Hacker News Reader

Comment by Curvature5868 | Hacker News Reader

I think your point is well made. Unfortunately, there are a substantial number of drug users in Oregon (and Portland in particular) who do not have a private place to do drugs. They live in tents on the sidewalk[1]. You see people smoking fentanyl on the sidewalk or in parks all over town.

One example of how this negatively impacts non-drug using citizens is that summer camps have been having trouble because the kids can't use the bathrooms at the local parks. People are smoking fentanyl in the park bathrooms (which is not currently illegal), and so the kids have no where to do their business.

1: https://www.opb.org/article/2022/12/08/multnomah-county-purc...

View on HN

> I think your point is well made. Unfortunately, there are a substantial number of drug users in Oregon (and Portland in particular) who do not have a private place to do drugs. They live in tents on the sidewalk[1]. You see people smoking fentanyl on the sidewalk or in parks all over town.

Yes, and that's why the state also needs to provide injection sites, non-shelter housing, and all sorts of other programs that were supposed to happen under Measure 110, and which the state refused to fund, and which never had the time to get off the ground before this bill was passed.

> One example of how this negatively impacts non-drug using citizens is that summer camps have been having trouble because the kids can't use the bathrooms at the local parks. People are smoking fentanyl in the park bathrooms (which is not currently illegal), and so the kids have no where to do their business.

There are lots of ways to solve that issue without criminalizing drugs. And in fact, as proven by countless other cities across the country, criminalizing drugs doesn't even solve that problem either.

> And in fact, as proven by countless other cities across the country, criminalizing drugs doesn't even solve that problem either.

It doesn't solve the problem.

However, criminalization may be a less worse way to mitigate the impacts of the problem.

This feels like "no true Scotsman" at policy-scale: it's unscientific to point out the flaws in actual sausage making as the reason the Platonically ideal sausage turned out poorly in reality.

Those political characteristics are inherent to the process! If one path to utopia requires pissing voters off, then it's more logical to engineer a different path to get there while placating voters, because the former in untenable in a democracy.

> However, criminalization may be a less worse way to mitigate the impacts of the problem.

There's no data to support this claim, and copious evidence against it.

> This feels like "no true Scotsman" at policy-scale: it's unscientific to point out the flaws in actual sausage making as the reason the Platonically ideal sausage turned out poorly in reality. Those political characteristics are inherent to the process! If one path to utopia requires pissing voters off, then it's more logical to engineer a different path to get there while placating voters, because the former in untenable in a democracy.

It's not a "no true Scotsman" to point out that the measure that voters passed was never actually implemented. Some of the provisions weren't even due to kick in until later this year!

Ironically, your statement is a great example of begging the question (in the correct usage of the term): by your logic, any world in which decriminalization is not already implemented is "proof" that it's a bad policy, because if it were, the Logical Politicians™ would implement it, as that would surely appease voters.

In reality, what happened is simple: voters approved an initiative, elected officials didn't like what voters chose, so they just refused to implement it, then called it a "failure".

> It's not a "no true Scotsman" to point out that the measure that voters passed was never actually implemented. Some of the provisions weren't even due to kick in until later this year!

If the voters passed a measure, that caused substantial negative perception before it was fully implemented, then who's to blame?

Maybe the voters should have been clearer on the implementation sequencing.

> In reality, what happened is simple: voters approved an initiative, elected officials didn't like what voters chose, so they just refused to implement it, then called it a "failure".

How does this not suffice as an excuse for any bad results from decriminalization? What constitutes a sufficiently perfect implementation to validate negative outcomes?

> If the voters passed a measure, that caused substantial negative perception before it was fully implemented, then who's to blame?

> Maybe the voters should have been clearer on the implementation sequencing.

This is, again, begging the question. You're assuming the consequent.

Voters were clear on what they wanted. They directly voted for and passed a specific bill. Elected officials - not voters - refused to implement what voters chose. Then, elected officials - not voters - repealed the bill.

It's not like this was repealed by popular vote. As of today, there's not even any evidence that the same voters who approved this in 2020 have somehow changed their minds and oppose it today.

You're arguing from a position of pure speculation to support an a priori conclusion, and that's simply not logically sound.

> How does this not suffice as an excuse for any bad results from decriminalization?

This is ridiculous. You can't judge the effect of a policy that's not implemented. If you're willing to do that, you've left the realm of science altogether and might as well argue for policy based on astrology, or augury.

So your position is that no changes were made as a result of Measure 110?

Here in Scotland the government is starting to open consumption facilities to address (in part) that problem: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=38604&p=0

I don't know how feasible this would be without public healthcare though

I get that but now what? We give them all criminal records (or more things on it) and they’ll be back on the streets? Or are we jailing them?

I’m sure it’s real, but is the problem that the drug use isn’t illegal? How does making it a crime again help?

The only real solution is to discourage drug use in the first place. Early education is the best deterrent but with our modern pluralistic society you can't even get people to agree on what is "good" or "bad." Not only that but these chemicals are extremely physically addictive and cause a derangement in higher executive brain functions. Often the most effective repellent is a threat of negative outcome for the targeted action. Impulse control (internal or external) is the only thing that really separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Unfortunately, if the new laws are enforced there will be a "correction" that takes place and I imagine that will include fines, arrests, and jail.

Well, we just got a great natural experiment to see if it works that way. I don’t think so but I’ll be happy to be proven wrong. I think it’ll just move where they use. If the effects of heroin on your life aren’t a strong enough deterrent I Don’t think a rap sheet is. I don’t know why we default assume otherwise and perhaps I’m missing data that shows it but I haven’t seen any.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com