Doesn't california have a massive drug problem and literal armies of drug addicts shitting in the streets and harassing families and tax-payers?
How will this help?
How will this help?
2. Most people with addiction issues (whether cause or consequence of issues) are not users of psychedelics.
3. How about you explain how criminalizing drugs helps the situation? Because that's the regime under which you got the current situation, why would "keep doing the same thing" yield a different result, exactly?
4. And to my knowledge, the result from Portugal's drug strategy (which essentially decriminalised all drugs back in 2001) has kept looking better and better as the years have gone by. At worst, there seem to be no ill effect compared to other more repressive countries in europe, just less money wasted on possession policing.
[0] not necessarily drug addicts, and for those which are, not necessarily the cause of their homelessness, often the consequence of it or the consequence of shared causes e.g. untreated mental disorders and trauma
It's true that other states have given homeless people in their state one-way bus tickets to San Francisco, but it's a relatively small fraction of the homeless population in California. Something like 92% of the homeless in San Francisco had housing in California before they ended up on the streets.
See page 18: https://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019HIRDRep...
> Thirty percent (30%) of respondents reported living in a home owned or rented by themselves or a partner immediately prior to becoming homeless. Thirty-threepercent (33%) reported staying with friends or family. Twelvepercent (12%) reported living in subsidized housing, and 5% were staying in a hotel or motel. Sixpercent (6%) of respondents reported they were in a jailor prison immediately prior to becoming homeless, while 4% were in a hospital or treatment facility, 3% were living in foster care, and 1% were in a juvenile justice facility
As with alcohol etc you can do stupid and dangerous things while on then, and you can have a very unpleasant experience but they are otherwise harmless.
Addiction is not necessarily physical. Pretty much anything which makes people feel good or different can trigger addictive behaviour e.g. gambling, video games, or shopping, all have related compulsive disorders which get more and more considered as addiction as time passes and studies increase (though only gambling addiction is formally recognised by the DSM at this point).
5-HT2A agonism induces a rapid tolerance, making it difficult to dose many times in a two week period. A second dose or more within that period will have vastly diminished returns.
Psychedelics can be addictive in the same way Magic: The Gathering can be addictive, but not so much in the same way that physically addictive drugs are.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/drug_poisoning_mor...
It is very revealing.
https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/13998897983204433...
No, but it does correlate with drug addiction.
> which is what I think the parent was highlighting.
They were attempting to insinuate that the homelessness problem.in California was due to “literal armies of drug addicts” and not prosperity combined with economic inequality resulting in housing price out of reach of more of the lower end of the working class than is the case in the country as a whole.
The real nature of California’s homelessness problem makes this law largely irrelevant to it, and vice versa.
The context of this exchange in a larger strain of debate is there is a long running caricature of California as a failed state with rampant problems, based partially on the truth, but usually perpetuated and exaggerated by people from out of state with a political agenda. California has a huge problem with homelessness and COL, but I interpret this as mainly caused by terrible housing policies, and am skeptical of people who conclude that this means California's policies and/or culture are generally terrible. Specifically, in this case, homelessness in CA in an insufficient reason for me to conclude that CA is heading the wrong direction on drug policy.
Literal armies of drug addicts? “Quick, deploy the Third Meth-anized Division!”
California has a homelessness problem (largely a side effect of economic success without sufficient redistribution driving housing costs out of reach of the poor, like most states with above average homelessness — Vermont is the most noteworthy exception, with above-median homelessness without elevated housing prices.)
> How will this help?
Decriminalization reduces cost directed (usually, ineffectively) at suppression, and straight-up legalizes (and thus brings into the formal, taxed, economy) various ancillary trade like paraphernalia, increasing resources to deal with associated social problems by means other than criminal suppression, which hasn't proven effective.
It's simply that California's strategy for economic success was that everyone bought homes in the 70s, then banned any new homes so their property values would go up forever. This makes the supply low enough that their own children will end up homeless even if there wasn't immigration from other states.
No, its not. California hasn't banned new homes, and its not the case, either (even loosely) that everyone in CA bought homes in the 1970s (the 1970s were actually a low point in CA homeownership rate, which reach its all time peak in 2006, and is currently well above where it was in the 1970s.)
There are real state and local policy issues that contribute to the homelessness crisis in California (and some of them—like Prop 13—do indeed stem from the 1970s), but its not, even at a loose and hyperbolic level that might contribute to understanding despite being cartoonishly oversimplified, “everyone bought homes in the 70s, then banned any new homes”.
Prohibition fundamentally doesn't work. If there are 'armies of drug addicts shitting in the streets', it seems that the drugs to sustain these armies must be readily available.
Prohibition creates a massive disincentive for users to interact or cooperate with the state. This could enable policing in communities where police usually aren't welcome, and this could enable social workers to reach communities who no longer have reason to fear a state authority.
If I'm a woman who has a stash of mushrooms and is a victim of domestic abuse- I'm significantly less likely to seek help for fear of arrest.
Pre-requisite for a driver’s license
Good evidence, in Portugal and Oregon, that legalisation eases drug problems. The homeless problem is a result of Californian voters’ housing policy and policing preferences.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/06/01/hunger-h...
> bigger population of homeless, as they flock in from other parts of the country
This is the same population of homeless, not a larger one.
Mostly, what works, according to empirical studies (housing first strategies, safe injection sites, etc), also tend to be politically unpalatable, even when it would be a lot cheaper.
A medical system that doesn't bankrupt people for getting a broken arm would be a hell of a good start though.
Most homeless people in California were not bussed in, they're locals who lost their houses and now can't get them back. Some of them lost it due to drugs or mental illness, and some just developed a drug habit or a mental illness because being homeless is stressful.
But yes, as a country we absolutely have the funds available to fix the homeless problem and live in a much fairer/happier society. But we don't prioritize that over the freedoms of individuals to live excessively.
The image you mention are people who are legit in trouble and in need of help, they might be abusing substances, sometimes several types at once, they might be sleep deprived, dehydrated, confused and don't know what they are doing and need medical/psych help. They might be in the middle of psychosis (it's absolute hell). Taking meth then heroin then some weed then some more meth over a 3 day period will have anyone running around in the streets - people need to respect the power of these substances (or rather, the thin line between feeling normal and madness).
There is a massive difference between 5 friends in the woods consuming psilocybin, playing drums and staring at the clouds for 5 hours in peace, than people running around naked and losing their minds.
The real bad stuff: heroin, meth, other opiates, mixing drugs.
The semi safe: cannabis, mescaline, psilocybin (lsd, dmt, salvia = risk for average folk).
And then I'd totally recommend a calm, safe environment, preferably out in nature. Simple musical instruments to play with. People who you trust an can hold your hand if you get stuck. It's that simple. Don't do it in public, crowds, noisy places with too much lights (well maybe a music festival, but still avoid them) or do it with intentions of getting high or for fun - rather try to use them as tool to commune with your deeper consciousness and get aligned to it. It can also be worthwhile to consume them in a ceremonial/ritualistic setting with a shaman person that can help you navigate certain aspects of it. For your first few times don't do it alone.
Some guy owns 7 apartments and rents them out for $1500 each. That same guy lives in a different neighborhood, different city or even different state (or even different country). That that person does not SEE what the neighborhood looks like, nor does he care. All that he cares about is his $1500 that he is "owed". He ignores all other variables and only focus on the spreadsheet and his income growth projections. Not a care in the world about his fellow citizens/people. Greed is prioritized and rewarded in your system. The owners are completely detached from the reality of how people live.
What you rather need is a cap on ownership. Two residential properties per person and no more. Or levy or non-linear tax on each addition property above the second one. The whole buy to let model is a rip off. I own my own place but I would never buy another place to rent out to make profit, I would legit feel bad about it. Maybe it's a cultural thing. I'm not sure, but I don't think living space should be a for-profit system at all.
And if you feel repulsed about what I said above, please go introspect on why you feel that way.
https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths/drug-overd...
If you actually cared about homelessness, you wouldn't advocate for policy that creates more homeless people.
If someone is experiencing psychosis they should be guided.
Besides, decriminalization has been proven everywhere it has been implemented to decrease addiction and crime rates while helping to prevent the total dehumanization of members of society who happen to be addicts.
Get the government out of this business. If I want to take shrooms, I will.
Incarceration rates are easy to tally. "We made something legal, and -- who would have thought -- now we aren't arresting them! What a great success this law is!" Second order effects are more difficult to assess.
That's why my objection to legalizing drugs -- especially psychedelics -- is not based on "evidence".