies on an entire country.
Self-indulgence and law-breaking are one of the most popular benefits of privilege, and the fact that many "serious people" hide this behind a veneer of upper class respectability doesn't change how toxic this culture is.
I guarantee that any country that institutes mandatory drug tests for politicians, CEOs and senior executives, the entire financial industry, lawyers and judges, and other senior officials, is suddenly going to find itself making much more rational and sane decisions.
If anyone thinks I'm exaggerating, here's the former Chancellor of the UK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wo3hDtDs7g
Ignoring the pretty weak evidence of slo-mo video, which could make anyone look out of it, and some circumstantial at best "evidence" (my brother's keeper and all that), there have been more high profile and damaging cases of British politicians addicted to drugs. Prime example, Prime Minister Anthony Eden[1] who botched the Suez Crisis:
> Robert Carr served as Eden's Parliamentary Private Secretary and I have been much influenced by his comments:
> ‘I find it difficult to accept the judgement that Anthony's health did not have a decisive influence at least on the conduct of his policy. I agree that he might well have pursued the same basic policy had he been well, but I find it very hard to believe that he would have made such obvious miscalculations in its execution both in the political and the military spheres.’
> Lord William Deedes, the distinguished journalist, who was also a Minister in Eden's government, accurately said on television in 2004 that during the Suez crisis, Eden ‘under prescription had, as many did, and still do, barbiturates, I think, to assist rest and sleep etc. and amphetamines sometimes for a little bit of a pick up’, and agreed that this was what was called ‘uppers and downers’.31 That combination is contained in Drinamyl, identified by Eden's own doctor as the drug he was on. Drinamyl is now very rarely used, as the medical profession have become more aware of their effect on judgement, energy and mood. Deedes’ account, however, contrasts with Eden's wife's view that he was not taking ‘uppers and downers’ and was only taking anything like it (Benzedrine) in the last fortnight before he resigned.
[1] https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article/98/6/387/1548168
> Robert Carr served as Eden's Parliamentary Private Secretary and I have been much influenced by his comments:
> ‘I find it difficult to accept the judgement that Anthony's health did not have a decisive influence at least on the conduct of his policy. I agree that he might well have pursued the same basic policy had he been well, but I find it very hard to believe that he would have made such obvious miscalculations in its execution both in the political and the military spheres.’
> Lord William Deedes, the distinguished journalist, who was also a Minister in Eden's government, accurately said on television in 2004 that during the Suez crisis, Eden ‘under prescription had, as many did, and still do, barbiturates, I think, to assist rest and sleep etc. and amphetamines sometimes for a little bit of a pick up’, and agreed that this was what was called ‘uppers and downers’.31 That combination is contained in Drinamyl, identified by Eden's own doctor as the drug he was on. Drinamyl is now very rarely used, as the medical profession have become more aware of their effect on judgement, energy and mood. Deedes’ account, however, contrasts with Eden's wife's view that he was not taking ‘uppers and downers’ and was only taking anything like it (Benzedrine) in the last fortnight before he resigned.
[1] https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article/98/6/387/1548168
> Amsterdam — a city long famous for its pot cafes — last month instituted a new ban on smoking marijuana in public places.
I'd love this for NYC. I'm getting pretty sick of smelling weed all day on the streets.
I'd love this for NYC. I'm getting pretty sick of smelling weed all day on the streets.
Noone should be smoking anything in public places, weed or not.
Agreed, if banning one type of smoking, it'd be more straight to just ban them all. Or it becomes "taste policing": I/we/they don't like the smell of weed.
You don’t own an ICE or natural gas heater then right? Otherwise, “their pollution bad, my pollution good”
Correct, I don't own either. And even if I did, voluntary smoking cigarettes outside near people is not quite at the same level of necessity as heating your home or moving you from place to place, right?
I mean to be honest, tough shit you live in NYC lol
I love it, the entire argument of this article boils down to, "A problem with visibility" rather than any failure of the policy. As though an existing problem being visible isn't societal pressure to better address the problem. Oh they also present statistics contained to the 2019-2023 period as though that wasn't pandemic-driven.
That's what I came away with... so they don't have enough resources for treatment... And the police hands are tied? I'm pretty sure they can still arrest people who commit crimes, just not for using drugs.
Also, why was it working for a few years and now it's not anymore? Could it be that the pandemic and economic downturn caused more people to turn to drugs and reduced funding? Ah, they hid that answer in the last paragraph...
> After years of economic crisis, Portugal decentralized its drug oversight operation in 2012. A funding drop from 76 million euros ($82.7 million) to 16 million euros ($17.4 million) forced Portugal’s main institution to outsource work previously done by the state to nonprofit groups, including the street teams that engage with people who use drugs. The country is now moving to create a new institute aimed at reinvigorating its drug prevention programs.
Also, why was it working for a few years and now it's not anymore? Could it be that the pandemic and economic downturn caused more people to turn to drugs and reduced funding? Ah, they hid that answer in the last paragraph...
> After years of economic crisis, Portugal decentralized its drug oversight operation in 2012. A funding drop from 76 million euros ($82.7 million) to 16 million euros ($17.4 million) forced Portugal’s main institution to outsource work previously done by the state to nonprofit groups, including the street teams that engage with people who use drugs. The country is now moving to create a new institute aimed at reinvigorating its drug prevention programs.
> Also, why was it working for a few years and now it's not anymore?
This is addressed in the article.
This is addressed in the article.
The issue is that making a behavior more visible tends to normalize it.
I wouldn't say it's a "learn by example". If anything, it makes me doesn't want to try heroine
It's like if we presented corpses of dead drivers on the main streets – I bet it'd greatly lower overspeeding and drunk driving
It's like if we presented corpses of dead drivers on the main streets – I bet it'd greatly lower overspeeding and drunk driving
This is probably not true.for example:
People know smoking kills. The tabacco industry even popularized stories about sad COPD patients that were dying in the hospital and still wouldnt quit smoking.
"Its that good!" "It's so nice! Even when you know it kills you, you still dont want to stop! Not to mention! Quiting is hard! Real hard! Dont try to quit. You will only suffer."
That is the narrative that they push.
The human mind is Strange sometimes.
"Its that good!" "It's so nice! Even when you know it kills you, you still dont want to stop! Not to mention! Quiting is hard! Real hard! Dont try to quit. You will only suffer."
That is the narrative that they push.
The human mind is Strange sometimes.
Smoking tobacco was subject to well over a century of well-funded marketing, anti-science efforts to hide adverse effects, and even claims of being good for your health. I don't think there's a Joe Camel for heroin, and if there is, some poor homeless bastard shooting up isn't it.
Tobacco use - despite its visibility and despite being extremely addictive - went down a lot. Legal and normal are NOT the same thing. The biggest problems arise when normal is illegal as it undermines the law and maintains delusions about what is going on in reality.
In the EU 1 in 4 adults smoke tobacco daily[1]. It sounds pretty normal to me. In practice when I commute daily, I always need to hold my breath several times each way, just to avoid the stench.
[1]: <https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-adults-who-smoke>
[1]: <https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-adults-who-smoke>
In the United States, it's as visible as anywhere in Portugal. The visibility just isn't distributed evenly. When you hear people complain about such things, it's usually the upper class whining about how distasteful it all is.
Whether or not visibility normalizes drug use behaviors, I couldn't say. They were normalized before I was born and I'll be 50 next year.
Whether or not visibility normalizes drug use behaviors, I couldn't say. They were normalized before I was born and I'll be 50 next year.
Oh well? When the alternative being supported is, "Return to an expensive and inhumane model of frequent and revolving incarceration" I can't say that bothers me much. I'm also fairly sure that seeing a homeless junkie skin up isn't exactly an advertisement for the lifestyle.
There are options between "an inhumane system of frequent and revolving incarceration" and "never punishing public drug use under any circumstances."
And what is that option that doesn’t involve the Justice system targeting minorities and the police not killing people for trying to sell a single cigarette.
Well in France we provide methadone and subutex for free to anyone who needs it, but we also chase drug dealers, jail large consumers, do heavy prevention in schools etc.
Our goal was never to stop drug use, we know it's impossible, but to both make it survivable by victims, stop the violence on the citizens who did nothing wrong but walk past a drug victim, and also stop the spread of the victimization (that's why we hesitate so strongly about Marijuana: there's a 100% chance in increases its victims rather than reduce them).
Minorities are not the only drug victims, a lot of the victims are also in people of the mainstream cultural segment of the population. I'd even argue these victims make it all the more important to help control the problem since they have richer parents who hold more power and vote etc.
Don't lose sight of the point, the evil is the drug, not the police, in the drug fight. The victims of the drug trades are killed by the drug in 99% of the deaths, and by police abuse for the rest. It is not a police problem first and foremost.
Our goal was never to stop drug use, we know it's impossible, but to both make it survivable by victims, stop the violence on the citizens who did nothing wrong but walk past a drug victim, and also stop the spread of the victimization (that's why we hesitate so strongly about Marijuana: there's a 100% chance in increases its victims rather than reduce them).
Minorities are not the only drug victims, a lot of the victims are also in people of the mainstream cultural segment of the population. I'd even argue these victims make it all the more important to help control the problem since they have richer parents who hold more power and vote etc.
Don't lose sight of the point, the evil is the drug, not the police, in the drug fight. The victims of the drug trades are killed by the drug in 99% of the deaths, and by police abuse for the rest. It is not a police problem first and foremost.
> Minorities are not the only drug victims, a lot of the victims are also in people of the mainstream cultural segment of the population
Minorities are often the victims of the Justice system in the US. When drugs were in an “inner city” problem. It was all about “poor morals” and “absentee fathers”.
When it happened in “rural America” it was the fault of those evil “illegal immigrants” and the drug companies and “let’s treat it like a disease”.
“ It is not a police problem first and foremost.”
It is when you’re targeted because of the color of your skin.
Minorities are often the victims of the Justice system in the US. When drugs were in an “inner city” problem. It was all about “poor morals” and “absentee fathers”.
When it happened in “rural America” it was the fault of those evil “illegal immigrants” and the drug companies and “let’s treat it like a disease”.
“ It is not a police problem first and foremost.”
It is when you’re targeted because of the color of your skin.
Maybe a system of law enforcement that doesn't kill people for trying to sell a single cigarette? That seems achievable.
It actually isn’t. Since the Justice system is mostly targeting minorities, the majority doesn’t care.
It should be telling that during protests, white people were helping protestors by forming a “shield” because they knew the optics of police beating white people would be distasteful.
https://www.blackenterprise.com/white-protesters-form-human-...
It should be telling that during protests, white people were helping protestors by forming a “shield” because they knew the optics of police beating white people would be distasteful.
https://www.blackenterprise.com/white-protesters-form-human-...
Yeah but it must be fixed way more urgently than a problem with efficiency. Imagine if the people voted, and decided to stop the policy despite good result, just because they're fed up of seeing syringes in front of school !
Visibility is the most important metric of a policy in a democracy. Here in China, it's not ! But are you ready to tell people their opinion doesn't matter because you know the result and the result is good despite what they see with their own eyes ? It's hard to swallow here, might be hard where you live too !
Visibility is the most important metric of a policy in a democracy. Here in China, it's not ! But are you ready to tell people their opinion doesn't matter because you know the result and the result is good despite what they see with their own eyes ? It's hard to swallow here, might be hard where you live too !
I didn't see the part of the article where people in Portugal were having doubts about the policy. I saw that some cities were considering re-criminalizing drug use in certain areas, such as around schools. By and large it sounded like a successful policy that they aren't looking to get rid of. Maybe they'll tweak it: the biggest complaint in that article as about the visibility of drug use, not the effects of drug use, so if that's the problem, maybe make the equivalent of an open container law for needle drugs. I don't know. I'd trade that problem for the problems most countries have.
> A newly released national survey suggests the percent of adults who have used illicit drugs increased to 12.8 percent in 2022, up from 7.8 in 2001, though still below European averages.
> still below European averages.
Does the data actually support the arguments made in this article?
I hate to say it but.....it sounds like it's still better than the alternative?
> still below European averages.
Does the data actually support the arguments made in this article?
I hate to say it but.....it sounds like it's still better than the alternative?
I don't see how that is a meaningfull data point. Most of those are likely not addicts so it doesn't affect relatives or society. What does the percentage of addicts look like? Percentage of ODs? Crimes committed by addicts to pay for their drugs? These are more relevant questions to ask imo.
I guess it's a state of mind of "doing something". If you do what Portugal is doing and your numbers are the same than others, it feels natural to think that if you do something things will improve.
Then you do something like criminalize drug users, numbers get worse, but now you can claim is all fault of drug users for doing something illegal. You are doing "something", but they don't cooperate.
Then you do something like criminalize drug users, numbers get worse, but now you can claim is all fault of drug users for doing something illegal. You are doing "something", but they don't cooperate.
n=1: during my visit to lisbon in 2021, i was accosted twice by burly guys near my hotel[1] who aggressively asked if i wanted to buy weed or cocaine. the first time, the guy was so angry at my refusal ("no thanks, man") that he followed me up a public staircase to continue his pitch. he backed off when i returned his verbal aggression.
so maybe the portuguese policy could use some tweaking.
[1] https://goo.gl/maps/y3N88pENiH8rVXTM6
so maybe the portuguese policy could use some tweaking.
[1] https://goo.gl/maps/y3N88pENiH8rVXTM6
These guys are not even selling you drugs. They are selling you some fake thing.
They just swindle tourists. They are hustlers not even real drug dealers.
I'm Portuguese and lived in Lisbon for 12 years. Trust me, you can't buy drugs from those guys
I'm Portuguese and lived in Lisbon for 12 years. Trust me, you can't buy drugs from those guys
Trust me, you can't buy drugs from those guys
What I don't get about this: most people seem to know (think?) this. So you'd think these guys have no income at all because no-one is trusting them so no-one buys from them. Yet after decades they're still there, in a lot of cities. So there must be something which works in this system. I find it hard to believe they survive off the occasional sell to a tourist. I mean, could be, but seems far fatched to me?
What I don't get about this: most people seem to know (think?) this. So you'd think these guys have no income at all because no-one is trusting them so no-one buys from them. Yet after decades they're still there, in a lot of cities. So there must be something which works in this system. I find it hard to believe they survive off the occasional sell to a tourist. I mean, could be, but seems far fatched to me?
It's not occasional. They sell a lot. There is a lot of gullible people in this world and an endless supply of fresh tourists or kids from other towns landing in Lisbon everyday.
They only need to scam 1 person a day to make 50€. That's more than most Portuguese earn per day.
They scammed me when I was a kid (I wanted weed).
Don't you think I know what I'm talking about? You can buy drugs is Lisbon of course but real drug dealers aren't approaching thousands of people in the open streets of downtown Lisbon everyday!
Police leaves these guys alone because there is no real crime. Scamming tourists is hard to persecute. Not worth it!
They scammed me when I was a kid (I wanted weed).
Don't you think I know what I'm talking about? You can buy drugs is Lisbon of course but real drug dealers aren't approaching thousands of people in the open streets of downtown Lisbon everyday!
Police leaves these guys alone because there is no real crime. Scamming tourists is hard to persecute. Not worth it!
> They sell a lot.
They sell a lot because they will force people to buy whenever possible. Most people buy it to be left alone.
> Police leaves these guys alone because there is no real crime. Scamming tourists is hard to persecute. Not worth it!
Often there is crime: forcing people to buy it's petty crime but most will not complain unless there is violence. It's nearly impossible to jail them with the actual political zeitgeist, making it a waste of time and money. This impunity leaves room for retaliation also.
They sell a lot because they will force people to buy whenever possible. Most people buy it to be left alone.
> Police leaves these guys alone because there is no real crime. Scamming tourists is hard to persecute. Not worth it!
Often there is crime: forcing people to buy it's petty crime but most will not complain unless there is violence. It's nearly impossible to jail them with the actual political zeitgeist, making it a waste of time and money. This impunity leaves room for retaliation also.
I wish they would find a way to deal with it, the constant harassment is one of the worst things about Lisbon.
Maybe that's why they harass tourists. Tourists are exploited in a myriad of cheap ways everywhere. This long article is just the common ones seen all around the world:
https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Common_scams
https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Common_scams
It might also be that they don't have a better alternative. For example, in Germany, refugees who don't have a work permit stand around in parks selling laced weed to tourists all day
Yep, he tried to sell you something illegal. No one said that the outlaws are the best people out there. Maybe if you were an easier target, he would convince you to give him money anyway, without buying anything.
Total prohibition, prohibition of possession & prohibition of production vs decriminalization of possession & prohibition of production, means that the end product is expensive, difficult to obtain and dangerous to sell. In both cases the outlaws are normally the people selling it.
In case it was legal to produce it, poppy fields in Afghanistan would face serious competition from Portugal, and their profits should dwindle. I mean, American army weapons have be funded somehow.
Total prohibition, prohibition of possession & prohibition of production vs decriminalization of possession & prohibition of production, means that the end product is expensive, difficult to obtain and dangerous to sell. In both cases the outlaws are normally the people selling it.
In case it was legal to produce it, poppy fields in Afghanistan would face serious competition from Portugal, and their profits should dwindle. I mean, American army weapons have be funded somehow.
I think you'll find drugs are sold everywhere. When in Cambridge, England, I often get people say "Hey bud" to me when walking towards and past me, which is a deniable euphemism for touting weed, if I was an undercover cop.
Drugs are everywhere and who sells them is quite surprising. The war on drugs will never be won whilst life is not brilliant and life is getting worse for many, and they wont hesitate to "drop" you ie kill you if they know you have reported them to the police, at least, thats what they say in roundabout ways.
If royalty and other rich people who own country estates, think they have a right to rule, these drug dealers people will claim they have a right to do what they do. They just challenge the hypocrisy in the system.
Drugs are everywhere and who sells them is quite surprising. The war on drugs will never be won whilst life is not brilliant and life is getting worse for many, and they wont hesitate to "drop" you ie kill you if they know you have reported them to the police, at least, thats what they say in roundabout ways.
If royalty and other rich people who own country estates, think they have a right to rule, these drug dealers people will claim they have a right to do what they do. They just challenge the hypocrisy in the system.
I recently went to Porto for a weekend. I've never been offered drugs as many times as I have there... but no-one was pushy, it was literally that you walked past them, they said "coke, hash" or similar, and that was that. They were maybe more overt during the night (and where the bars were), but never anything more than that, and not a problem for me - I've had more pushy encounters in London in the mid 90s.
N=1, in 1997, when drugs were pretty heavily enforced in NYC, there were mildly scary people at the exit to Penn Station, saying "Want some smoke? Want some blow?"
Now those guys are gone, but there are basically food trucks selling pot gummies with licenses.
There were homeless sleeping on heating vents both times.
Now those guys are gone, but there are basically food trucks selling pot gummies with licenses.
There were homeless sleeping on heating vents both times.
That's the heart of touristy downtown. Lot of guys selling fairly aggressively there towards tourists. Been offered quite a lot, I didn't have the aggression experience you seemed to experience though. That is unfortunate.
Weird. We have tourist spots in eastern europe and I've never once been offered drugs in my entire life.
I experienced something similar at a famous parisian landmark with a person trying to sell souveniers. When I declined he got strangely aggressive and I felt like quickly getting away even though the place was packed with tourists. In Istanbul there was a man selling flowers getting a bit agressive when I declined. So like said elsewhere in this thread, this phenomenon is not drug specific.
> So angry that .. he followed me ... to continue his pitch.
That doesn't seem very angry? Kinda exactly what I'd expect from a street salesperson. Your best bet is to ignore them entirely, the second you interact you're a fish on a hook, and it's their job to reel you in.
Angry is the Colombians who will suffocate you at knifepoint for not giving them cocaine.
That doesn't seem very angry? Kinda exactly what I'd expect from a street salesperson. Your best bet is to ignore them entirely, the second you interact you're a fish on a hook, and it's their job to reel you in.
Angry is the Colombians who will suffocate you at knifepoint for not giving them cocaine.
for whatever reason, he replied "fuck you too" and followed me up the stairs. what do you think was his emotional state?
I don't really understand why the police allow this. It's really annoying all over the tourist areas of Lisbon. Obviously they are fake drugs; but surely that would be a crime of fraud in itself if they can't get them on the actual drug charges?
Sounds like a trip to the Tenderloin in SF. Dealers are everywhere.
Never forget: this only happens because people tolerate it. If people didn’t want it to happen, it would stop.
Are there countries that have successfully reduced drug use among their population without implementing strong penalties for possession?
Yes. Portugal.
When they fully funded their rehab and social service program, the system worked.
Then they reduced funding and seem surprised the programs don’t work any more.
When they fully funded their rehab and social service program, the system worked.
Then they reduced funding and seem surprised the programs don’t work any more.
Portugal decriminalised personal drug possession in 2001. We should not expect the impact to immediately present. It takes years and often decades for these policies to affect change. How do you know it’s the reduced funding of rehab programs and not the decriminalisation which caused this issue? Especially given the low success rate of rehab programs.
Interestingly, the opinion of one who reportedly lived there[0] suggests it’s sort of “endemic” in the culture and that government policy (including decriminalization) has had relatively little effect as compared to the decisions made by citizens.
Of particular interest to note is the commenter’s perception that this spike is less bad as in the 90s. Not trying to draw any conclusions based on this but it seems just as presumptive to believe that decriminalization has had this negative effect, regardless of how long it takes to “kick in” so to speak.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36643154
Of particular interest to note is the commenter’s perception that this spike is less bad as in the 90s. Not trying to draw any conclusions based on this but it seems just as presumptive to believe that decriminalization has had this negative effect, regardless of how long it takes to “kick in” so to speak.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36643154
Quote from the article:
> A newly released national survey suggests the percent of adults who have used illicit drugs increased to 12.8 percent in 2022, up from 7.8 in 2001
So, No.
> A newly released national survey suggests the percent of adults who have used illicit drugs increased to 12.8 percent in 2022, up from 7.8 in 2001
So, No.
Even if respondents were unbiased and truthful. That sounds like a useless metric to me. You need a metric of the harm to society. Drug motivated violent crime for example.
We also need a metric of harm to the individuals who are doing the drugs. If they're doing less severe drugs with less adulterants for a cheaper price (less need to turn to theft) with medical support then it could still be a win even if % usage is up.
Quote from the article:
> Overdose rates have hit 12-year highs and almost doubled in Lisbon from 2019 to 2023. Sewage samples in Lisbon show cocaine and ketamine detection is now among the highest in Europe, with elevated weekend rates suggesting party-heavy usage. In Porto, the collection of drug-related debris from city streets surged 24 percent between 2021 and 2022, with this year on track to far outpace the last. Crime — including robbery in public spaces — spiked 14 percent from 2021 to 2022, a rise police blame partly on increased drug use.
> overdoses this year in Portland, the state’s largest city, have surged 46 percent.
> Residents have launched U.S.-style neighborhood watches and hired private security guards — something exceedingly rare in Europe.
> Overdose rates have hit 12-year highs and almost doubled in Lisbon from 2019 to 2023. Sewage samples in Lisbon show cocaine and ketamine detection is now among the highest in Europe, with elevated weekend rates suggesting party-heavy usage. In Porto, the collection of drug-related debris from city streets surged 24 percent between 2021 and 2022, with this year on track to far outpace the last. Crime — including robbery in public spaces — spiked 14 percent from 2021 to 2022, a rise police blame partly on increased drug use.
> overdoses this year in Portland, the state’s largest city, have surged 46 percent.
> Residents have launched U.S.-style neighborhood watches and hired private security guards — something exceedingly rare in Europe.
Also from the article
> After years of economic crisis, Portugal decentralized its drug oversight operation in 2012. A funding drop from 76 million euros ($82.7 million) to 16 million euros ($17.4 million) forced Portugal’s main institution to outsource work previously done by the state to nonprofit groups, including the street teams that engage with people who use drugs.
You'll notice that 2012 comes before 2019.
> After years of economic crisis, Portugal decentralized its drug oversight operation in 2012. A funding drop from 76 million euros ($82.7 million) to 16 million euros ($17.4 million) forced Portugal’s main institution to outsource work previously done by the state to nonprofit groups, including the street teams that engage with people who use drugs.
You'll notice that 2012 comes before 2019.
That's talking about a spike between 2019 and 2023.
Why did it take nearly a decade to happen, then happen all at once?
Seems like something else changed more recently than the funding in 2012.
Why did it take nearly a decade to happen, then happen all at once?
Seems like something else changed more recently than the funding in 2012.
> Why did it take nearly a decade to happen, then happen all at once?
Well, by that logic clearly decriminalization wasn't the cause. Why would the negative effect take nearly two decades to happen, then happen all at once? Seems like something else changed more recently than the decriminalization in 2001.
----
Snarkiness aside, I find these discussions on HN to be mostly pointless and circular, precisely for this reason. There's very little actually substantive discussion happening under this article. A trend was noticed, one side has an explanation, the other side says "nah, I don't think that's it" and then we go in circles saying "hmmm... doesn't sound convincing to me" and meme a bit about Singapore and Seattle. It's HN at its worst.
That this comment exists almost immediately after another comment further upstream saying "well, of course we wouldn't expect to see the negative effects of decriminalization immediately" to me sums up how entirely arbitrary online arguments about decriminalization often are.
Well, by that logic clearly decriminalization wasn't the cause. Why would the negative effect take nearly two decades to happen, then happen all at once? Seems like something else changed more recently than the decriminalization in 2001.
----
Snarkiness aside, I find these discussions on HN to be mostly pointless and circular, precisely for this reason. There's very little actually substantive discussion happening under this article. A trend was noticed, one side has an explanation, the other side says "nah, I don't think that's it" and then we go in circles saying "hmmm... doesn't sound convincing to me" and meme a bit about Singapore and Seattle. It's HN at its worst.
That this comment exists almost immediately after another comment further upstream saying "well, of course we wouldn't expect to see the negative effects of decriminalization immediately" to me sums up how entirely arbitrary online arguments about decriminalization often are.
Comparing data on populations from 2020 or 2021 is probably not going to give very accurate data because of COVID.
Much of Europe was locked down making travel often impossible. All that really says is there is a lot of drug tourism.
Much of Europe was locked down making travel often impossible. All that really says is there is a lot of drug tourism.
What does Portland (Oregon?) have to do with Portugal?
> Crime — including robbery in public spaces — spiked 14 percent from 2021 to 2022
I wonder what else changed between 2021 and 2022 that could have caused robbery in public spaces to spike.
So many things have changed in Portugal over the last decade, Lisbon and Porto in particular, that looking just at drug policy is insufficient. In particular, cost of living and immigration from poorer countries (both correlated with “number of desperate people”) have risen significantly.
> Crime — including robbery in public spaces — spiked 14 percent from 2021 to 2022
I wonder what else changed between 2021 and 2022 that could have caused robbery in public spaces to spike.
So many things have changed in Portugal over the last decade, Lisbon and Porto in particular, that looking just at drug policy is insufficient. In particular, cost of living and immigration from poorer countries (both correlated with “number of desperate people”) have risen significantly.
You are right, but the metric of total drug use, or first time use, is only a proxy for the goal of reducing drug-related harm to society and individuals. From what I’ve seen it’s not a great proxy.
For instance, Sweden implemented an extremely restrictive drug policy focused on scaring people from trying drugs at all, at the expense of existing users who were shunned and penalized harshly. It now has one of the highest overdose mortality rates in Europe and a well-known gang violence problem that’s unprecedented in its history or in any of the otherwise similar countries.
I personally think these “clever” policies where you try to optimize for a proxy metric are just moralistic and unscientific garbage. Not to mention the consequences of giving the task (and the funding) to the criminal justice system first. If we transferred the issues of smoking cessation or alcoholism to the police, what would we expect to happen?
For instance, Sweden implemented an extremely restrictive drug policy focused on scaring people from trying drugs at all, at the expense of existing users who were shunned and penalized harshly. It now has one of the highest overdose mortality rates in Europe and a well-known gang violence problem that’s unprecedented in its history or in any of the otherwise similar countries.
I personally think these “clever” policies where you try to optimize for a proxy metric are just moralistic and unscientific garbage. Not to mention the consequences of giving the task (and the funding) to the criminal justice system first. If we transferred the issues of smoking cessation or alcoholism to the police, what would we expect to happen?
Portugal has also been having economical issues since the early 2000s which would probably influence the metric.
How did you miss the "then they reduced funding" part? So yes, at first, then not anymore.
It isn't surprising that more people admit to doing something now it isn't illegal.
How do they define "illicit drugs" if everything is legal?
I think they're still illegal, but personal use is permitted. That's what I understand from having been there recently, anyway, but happy to stand corrected on that point if anyone knows more than this.
They decriminalized personal use. They didn’t fully legalize use.
Similar to speeding tickets in the US. Speeding is against the law, but minor infractions are not criminal offenses.
Similar to speeding tickets in the US. Speeding is against the law, but minor infractions are not criminal offenses.
It's never been legalized.
Well there haven't been many good examples where strong penalties actually worked. The more draconian the penalties the bigger the issues, it seems. The US incarcerates a sizable percentage of its own population at this point and most of that is drugs related. Arguably not working all that well.
Reeks of lobbying/meddling by those who didn't profit from the "human first" approach.
There's a great debate between grenn greenwald and the Bush drug Czar on this topic.
Pros and cons end up firmly on Portugal and Glenn's side, but it's not the side of fear or profit.
There's a great debate between grenn greenwald and the Bush drug Czar on this topic.
Pros and cons end up firmly on Portugal and Glenn's side, but it's not the side of fear or profit.
> Porto’s police have increased patrols to drug-plagued neighborhoods. But given existing laws, there’s only so much they can do. On a recent afternoon, an emaciated man in striped pants sleeping in front of a state-funded drug-use center awoke to a patrol of four officers. He sat up, then defiantly began assembling his crack pipe. Officers walked on, shaking their heads.
What were they supposed to in a different country? Arrest the guy, spend money putting him in jail, wait til he gets back out and repeat?
What were they supposed to in a different country? Arrest the guy, spend money putting him in jail, wait til he gets back out and repeat?
I don't get it. Someone smoking something doesn't bother me, unless maybe if I can smell it, then it bothers me very, very slightly. The same way someone drinking a beer in public doesn't bother me. How could it?
If sleeping on the street is a crime, enforce that crime. Don't pretend that if we magically banned all of the hypothetical reasons people might commit that crime that it will eliminate that crime. We can't enforce every-fucking-thing - and we have proven conclusively that we can never effectively ban popular street drugs - so let's focus instead on crimes with victims and enforce them more aggressively.
If sleeping on the street is a crime, enforce that crime. Don't pretend that if we magically banned all of the hypothetical reasons people might commit that crime that it will eliminate that crime. We can't enforce every-fucking-thing - and we have proven conclusively that we can never effectively ban popular street drugs - so let's focus instead on crimes with victims and enforce them more aggressively.
Imagine if you walk down 1 block of a street and there's 3 people smoking crack. They aren't sleeping on the street, or breaking any other law, but they are high on crack.
Do you think people feel safe on this street? Just because you personally may feel safe, consider that you may be personally blessed with youth and health. Does an elderly woman with a cane and a purse feel safe?
People high on crack are unpredictable. They may try to rob you because that was the last crack rock they had, and they are also out of money.
And if people don't feel safe on the street, then people who can start to move away. Then you have a 'drain' problem on a societal level.
Do you think people feel safe on this street? Just because you personally may feel safe, consider that you may be personally blessed with youth and health. Does an elderly woman with a cane and a purse feel safe?
People high on crack are unpredictable. They may try to rob you because that was the last crack rock they had, and they are also out of money.
And if people don't feel safe on the street, then people who can start to move away. Then you have a 'drain' problem on a societal level.
'People high on crack are unpredictable."
Do you believe your own propaganda? That's the most simplistic, nonsensical, DARE-level logic I have seen in this comment thread yet.
Do you believe your own propaganda? That's the most simplistic, nonsensical, DARE-level logic I have seen in this comment thread yet.
Yeah I absolutely believe it. If you were riding a public bus, and you had the option of sitting next to 1) a person on crack or 2) a person not on crack, which do you choose?
Also, how about you present a counter position to the argument? Otherwise next time just type “u r dumb” and save yourself a couple of characters in typing.
Also, how about you present a counter position to the argument? Otherwise next time just type “u r dumb” and save yourself a couple of characters in typing.
Ban alcohol then, because I'd rather sit next to sober people than those who aren't.
Ban videogames too. And walking around with hockey sticks.
What a absurdly basic argument. And you thought it was poignant?
Ban videogames too. And walking around with hockey sticks.
What a absurdly basic argument. And you thought it was poignant?
Believe it or not if you go out in the street and talk to real people, you are going to find that the vast majority of them find (playing video games) to be in a significantly different category than (smoking crack). You don’t have to believe me about it. Just speak with your neighbors and conduct your own poll.
Btw, yes, public intoxication is against the law in many places in the world. Pretty standard rule.
Btw, yes, public intoxication is against the law in many places in the world. Pretty standard rule.
I probably go out in the world and talk to more real people than you, hence I don't have to make a poor argument.
My neighbours also are not particularly relevant to form a good argument. If my neighbours are all staunch believers in some deity, doesn't mean it's a good argument to believe in one.
> Btw, yes, public intoxication is against the law in many places in the world. Pretty standard rule.
So is homosexuality. Doesn't mean it's a positive thing or that it solves the problem it's supposed to solve for society. Unless you just want the "ugly people out of your way", in which case killing them could also work, but you probably would have some argument against that, but prison seems fine, right?
My neighbours also are not particularly relevant to form a good argument. If my neighbours are all staunch believers in some deity, doesn't mean it's a good argument to believe in one.
> Btw, yes, public intoxication is against the law in many places in the world. Pretty standard rule.
So is homosexuality. Doesn't mean it's a positive thing or that it solves the problem it's supposed to solve for society. Unless you just want the "ugly people out of your way", in which case killing them could also work, but you probably would have some argument against that, but prison seems fine, right?
The world is full of things that can't be eliminated, but we benefit greatly from reducing their occurrence.
How do we benefit? My country has a drug policy too. One part of it is that asthma inhalers require a prescription. Is the world a better place because I can't legally buy an asthma inhaler without spending a lot of money on doctors visits? I would've appreciated having one on quite a few occasions, but not enough to pay for all the doctors visits.
You see the benefit of unrestricted access to medicines but you completely ignore the harms. That's one sided thinking.
The key complaint above as I read it is the cost of both the drug and the doctor's visit.
It's entirely possible to have chaep prescription asthma medication regulated by low cost national health care subsidised doctors appointments.
It's entirely possible to have chaep prescription asthma medication regulated by low cost national health care subsidised doctors appointments.
My complaint is: why can't I just buy the asthma inhaler without any kind of subsidy? I know I have asthma, I know how to use an inhaler, but I'm simply not allowed to. Instead I just have to hope for the best when breathing gets difficult.
The deal in Australia (public health service) is that depending upon the level of severity of a persons asthma doctors want to physically check on patients every three to six months .. if you've been prescribed certain kinds of treatment you get months long "refill prescriptions" that ultimately have to be renewed by a doctor (although I believe that pharmacists can extend arefill prescription if you tell them why you haven't been able to drop in and see the doctor).
https://www.nationalasthma.org.au/understanding-asthma/treat...
AS I understand it you can get an inhaler most of the time w/out seeing a doctor, you can get an inhaler if you really need it, but you do need to see a doctor to keep getting an inhaler so that the progression of your symptoms can be checked.
Australia loves epidemiology and keeping tabs on treatments, progressions and outcomes.
It's very little to do with spying on individuals and very much to do with keeping tabs on broad health trends and tailoring bulk medication orders, etc.
https://www.nationalasthma.org.au/understanding-asthma/treat...
AS I understand it you can get an inhaler most of the time w/out seeing a doctor, you can get an inhaler if you really need it, but you do need to see a doctor to keep getting an inhaler so that the progression of your symptoms can be checked.
Australia loves epidemiology and keeping tabs on treatments, progressions and outcomes.
It's very little to do with spying on individuals and very much to do with keeping tabs on broad health trends and tailoring bulk medication orders, etc.
Regardless what the intent is, the outcome is that I'm relying on caffeine and sleeping in a semi-seated position when breathing gets too difficult. Luckily, this is rare because I know to avoid aerobic exercise and being in dusty rooms. I'm sure I'm not the only one either. And for people in my situation it essentially means that relief for these issues doesn't exist.
Are you in Australia, if so you really shouldn't be in that position of requiring asthma medication but not having any available.
If you're not in Australia then the intent of Australian health care procedures doesn't apply.
Either way you might consider actively lobbying to change the behaviour of whatever health care sytem you have.
If you're not in Australia then the intent of Australian health care procedures doesn't apply.
Either way you might consider actively lobbying to change the behaviour of whatever health care sytem you have.
I'm not in Australia, but the premise is still the same everywhere in the world where these kinds of medications are illegal. The idea behind it is that it forces you through a doctor, but in practice it just means the medication has less availability to people that could use it.
I don't see the point in lobbying. I've long understood that any opinion I have about how society should be run is worthless because people might agree in detail, but they won't agree once the scope is broadened into actually doing something.
Somebody comes out with a story about how somebody was too stupid to use the thing correctly and ended up hurt, so it should've stayed banned and that's it. People see the negative sides of taking action, but they rarely consider the cost of inaction. I don't even think the problem is with politicians, but rather just people.
I don't see the point in lobbying. I've long understood that any opinion I have about how society should be run is worthless because people might agree in detail, but they won't agree once the scope is broadened into actually doing something.
Somebody comes out with a story about how somebody was too stupid to use the thing correctly and ended up hurt, so it should've stayed banned and that's it. People see the negative sides of taking action, but they rarely consider the cost of inaction. I don't even think the problem is with politicians, but rather just people.
You don't know that you have asthma because you haven't been diagnosed by a doctor.
>You don't know that you have asthma because you haven't been diagnosed by a doctor.
Sure I do. A doctor has told me as much on at least two different occasions. Once when I was a young child and again later.
But because I lost my insurance I didn't get treatment in-between, so I have to get rediagnosed. Jim other words, I'm just going to be relying on caffeine when breathing gets hard.
Sure I do. A doctor has told me as much on at least two different occasions. Once when I was a young child and again later.
But because I lost my insurance I didn't get treatment in-between, so I have to get rediagnosed. Jim other words, I'm just going to be relying on caffeine when breathing gets hard.
You're right, in your case you shouldn't need to see a doctor. However, that doesn't mean that there should be free access to any prescription drug. The system has serious issues that cause great harm to people like you. And we don't know what harm would exist with unrestricted access. Given the average person's confidence compared to their intelligence, and the effects of cognitive dissonance, bias, other thinking errors, it's reasonable to assume it will be worse.
Where I live pharmacists can diagnose and prescribe for some conditions. Other countries have similar systems that allow lower risk medications to be prescribed by people other than doctors for low risk conditions.
Ultimately, if you can't afford the doctors visit, I wonder if you can afford the medication. At least some asthma medication is expensive.
Where I live pharmacists can diagnose and prescribe for some conditions. Other countries have similar systems that allow lower risk medications to be prescribed by people other than doctors for low risk conditions.
Ultimately, if you can't afford the doctors visit, I wonder if you can afford the medication. At least some asthma medication is expensive.
> Someone smoking something doesn't bother me, unless maybe if I can smell it, then it bothers me very, very slightly.
Read up about the dangers of second and third degree smoking.
> The same way someone drinking a beer in public doesn't bother me. How could it?
Perhaps those who've had family or friends killed by drunk driving or drunken homicide might have something else to say.
Read up about the dangers of second and third degree smoking.
> The same way someone drinking a beer in public doesn't bother me. How could it?
Perhaps those who've had family or friends killed by drunk driving or drunken homicide might have something else to say.
>Perhaps those who've had family or friends killed by drunk driving or drunken homicide might have something else to say.
A guy I used to date was rear-ended while waiting at a red light by someone who was texting while driving. It was an extremely serious wreck (the person who hit him did not brake at all, ge was so absorbed in his phone), and my ex was lucky to survive it.
But people texting on their phones in public places doesn't bother him. He is not in favor of making SMS illegal. That would be utterly absurd.
A guy I used to date was rear-ended while waiting at a red light by someone who was texting while driving. It was an extremely serious wreck (the person who hit him did not brake at all, ge was so absorbed in his phone), and my ex was lucky to survive it.
But people texting on their phones in public places doesn't bother him. He is not in favor of making SMS illegal. That would be utterly absurd.
Yes, but these people thrive on inflicting sadistic "treatments" and "remedies" on everyone more vulnerable than themselves.
They're not interested in responsible driving, they're just looking for any excuse for their sadism.
Note that the discussion isn't even about dangerous driving, that's a complete tangent.
It's about whether drug use _per se_ is criminalized. Not even legal, just whether the remedy for drug use should be help or punishment. Portugal never decriminalize or legalised vehicular homicide.
They're not interested in responsible driving, they're just looking for any excuse for their sadism.
Note that the discussion isn't even about dangerous driving, that's a complete tangent.
It's about whether drug use _per se_ is criminalized. Not even legal, just whether the remedy for drug use should be help or punishment. Portugal never decriminalize or legalised vehicular homicide.
That sure is what it looks like.
Texting while driving isn't illegal in your country?
Of course it's illegal. So is drinking and driving.
But texting in public is legal, and having a beer in public is legal. Just because something is dangerous while driving doesn't mean it's harmful under all other circumstances.
But texting in public is legal, and having a beer in public is legal. Just because something is dangerous while driving doesn't mean it's harmful under all other circumstances.
Perhaps those who've had family or friends killed by drunk driving or drunken homicide might have something else to say.
Maybe, but they aren't the folks we should be listening to. I don't drive: I'm pretty sure I'll be OK drinking a beer in public. My decision shouldn't be influenced by those folks.
I don't see many of those people pushing a robust, fare-free public transportation system to help with those either.
Maybe, but they aren't the folks we should be listening to. I don't drive: I'm pretty sure I'll be OK drinking a beer in public. My decision shouldn't be influenced by those folks.
I don't see many of those people pushing a robust, fare-free public transportation system to help with those either.
This is the approach of trying to address the symptoms and not the cause. I also mention homicides in my post, but some people are conveniently ignoring it. The dangers of alcohol have been well documented.
In general, me drinking a beer doesn't harm you, though. At all. And this is true for the vast majority of people.
I suspect you think the cause is the alcohol: But realistically, it is that people don't always plan ahead. As far as drunk driving is concerned, robust transport would be a step in the right direction. Especially in the countryside and small towns - in the US, these are filled with bars but no transport.
The link with homocides isn't nearly as clear. More people drink alcohol than other drugs and from what I could find, it might be a part of a series of events than anything else, at least in the US. If it doesn't hold to other places, then I'll dismiss it. Prohibiting alcohol in public simply isn't going to help, and we've seen what complete prohibition does. Do you have an actual solution that doesn't drive it underground? I'd personally start with improving people's lives in general so that there is less stress all around - at least that stuff we can do something about.
I suspect you think the cause is the alcohol: But realistically, it is that people don't always plan ahead. As far as drunk driving is concerned, robust transport would be a step in the right direction. Especially in the countryside and small towns - in the US, these are filled with bars but no transport.
The link with homocides isn't nearly as clear. More people drink alcohol than other drugs and from what I could find, it might be a part of a series of events than anything else, at least in the US. If it doesn't hold to other places, then I'll dismiss it. Prohibiting alcohol in public simply isn't going to help, and we've seen what complete prohibition does. Do you have an actual solution that doesn't drive it underground? I'd personally start with improving people's lives in general so that there is less stress all around - at least that stuff we can do something about.
All it takes is one drunk driving incident or one drunken homicide incident to turn your life around, which I hope no one has to face. Majority or no majority, the facts and statistics speak quite well about the topic. As discussed in another thread about prohibition of alcohol, the main solution is to change the perception of people and have a common goal to get behind. Life will always be stressful. As an anecdote, today due to many factors including continued occupation and external meddling, even the most war torn countries in the Middle East such as Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan continue to have very low suicide rates, and drinking is not something common as it is prohibited in Islam.
Please tell me in GREAT detail the exact dangers of someone smoking on the sidewalk while I walk by.
Odds are there are no studies to reference because the entire idea is idiotic on its face and no one would ever both studying it.
Odds are there are no studies to reference because the entire idea is idiotic on its face and no one would ever both studying it.
> Perhaps those who've had family or friends killed by drunk driving or drunken homicide might have something else to say.
The offence in that case isn't the drink, it's the driving. Maybe we should ban driving.
The offence in that case isn't the drink, it's the driving. Maybe we should ban driving.
I also mentioned homicides in my post, not just driving, do you want to ban human relationships as well? The dangers of alcohol at all levels have been quite well documented.
Yeah gosh, like, wow, you can't arrest someone without a jolly good reason...
I can see the sad-faces all around, as journo's at the Oligarch's Daily Tribue lament that human rights are completely out of control now that cops can't roust people and smack them around for the crime of making their own personal choices, harming nobody.
"B..b..but what about property values?!"
I can see the sad-faces all around, as journo's at the Oligarch's Daily Tribue lament that human rights are completely out of control now that cops can't roust people and smack them around for the crime of making their own personal choices, harming nobody.
"B..b..but what about property values?!"
I genuinely can't tell what you are saying.
I don't know if you are mocking people who speak like this and satirising their beliefs that drugs are harmless, or if you genuinely speak like this and are mocking the people who wish to criminalize drugs.
Anyway, it's just more evidence for my campaign to criminalize sarcasm and get its users rousted and smacked by police.
I don't know if you are mocking people who speak like this and satirising their beliefs that drugs are harmless, or if you genuinely speak like this and are mocking the people who wish to criminalize drugs.
Anyway, it's just more evidence for my campaign to criminalize sarcasm and get its users rousted and smacked by police.
"B..b..but what about property values?!"
You mean that thing around which the entire economies of the western world revolve around?
You mean that thing around which the entire economies of the western world revolve around?
When property is an investment then owning (useful) property becomes more expensive. Maybe the economy shouldn't revolve around it.
Yes, that's a problem too, but one thing at the time.
All the more reason to let them crash.
Your comment gave me SF vibes. Somewhere in the middle; the answer isn't jailing or ignoring.
The answer is treating it as a medical and social problem, it's a known solution, it just costs money and Portugal decided in 2012 to cheap out on it, outsource it, and then act shocked when it went wrong.
What is the known solution? I don't know much about this area.
I guess salaries which allow people to provide for their basic needs would be a good start. Or providing secure, safe, affordable housing. Where people don't live in constant fear and material insecurity which makes it impossible to sleep without getting fucking blitzed, and where you're too busy working every hour god sends in miserable conditions, to build or maintain a supportive social network.
What, those aren't the priorities of Jeff Bezos? Huh....
Surprised to learn that, given the rosy conditions at amazon warehouses.
What, those aren't the priorities of Jeff Bezos? Huh....
Surprised to learn that, given the rosy conditions at amazon warehouses.
If it was you what would you want us to do ?
Let you sleep on the streets smoking crack ?
treatment for the chemical addiction, and psychological therapy for the trauma around addiction
Let you sleep on the streets smoking crack ?
treatment for the chemical addiction, and psychological therapy for the trauma around addiction
I don't know.
I said above:
>I don't know much about this area.
I said above:
>I don't know much about this area.
[deleted]
Works nice in Singapore.
[deleted]
Portegues have lots of tools. They are sent to drug court which doesn't give the same protections to defendents as criminal courts.
They can be give a variety of punishments, like fine, ban from an area, associating with certain people, suspension of government support.
They can be give a variety of punishments, like fine, ban from an area, associating with certain people, suspension of government support.
I am not sure they could have done anything different, but that's the point - if law enforcement officers can witness someone doing something illegal, but there is no point in enforcing the law, there is a bigger problem.
There were a lot of blind eyes already being turned before he got into this situation though.
you'd take him to hospital....
Arrest him and put him through forced rehab.
I wonder what is the effectiveness rate of forced rehab programs.
It’s very low, lower than regular rehab, which is already not that effective.
Which isn’t an argument against forced treatment because nominally, more people get treatment. To illustrate using made-up numbers:
Policy A: No forced treatment: 10% of addicts attempt treatment with a 10% success rate = 1% overall success rate.
Policy B: Forced treatment: 10% of addicts attempt treatment with a 10% success rate = 1% + 20% of addicts forced into treatment with a 5% success rate = 1% = 2% overall success rate.
Policy A: No forced treatment: 10% of addicts attempt treatment with a 10% success rate = 1% overall success rate.
Policy B: Forced treatment: 10% of addicts attempt treatment with a 10% success rate = 1% + 20% of addicts forced into treatment with a 5% success rate = 1% = 2% overall success rate.
That’s a lot of resources for a low success rate though. The obvious question is could you get a better result using those resources elsewhere? Like education?
Why, what did this person do that was so serious they should be jailed?
Using in public.
The other day a woman passed gas on a crowded public light rail car and it personally offended me. What's more, an approximately six-year-old boy heard her and repeated the infraction, in other words it's indisputable her action influenced others to follow in her footsteps. I also happen to know that neither she nor the six-year-old are gainfully employed, thus they are a drain on society. And in breaking wind it's conceivable or perhaps certain they spread pathogens to countless other innocent people.
Should she have been arrested and jailed for committing what I and many others would regard as depraved behavior? And if not, why the street addict and not the railcar ripper?
Should she have been arrested and jailed for committing what I and many others would regard as depraved behavior? And if not, why the street addict and not the railcar ripper?
I don’t think the reason that public drug use is prosecuted is because it offends people prima facie. It’s because it’s associated with and indicative of a more serious problem: addiction. Addiction fuels all kinds of crime. The same cannot be said of passing gas.
I agree with you that addiction can be a serious issue, but I have some responses to that.
1) If someone's addiction leads to crime, then punish the crime when they commit it. Don't make the pre-crine a crime. Instead of preventing crimes, now you've multiplied them.
2) If drugs weren't ruinously expensive due to their illegality, there would be much less need for addicts to turn to crime. You don't normally hear about alcohol, cigarette or coffee addicts going on crime sprees to support their habits.
3) There's evidence that responding with properly funded support and treatment is cheaper and leads to better outcomes than a massive carceral complex.
4) We can discourage a practice with lighter punitive measures than prison. Running a red light is a rampant traffic infraction, and potentially deadly to boot, yet we don't typically punish it with jail time. It would be massively unproductive to do so. We typically fine people and/or give them "points" on their license. Similarly if needed, we could discourage drugs with fines, taxes, restricting privileges, mandated treatment or social shaming instead of incarceration.
1) If someone's addiction leads to crime, then punish the crime when they commit it. Don't make the pre-crine a crime. Instead of preventing crimes, now you've multiplied them.
2) If drugs weren't ruinously expensive due to their illegality, there would be much less need for addicts to turn to crime. You don't normally hear about alcohol, cigarette or coffee addicts going on crime sprees to support their habits.
3) There's evidence that responding with properly funded support and treatment is cheaper and leads to better outcomes than a massive carceral complex.
4) We can discourage a practice with lighter punitive measures than prison. Running a red light is a rampant traffic infraction, and potentially deadly to boot, yet we don't typically punish it with jail time. It would be massively unproductive to do so. We typically fine people and/or give them "points" on their license. Similarly if needed, we could discourage drugs with fines, taxes, restricting privileges, mandated treatment or social shaming instead of incarceration.
"Addiction fuels all kinds of crime."
Right, so let's punish people for those actual crimes.
Right, so let's punish people for those actual crimes.
You have a frighteningly low bar for what a behaviors you think should result in a person being denied every basically freedom and likey having their life ruined. Do you feel the same about "using" alcohol and other drugs in public?
I hope he has good insurance because rehab isn't cheap.
Every impact story photo is: "Beautiful place covered in dirty drug paraphernalia". It's the same train of thought when people here describe homelessness in big cities. "They're sleeping in our public spaces!"
If you want undesirables to go away, you have to give them somewhere to go. A better life or at least a safe place. Moving them on solves nothing.
As another comment reiterates, Portugal had a good start but then gutted the social support funding. A huge part of that has to be giving people a way out, so that drug taking isn't the default for the down and out. Decriminalisation is a good first step but not on its own.
If you want undesirables to go away, you have to give them somewhere to go. A better life or at least a safe place. Moving them on solves nothing.
As another comment reiterates, Portugal had a good start but then gutted the social support funding. A huge part of that has to be giving people a way out, so that drug taking isn't the default for the down and out. Decriminalisation is a good first step but not on its own.
For some people having to actually see homeless people or drug users is the big problem, not the suffering caused.
Switzerland seems to be doing great with its drug policies. Why is that strategy so effective and other nations seem incapable of noticing or trying something similar?
[deleted]
Having a successful program doesn’t mean you can slow down, you can never slow down agaisn’t hard drugs as it is a global epidemic.
Quote from article: “João Goulão — head of Portugal’s national institute on drug use and the architect of decriminalization — admitted to the local press in December that “what we have today no longer serves as an example to anyone.” Rather than fault the policy, however, he blames a lack of funding.”
“After years of economic crisis, Portugal decentralized its drug oversight operation in 2012. A funding drop from 76 million euros ($82.7 million) to 16 million euros ($17.4 million) forced Portugal’s main institution to outsource work previously done by the state to nonprofit groups, including the street teams that engage with people who use drugs.”
More recomforting is to read Portugal is re-investing in the original effort meausures:
“The country is now moving to create a new institute aimed at reinvigorating its drug prevention programs.”
Let’s hope things improve.
Quote from article: “João Goulão — head of Portugal’s national institute on drug use and the architect of decriminalization — admitted to the local press in December that “what we have today no longer serves as an example to anyone.” Rather than fault the policy, however, he blames a lack of funding.”
“After years of economic crisis, Portugal decentralized its drug oversight operation in 2012. A funding drop from 76 million euros ($82.7 million) to 16 million euros ($17.4 million) forced Portugal’s main institution to outsource work previously done by the state to nonprofit groups, including the street teams that engage with people who use drugs.”
More recomforting is to read Portugal is re-investing in the original effort meausures:
“The country is now moving to create a new institute aimed at reinvigorating its drug prevention programs.”
Let’s hope things improve.
This reminds me of Vancouver Canada. What happens is decent people and families move out of the downtown core, leaving the worst offenders to run amok. It’s sad. I wonder how many of the 200 experts advocating for the continuation of this policy have children.
It shouldn't. Vancouver and Portugal have very different policy.
In Portugal drug possession, use are illegal. They aren't criminal but are illegal and carry penalties at special drug courts which give less protect to defendents.
Also, Vancouver's downtown core hardly had any families and things families need simply aren't available downtown.
In Portugal drug possession, use are illegal. They aren't criminal but are illegal and carry penalties at special drug courts which give less protect to defendents.
Also, Vancouver's downtown core hardly had any families and things families need simply aren't available downtown.
> Vancouver and Portugal have very different policy.
They shouldn't be all that different. Vancouver (well, British Columbia) has tried to model its decriminalization efforts after Portugal's.
That decriminalization hasn't even been around for more than a handful of months, though, so it seems rather early for Vancouver to also be having doubts. Nobody was expecting things to change overnight; Health Canada allowed until 2026 to prove the model.
They shouldn't be all that different. Vancouver (well, British Columbia) has tried to model its decriminalization efforts after Portugal's.
That decriminalization hasn't even been around for more than a handful of months, though, so it seems rather early for Vancouver to also be having doubts. Nobody was expecting things to change overnight; Health Canada allowed until 2026 to prove the model.
You're not hearing what I said.
In Portugal drug possession, use are not criminal but they are illegal and carry penalties.
In BC possession for personal use is legal. There are no penalties.
That is not the same.
In Portugal drug possession, use are not criminal but they are illegal and carry penalties.
In BC possession for personal use is legal. There are no penalties.
That is not the same.
Vancouver and BC's opioid crisis gets worse and worse as the policies continue to become more and more liberal. Every year there are more tent cities, more crime, and more overdose deaths.
It's also getting worse just as fast in the rest of Canada without the lack of enforcement of the wet coast. Doesn't sound like a causative correlation to me.
Legalize possession of personal quantities of all drugs.
Highly regulate the sale and production of drugs -- limiting sale to personal possession amounts, tracking sales to prevent store hopping.
Highly regulate where drugs can be used -- not in public, on the streets.
Use tax money strictly for rehab treatment, enforcing regulation, drug research, building safe injection houses, etc.
You can't just decriminalize drugs, you have to control the production and sale. This ensures quality control and gives social workers direct access to drug users, not to mention removing the black market and the hell that comes with it.
This seems like a big part of the issue:
> state-funded nongovernmental organizations that have largely taken over responding to the people with addiction seem less concerned with treatment than affirming that lifetime drug use should be seen as a human right.
When it should be that addictive use should be seen as a health problem, to be taken care of with treatment, instead of either a "human right" OR something to be treated by intentionally inflicting MASSIVE suffering (jail + esp. the post-jail 'collateral penalties').
> state-funded nongovernmental organizations that have largely taken over responding to the people with addiction seem less concerned with treatment than affirming that lifetime drug use should be seen as a human right.
When it should be that addictive use should be seen as a health problem, to be taken care of with treatment, instead of either a "human right" OR something to be treated by intentionally inflicting MASSIVE suffering (jail + esp. the post-jail 'collateral penalties').
[deleted]
Who would have thought mind altering, addictive substances available legally would lead to degeneration in society and transform productive people into high seeking bums ?
Caffeine and alcohol both available legally, both are mind altering and addictive. Did that lead to a degeneration? How come they transform some but not all people into bums?
Is it like a virus, some are immune? Does the data for alcohol-addicts look like data for epidemics?
Maybe the transformation happens due to some other reason?
Is it like a virus, some are immune? Does the data for alcohol-addicts look like data for epidemics?
Maybe the transformation happens due to some other reason?
Alcohol is extremely destructive to society in many seen and unseen ways.
Why would you even think alcohol has no negative effects on society?
Why would you even think alcohol has no negative effects on society?
I said no such thing. I know it's destructive (especially with the ban on other substances leading to an overconsumption), but it did not lead to a degeneration.
And as studies came to light, as the scientific consensus slowly but surely arrives at the "most likely no safe amount" conclusion, it gets less and less glamorized in TV shows, and young people are already drinking less (probably because they're on tiktok and screens instead). Despite all the advertisement for alcohol.
And as studies came to light, as the scientific consensus slowly but surely arrives at the "most likely no safe amount" conclusion, it gets less and less glamorized in TV shows, and young people are already drinking less (probably because they're on tiktok and screens instead). Despite all the advertisement for alcohol.
> Caffeine and alcohol both available legally, both are mind altering and addictive. Did that lead to a degeneration?
Alcohol: absolutely? How many parents beat their children/spouses under the influence of alcohol, but never sober? How many kill others under the influence while driving?
Alcohol: absolutely? How many parents beat their children/spouses under the influence of alcohol, but never sober? How many kill others under the influence while driving?
Is that a "degeneration"? People were drinking hundreds of years ago too and there has been a lot of progress despite the availability of alcohol. (The fact that we managed to get to a point where we finally think alcohol is bad is itself, I argue, a sign of progress.)
I'm not saying it's great, I'm saying that it's legal, and it should be, and other drugs also should be, and enforcement of responsible use should be a priority.
I'm not saying it's great, I'm saying that it's legal, and it should be, and other drugs also should be, and enforcement of responsible use should be a priority.
[deleted]
I’m all for legalizing drugs, but we need to severely punish crimes that degrade or endanger our experience in public spaces. That’s the real issue here.
Cocaine and opioids should remain banned. Marijuana is almost as harmful as tobacco and should be treated in similar terms to it.
Is this a junk publication? All these US newspapers that get posted here seem terrible to me. Straight up propaganda and lies.
I wonder why they kept it legal to be either consuming drugs or be drugged in public?
In may countries you get thrown in the slammer for drinking or being a drunk nuisance in public. Even if you're just outside the pub where you legally consumed alcohol.
In may countries you get thrown in the slammer for drinking or being a drunk nuisance in public. Even if you're just outside the pub where you legally consumed alcohol.
This article is ridiculous. It spends 90% of its inches quoting cops and the mayor, and then waaaaay down at the bottom the guy who runs the program gets to say, yeah they demolished our funding. What a push piece.
tl;dr social programs fail when you attack and destroy them.
So the obvious conclusion in the eyes of the amazon times? Instead of helping people in crisis, we need state troops to threaten, intimidate, and attack them. You know, like the good old days, when drug policy was much worse.
The bezos chronicle strikes again!
So the obvious conclusion in the eyes of the amazon times? Instead of helping people in crisis, we need state troops to threaten, intimidate, and attack them. You know, like the good old days, when drug policy was much worse.
The bezos chronicle strikes again!
I mean.. I live in Philadelphia. Drugs aren’t legal here and our issues with dangerous drugs far exceed Portugal’s… So, how is criminalizing going to help again? Maybe the only issue is deeper? Depression is at an all time high. People are burned out since covid, this is bound to happen everywhere..
I think you're totally correct, more people are doing drugs, and it has barely any correlation to drugs policy.
Reading through this thread, it's stunning how shallow the discussion is about addiction and drug use. People suggesting that tent cities are the result of drug use, rather than part of the cause (and no, that's not to say people without a good home become drug addicts, that thinking is on the same level, the problem is deeper).
The economy is failing, we've past peak everything, inequality is terrible, there are more candidates for doing drugs overall, so there are more drug users. As things get worse and worse, which they will, there will be even more addicts, because life has literally nothing else to offer them to make them feel good.
For all we know, this regulation in Portugal could be doing even better than it was, say, 8 years ago, it's just that society has gotten worse at supporting its population and as a result there are so many more potential drug users. Most people aren't required for the economy to function, and it's less and less each year.
People who always said that drugs are bad mmmkay, I think they aren't happy with sensible legislation, because it makes them look stupid, so they are the first to come up with weak strawman arguments as soon as some data point turns in their favour.
Reading through this thread, it's stunning how shallow the discussion is about addiction and drug use. People suggesting that tent cities are the result of drug use, rather than part of the cause (and no, that's not to say people without a good home become drug addicts, that thinking is on the same level, the problem is deeper).
The economy is failing, we've past peak everything, inequality is terrible, there are more candidates for doing drugs overall, so there are more drug users. As things get worse and worse, which they will, there will be even more addicts, because life has literally nothing else to offer them to make them feel good.
For all we know, this regulation in Portugal could be doing even better than it was, say, 8 years ago, it's just that society has gotten worse at supporting its population and as a result there are so many more potential drug users. Most people aren't required for the economy to function, and it's less and less each year.
People who always said that drugs are bad mmmkay, I think they aren't happy with sensible legislation, because it makes them look stupid, so they are the first to come up with weak strawman arguments as soon as some data point turns in their favour.
Drugs should be sold at the grocery store, no question asked. They should be cheap too. That would solve the drug problem.
Have you seen how much San Francisco and Seattle have improved with drug tolerant policies?
Have you seen how many people are being left behind everyday by the economy, leaving them nothing else to feel good about except maybe some drugs?
What makes you think that drug use has anything much to do at all with drug policy? People take drugs because society is shit, not because of the rule of law.
What makes you think that drug use has anything much to do at all with drug policy? People take drugs because society is shit, not because of the rule of law.
This goes both ways.
Society also becomes shit because people take drugs.
Society also becomes shit because people take drugs.
Or the person you're responding to is being sarcastic
I don't know about them, but it is a real argument. It's roughly based on Prohibition vs being able to buy alcohol in stores.
Wait you can buy drugs at the grocery store in those cities?
This is the new "but that was not TRUE communism". The more tolerant places are overrun with drug users and homeless camps yet their supporters online will say "but if we provided more money for housing and decriminalized all drugs, now that would solve the issue".
Why should the least responsible drug users be the standard measurement?
There's a debate to be had on that for sure. I'm not for prohibition, I voted to legalize cannabis (even though I don't consume it) because it didn't seem much worse than alcohol and realistically once 50%+ of you population has tried it, that ship has sailed. Some people claim it helps them relax, sleep, etc...
Now with that said, crack, meth and heroin are not "social drugs" and are not compatible with a healthy society. They are strongly addictive and cause permanent damage. You might disagree (and that's fine), but I don't see how making those legally available outside of addiction treatment facility will lead to favourable societal outcomes in any meaningful way.
Now with that said, crack, meth and heroin are not "social drugs" and are not compatible with a healthy society. They are strongly addictive and cause permanent damage. You might disagree (and that's fine), but I don't see how making those legally available outside of addiction treatment facility will lead to favourable societal outcomes in any meaningful way.
> it didn't seem much worse than alcohol
Honestly, I don't think anyone can seriously claim it is anywhere near as bad as alcohol, other than in two regards: smoking isn't great for you (but that's a method problem, not a substance one) and the smell in public (which is a minor issue and, again, one that can be mitigated).
By any other measure - addiction, short-term and long-term harms, indirect harm to third-parties - alcohol is worse.
Honestly, I don't think anyone can seriously claim it is anywhere near as bad as alcohol, other than in two regards: smoking isn't great for you (but that's a method problem, not a substance one) and the smell in public (which is a minor issue and, again, one that can be mitigated).
By any other measure - addiction, short-term and long-term harms, indirect harm to third-parties - alcohol is worse.
Because they are the ones who cause the most trouble.
It always trips me out reading early 20th century novels where the protagonist will stop in a drug store, buy a pint of whiskey, some cocaine or other now schedule 1 drug, and then sit down at the soda fountain counter and have lunch. Talk about one stop shopping.
On a related tangent, Heroin is actually a former trademark. Not a lapsed one, but one that was specifically revoked to punish Bayer during the war. Aspirin was another one. And that's why you see generic "aspirin" but no generic explicitly marketed as "xerox" or "kleenex." The kleenex mark is weakened, but not dead like aspirin and heroin.
On a related tangent, Heroin is actually a former trademark. Not a lapsed one, but one that was specifically revoked to punish Bayer during the war. Aspirin was another one. And that's why you see generic "aspirin" but no generic explicitly marketed as "xerox" or "kleenex." The kleenex mark is weakened, but not dead like aspirin and heroin.
Regulation and treatment. If adults can buy cigarettes and alcohol, might as well regulate weed and slightly harder stuff in limited/maintenance amounts. Certainly people can huff glue and make other poor choices, but the elimination of street-sold drugs should be a goal because they are unregulated, untested, and often contain toxic cutting adulterants.
The amount of people I want consuming recreational PCP around me is 0.
Why should your preference impact my right to my body and what I put into it? That is downright psychotic. You mean to tell me that if someone simply takes PCP near you and does not in any way harm you, you would like for their fundamental human privileges violently stripped from them? Now, if someone takes PCP and is then a public nuisance, that should be dealt with. But it should be dealt with because they are being a public nuisance, not because you disagree with what they have put into their body.
There exists a lag between becoming a public nuisance and being dealt with, within which damage can be incurred by those experiencing the nuisance. The probability and severity of the damage dictates whether or not society decides to allow it.
As an uncontroversial example, maybe someone is well qualified to manipulate explosives in their garage. But society would still say the risk is not worth it, because by the time the “nuisance” is dealt with, there would be unacceptable losses.
The relevant measures to be discussed are what is the probability of someone using PCP and not being a nuisance, and if they did use PCP, what severity would the nuisance be?
As an uncontroversial example, maybe someone is well qualified to manipulate explosives in their garage. But society would still say the risk is not worth it, because by the time the “nuisance” is dealt with, there would be unacceptable losses.
The relevant measures to be discussed are what is the probability of someone using PCP and not being a nuisance, and if they did use PCP, what severity would the nuisance be?
Do you have any high-quality studies towards these relevant measures? Because your proposition is: "I think this man might be on PCP. He is otherwise doing nothing wrong. He should be imprisoned." That is ridiculous. A sober person is equally as capable of becoming a nuisance. So your actual proposition is to jail people on your presumptions, values, and opinions.
> Why should your preference impact my right
A little thing called democracy. Perhaps you've heard of it.
A little thing called democracy. Perhaps you've heard of it.
Your argument would apply equally to a drunk driver who didn’t happen to crash that night.
The problem is that taking pcp significantly raises the probability the user will commit an act of violence, by which point it’s too late.
The problem is that taking pcp significantly raises the probability the user will commit an act of violence, by which point it’s too late.
I don't believe this to be a necessary truth. Do you have any high quality studies that PCP, itself as a substance, does indeed raise the probability of someone doing something untoward? Might it not, in fact, be a problem with the people using PCP? In which case, why should it be restricted for people who would not become a nuisance? Further, why should people who do not become a problem on it have their rights taken away for the simple fact of imbibing?
Either you're just trolling or you haven't spent enough time on the internet to realise that it's impossible for us to tell if you're trolling or sincere.
It was the case in Weimar Germany, as a result drug use and antisocial behavior exploded.
Wirehead city when?
[deleted]
Loads of proposals, all missing the obvious: solve poverty. Portugal and south Europe in general suffer greatly from it. Stats make the region look good on paper but reality is very different.
The link between drug use and poverty is far from clear. While there is a correlation between drug addiction and poverty, there has not been a causal relationship shown between the two. In many cases, poverty may be a result of drug addiction rather than a cause. Consider the much talked about opioid epidemic, for example. The people getting these prescriptions tend towards middle rather than lower class. When the pill supply runs out, either because they can’t afford them anymore or can’t find a doctor to prescribe them, they turn to much cheaper and readily available street drugs like heroin, and at that point they’re more or less locked into a downward spiral into poverty.
All of this is to say that if we were to somehow “solve poverty” (even putting aside the vast oversimplification made by such a statement), while it might reduce rates of drug addiction, it by no means would be an overall solution to the problem. Addiction respects no socioeconomic boundaries.
All of this is to say that if we were to somehow “solve poverty” (even putting aside the vast oversimplification made by such a statement), while it might reduce rates of drug addiction, it by no means would be an overall solution to the problem. Addiction respects no socioeconomic boundaries.
The link between drug use and poverty is not relevant. It's only addiction and unhealthy drug use that are problematic. Alcohol being the number 1 problematic drug by far.
You jumped through a lot of hoops to explain that there is an avenue from middle class to poverty through drugs, but any avenue from drug use to poverty pales in comparison to the avenues from poverty to drug addiction. People who have no place in society, because they have nothing worth contributing, or for whatever other reason they end up in poverty, they find good feelings and usefulness in drugs, in the participation with others in a similar position.
The link between poverty and drug use is very very clear.
You jumped through a lot of hoops to explain that there is an avenue from middle class to poverty through drugs, but any avenue from drug use to poverty pales in comparison to the avenues from poverty to drug addiction. People who have no place in society, because they have nothing worth contributing, or for whatever other reason they end up in poverty, they find good feelings and usefulness in drugs, in the participation with others in a similar position.
The link between poverty and drug use is very very clear.
Note that Portugal has a pretty extensive safety net. Be it housing, unemployment, health care, and social assistance in general.
The country has been suffering from wage stagnation, unemployment and an aging population and that's definitely reflected in stats.
The country has been suffering from wage stagnation, unemployment and an aging population and that's definitely reflected in stats.
Thanks, but the poor are not necessarily drug abusers. Drug abusers may fall into poverty, but not the way around. There's a wealth of drug abuse in rich societies - the fact that SF, one of the richest city on the earth, became a drug hot spot is an example.
> solve poverty
How?
How?
give people money so they can buy food, clothing, and shelter.
there are solutions that have worked in the past. the problem is the US center-right doesn't like them because they can be abused, and it's far worse for one person in a million to have something given to them that they don't deserve than for a million people to be helped.
there are solutions that have worked in the past. the problem is the US center-right doesn't like them because they can be abused, and it's far worse for one person in a million to have something given to them that they don't deserve than for a million people to be helped.
Who’s going to pay for that? Why would those people want to work if they can just freeload?
There are serious problems with welfare programs. They’ve been the downfall of entire countries. Look at Argentina where the bloated government payroll can be viewed as a sort of work for welfare program. The country can’t afford it and its currency blows up on a regular basis as a result.
That’s not saying you should have no welfare programs, but there’s a balance to be maintained. Probably it should be time limited so people are given a sort of “financial rehab”, but not disincentivized to work. And it shouldn’t stop if you get a job, why, just why would you want an incentive against that.
Some people seem to think there can be consumption without production or life without work, but that’s logically incoherent.
There are serious problems with welfare programs. They’ve been the downfall of entire countries. Look at Argentina where the bloated government payroll can be viewed as a sort of work for welfare program. The country can’t afford it and its currency blows up on a regular basis as a result.
That’s not saying you should have no welfare programs, but there’s a balance to be maintained. Probably it should be time limited so people are given a sort of “financial rehab”, but not disincentivized to work. And it shouldn’t stop if you get a job, why, just why would you want an incentive against that.
Some people seem to think there can be consumption without production or life without work, but that’s logically incoherent.
> Who’s going to pay for that?
Anyone who wants to live in a better society, who realises this policy would help achieve that.
> Why would those people want to work if they can just freeload?
Because most people want more than just the absolute necessities of life.
Anyone who wants to live in a better society, who realises this policy would help achieve that.
> Why would those people want to work if they can just freeload?
Because most people want more than just the absolute necessities of life.
One of the big reasons I left Canada is I didn’t like paying for the freeloaders. I didn’t like the high taxes. The other big reason was the insane real estate bubble that priced me out of the market. Between the two of those, I have better opportunities elsewhere.
>Because most people want more than just the absolute necessities of life.
You'd be surprised.
You'd be surprised.
This is objectively true. There are plenty of people who would rather have a meager lifestyle on welfare than have to work. You can argue what the percentage is, but you can’t deny that’s above zero.
"the problem is the US center-right doesn't like them because they can be abused"
What does the US center-right have to do with Portugal?
What does the US center-right have to do with Portugal?
Maybe a first step would be to prevent the ultra rich to get even richer.
Preventing the rich from getting richer does nothing in and of itself to help the poor. You might do things to help the poor that as a side effect make it harder to accrue absurd amounts of wealth, but if your goal from the outset is simply to eliminate all billionaires, there are lots of ways to do that that will only end up hurting the poor as well.
Can we reasonably assume that in the idea of "looking at the ultra rich to help solving poverty", there is fundamentally an idea that... well... it should be done in a way that will help poverty?
Or was it that unclear that I was talking about solving poverty, with the idea that all the money that goes for ultra rich could actually be distributed better?
Or was it that unclear that I was talking about solving poverty, with the idea that all the money that goes for ultra rich could actually be distributed better?
Rhetoric matters, and you didn't say "looking at the ultra rich to help solve poverty", you said "prevent the ultra rich [from] get[ting] even richer". If you had said the former, I wouldn't have objected. What you actually said felt more like class warfare than a serious proposal to help poor people.
It goes, literally, like this:
> Solve poverty > How? > Maybe a first step would be to prevent the ultra rich to get even richer.
If you can't understand the similarity between this and "looking at the ultra rich to help solve poverty", honestly I don't know what I can do.
> Solve poverty > How? > Maybe a first step would be to prevent the ultra rich to get even richer.
If you can't understand the similarity between this and "looking at the ultra rich to help solve poverty", honestly I don't know what I can do.
You can do us a favor and outline for us how doing that is a first step to solving poverty. Otherwise it seems like you just regurgitated a populist meme.
Ok, let's say you find a way to distribute the resources evenly between everybody. Haven't you solved poverty then?
Then if you want to solve inequalities, do you think it's easier to start by solving inequalities between the poor people, or is it easier to start by taking money from those who are insanely rich for no good reason?
Then if you want to solve inequalities, do you think it's easier to start by solving inequalities between the poor people, or is it easier to start by taking money from those who are insanely rich for no good reason?
Your first step is "take" and your second step is "figure it out". If you did figure it out, you wouldn't have to be forcefully taking.
Are you assuming we already have enough resources to solve poverty? Isn't the actual issue that even with perfectly equal distribution we don't have enough resources for every body?
If the pie isn't big enough, why is the communist's focus always on how to divide the pie, rather than growing the pie? Do communists have anything to add at all when it comes to increasing productivity so we can all have more?
Wasn't lack of productivity exactly what killed communism? Even China didn't wake up until it opened its markets.
Inequality isn't increasing because poor people are doing worse. Poor people are doing better. Poor people's conditions are improving faster than they ever have. It's true that the richest people's wealth grew even faster than that, therefore increasing inequality.
But if you really care about the wellbeing of the poor, then you wouldn't distracted by inequality when the conditions are improving. You'd interrupt the most successful ever for the worst system ever, driven by jealousy, bitterness, and moral indignation.
Are you assuming we already have enough resources to solve poverty? Isn't the actual issue that even with perfectly equal distribution we don't have enough resources for every body?
If the pie isn't big enough, why is the communist's focus always on how to divide the pie, rather than growing the pie? Do communists have anything to add at all when it comes to increasing productivity so we can all have more?
Wasn't lack of productivity exactly what killed communism? Even China didn't wake up until it opened its markets.
Inequality isn't increasing because poor people are doing worse. Poor people are doing better. Poor people's conditions are improving faster than they ever have. It's true that the richest people's wealth grew even faster than that, therefore increasing inequality.
But if you really care about the wellbeing of the poor, then you wouldn't distracted by inequality when the conditions are improving. You'd interrupt the most successful ever for the worst system ever, driven by jealousy, bitterness, and moral indignation.
I can't really tell you how communists think, to be honest, because I am not exactly one. It's a weird thing (in the US?) that everyone who is not libertarian is considered communist (and not any communist: mostly the kind that is "the enemy" in cold war era video games, apparently).
There are many systems that would probably be considered communist in the US (at least by those of you who seem to have no clue about anything that is not libertarian) that work really well without genocides. But you'd have to open a book that is not US-centered to see that.
There are many systems that would probably be considered communist in the US (at least by those of you who seem to have no clue about anything that is not libertarian) that work really well without genocides. But you'd have to open a book that is not US-centered to see that.
I'm not American, nor am I a libertarian. I'm a socialist Arab.
I still object to communism, and populist memes like "eat the rich." At best they're immature, at worst they're agents of chaos and destruction who actually harm the lives of millions when they get what they want.
I still object to communism, and populist memes like "eat the rich." At best they're immature, at worst they're agents of chaos and destruction who actually harm the lives of millions when they get what they want.
Step 1) Murder tens of millions of people for the cause.
Step 2) ????
Step 3) Equality!
Step 2) ????
Step 3) Equality!
I said "prevent the ultra rich from getting even richer", and you understood "murder tens of millions of people for the cause".
That escalated quickly. I would be tempted to say that you completely, absolutely hallucinated the meaning of my words, but then... well English isn't my first language, so maybe that's on me.
That escalated quickly. I would be tempted to say that you completely, absolutely hallucinated the meaning of my words, but then... well English isn't my first language, so maybe that's on me.
USSR did that. USSR collapsed. 250M of people suffered, more than 30M died.
Rinse and repeat.
You would never apply this attitude to programming. "Well, I got a segfault, better never touch this C language again..."
> You would never apply this attitude to programming
Really? 30 million deaths wouldn't give you pause? Therac-25 killed or injured 6 people and we still talk about that.
Communism doesn't deserve another chance.
Really? 30 million deaths wouldn't give you pause? Therac-25 killed or injured 6 people and we still talk about that.
Communism doesn't deserve another chance.
Because you think that no non-communist system has ever killed anyone?
The point of the parent is that the fact that USSR collapsed does not mean communism (or any kind of less liberal system, for that matter) is fundamentally bad. Just like getting a crash does not mean that the language is fundamentally bad.
What about this one, following your reasoning: "The Nazi were producing cars, and the Nazi brought us into a world war. Therefore no one should ever produce cars again".
The point of the parent is that the fact that USSR collapsed does not mean communism (or any kind of less liberal system, for that matter) is fundamentally bad. Just like getting a crash does not mean that the language is fundamentally bad.
What about this one, following your reasoning: "The Nazi were producing cars, and the Nazi brought us into a world war. Therefore no one should ever produce cars again".
Communism is bad because communists think the ends justify the means and (as you are demonstrating) shamelessly excuse tens of millions of murders (proving they've learned nothing and will do it again when given the chance.)
You obviously have absolutely no idea what communists think, and what "communism" means.
What you are demonstrating is that it is impossible to talk with you. Not sure if that is because you can't understand a basic sentence or just because you aren't open to even learn what a word means before making completely wrong conclusions, but I don't care. We won't have a constructive discussion, let's stop here.
What you are demonstrating is that it is impossible to talk with you. Not sure if that is because you can't understand a basic sentence or just because you aren't open to even learn what a word means before making completely wrong conclusions, but I don't care. We won't have a constructive discussion, let's stop here.
"That wasn't real communism, you have to let us murder tens of millions of people again!"
Communists think that it possible to build communism by killing of «bad» (rich) people, until good people, liberated from burden of capitalism, will build communism. In their imagination, it's OK to kill 30% of population to build heaven for them.
I don't think communists "think the ends justify the means" any more than capitalists do, probably less if anything.
We've got a communist in this thread being dismissive of 30 million dead. Communism is morally an intellectually bankrupt. It's an ideology for the bitter and depraved.
You do realize that reducing inequalities is not exactly equivalent to "pure communism theory", which is again not exactly equivalent to "USSR"? Or is that all the same to you?
Do you think Portugal really has a lot of ultra-rich people sitting around to fleece?
Do you think nobody is rich in Portugal?
The combined net worth of all billionaires in Portugal[1] is about 10% of annual government spending [2].
So to within a rounding error, no, it's a poor country full of poor people with an irrelevant number of billionaires. You could destroy all foreign investment and future growth by confiscating literally all of their wealth for 1 year of modestly higher government spending.
[1] https://profilbaru.com/article/List_of_Portuguese_by_net_wor..., ignoring people who nominal "citizens" but live and hold money elsewhere.
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/275337/government-revenu....
So to within a rounding error, no, it's a poor country full of poor people with an irrelevant number of billionaires. You could destroy all foreign investment and future growth by confiscating literally all of their wealth for 1 year of modestly higher government spending.
[1] https://profilbaru.com/article/List_of_Portuguese_by_net_wor..., ignoring people who nominal "citizens" but live and hold money elsewhere.
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/275337/government-revenu....
First, solve housing.
So to solve one incredibly hard problem humanity has never solved... you need to first solve another incredibly hard problem?
Well shit, get on it Portugal! /s
Well shit, get on it Portugal! /s
indeed, link hands everybody, and chant with me the centrist anthem: better things aren't possible and we should just give up! better things aren't possible and we should just give up! better things aren't possible and we should just give up!
I think there's a vast gulf between abject pessimism, and the sort of useless optimism encapsulated in the casual statement, "Solve poverty" don't you? If someone asked you how people could live longer, you wouldn't be helpfully engaging if the response was, "Solve death."
[deleted]
Finland has solved it.
In fact, you can subsidize housing costs from all the savings on healthcare costs.
In fact, you can subsidize housing costs from all the savings on healthcare costs.
[deleted]
I disagree: first, solve culture
pc_edwin(3)
Has any advanced civilization been gung-ho about legalized drugs?
There are probably strong socioevolutionary reasons why this is the case.
There are probably strong socioevolutionary reasons why this is the case.
What do you consider advanced? Keeping in mind, of course, that cocaine was legal in the US until ne'er-do-well do-gooders decided they knew better for everyone. That is why we have Coca Cola, which is a formulation of Mr. John Pemberton's Cocaine-Fortified Wine. It's only very recently that we have decided to start imprisoning people for the simple fact of putting things into their bodies.
So, again, what do you consider advanced? If we go back to the foundations of Western civilization, we find the Greeks quite enjoyed getting high on many interesting substances. The Romans and Egyptians as well.
What about native populations on the US continent? The Peyote tribe literally have a mescaline-bearing cactus named after them, along with all the various substances known to the South Americans before the Spaniards decided to put the torch to their accumulated cultural practices. (c.f. The Florentine Codex)
The histories of China and India are also rife with periods of legalized substance use, some good and some bad.
But to your question: yes, there have been many advanced civilizations whom have been "gung-ho" about legalized drugs.
So, again, what do you consider advanced? If we go back to the foundations of Western civilization, we find the Greeks quite enjoyed getting high on many interesting substances. The Romans and Egyptians as well.
What about native populations on the US continent? The Peyote tribe literally have a mescaline-bearing cactus named after them, along with all the various substances known to the South Americans before the Spaniards decided to put the torch to their accumulated cultural practices. (c.f. The Florentine Codex)
The histories of China and India are also rife with periods of legalized substance use, some good and some bad.
But to your question: yes, there have been many advanced civilizations whom have been "gung-ho" about legalized drugs.
I'd also add: Armies have marched on amphetamines for a long time.
Other than religious proscriptions against alcohol, I can't think of any civilization in history that has outright banned any drugs. Were the Romans, Egyptians or Persians especially anti-drug? Any of the ancient Indian or Chinese kingdoms and empires?
On the other hand, cannabis has a long tradition of use in ancient India[1].
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_India
On the other hand, cannabis has a long tradition of use in ancient India[1].
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_India
Europe, circa the middle ages, had cultural taboos against certain "witchy" herbs. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only other cultural prohibition against some class of drugs at large.
I do believe such bans to be hideous and downright stupid. It is crass authoritarianism, nothing less than the subordination of the individual's body and mind to a tyrannical society clownish enough to demand it.
I do believe such bans to be hideous and downright stupid. It is crass authoritarianism, nothing less than the subordination of the individual's body and mind to a tyrannical society clownish enough to demand it.
When the Chinese banned opium the British went to war to reopen that market because it was so profitable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
It seems like many drugs are banned in various societies today, so I don't quite follow you.
It seems like many drugs are banned in various societies today, so I don't quite follow you.
> It seems like many drugs are banned in various societies today, so I don't quite follow you.
OP thinks no "advanced civilization" has ever allowed drugs. Drugs bans enforced by state power only became a thing near the end of the 19th century. That means no advanced civilization existed before then - not the Romans, nor Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, Indians, or Chinese - and countless others. Sounds incorrect to me.
OP thinks no "advanced civilization" has ever allowed drugs. Drugs bans enforced by state power only became a thing near the end of the 19th century. That means no advanced civilization existed before then - not the Romans, nor Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, Indians, or Chinese - and countless others. Sounds incorrect to me.
Most civilizations, at least in your meaning of the term, never had to deal with the problem much. For much of Europe's history, the only known drug of consequence was booze, and it wasn't easy to make. Economy's simply weren't diversified enough that some could be drunks, they'd have nothing to pay for booze with and no one was going to let them freeload and drink all the good stuff besides.
Most of the drugs that are a problem for us are late 19th century or 20th century inventions. Sure, there are some others here and there... in their most diluted, least problematic forms. But that's about it.
A better question than yours would be "when has criminalizing drugs ever done any of the things we might hope it would do?"... but it's a difficult question that most people want to avoid. That they're willing to accept dishonest, fallacious answers for.
Most of the drugs that are a problem for us are late 19th century or 20th century inventions. Sure, there are some others here and there... in their most diluted, least problematic forms. But that's about it.
A better question than yours would be "when has criminalizing drugs ever done any of the things we might hope it would do?"... but it's a difficult question that most people want to avoid. That they're willing to accept dishonest, fallacious answers for.
Any civilization that would use violence against non-violent offenders cannot be defined as advanced.
Before the invention of antibiotics almost all medicine was nonsense and the drugs available were mostly alcohol, cocaine, opium, aspirin and caffeine. It is only since the 1950s that there is a huge amount of different drugs and mass production on top of it.
[deleted]
Canada is pretty much fine with drugs, as well as California
Yes, and our opioid situation is just super, nothing to see here!
Do you think that's down to availability, or down to a lack of support and education?
It's certainly not a problem with education. Nobody in this country can claim they were never told that drugs are bad.
Spotted the Non-Canadian...
I'm not surprised that policy worked well in the Portugal of 20 years ago.
Portugal was and still is to an extend very peaceful4 with an homogenous population and traditional values. Still today people leave their houses and cars opened in the countryside.
As their society aligned with the rest of Western Europe in the last 20 years drugs use came back up, no surprise there. Also cutting the funding during the financial crisis did not help, I believe that.
Now believing that you could replicate what was done in the Portugal of 20 years ago in LA or any place where society have long disintegrate is ludacris. No matter how much money you put in it.
As their society aligned with the rest of Western Europe in the last 20 years drugs use came back up, no surprise there. Also cutting the funding during the financial crisis did not help, I believe that.
Now believing that you could replicate what was done in the Portugal of 20 years ago in LA or any place where society have long disintegrate is ludacris. No matter how much money you put in it.
People who think drugs should be descriminalized often have no experience with actual criminal justice, and are often recreational drug users themselves (i.e. too close to the issue).
It is a conspiracy theory to believe that drug criminalization has a strictly for-profit motive despite near universal adoption as a policy. That is to say, you believe a conspiracy theory casually.
It is a conspiracy theory to believe that drug criminalization has a strictly for-profit motive despite near universal adoption as a policy. That is to say, you believe a conspiracy theory casually.
>and are often recreational drug users themselves (i.e. too close to the issue)
I think this is an interesting thought. As a recreational drug user myself (I drink alcohol sometimes), I do indeed feel like drugs should be legalized, so as to enable regulation. But I don't feel like me dealing with the subject in my day to day life should have a bearing on whether I'm able to have an informed opinion on the matter. It's like saying rape victims are too close to rape and therefore their opinions on rape legislation are skewed.
I think this is an interesting thought. As a recreational drug user myself (I drink alcohol sometimes), I do indeed feel like drugs should be legalized, so as to enable regulation. But I don't feel like me dealing with the subject in my day to day life should have a bearing on whether I'm able to have an informed opinion on the matter. It's like saying rape victims are too close to rape and therefore their opinions on rape legislation are skewed.
> It's like saying rape victims are too close to rape and therefore their opinions on rape legislation are skewed.
No...no.
No...no.
Exactly, I completely agree, it's a very silly thought! What makes drug use different from my example that people aren't able to have an informed opinion on it when they're involved?
It's like saying rapists are too close to rape and therefore their opinions on rape legislation are skewed.
Drug users are not the victims
Drug users are not the victims
Oops you're absolutely right. It's like saying drivers have skewed opinions on driving legislation because they're to close to the subject matter.
Literally everyone opposes rape.
If that were true, there would be no rape.
An estimated 1 in every 16 men, and some non-zero percentage of women, seem to be pretty cool with it (at least as perpetrators).
An estimated 1 in every 16 men, and some non-zero percentage of women, seem to be pretty cool with it (at least as perpetrators).
Yep, me too. However legislation on x (be it rape, recreational drugs, whatever), still requires discussion, and there's always ifs and buts, and the idea that someone involved in x is somehow not someone to be taken seriously on the matter strikes me as wrong.
Its fallacious only if I reject an argument you propose with that logic.
Obviously, in the application of a logical argument, you need to respond to logic with logic.
That being said, it's also obvious that a criminal isn't really a good authority on the justness of the crime they commit -- we implicitly understand that this is part of the rationalization process for antisocial behaviors.
Also, yeah, the rape "analogy" was both socially awkward and horrible, a double whammy. Generally, rape isn't a great topic for conversation.
Obviously, in the application of a logical argument, you need to respond to logic with logic.
That being said, it's also obvious that a criminal isn't really a good authority on the justness of the crime they commit -- we implicitly understand that this is part of the rationalization process for antisocial behaviors.
Also, yeah, the rape "analogy" was both socially awkward and horrible, a double whammy. Generally, rape isn't a great topic for conversation.
>That being said, it's also obvious that a criminal isn't really a good authority on the justness of the crime they commit...
How is that obvious? It's not at all obvious to me that, for example, MLK Jr was not an authority on the justice of civil disobedience because he himself practiced civil disobedience.
If we disregard the opinions of people who think doing X is justified and therefore proceed to do X, then we bias ourselves toward the opinions of people who oppose X, as they will be overrepresented in the sample of people who choose not to do X.
Such cherry picking is not a logically sound method for developing an honest, unbiased worldview.
How is that obvious? It's not at all obvious to me that, for example, MLK Jr was not an authority on the justice of civil disobedience because he himself practiced civil disobedience.
If we disregard the opinions of people who think doing X is justified and therefore proceed to do X, then we bias ourselves toward the opinions of people who oppose X, as they will be overrepresented in the sample of people who choose not to do X.
Such cherry picking is not a logically sound method for developing an honest, unbiased worldview.
How is it not obvious that a legal transgressor would justify their transgression? The fact that bad people generally don't feel like bad people is a universal understanding of the human condition.
Not interested in making comparisons to someone that you can't separate from a type of neo-sainthood.
Anyhow, having an unpopular opinion isn't antisocial or illegal.
Buying heroin is.
Not interested in making comparisons to someone that you can't separate from a type of neo-sainthood.
Anyhow, having an unpopular opinion isn't antisocial or illegal.
Buying heroin is.
It's not a comparison. It's an analogy. This is actually a pretty important distinction because analogies are vital for illustrating concepts in a more concrete way; it's why we got drilled and tested on analogies again and again in school.
But let me try again without making an analogy:
Some percentage of people do X and therefore try to justify doing X.
But another percentage of people think X is justified and therefore do X.
You do not appear to make a distinction between these two cases. You lump the latter in with the former and then dismiss their views out of hand.
This is such bad logic that I am beginning to suspect that you are are actually being a hypocrite here: that you dislike drug users emotionally, and so you are trying extra hard to justify that dislike intellectually, even when it requires blatantly fallacious reasoning. (And, dammit, here I ended up making another analogy, albeit hopefully subtly enough that you don't accuse me of comparing you to a criminal.)
But let me try again without making an analogy:
Some percentage of people do X and therefore try to justify doing X.
But another percentage of people think X is justified and therefore do X.
You do not appear to make a distinction between these two cases. You lump the latter in with the former and then dismiss their views out of hand.
This is such bad logic that I am beginning to suspect that you are are actually being a hypocrite here: that you dislike drug users emotionally, and so you are trying extra hard to justify that dislike intellectually, even when it requires blatantly fallacious reasoning. (And, dammit, here I ended up making another analogy, albeit hopefully subtly enough that you don't accuse me of comparing you to a criminal.)
In referring to recreational drug users as bad people, I think you're conflating morality with legality, which is common, but wrong.
Doing drugs is immoral because it compromises your ability to serve your community and live up to the expectations and responsibilities that come with living in a society.
If you can keep your life balanced while on drugs, good for you. But you're still toying with the risk of you getting addicted and losing control; to even take that risk is selfish.
If you can keep your life balanced while on drugs, good for you. But you're still toying with the risk of you getting addicted and losing control; to even take that risk is selfish.
Decriminalization is a cowardly half-solution that only creates more problems, leaves violent gangs in charge and does nothing to improve the purity of drugs. A measured and thoughtful legalization program for the most popular drugs is the only solution if we want to curtail black market dominance and save human lives.
You can't save every human life.
Ok, when it's your friend or relative that suffers an overdose you can revisit your opinion that it's better to force people to buy impure drugs than to forge a different path forward that places a higher value on human life.
You're incredibly misinformed on this issue. The prohibition War on Drugs is what keeps drug prices up, organized criminality and violence, and the over-incarceration of mostly poor people. Take away the difficulty of access and the ridiculous criminal penalties for nonviolent infractions, and street prices drop.
In all cases I’m aware of, “decriminalization” refers to legalizing possession of small end user amounts. It doesn’t legalize production or sales, so the issues you described remain.
If low drug prices is what you want, we should legalize the production and sales of drugs, but keep usage illegal.
If low drug prices is what you want, we should legalize the production and sales of drugs, but keep usage illegal.
You are misinformed on the difference between decriminalization and legalization.
"Strictly" seems to be constructing a strawman - I would guess almost everyone who believes in decriminalization acknowledges other motives like puritanicalism, racism, classism, labor productivity, adherence to the societal norms, etc.
Racism? Really?
So, execution for drug use in Malaysia has a root cause of racism.
This just goes to show you that these people have absolutely no intellectual rigor applied to any of their ideas.
Their fake ideology is built strictly on a convoluted set of shibboleths that apply only loosely as semi-believable just so stories in a Western (specifically American) context.
So, execution for drug use in Malaysia has a root cause of racism.
This just goes to show you that these people have absolutely no intellectual rigor applied to any of their ideas.
Their fake ideology is built strictly on a convoluted set of shibboleths that apply only loosely as semi-believable just so stories in a Western (specifically American) context.
The beginning of drug criminalization in America was directly and overly rooted in racism.
This article is a good introduction to the history of US drug enforcement: https://timeline.com/harry-anslinger-racist-war-on-drugs-pri...
This article is a good introduction to the history of US drug enforcement: https://timeline.com/harry-anslinger-racist-war-on-drugs-pri...
QED, your post, etc.
Racism theory is a Rorschach test.
Suffice it to say, it's really tough to interrogate reality when you have nothing but contrapositive indications and your response is "yes, this only applies to this one instance though".
This is why studying things systemically rather than through a collection of historical anecdotes you've picked up is a vastly superior system for modelling reality. This argumentum ad collection of ad hoc historical anecdotes that reify my pseudoscientific ideas is less interesting intellectually than Horoscopes.
We don't need to discuss this further as it is highly incendiary and you're not allowed to have arguments about topics that make people upset, so any polemicist is basically unchecked.
Racism theory is a Rorschach test.
Suffice it to say, it's really tough to interrogate reality when you have nothing but contrapositive indications and your response is "yes, this only applies to this one instance though".
This is why studying things systemically rather than through a collection of historical anecdotes you've picked up is a vastly superior system for modelling reality. This argumentum ad collection of ad hoc historical anecdotes that reify my pseudoscientific ideas is less interesting intellectually than Horoscopes.
We don't need to discuss this further as it is highly incendiary and you're not allowed to have arguments about topics that make people upset, so any polemicist is basically unchecked.
lol yikes
Isn't a post like this in violation of Hackernews rules?
Not very intellectually curious. Where's my friend?
Not very intellectually curious. Where's my friend?
You didn't engage with my reply, you went off on a weird monologue about why you are skeptical of racism generally..?
"racism is one of the many motives for drug criminalization" is thoroughly documented and not debatable by serious people.
"racism is one of the many motives for drug criminalization" is thoroughly documented and not debatable by serious people.
like omg i just can't even
> Inside, a 47-year-old man struggled to mix ashy heroin with fragments of crystal crack, crushing both into a souped-up speedball. Observed by a nurse, he took the needle and jabbed it into a vein in his neck. “The veins on his hands have all dried up,” the nurse said matter-of-factly.
I don't really understand how anybody sensible can read a sentence like that and think to themselves, "yes, this is fine."
If individual bodily autonomy is the god you have chosen to worship above all other paths painstakingly eked out over the ages through much trial and error toward human flourishing, I guess it makes sense, but for those of us who ascribe to more, dare I say, traditional ideas about what constitutes good human life, the thinking that underlies the kinds of policies which lead to the outcomes detailed in this article seem utterly abhorrent.
It's astonishing how much human misery and suffering some people are willing to put up with and justify when wearing ideological blinders.
I don't really understand how anybody sensible can read a sentence like that and think to themselves, "yes, this is fine."
If individual bodily autonomy is the god you have chosen to worship above all other paths painstakingly eked out over the ages through much trial and error toward human flourishing, I guess it makes sense, but for those of us who ascribe to more, dare I say, traditional ideas about what constitutes good human life, the thinking that underlies the kinds of policies which lead to the outcomes detailed in this article seem utterly abhorrent.
It's astonishing how much human misery and suffering some people are willing to put up with and justify when wearing ideological blinders.
http://web.archive.org/web/20230707185209/https://www.washin...