Hacker News Reader

Comment by arcticbull | Hacker News Reader

The best way to solve the drug problem is legalizing all drugs (or at least decriminalizing them) so let's do that too.

There's high-quality precedent, and Portugal is the classic example. They decriminalized all drugs back in 2001 and went from one of the worst in the EU to one of the best in the EU along basically every major measure of drug harm. [1]

[edit] > The opioid crisis soon stabilised, and the ensuing years saw dramatic drops in problematic drug use, HIV and hepatitis infection rates, overdose deaths, drug-related crime and incarceration rates. HIV infection plummeted from an all-time high in 2000 of 104.2 new cases per million to 4.2 cases per million in 2015.

This was achieved in conjunction with some rehab social programs. The article is worth a read.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radic...

View on HN

The paper I linked to had several case studies, I think the Zurich and Portugal model both have a lot to teach the USA.

But step one is to stop pretending that open drugs scenes are caused by homelessness. They're caused by open-air markets for drugs, and the US in fact does a fairly good job of caring for the unhoused except for the open drug scene problem. End those, the rest of the unhoused have enough available solutions, and it's easier to do more when more is needed.

There's no ending them without a health care policy for addiction, either. Treating drug addiction as a criminal matter just leads back to open drug scenes. Keeping them gone requires a different approach.

What, if any, approaches or policies are you actually advocating for when you talk about "ending" open drug scenes?

DEA raids and incarceration of the homeless? Universal healthcare and ending scheduling of drugs? State/federal bans on overly-restrictive local zoning and international building codes, which prevent the construction of affordable new housing?

Is it really too much to expect you to read the paper, which I've referenced, and pointed to two of the case studies as particularly valuable?

I'm not an expert, it doesn't make sense for me to do more than point to the expert opinions which I consider valuable here.

It's none of the things in your paragraph.

Open drug scenes are not caused by homelessness so housing the unhoused does not in itself solve the problem. It takes more than that.

One of the reasons I care about this is the evidence that housing-first policies fail if and when there are open drug scenes.

I've encountered OP before as a commenter. They use verbose diatribes to try to shuffle their own (quite radical) personal moral convictions past the HN crowd. For what reason, I do not know, but it is to me indistinguishable from a lack of real understanding. It reminds me of economists who grow up only reading Hayek, never having seen the inside of day-to-day business operations.

Unclear if "OP" is them or me ( ͝סּ ͜ʖ͡סּ)

In response to the edit I must have missed.

1. Crime rates reduced: I mean, of course they did. It was not longer a crime to be using those drugs, so there was no reason to be arresting people for possessing them. I don't know about you, but that seems pretty simple to me.

2. HIV rates reduced: I remember reading something once upon a time ago that made mention about how HIV rates plummeted all around the world (except in Africa) during that same time frame. Yet the rest of the world definitely hasn't decrimed/legalized all drugs. Might be worth looking into that more and see if maybe Portugal just had a happy coincidence.

>> Link: Not what I read, but shows some of the same or similar data I remember. https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/fact-sheet/the-glob....

3. Overdose deaths: Strangely enough with humans, once something is no longer illicit, they want it less. They are also less likely to overdose on said drugs because they aren't having to risk a bad batch from a bad dealer as much, that sort of thing. So this is a win for legalization, I must admit; but it's a pretty loose one, since the whole "can't have it, thus want it" effect is pretty strong with humanity. Not having it anymore cause they can have it could be part of this reduction. Needs more looking into. (I would hope that before downvoting, people would look into things like the reduction of marijuana use among some people because it was no longer against the law, thus 'cool' to be a user of marijuana here in Canada and I think some American states as well. This applies to basically any drug due to how human psychology operates.)

4. I think most of those reductions are going to have more to do with happy coincidences, and the conjunction of rehab use, since the use of said drugs isn't as socially stigmatized anymore, thus neither is rehab.

(Edit: Look, folks. I get it, some of you really don't like what I have to say here. That's fine. But please, give me a break. I'm a new person here, and I'm just trying to add context to the conversation. Thanks for understanding, hopefully.)

Anyone with 500 karma has the right.

Downvoting comments you disagree with is allowed in the guidelines.

Complaining about downvotes will reliably get you downvoted.

Welcome to Hacker News.

Fair enough I suppose. I don't agree that anyone has the right to downvote something just because they disagree with it; as I would hope they would instead provide a reason for that disagreement, but it's not my site, so not my rules.

But I still don't agree with the idea that they have the right just because they managed to get 500 karma on some webpage. That's technically easily done by just saying 'just the right thing' and getting all the updoots. At that point, it's really not worth much.

But thanks for explaining.

As my father used to say "Just because you've got the right, doesn't make it right".

500 karma means a user can downvote: that's ability. No one can punish a user for downvoting either: if someone can do something, and no one can stop them from doing it or punish them after, that means they've got the right.

Then what are rights for?

what?

You're clearly arguing in good faith and very polite. Just ignore the downvoters, since this is a sensitive subject. Later on people will come back and see your greyed out comment and upvote it just to offset the people overreacting

2. good counterpoint

1, 3, and 4: you're making very good points in favor of legalization, but your tone seems to indicate it's reluctant, as if those don't count somehow. If I got it right, could you expand on why they don't count? On the face of it, of course all of the following are great upsides of legalization: 1. less arrests 3. one less incentive to seek drugs 4. more willingness to seek rehab when needed.

Well, at risk of being banned for saying things people don't like... lol...

To answer your question, the reluctance is because I would rather we just take the criminal element out of it all by just decriminalizing it. I would much rather we not give governments any sort of incentive to introduce more 'sin taxes' essentially.

Decriminalization gives us all those benefits you bring up, without enabling our governments to be worse than they already are. I have already witnessed this on a lower level because of marijuana legalization in Canada. Hence why I bring it up at all. Paul Martin was going to decriminalize it, but it got squashed, and the more popular opinion that I am aware of is that the other powers that be didn't like they wouldn't be able to profit off of it as easily. Not like how they can now, with enacting arbitrary rules like "can only grow 4 plants per household" etc, etc.

If your argument is about legalization vs. decriminalization, then you should say so. You've been all over the comments arguing, but this is the first time I've seen you mention it.

In a group conversation, you can count on people remembering what you were talking about, but the structure of comments isn't like that. We can only expect people to know what's written in the parent comments of the tree. Remembering that can help us talk to each other instead of past each other.

With all due respect, I would think that with the amount of times I have differentiated the terminology of legalization and decriminalization, that it should have been obvious at this point.

I guess not. Anyways, thanks for the input. I'll keep it in mind to be more precise on what I am saying.

P.S If you look carefully, you'll see that I was merely replying mostly to people who replied to me. At least after the first few comments to others. Not sure why you needed to portray it as "arguing with people all over the place", but I wanted to make that precisely clear.

Maybe you did somewhere else in the thread, but not here. That's entirely my point.

Look at all the parent comments from this one, and you will see what you have and haven't said.

Picture this: you are at a party, and told someone something on one side of the room, and expected the rest of us to have heard it. It just doesn't work that way.

Edit: I'm not entirely sure anymore, but I think my comment was made before the edit was made by arcticbull. Just saying so that if anyone wonders why it looks like I am disagreeing with someone who is making part of my own argument (now) ... that's why. I only remember there being legalization brought up.

-------Original Comment Below------

Sorry, but I cannot agree. Legalization just gives government reason to profit off the harm of the individual.

If you really want to remove the crime from drug use, go with decriminalization only. Just make it not a crime, that's all. I know this seems like its the same thing called a different thing to some, but after marijuana legalization and how that went in Canada, I think you all should really take note of why "legalization" is just a ploy by governments to get more tax dollars.

I have no issue with people doing what they want with their own body freely of their own choice; but I have much issue with giving government any form of power and/or profit over that choice.

So you won't be budging me on this.

Besides, there's really only like 3 or 4 drugs that deserve to be removed from criminality; the rest are so damn harmful to a person that if they are taking those drugs... they're already pretty much at the bottom of the pit of hell they dug for themselves. There won't be any helping them unless you are willing to ignore their rights as a human being and force them into some sort of rehab system that is removed from urban centers entirely; so they can't get easy access to those drugs anymore.

Might even have to swallow the bill as tax payers to have them housed for a few years as well afterwards, still outside of urban centers, so they can pick their life back up and stand on their own two feet again.

But that's just my opinion on the matter. It's a real shame none of you will actually listen to it.

What if we just had legalization without taxation?

Also if you think people get clean in the country side that would suggest to me you’ve never spent time outside of these urban areas whence you’re trying to banish addicts. Anecdotally, the loneliness of the country side, being away from loved ones and familiar social and cultural institutions, made my own struggles worse.

> What if we just had legalization without taxation?

I'm pretty sure that's what we generally refer to as decriminalization. (lol)

> Also if you think people get clean in the country side that would suggest to me you’ve never spent time outside of these urban areas... (rest of comment redacted)

Alright, so... yes I have actually. And we had one of the rehab centers near our town, and while there was still some heavy drug use by some people in said town, it was never anything close to similar as what would be found in more urban centers. Furthermore, those people had to go to the city to get those drugs, which was my entire point. If you can't even get the drugs, cause you can't even get to the city, then you have to somehow get friendly with those people that everyone knows you shouldn't be hanging out with.

My condolences for your struggles friend, but just because you struggled with a situation that many others find to be a center of peace and comfort for themselves doesn't mean that I am wrong. It just means that my approach wouldn't work for you, possibly. Sad as it may seem, sometimes loved ones are the problem. They can be quite enabling, when they should be disabling. And it's those familiar social and cultural circles you bring up that are also sometimes part of why the harm exists to begin with. For some at least.

So perhaps my solution doesn't work 100% for everyone, but you are not the rule here either. You are an exception to it, in my books.

Finally, the country side is only lonely if you are the type to never interact with other country bumpkins. If that's you, then I am sorry, but that's more of a you problem... Try hanging out with some random people once in a while? Go to a bar and shoot some pool and meet some folk? I dunno, but staying at home itself only will definitely drive anyone nuts. I only suggest it for the severely addicted at all, because they can't really help themselves in regard to not falling back into old bad habits.

But again, there are no 100% fix all solutions. There will always be caveats, like yourself.

> legalization without taxation is decriminalization

No, the latter refers to simply not charging people. You can still confiscate their drugs and subject them to assessments a la Portugal. Decimalization is kind of a dumb, dangerous (ie no constitutionally established recourse) messy term, so think of the other one like food sales: legalization without taxation.

> one must go to the city to source drugs

Cottagecore as a policy idea

> go to a bar to avoid falling back into your addictive habits

I never said what I struggled with. What if it was the world’s deadliest drug: alcohol?

>> > go to a bar to avoid falling back into your addictive habits

> I never said what I struggled with. What if it was the world’s deadliest drug: alcohol? -------------

I realize what you are trying to make a point of here, but note how I never said to drink while there. I said play some pool. Obviously it would be nice to have a drink, but legally they have to serve you water if you ask for it. Etc and so forth.

-------------

>> > one must go to the city to source drugs

> Cottagecore as a policy idea

Ironically, if I understand your terminology correctly; that's precisely what first nations do up here with their healing lodges where they send people instead of going to jail, etc.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/inside-okimaw-oh...

-----------------

>> > legalization without taxation is decriminalization

> No, the latter refers to simply not charging people. You can still confiscate their drugs and subject them to assessments a la Portugal. Decimalization is kind of a dumb, dangerous (ie no constitutionally established recourse) messy term, so think of the other one like food sales: legalization without taxation.

SO in other words, it makes it 'not a crime anymore'. I'm fine with them confiscating many of the drugs out there, because a good large chunk of them are all things no one needs to be taking anyways. Literally, no one.

And besides, I already stated multiple times now why I don't like legalization. It's just like you state yourself, it's more like food sales; which governments also tax. (Unless it's real food, in which case it might depend on where you live. Heavily processed/packaged foods get taxed here in Canada, while 'real food' does not.) I am not in favor of allowing government to tax people for doing things that harm themselves and potentially others.

> never said drink

But you did acknowledge that the environment wherein addiction sprouts makes it easier for it to rebound, rhetorical courtesy of my enabling loved ones. The countryside bar still demands a steady supply of the same, easily exhausted resource that fighting vice under city pressures does: will power. Yet per your prescription, it would be under the duress of exile.

> healing lodges

The example you give seems to be a conflation of social rehabilitation for people who have committed crimes against other people (as exemplified in the opening of that article, describing a woman who killed a child) and medical (mental specifically) rehabilitation as I thought we were discussing in the context of addiction. Art and animal therapies are hardly unique to first nations or indigenous cultures, though tribal jurisdiction certainly allows these groups more latitude in trying to address their community's problematic members. This is one of the benefits of Portugal's decriminalization process in that addicts' individual circumstances and paths to recovery are theoretically (though I can't vouch for the practice) given greater consideration.

> no taxing people for things that harm themselves and/or others

That's an interesting stance. Mitigating externalities is one of the ideas behind, for example, taxing pollution. Addressing second hand smoke, needle waste, etc could be good allocations of such tax dollars, but generally, at least in the US, sin taxes go into funds paying for bridges or school text books, which ironically makes the abstemious life one of civil selfishness.

I would say that the NL model of decrimilisation without legalisation doesn't work. Largely because of it NL has a big gang problem, and one of the highest murder rates in Europe. Now fully legalise drugs, give them out for free for all that I care, that's the only way to kill the organised crime around it.

I would also be interested in which drugs you believe are worth decriminalising and which ones you deem to dangerous. There are generally a lot of misconceptions about the health effects of (especially hard) drugs in particular compared to some legalised ones (alcohol has extremely strong health effects).

Cigarette consumption in the US has been steadily declining for the last 50 years or so. This is while state governments are taxing tobacco products heavily. In fact a 1 pct point increase in tobacco taxes are related to a 0.5 pct point decrease in tobacco consumption. [1]

So I don't buy the argument that the government will encourage harm because they make money off of it.

[1] https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/08/10/...

Okay, I'm going to reply to yours as well before calling it for the night. I keep trying to, but people keep on replying and I hate seeming to be rude by ignoring people. Especially when they seem to mean well. (But seriously, this is the last time, lol... I need to sleep.)

I accept the premise of your argument, since it makes sense on the simple side of things. But... I think you forget to include the fact that people just go to a new supplier if they find their smokes getting more and more expensive.

Up here in Canada (Can't speak on the states) people just buy smokes from the reserves instead. And since government and agencies that collect this sort of data are likely getting their numbers from legal sales, but not illegal ones or grey market at the very least; that means they are missing numbers that tell a different story.

Menthol cigs for example are technically not allowed here anymore; but people still manage to get them. From gangs, reserves, random people who managed to smuggle them across the border, etc.

Now, I keep saying I'm going to go to sleep here, but it's starting to feel like a run on joke now.

Sure, government might not always tax things that are harmful; but it also depends on who's running that government. And my experience thus far has been that they will tax harm, if they can get away with it. (I wish I could italicize that last part.)

Now, good night. Maybe... I keep trying to listen to tunes first, and maybe that's the mistake.

Moreover there are increasingly strict restrictions on where it is permissible to smoke. To mirror rhetoric elsewhere in the thread: in many areas the state and local government is successfully cracking down on "open nicotine scenes".

Drug use is rampant in rural areas too, so the "urban centers" thing doesn't come across that well.

If a person is addicted to drugs and needs to be removed from society "for their own good," this can be done without criminalization. Criminalization of drug usage seems entirely ineffective and even counterproductive.

I would say that we could go one step further. The government can issue drug tests. If someone demonstrates addiction through these tests, they get a tapering supply of their drug in pharmaceutical grade at zero cost.

Drug dealers can't compete with free, and the government's supply tapers to zero, so street supply and addiction should plummet.

You can prevent diversion of the government supply to the street by tagging it. Test positive on the government supply and you get nothing. Tighten or loosen policy as needed if street dealing returns.

This assumes people want to end their drug abuse. Even having the will, ending severe addiction with a tapering supply is extremely difficult, and painful. Like slowly peeling off a band-aid for months, or even years.

Odds are that proposed solution would help some people, but would fail in the majority of cases and cost an absolute fortune.

There's no way that some pills and vials and tracking will cost more than an entire drug war. If free is too expensive, just make it cheaper than the street.

And I don't think that the users have to want much. They are addicted, addiction is expensive, enter a free alternative that they will have to accept eventually when their drug dealers can't make ends meet and quit the game.

The taper comes after the drug dealers have all found something else to do. Give it some time for all their drug routes and contacts to go cold. And be prepared to ramp supply back up if they come back. It will be a multi-round game, but it's one that the drug dealers just can't win, for simple economic reasons.

I don't think it is a good idea to reduce the supply over time. It may make sense in some cases, but some addicts are better of by having a constant supply. Pharmaceutical grade opioids are pretty safe. Far safer than legal drugs like tobacco or alcohol.

Also fine, and probably more practical. There is a certain moralizing part of society that has to have the taper on the horizon.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com