Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacooper | Hacker News Reader

Stop the dumb policy of letting drugs free. This needs to end, and the government must intervene and put an end to every drug dealer, and seriously find a way to deal with addicts.

View on HN

This is literally the policy that got us here and has failed us every single step of the way. Doing more of it is how things keep getting worse.

The correct answer is to decriminalize everything and improve public health programs like Portugal did 20+ years ago. They saw extremely good outcomes. [1]

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

Singapore offers another approach that seems to work ok. Probably the real lesson is that half assed measures don't work. And you have to go all the way. No matter the direction.

Singapore's approach as in the death penalty?

Makes it moderately hard to be a repeat offender.

Edit: Joke aside - i am fine with marijuana, and some forms of cocaine being kinda ok-ish, but a death sentence for every person that distributes fentanyl and carfentanil won't extract too much tears from me.

Some vices should be entertained - but there should be hard limits somewhere.

How many years did Portugal’s approach take to work?

Oregon decriminalized personal possession of basically all of these drugs in 2021. As of today, a large swathe of downtown Portland is basically one highly dangerous open air drug market. It’s going to end up like the Tenderloin and Civic Center in SF. The cannabis tax money flooding into addiction treatment businesses seems to be not making a dent. Between lower quality of life and some of the highest tax burdens in the US, Oregon is decreasing in population every year now.

> Portugal’s policy rests on three pillars: one, that there’s no such thing as a soft or hard drug, only healthy and unhealthy relationships with drugs; two, that an individual’s unhealthy relationship with drugs often conceals frayed relationships with loved ones, with the world around them, and with themselves; and three, that the eradication of all drugs is an impossible goal.

> “The national policy is to treat each individual differently,” Goulão told me. “The secret is for us to be present.”

If you want to learn more the article I linked is very good. It goes into great detail and I think covers how long it took to work.

But the reality is it's not just enough to decriminalize, you also have to provide appropriate care. Oregon didn't do what Portugal did - they only did part of it.

Portugal didn't decriminalize the way Vancouver decriminalized drugs or SF decriminalized shoplifting. They merely stopped giving criminal records to people who chose and completed rehab, but they still certainly use the police to apprehend any public drug user.

No, they decriminalized. They didn't legalize. It's the subtitle of the article I linked, and if you google for five seconds, you'll see that's what everyone else calls it too. You're welcome to call it whatever you want I guess.

And yet the architect of the Portuguese anti-drug response explains how the courts and police are used to enforce this "decriminalized" system.

Vancouver has taken away the police's ability to confiscate a drug that has just killed someone, or to arrest the dealer. This is directly opposite of what Portugal does, dishonestly borrowing the words without their original meaning or critically the other 90% of the Portuguese response like actual rehab in a drug-free society.

That's great, you should take it up with them. Like I said you can call it whatever you want, but to quibble with the common name and the one used it all references to it - you're probably fighting the wrong fight, or at least with the wrong target.

It's the common lie, not the common name. I can't get the politicians or the newspaper to change, imho because they don't want it to, but I'll take it up with whoever uses it by showing them how it's not true. Once you realize Portugal uses the law to enforce their "decriminalization" you can't in good faith keep supporting or even repeating the lie yourself. It only takes that first recognition of being mislead before you can find your own references and see what the street-level reality is.

Our cities, SF, Vancouver, Portland, Seattle, LA, Victoria, etc know they're distorting the meaning by claiming it's what Portugal does. They've been told that they're wrong in this by journalists with experience in Portugal and by the very architect of the Portuguese system and they refuse to choose other language or admit that they are in actuality enacting the exact opposite to Portugal.

> Between lower quality of life and some of the highest tax burdens in the US

Oregon isn't even in the top half of states by overall tax burden.

46.7% of the state's population is in the Portland metro area as of the last census. Multnomah County has the second highest tax burden in the country for top earners. If a new capital gains tax proposal is passed this year, it will have the highest. There are many reasons why the state lost population starting in 2022, but taxes are definitely one of them.

Oregon has the 31st highest tax burden of all states, across its whole population. Even if the tax burden is high for high earners, that’s not driving a significant population exodus because high earners aren’t a significant population to start with.

People who have the highest disposable income also have the most opportunity for mobility. It’s entirely possible that a disproportionate percentage of those moving away are people who care more about high property and income taxes vs. lack of a state sales tax.

Note that I said the decline is multi-factorial though. A significant part of it isn’t even outward migration, but excess deaths due to COVID combined with a low birth rate and a lack of inward migration. (Here again though, who do you think has the most opportunity to move to a new state and what kind of tax policy deters them?)

I would be considered a "high earner" according to Portland tax law. I recently moved. Portland originally was in my top 5 choice of cities to move to, but the tax liability deterred me from moving.

That is funny how people would like their governments/officials do something to tackle issues while at the same time trying to evade at all cost giving any money needed to actually do something.

I think you are making a generalized statement, but it is in response to a personal tidbit so the generalization feels personal. I'll just say, I don't think including taxation as a consideration when relocating is irresponsible or evasive.

One could argue that paying a lot of tax could be considered as wealth as you typically get something in return. It can be in different forms: better infrastructure, or a safety net / insurance from the government when something bad happen.

I feel a kind of duality when I look at the US from outside. People seems to be trying at all costs to avoid taxes but if someone get seriously hurt or have a serious disease one of the immediate response is to start a gofundme and ask to pass the word for charity and a lot of people are happy to donate. On one hand it is kind of touching to see that people are willing to donate for someone they sometimes barely know, on the other hand shouldn't everybody seek a society where everybody is happy to donate but nobody has to ask for charity from his community because gov takes care of that through that tax money.

I don't know if I am alone, maybe people will make fun of me for that but I am kind of proud of paying a lot of taxes. I know governments don't always take the best decisions, some money is sometimes plainly stolen or badly used and I may not agree with all decisions but I feel it is part of being a citizen and it makes me also more responsible and eager to vote and try to make a difference when I can.

Singapore and Japan have even better outcomes.

Do you have a source? Or are you speculating?

There's a lot to like about those places, but their approach is antithetical to at least the way the US and Canada likes to represent themselves. Decriminalization seems far more in line with western ideology. Freedom and personal responsibility combined with liberty. What's not to like? Especially since it works.

Shall we solve the stuck gum under park benches with caning too? Smacking people with sticks does solve problems, but I'm not sure that's the kind of society I want to advocate for. Despite very much enjoying my time in Singapore. The benevolent authoritarianism model of Singapore is unique and interesting - and attempts to replicate it elsewhere have failed. Including a famous attempt in China where Deng Xiaoping and Lee Kwan Yew gave it a real college try in the early 90s. Worth reading about. [1]

[1] https://www.thinkchina.sg/construction-singapore-model-mainl...

> Singapore and Japan have even better outcomes

Japan's prohibitionist approach has left it with a meth problem we can't measure because of said prohibitionism [1].

[1] https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/japan-place-with-strangest-...

Yeah sure, that's why countries which take a hard stance with actual enforcement like the UAE have no open drug markets.

The problem is enforcement, as long as there are open drug markets, then the issue isnt the laws its the joke of a police that pretends to do anything, or rather idiots trying to sympathies with drug users and dealers keeping the police from doing their work.

And yet, that's the approach that has completely failed. I suggest you allow data to drive the discussion instead of silly failed moralizations. As a peer comment pointed out, Japan's drug policy is the most strict in the developed world - and it has a massive under-reported meth problem. I suspect the Emirates is similar and lower headline numbers come from lack of reporting - not lack of issues. Do you have some evidence to suggest your approach works? To my knowledge there really isn't any.

Maybe it's time to start sympathizing with the drug users if you want to get rid of shady dealers and narcos. We've tried it your way. It sucks.

Not seeing addicts and semi-zombies on the streets is enough.

Ah pretending. Got it. It does tend to be easier to live in a world of one's own imagination than to solve the real, hard problems we face.

You know where else doesn't have those things? Portugal.

Hmmm, and is it a normal part of an average person life to ever have taken drugs or got addicted?

If so that still counts as a failure, nobody should be allowed to ever take these drugs in their lifetime.

But your proposal doesn't stop that. It criminalizes them telling anyone and sweeps it under the rug like you cleaning your room at 11 years old.

And to be clear I don't have a problem with helping drug addicts leave drugs, the difference is they should never be allowed to be left using them without any intervention.

So the police gets them, and gets the dealer then they either get treated or prisoned depending if its their first time or they are actually addicted.

Addiction is a mental and physical health issue. Why on earth are the police involved in the first place? That's not what they're for.

But a lot of what you're describing is literally the Portuguese model, which you can find out if you read the article. They can require you go to rehab depending on if it's your first time or if you're addicted. It's just not a criminal matter, it's a public health matter. Which means you have less stigma, you avoid prison, a record - and you are more likely to ask for help.

We know for a fact prison is a place you can get drugs, and going there leaves you more likely to be addicted, not less, because you look to those same drugs as an escape from your prison situation.

> Addiction is a mental and physical health issue. Why on earth are the police involved in the first place? That's not what they're for.

The police is going to be the first one to interact with addicts because they should be working on dismantling the entire drug network and working on catching dealers, through catching addicts/buyers.

> 5he police is going to be the first one to interact with addicts because they should be working on dismantling the entire drug network and working on catching dealers.

Dealers aren't users or addicts. Different people. The police would not be the first to respond to them in 99% of cases.

And you can dismantle the network by making it uncompetitive. Let the state sell drugs, who cares? Then the narcos die off and the network dismantles itself.

The state selling drugs means actively endorsing them.

Nah, the state already taxes drugs. Same thing. It also sells alcohol while taxing the ever loving crap out of it. Nobody's going to say the state is endorsing cigarettes, alcohol and gambling. They're minimizing harm through controlled, regulated and taxed distribution.

The thing is we've provided all sorts of ways for you to achieve your goal of not seeing zombies on the street without the cruelty. And yet you continue to try and find ways to invent problems. It seems like the cruelty of your suggestion may be the point?

You said it your self "without cruelty"

That's the entire problem, that's why most police forces can't enforce shit against drug dealers and addicts.

There is a balance, and currently its at the wrong side.

> The police is going to be the first one to interact with addicts because they should be working on dismantling the entire drug network and working on catching dealers, through catching addicts/buyers.

Isn’t that what we’ve been doing for the last 50 years? How did that work out?

Your understanding is wrong. In Portugal you are forced to go into addiction therapy or go to jail. You're not allowed to just continue to take drugs on the streets like in SF.

We shouldn't criminalize addiction but we certainly shouldn't let it proliferate. Forced drug rehab is an essential part of the equation. Without forced rehab, you get open air drug markets like SF which is making things worse, not better.

Today a drug addicted woman gave birth to a baby on the street in SF. It's all over Twitter. It's worse than a 3rd world country in this so-called utopia of progressive freedom. It's sick and disgusting.

> Your understanding is wrong. In Portugal you are forced to go into addiction therapy or go to jail. You're not allowed to just continue to take drugs on the streets like in SF.

So my understanding is correct then. I'm familiar with what I'm advocating.

Then you knowingly left out the most important part of the whole program. Portugal doesn't let people remain addicted, the way all the progressive programs are doing like in SF, Portland, etc. Simply legalizing drugs is evil, it's benefiting the drug dealers and so-called harm-reduction advocates that benefit financially from letting addicts continue to live in slavery. We need forced rehabilitation as part of the equation, otherwise it doesn't work at all. I don't believe addicts should be criminalized, but locking them up in jail is the second best solution, to what we have right now, which is the worst of any scenario. It's a complete failure and downright evil what is going on right now in SF.

Hardly, I linked to an article which covers all of that.

I also didn't say legalize, I said decriminalize. These are two different concepts. Legalize weed and psychedelics, sure. Decriminalize hard drugs. And improve public health programs, like I said, including mandatory rehab (which I left out - not for any particular reason - but support for addicts).

> It's a complete failure and downright evil what is going on right now in SF.

I agree completely.

I don't think we disagree on much, tbh.

> You're not allowed to just continue to take drugs on the streets like in SF.

What made you think he suggested you could? He clearly stated that there was decriminalization, not legalization.

You can buy drugs in every high school in America. Same for every prison. You can buy drugs on death row. We have a higher percentage of our population in prison than the soviets, china or Iran. So how far down the police state road do you think the USA needs to go before you figure out this isn't working?

The policy has (so far) been the opposite, try to punish drug use as much as possible, intervene with police and go after every small time drug dealer between heaven and hell.

It doesn't seem to be working. What if we try the opposite instead?

What is the opposite? Rewarding drug use as much as possible?

What? You seriously call the way western governments deal with drugs "punishment" or as if there any kind of enforcement?, if there was, there wouldn't be any addicts and drugs being sold openly on the street.

Dubai actually enforces these laws and the result? No addicts on the streets and no public drug dealers.

Agreed. Let’s send the government thugs to your home first, to deal with the dangerous ethanol and/or caffeine molecules you’re no doubt stashing in mass quantities.

Oh wait, you meant just the scary drugs?

Easily accomplished by letting doctors prescribe this stuff, available in monthly doses, from a pharmacist at state expense until they can break their habit by whatever means works for them.

Seems natural to stop the supply of these drugs into US and Canada. However, we got some leaky borders. Are people making fent in homemade drug labs?

What do you think the US has been trying to do since the 60s? And you know where that got us? To people using horse tranquilizers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com