Do you notice that you've defined your own viewpoint as rational and supported by data and the viewpoint of others as "probably focused around emotions"?
What individuals believe seems _so_obviously_correct_ and what other people believe is _so_completely_ridiculous_ that we make up reasons for them being so... so... different than ourselves.
One thing that has stuck with me recently was a quote where it basically said that ‘everyone is skeptical, but just about different things’
I wish more people recognized that it is a tempting and lazy logical fallacy. It is fundamentally disrespectful to assume that people who don’t agree with you are too emotional. If you make this argument, you are killing your own argument, unless you support it with facts. OP demonstrates this uncharitability by asserting a lack of data, and then assuming emotions explain it. Go hang out with a more diverse crowd, OP. You are robbing yourself of life’s tapestry.
For example, If OP had made this argument about women I don't think we'd see so many upvotes on the comment and we'd see a lot more uproar. Despite the fact that women are routinely dismissed as being "emotional".
Here, OP presents that there is insufficient data to hop to conclusions. That said, OP still dismisses "conservatives" on the premise of acting purely on emotion. The irony seems lost on OP but also other HN viewers.
Agreed that accusing your opponent of not using facts or reason makes it hard to have an honest discussion.
At the very least, if reason and facts are so important to you, what about the fact that this style of argument is empirically ineffective, and almost never persuades anybody to switch views? It's even dangerous to your cause, in the sense that it makes people defensive and more extreme in their views. If you care about outcomes, don't poison the conversation.
I'm also skeptical whenever I see an argument that depends on the assumption that if you just had access to all the facts, you'd agree with me. In my experience, the more facts I learn about anything related to human behavior, the more complex the picture gets, and the less certain I am that anybody has it right.
Edit: please don't downvote based on disagreement - write something instead. This is a reasonable question asking to further understand the conservative viewpoint. Case in point, I'm upvoting buzzert's comments because they present a contrary, but interesting perspective.
[0]: https://drugpolicy.org/press-release/2021/02/drug-decriminal...
[1]: https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ERD/Pages/Oregon-trends-with-U.S....
I have yet to encounter lefties in my SE hood terrorizing anyone.
Plenty of Trump caravans last year, waking us up, shooting guns.
All from outside the city.
Sure violence is up but it’s up all over. A side effect of a nation coddling old wealth, leaving the masses to rot.
It rightly so should be abolished.
To be replaced with trained medical help, detox programs, and a conversation about morality not tethered to superstition, or black and white judgments.
But the fundies, acting out of emotion, prefer boxes.
It’s all emotion since humans are motivated by such. It’s the outcome that should be judged.
Why can’t these programs exist while also having drugs be illegal?
Also it doesn’t help your position by using childish words like “fundies”, FYI. Keep that on Reddit please.
How would you make that work? Consider if drugs are illegal, then getting medical help / detox requires admission of guilt. This seems like a fifth amendment problem.
You can't just show up to a hospital with crack or heroin withdrawl and be like "I don't feel well, please help me". They are going to ask why you don't feel well.
Is it everyone else’s responsibility to protect you and your sensibilities?
It hasn’t prevented folks from consuming them, or becoming addicted.
If I’m childish for the use of a euphemism, what would you call living in an idealized reality that’s never existed?
We tried that strategy for many decades. It has failed as a strategy for decades. I don’t think that’s necessarily evidence that decriminalization will work, but it seems like...maybe we should at least try something else?
It seems like any rational person could see the connection between drugs and the dystopian aspects of the Tenderloin. What I would do instead is precisely what I would do if my children were addicted to drugs; tough love. I would make it impossible for them to acquire drugs and deal with the consequences of withdrawl.
Japan and Singapore are examples of countries that are extremely tough on drugs. I believe it is no coincidence that these places also turned out to be essentially the opposite of the Tenderloin with regards to public safety and heigene.
Depending on the drug and the severity of their addiction, that could kill them. Would you take it that far?
Methadone maintenance therapy leaves several problems, starting with the fact that other opioids still feel good and are still being profitably sold on the street. There's supply and demand, right there.
The illegality makes it expensive. Most opioid users start with pills, and continue to injection because heroin and analogues are expensive, and injection works better. Unfortunately it's also a much better way to kill yourself, as is taking what you think is one drug (such as heroin) and lacing it with a stronger one (such as fentanyl). It's possible to kill yourself with a bunch of pills of a known opioid of a guaranteed strength, but it's pretty tough to do by accident.
So let's remove the profit motive, by letting the state take over the sale of opioids. No advertising, of course, and this is done in settings where help can be made available to anyone who wants to quit being addicted to drugs. Make it expensive enough that it isn't the cheapest way to have a good time (opioids cost basis is very low), but not so high that constant petty crime is the only way to stay high. Limit purchase quantities; maybe give known addicts a license, so they can have a slightly higher limit to account for their tolerance. A little bit will leak onto the street, sure, that's tolerable compared to a hundred kilos at once arriving from overseas or the southern border.
This puts the dealers out of business, clears out the Tenderloin, reduces opioid overdoses, puts addicts where they can get help, and reduces the burden on our overcrowded prisons. Evidence from Switzerland and Portugal suggest that over time it will also reduce the number of opioid addicts.
All in all, pretty big win.
If the goal is to punish somebody for the rest of their life for having fun on an illegal substance, then mission accomplished. If the goal is to remediate the user so that they can be a productive member of society, then it's an utter failure. Sometimes people don't get hooked on the methadone itself, but it's a very delicate balancing act and not at all guaranteed
But how? Drugs are already illegal. There is currently a vast government apparatus designed to make drugs impossible to acquire. The US has the largest prison population on the planet due in no small part to the war on drugs. It's not like we go easy on drugs.
And yet, in your city there is an "open-air drug market". Making drugs illegal doesn't make drugs harder to get, because drugs are profitable. To paraphrase Ian Malcom from Jurassic Park "drugs will find a way."
I think you're noticing a correlation and labeling it a causation. If people had a place to safely do drugs, would they be overdosing in the street? If SF had more public restrooms would people defecate in the streets? If the city had more affordable housing would people be living in the streets? If people had access to jobs so they could earn a living, would they be committing crimes? You blame the drugs for the problems, but I see them as a symptom of larger societal causes.
Now do automatic weapons, straw purchases, felons getting guns, etc.
Both sides have their political bugaboos about problems that haven't been completely solved by existing approaches. Both sides want to try something different by cracking down on their own citizens; both sides want to try something different by lessening the burdens on good people who don't hurt others. Unfortunately, the two major political parties take opposite positions on which approach to take with which issue.
Maybe our political discourse wouldn't get quite to the level of talking about secession if we tried to understand one another's values a little better.
I see the outside reference fitting here.
You're missing the point entirely. Drugs aren't an isolated example. There are a number of highly divisive issues in the US for which the majority of Americans appear to hold largely emotionally based views. (Note that the degree to which a view is emotional is entirely orthogonal to whether or not it can be arrived at rationally.)
> There was no mention of "parties" or "sides".
And yet in practice, the vast majority of opposition to drug decriminalization (let alone outright legalization) comes from more conservative people. Such divides exist in a statistical sense whether you like it or not.
Your points about the relative inefficiencies and overall failures of the current approach to drugs based on available data is well taken. However, when it comes to highly divisive issues such as this one, it seems that simply appealing to rationality in this manner is not a viable tactic on its own for the majority of people. The analogy to gun laws helps to illustrate this fact - imagine how the majority of liberals would react to a "rational" explanation of why a particular gun law was unlikely to improve things.
Burying your head in the sand won't change the fact that there are significant emotional components which are relevant here.
I wanted to talk about the merits and reasons for/against drug decriminalization, as well as alternative solutions.. You keep telling me that I'm missing the point, but maybe you're missing my point. I'm not interested in the discussion about the broader point of the process itself. Talking about parties and sides and gun control is not the discussion I engaged in. The fact that it's a controversial issue that elicits strong emotional responses from people is not germane to the discussion at hand.
The original poster said: "Maybe our political discourse wouldn't get quite to the level of talking about secession if we tried to understand one another's values a little better."
That's exactly what was happening! I wanted to take part in that. The last thing I would want to do in that discussion is bring in heated tangential topics that would serve to derail the conversation. That's not burying your head, that's staying on topic. There are significant emotional components about this and also as well about guns. Agreed. The original point stands.
There seems to be a correlation vs causation issue there though. An equally plausible rational explanation is that the criminal act of selling drugs tends to make more sense in a place where that act is overlooked. If drug sales were decriminalized then those areas would tend to be less focused. Case in point is the proliferation of legal marijuana dispensaries. At least in the places that I've seen these (in Seattle), they don't seem to induce a higher criminal / unsanitary / dystopian atmosphere. Perhaps my perspective is unique.
>Japan and Singapore are examples of countries that are extremely tough on drugs. I believe it is no coincidence that these places also turned out to be essentially the opposite of the Tenderloin with regards to public safety and heigene.
Yes, and Singapore's approach still regards possession / use as a medical with an initial focus on rehabilitation, not just punishment. Singapore has some pretty big advantages over the US in its administration of the law (single jurisdiction / set of laws, single highly populous city). The laws vary widely in the US (consider Marijuana legalization an obvious example).
Yes, let’s try a different strategy. Yes, that different strategy might be the opposite of the thing we were trying before. That’s because the thing we were trying before has failed in almost every metric for decades (including drug overdose deaths, as you’ve noted).
Honestly, I genuinely don’t know how one could rationalize preserving the existing strategy. Can you explain the desire to continue applying the same failed strategy? What’s the logical argument for continuing to do the same thing?
Decriminalization has its own issues, to be sure. I'd prefer legalization (the actual polar opposite). I want addicts to be able to buy a clean supply from a legitimate business. The US won't see a reduction in organized crime until we offer a path to legitimacy. Decriminalization is the easiest, but least effective middle ground.
If this is the direction Oregon is intending to go, it is certainly worth trying. But if it will just be an unstructured free-for-all I doubt it will result in any improvements.
Decriminalization is usually just a necessary prerequisite to make the medical approach practically workable. I’d expect most legislatures would avoid touching the decriminalization issue if they could.
For a functioning addict, drugs not being illegal is itself an improvement, even if overdose rates stay completely unchanged.
When you have an addiction problem, getting the legal system involved typically results in you getting two problems around your neck, instead of just one.
I have a hard time following your line of thought.
You're assuming overdose rates are negatively correlated with criminalization of drugs. Have you considered the possibility that it's exactly the opposite, then when drugs are decriminalized, people can have access to better information and health care?
If you're a professional and you have alcoholism, you can get care and treatment, and it may even be paid for by your employer's health care plant. If you're addicted to cocaine, OxyContin, hydrocodone, or amphetamines, then maybe one day you OD because you never talk about it and you don't see a doctor about it, for fear of being convicted of a crime, losing your job, your health care, and ending up in prison or homeless.
And also because the substances you're consuming aren't subject to the vast array of safety mechanisms that exist for all other pharmaceuticals. You don't have anywhere near the same level of quality guarantees.
Compared to the synthesis and purification of complex organics, the distillation of ethanol is difficult to mess up. People still died of poisoning during prohibition though.
Where the right and left differed was in all the programs treating drug addiction that were brought in at the same time. Pamper the poor darlings vs Let them rot in the gutter.