Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by zdragnar | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

zdragnar

These programs exist, but they are underutilized to a significant degree.

From a partner who used to work in one, people:

- didn't trust the program and wouldn't sign up

- didn't actually want to quit using so they avoided it

- wanted to get the benefits from the program without changing anything (i.e. showed up to get free food etc)

- tried but didn't like it and went back to using

Very few people actually went all the way through compared to the population in the city that could have used it.

The real question is: how do you help people who do not want your help. Do you let them waste away and die on the sidewalk, or do you institutionalize them?

View on HN

The answer to that question in a society that allows (mostly) autonomy of choice is that we let them die on the street.

I'm not convinced that involuntary incarceration will actually fix the problem. I believe it will just take it off of the streets and out of the public consciousness.

Not a great solution, honestly. Long term drug abuse is almost never a victimless habit. I'm tempted to say never.

This isn't the 1980s anymore. Using drugs is perfectly fine. A ton of people here on HN take drugs regularly, but few think it's worth to rock the boat against this kind of nonsense you're spreading

Have you ever interacted with a heroine or meth user?

Sometimes using drugs is fine, depending on the drug, the reason, and the person. For example, I did cocaine once and immediately knew I needed to cut ties with those friends because if I had access to it regularly, I would ruin my life. Others can do coke recreationally and not have an issue. Others can't form the insight I had until their lives are in shambles, and maybe not even then.

  > Have you ever interacted with a heroine or meth user?

Yes, I have, and so have you. The thing is You wouldn't notice that they were in fact drug users unless they told you.

You actually changed what I said then declared it nonsense. I said abuse, not use.

How do you separate those legally? I ask, because we are discussing using the legal system here.

I will admit, I didn't think it through super deeply, but I have a very simple (and possibly naive) proposal.

We separate them legally the same way we separate alcohol use vs. alcohol abuse. The consequences of getting caught for speeding vs. getting caught for speeding while under influence tend to drastically differ in magnitude, so I suggest we do the same for other kinds of drug abuse.

Being under influence shouldn't be a mitigating factor while committing crimes, but for non-driving offenses it often ends up being such. So I suggest we treat it the same way for violent crimes as we do for driving offenses.

Because the word "use" and "abuse" are interchangeable for prohibitionists

> Crack?! I've got company!

> Oh, relax! "Oh, I'm Mark, I'm in the '80s, I'm dying of heroin in a puddle in the corner in an advert!" Drugs are fine, Mark, everyone agrees now. Drugs are what happen to people, and that's fine, so shut up.

https://youtu.be/yoZ1EGxPaOE?t=19

>I believe it will just take it off of the streets and out of the public consciousness.

If antisocial people do not exist in the public consciousness, then that means the problem is fixed. Even you never have to worry about locking your front door, then the problem of burglars has been fixed even if technically would be burglars may exist in prison.

Drug addicts and the mentally ill don't have the problem of being "antisocial." They have drug addiction and mental illness. "Antisocial" is the problem that you have when you see them, and is the problem that is solved when you don't see them. It's a completely narcissistic way of looking at things.

For example, putting you in prison would also solve the problem of your objection to them. You would still be surrounded by drug addicts and the mentally ill in prison, but we wouldn't have to listen to you complain about it, so our problems would be solved.

But that's also not a good solution.

I think you are underestimating how few bad actors it takes to ruin a system, but I do agree with your point that you can also remove the people who think they are negatively impacted. For example in Counter Strike you can either ban the small percentage of cheaters or you could cultivate the community to not care if people are cheating.

I have a very good friend who was an addict, and I tried to help him turn his life around in many ways, but I couldn’t figure out a way. Professionals told me “he has to hit rock bottom.”

Anyhow he wound up getting arrested and spent a couple of weeks in jail where he got clean and decided to turn his life around. He went on to get a couple of masters degrees, get married, have two kids, and has a good job. He credits his time in jail for saving his life.

I knew somebody who turned his life around after surviving an attempted murder. I still don't think that means that trying to murder people whose lives are going awry is a rational solution.

You're saying that spending time in jail is roughly equivalent to being a victim of attempted murder.

No, I'm saying that both things could have them same effect, so the existence of that effect isn't a proof that the solution makes sense.

If I tell you that covering something in red paint and covering something in tomato sauce will stain them both red, I'm not saying that red paint is tomato sauce.

I also know people who have changed their lives after heart attacks. Am I saying that heart attacks are roughly equivalent to prison stays?

I have a friend who picked up heroin in jail, came out an addict and died of an OD in his basement. His daughter found him.

If your anecdote can prove your point, then mine can disprove it.

I think I know that family. Didn't the daughter get beat up everyday by that father and that's why he went to jail. Her life is so much better now.

At the core of this is that your friend came to the realization that he wanted to change his life. He can credit his time in jail for this. However that doesn't mean it will be the same for everyone, or that there's only a single potential trigger to get someone to recover from drug addiction

If the jail is properly run (and I will admit that this is a big if), there aren't any drugs in the jail. Some people, if they get clean for a little while, are in a position to reflect on what they're doing. The indignity of being locked up also puts a very fine point on it.

Now I don't think that this would necessarily work for everyone, but it worked for my friend, and I've heard a number of other similar stories. Sometimes you need to get a very clear message from society/the system that your behavior is unacceptable, and you need to get that message sober or it may not get through.

what a naive position... "if a jail is properly run"

no cage can ever be a healthy environment.

Wow, it must be true if you said it!

Taking the problem of crazy severely-mentally-ill people off the streets and out of the public consciousness is strictly better than having that problem be on the streets and in the public consciousness because it's happening around the public all the time. If nothing else, it reduces the chances that a random commuter will get randomly stabbed on the subway by a severely crazy person.

Rather have people hauled away on suspicion then? You know, before something happens? The people in the public places are the public. It’s likely that random stabbers have already been hauled away before for something else. You’re talking about running a training program for reinforcing the antisocial tendencies, and pensions for their paid captors.

> I'm not convinced that involuntary incarceration will actually fix the problem.

Not to sound too crass, but doesn't that pretty much "fix the problem" (i.e. homeless people on the street) by definition?

Breathing problems? Stop the breathing. Solved, by definition.

That is a completely irrelevant analogy. I wasn't advocating for the Soylent Green solution.

You seem to have missed my meaning entirely. Making a problem invisible makes two problems. Soylent Green is the opposite of the direction I would advocate.

> society has decided to stop jailing (committing) the homeless

> leaving them on the street is not helping them. committing them would give them access to (force upon them) care, and is the more humane thing to do

> I'm not convinced that involuntary incarceration will actually fix the problem

> doesn't that pretty much "fix the problem"?

Which problem? Every misunderstanding is someone replying to someone else without knowing who was replying to whom

maybe the problem here is the gate that requires them to quit cold turkey before offering them any help? I know it offends people morally to 'subsidize drug use', but that's a really high barrier for an opioid or crank addict to meet. the other issues are that people complain that its very prison like, in terms of the volume and severity of rules. the other really unfortunate thing is that some fraction of the homeless population is _really nasty_. so no one really wants to get locked up with these people.

but to say that the majority of them don't want any help is just wrong.

West Virginia has much lower rates of homelessness and public drug use compared to liberal states despite having higher rates of drug addiction. Because housing is much more affordable.

Homelessness rates increase and decrease in direct proportion to the cost of housing as a proportion of median income. When housing costs increase more and more people become homeless and the ones that end up on the street tends to be those already living at the margins so you see more drug addicts and mentally ill people on the street and assume it's the cause.

Its well understood that being homeless makes it much harder to provide treatment and services. Sweeps of encampments make it even harder as their belongings tend to be thrown out.

So we have places with lots of services, but extremely expensive housing or places with affordable housing, but no poor public services.

Imagine if people could have housing and services how much better it would be. Maybe we wouldn't even have to strip people of their freedoms to make improvements. Wouldn't that be preferable? Isn't it worth trying?

Frankly, I think we need to bring back corporal punishment for specific crimes. The process to arrest, prosecute, and then imprison people for "public space crimes" is basically flawed.

Arresting and prosecuting is slow and expensive, prisons are full. A prison sentence destroys whatever remaining support system a person has and a conviction like that makes getting a job in the future nearly impossible.

We should just have a quick path to short and non-damaging corporal punishment. A quick video recording, an instant review by a judge via zoom, then immediate punishment. This would deter theft, damaging public property, etc. while not costing a lot to taxpayers and not causing long term damage to the individual. Crime is never on the record at all so does not affect background checks. Treatment programs are always offered instead of the corporal punishment.

(Of course mental health conditions complicate this, it's difficult to solve that without forced institutionalizing them).

I suppose you really enjoyed Leviathan…

I've named servers Nasty, Poor, Brutish and Short before.

Too bad about that pesky “cruel and unusual” clause in the constitution for the bloodthirsty like you…

Nothing unusual or cruel about living locked in a concrete box overcrowded with unemployable men for weeks, months, or years, or is there?

Prison is as medieval an institution as the mindsets of those that see it to be appropriate.

Birching minor criminals would not have been considered cruel or unusual to any of the men who wrote that clause.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com