Somehow I thought there would be a middle setting, "we will not arrest you for possessing and using meth and opiates" in between "we will arrest you for possessing meth and opiates" and "if you are addicted to meth and opiates we will not arrest you for most crimes"
I wonder if achieving that balance is somehow surprisingly hard. I'm sure the police could do better, but prosecuting a crime is a big deal with lots of steps involved. Its seems not quite natural to apply that process to something like the crime of pooping on the sidewalk, but yet we don't want people doing that.
Withdrawal from opioid dependency is a miserable experience but it's rarely dangerous, as I understand it [1]. When authorities catch a suspected-to-be opioid addict breaking into a car, shoplifting, or menacing pedestrians it should be a deterrent to lock them up for a short period (a couple of weeks) away from drug sources, because they're not going to want to repeat the withdrawal experience. Having effectively enforced modest penalties works better than having harsh penalties, because harsh but infrequent penalization leads many offenders to assume (rightly, unfortunately) that they're unlikely to face consequences of any sort.
[1] For example, naloxone (Narcan) administration is basically an abrupt chemically induced withdrawal from opioids.
That's a good point. If there is some mechanism to keep them for two weeks. I'm not sure how that works. Another advantage is that it gives them a chance to reevaluate things once sober.
MY state is being nonsensical on this one, they don't like the results of measure 110, they say it's a failed experiment, but the drug war too is a failed experiment. So this failed, so let's return to the solution from before that was failing too, make it make sense.
Yeah it’s really frustrating, and more so because measure 110 never got properly funded or rolled out in a good way.
>Allen also acknowledged that, nearly two years after Measure 110 passed, the availability of addiction treatment, including residential treatment beds and medication-assisted treatment for people with opioid use disorder, is “inconsistent” across Oregon’s counties.
yeah, well that problem could easily have been addressed with supervised injection sites that would get the junkies off the streets and into facilities with trained professional who cared.
The cops have long ago quiet quit, and despite paying over market rate salaries, no one tries to become a cop here. They know that everyone here hates them, and that the laws are the most anti-cop in the nation. Cops won't enforce the recriminalization anyway.
Honestly, as crappy as it is to have drugged out zombies in the city center, this is a PNW issue, from British Columbia to SF/Bay area. I happen to like having lived in the place with the most liberal drug laws. I'm saddened to see even piecemeal reversal. The liberty was worth it.
Unenforced laws are not good. They can choose to enforce it at will, when needed. Imagine a cop wanting something not entirely moral from a drug addict: you either comply, or else...
There are lots of examples, some kinda funny "that would never happen in western civilization":
They’re not even quiet quitting. They straight up announced that they wouldn’t respond to any noise disturbance call in the Salem area. I feel bad for both the cops and the people because the liberal/conservative split is closer to 50/50 than most would like to admit. It’s just that the liberals are extremely loud in that state.
Oregon and Washington (and California) have clumpy/non-uniform population distributions. Each has a geographically small, dense, blue, city population surrounded by a geographically large, low density, red, rural region.
the irony is that temperance did (and obviously didn't) work. It reduced levels of alcoholism, increased women's safety, decreased domestic violence, increased health, increased the average family's wealth and increased workers productivity.
Obviously and needless to say it also increased organized crime too, and regular people hated it, etc etc, but in terms of what it set out to do, it worked!
Health is the one issue that might get people treading more carefully again, between alcohol and drugs the US death toll is tremendous and it is leading to numerous problems on all fronts.
Of course if you could kill demand for this stuff that would be the ideal solution, if nobody uses it then there's no problem at all. But poor mental health and people working a full time job and still needing welfare cheques means this isn't something any politicians will even bother trying to overcome earnestly. Its just absolutely ridiculous that the US population is collapsing without immigration and yet so many people in the US are dying like this. Its like a bad comedy.
Oregon got trapped in the same pit that swallowed mental health care in the US after Reagan. For years mental health professionals had been advocating for closing the big, unhealthy hospitals and switching to a community-based group home model.
Reagan never saw a budget cut he didn't like (except for defense), so he jumped at the chance to cut funding for mental hospitals. He skipped over the part about opening up community-based group homes, and provided no money for it. Result: an explosion of homelessness and untreated mental health conditions.
Decriminalizing drugs should be paired with treatment and support, but that costs money and people still have a the old "drug addiction is a moral failing and people should just say no" mindset. Without sufficient money to treat drug addiction and support addicts while they are treated, decriminalization simply fails.
If nothing else, Oregon needs to clean up the streets so we don't have degenerate drug users camping out in tents (in big cities) and in RVs (everywhere else) getting high in public. That would be a great start.
While Georgia had a problem with new sole proprietor LLCs popping up in 2020-2021 getting PPP loans for Hellcats and crab legs by the hundreds, Oregon had the same but for RVs and fentanyl. We have deep and serious addictions that have been allowed to fester in public and we need to clean it up.
Anything that shakes people up and interrupts their drug addled slumber is a good start. By increasing the penalties for those who are clearly out of control, police will be able to arrest and prosecutors will have legitimate targets again. None of this is perfect but nobody is doing anything right now.
Measure 110 allowed for decriminalization but as a society we in Oregon don't have enough stigma against drug use and we don't have the corollary treatment programs, both of which are necessary to get Portugal-like results in decriminalization. Even Portugal is losing stigma against drug use, and considering increasing criminal penalties due to similar problems. The shining star of Western decriminalization is tarnished by human nature.
I see a lot of discussion around the rights of the addicts, but very little discussion about the rights of the law abiding, sober public. Don't those of us who choose not to participate in drug culture have the right not to be victimized by the effects of it?
Yes they do. But, punishing addicts doesn't make the effects go away. Drug addiction is a complicated problem largely because once someone is an 'addict', the 'choose' part about drug participation doesn't really apply anymore.
Not to be pedantic but,... some of them do need more because a sudden withdrawal from certain drugs (opioids, alcohol, benzodiazepines,..) could kill them.
The only solution to the drug problem is full legalization of all drugs.
They should be manufactured by big pharma and sold in grocery stores. No question asked. Poor people should have acess to subsidized prices.
We should also invest in educational programs where people are taught about drugs and how to consume them in a safe way. These programs should sample all major drugs so that one can find out if they should become a consumer and what is the right drug for them.
Making drugs readily available in grocery stores, even with regulations, could lead to increased accessibility, potentially attracting more users, including those who might not otherwise consider trying them. The act of selling drugs in stores could normalize drug use, leading some to underestimate the inherent dangers. Full legalization does not guarantee a decrease in addiction rates. Addiction is a complex issue with various contributing factors, and readily available drugs could easily lead to increased dependence and associated health problems. Sampling programs, especially for highly addictive drugs, raise ethical concerns and could introduce individuals to substances they wouldn't have tried otherwise.
Even with legalization, a black market might still exist, offering unregulated and potentially more dangerous substances at lower prices, especially for those unable to afford legal options.
Increased drug use could have broader societal and economic consequences. It might lead to decreased productivity, increased crime rates, and strained family structures.
How would that solve anything? In San Francisco drugs are practically already legalized, and filled with junkies openly doing fentanyl on the sidewalks.
That will solve the criminality problem, but not the drug problem. Alcohol is legal and sold in stores, does that solve the problems caused by alcohol? No, alcoholism is very widespread and causes huge suffering. The same thing will happen if drugs get fully legalized: since accessing drugs will be easier and cheaper, more people will use them, addiction will become more widespread and cause huge suffering. Inability to enjoy other things and all that.
> That will solve the criminality problem, but not the drug problem.
That is exactly right. The drug problem, like the alcohol problem, on the level of personal suffering should be addressed by other means, like support groups, therapy, ban of advertising, ban on selling to minors, etc. It will not stop the drugs, but it will remove the criminality from the production and distribution. Don't you think the tradeoff was worth it for alcohol?
How would you describe the drug problem? I think people tend to talk past each other on this topic. Parent's proposal is that we stop automatically calling drug usage a problem.
The part about dealing with education, etc., are ways of treating the _addiction_ problem. Perhaps that's what you meant?
You missed a key part. They need to be given in special consumption centers that have narcan on hand and other emergency equipment for OD. You also need to provide counseling and free detox for the people who want to get off the drugs.
Narcan should just be everywhere. Hell, stick it next to every fire alarm. You'd save so, so so many lives for very little cost. Narcan is absolutely safe. If you're not high it does nothing.
You broke the site guidelines badly here. Please make your substantive points without crossing into personal attack, no matter how wrong another commenter is or you feel they are.
May I invite you over to Medellin (a huge digital nomad spot right now) where you can get anything very cheaply yet society hasn't collapsed, in fact it has improved recently?
If you spent 5 seconds looking at statistics about crime, cartels and drug use in Medellin vs cities in the US, you'd see that quality of life is significantly worse in Medellin.
When I was young, kids in middle school would pick up smoking. Just because it didn’t happen to you it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
I’m against the general “what about the kids” rhetoric, but in this case it’s both important and easy to implement, because sellers already card you for the aforementioned purchases.
Didn't find a timeseries for the percentage of smokers, which is suspicious, so I guess nobody can say what role tobacco control did play. The percentage of smokers in the group of 14-17 year olds in Germany has doubled from 2021 to 2022, despite all the pervert laws.
Edit: Btw, I did pick up smoking when I was 14. Abandoned it half a year later. The development of kids to adults needs exploration. If you steal that, you steal childhood. And, as history from the seventies to nowadays proves, if you begin to regulate something that might seem necessary, there will rise assholes that regulate way too much.
Find another way to minimize harm.
Exactly. And what all that have to do with drugs anyway?
They are neither fun nor novel nor especially risky from a legal point of view. Just degenerate and debilitating.
Alcohol and cannabis are drugs. Tobacco and alcohol are more harmful than LSD, GSB or ecstasy [1][2].
> are neither fun nor novel nor especially risky from a legal point of view
Seriously? I've never taken LSD, but there are exactly zero accounts that characterise it as "neither fun nor novel."
Also, we're debating drugs' legality. Saying they're dangerous because they're illegal is tautological.
> just degenerate and debilitating
Amphetamines, opiates and tropane alkaloids have legitimate medical uses. And there are cultures with a long history of responsibly using them. I don't agree with OP in being overly permissive with their distribution; many people can't handle them, and until we can predict which people can't handle which drugs recreationally, due to neurochemistry or personality issues, I'm against broad legalisation.
But plenty of people–including extremely productive, society-improving people (e.g. Paul Erdõs [3])–used drugs, while plenty of sober people are useless and boring.
> Tobacco and alcohol are more harmful than LSD, GSB or ecstasy
Tobacco and alcohol are statistically probably more harmful than nuclear weaponry. They are more harmfull because they are legal. If people took ecstasy in the same quantities as tobacco and alcohol, then the picture would be different.
> I've never taken LSD, but there are exactly zero accounts that characterise it as "neither fun nor novel."
That example is not quite adequate. Acidheads are minority among drug users, and good trips cannot justify the legalization of hard drugs. Not to mention the bad trips. Or the mental disorders caused by LSD.
https://www.biography.com/musicians/syd-barrett-pink-floyd
> Amphetamines, opiates and tropane alkaloids have legitimate medical uses. And there are cultures with a long history of responsibly using them. I don't agree with OP in being overly permissive with their distribution; many people can't handle them, and until we can predict which people can't handle which drugs recreationally, due to neurochemistry or personality issues, I'm against broad legalisation.
The automatic weaponry also have some legitimate uses, that does not mean everyone should own one. Yes, some cultures used some drugs responsibly. That drugs were treated as sacred plants and were not readily available to everyone. No, contemporary Western culture is not a responsible one. On the contrary. Most of society are shallow overly-hedonistic entitled simpletons, fighting among themselves like rats in a cage. If you give them free drugs you will just dig them deeper and worsen the situation. Too many dopamine burners around anyway.
The book in question is just one opinion amongst many. Interesting, perhaps. Decisive, no. Yes, there are exceptions. Yes, plenty of fine (and some less fine) people have used drugs. No, that does not mean it should be legal. At least not when hard drugs are considered.
Nope, they are chemically more harmful and dependence forming. LSD, in particular, is impossible to get addicted to.
> good trips cannot justify the legalization of hard drugs
I’m refuting the point that there is no upside.
> shallow overly-hedonistic entitled simpletons, fighting among themselves like rats in a cage. If you give them free drugs you will just dig them deeper and worsen the situation
Are you sure you aren’t projecting personal experiences?
> book in question is just one opinion amongst many
The author was the head of the U.K.’s ACMD.
I don’t think you’re a misanthrope. But I hope you get the help you need.
> Nope, they are chemically more harmful and dependence forming.
So are you saying that tobacco and alcohol are also drugs? Good, I too consider them drugs. Tobacco should also be criminalized and hard liquor restricted. Their current legal status does not mean that other drugs are fine, that is a logical fallacy.
> LSD, in particular, is impossible to get addicted to.
So what, it is harmfull enough as it is. No need to become addicted to fry up your brains and sanity. Since you haven't tried it, I don't get why such fuss about it.
> I’m refuting the point that there is no upside.
No, you are grasping at straws by presenting something borderline and irrelevant as important. LSD is irrelevant for the problem of drug addiction and legalization. If the junkies were taking LSD instead of meth and fentanyl, we wouldn't even be talking about this.
> Are you sure you aren’t projecting personal experiences?
Are you sure you're not living under a rock, in an echo chamber or in a protective bubble?
> The author was the head of the U.K.’s ACMD.
And Fauci was the head of NIAID. That's the good ole "trust the experts" logical fallacy. Anyway, I said that his opinion might be interesting. I didn't know it was like a scriptural reference for you, my apologies, friend. There are many other experts with the same level of expertise and quite different opinions, you know, you shouldn't fixate on just that single one.
> I don’t think you’re a misanthrope.
Why not? I would consider that a compliment. A moderate realist is a "misanthrope" for a deranged society. I don't care much for groupthink anyway, I don't herd.
> But I hope you get the help you need.
Well, at least I have no need for drugs or manufactured artificial needs and state-approved life sweeteners like a drug legalization proponents.
So perhaps it is you who are projecting, with all that jazz about drug legalization etc, eh? Well, may you find the magic pill you need, good luck with that. Who am I to reassure you. Although it won't help you much in life.
“The biggest question may be in economics and politics of the coming decades will be what to do with all these useless people. The problem would be boredom and how, what to do with them and how will they find some sense of meaning in life when they are basically meaningless, worthless. My best guess at present is a combination of drugs and computer games."
-Yuval Noah Harari (just add pornography to the mix and stir)
You don't say.
Drugs are overrated, there are much better things to do with life than to turn yourself into a cartoon character or a walking zombie. It is a cheap escapism.
Life is so bad for so many Americans that cheap escapism with a high chance of death is worthwhile. Thats the problem in my opinion because these people are creating demand for something nobody should want in the first place.
Not nearly as cheap as a Netflix account. In most markets you can get probably five joints tops for the same price as a streaming service’s monthly cost.
Or, by god, they just give away endless books at libraries. You don’t even need any money for that kind of escapism or fallacious information.
Escapism isn’t an essentially bad thing anymore than is posting on an internet message board. It’s just an issue of frequency and intention.
What drug doesn’t have any potential side effects? The solution is criminalizing public disorder, ideally with a rehabilitative bent. Not wasting public time and money on criminalizing drugs and pursuing possession charges.
And even if I grant that you mean "recreational drug", any discussion that doesn't distinguish between pot, LSD, heroin etc is just pointless. There are huge differences in health impact, addiction potential, social effects and so on.
People who have had some experience with it are their strongest opponents.
The context here is clear. It is not about medicinal "drugs" which should be obvious. If you have need to split terminological hairs then you does not understand the context, and if you do then this makes your argument unhonest and invalid.
> any discussion that doesn't distinguish between pot, LSD, heroin etc is just pointless.
No, that is any discussion that calls for general drug legalization because "some of them are not that bad".
> People who have had some experience with it are their strongest opponents.
Rather depends what you mean by "it". I've know many addicts and I've known many people who have enjoyed drugs recreationally with no long-term ill effects. And plenty of people in-between the two extremes.
> Any drug with side effects should be, of course, criminalized, if we want healthy individuals and a functioning society.
This is a bizarre statement, even ignoring my pedantry about your use of the word "drug".
Any recreational drug?
Any side effects?
It's hard to understand what you really mean because taken literally this would be a really odd stance to take. So I presume you don't mean what you seem to be saying. Therefore I don't really know what you're saying.
Psilocybin is technically not a drug. Entheogens have no serious (bad) side effects, if they have them at all, if you use them sparingly and know how. And they are not for everyone. You can microdose shrooms but you cannot sell them on the streets. There is a reason why they were treated as a sacred plants. Comparing them with meth, dope and similar stuff is ridiculous. Or plain insidious.
Problem ist also health care, in Europe they will send you home post surgery with some non opiate pain killer to take. In the us they gave my friend one box of oxycodone of which he took half and a prescription for another one. I threw it away for him, because he thought it was fun taking it.
Yes, the demonstrated intent to hook people on drugs on the behalf of pharmaceutical cartels is among the many private-equity-driven nightmares of the healthcare "system" in the US, designed at every turn to extract as much profit as possible from people who have no negotiating power while immiserating and impoverishing them
Every time I saw my old doctor, he was hawking whatever new painkiller the industry was pushing on him. He would invent reasons why I needed it rather than address my actual health problems. This is healthcare in America...
Opiates have their place, but care is quite warranted. I had an issue that has caused me some grief a couple years back. In the Bay Area, opioids were prescribed. Honestly, they were the only thing that worked, and I have no problem taking as needed - there is no other effect beyond pain relief for me.
I split time between the bay and remote north eastern (rural) ca. Up there, a friend had a similar issue, the hospital said take Advil/tylenol and tough it out. He spent most of a week in the shower suffering. Said county had previously been investigated for more prescriptions than people in the county.
When I have an episode, I try Tylenol/advil and that usually works. Sometime a bit more is necessary.
My pain threshold is incredibly high, so that plus no mental effect may be why they are a last resort, but not something I worry about.
That's because opiates actually work. Have you had surgery and requested the non opiate pain killer, or are you just repeating things you heard somewhere because you think you need to have an opinion?
.svg/300px-Development_of_a_rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_of_potential_misuse_(physical_harm_and_dependence,_NA_free_means).svg.png){kind=link}