Hacker News Reader

Comment by bloppe | Hacker News Reader

A more accurate title: SF supervisors would like to decriminalize psychedelics

Considering how things went with the fence in 24th St. when Ronen actually tried to "criminalize" something (https://twitter.com/HillaryRonen/status/1537599919090847745) I would say psychedelics are already decriminalized in the city wether the board instructs SFPD about making them "the lowest possible priority" or not.

This is probably a "propaganda law" to appear progressive while actually not doing anything at all except wasting ink and breath.

That whole station is such a cluster. Someone got murdered there a week ago or so.

There was some quote with her that her district "went to shit during her term" and she seemed confused as to who was responsible...

lowest priority of law enforcement is a meaningful law, sure the police do not typically target individual users, but producers and distributors are at risk - and nobody can get individual amounts without producers and distributors doing their thing. this also allows people to come out of the shadows which tends to ensure the product and the purchasing experience are safer.

Prior to Prop 64, we had a lowest priority ordinance for cannabis and it was a useful tool in defending our medical dispensaries.

People also have a tendency to get charged with possession when arrested for other things, even a traffic warrant or case of mistaken identity.

I'm not a SF resident and don't understand this at all, can someone explain what happened here?

There's a BART station at 24th and Mission streets where the aboveground plaza (where the escalator is to get down to the station) is just covered with un-permitted street vendors. Many of the vendors are selling stolen goods. Ronen pledged to clean that up.

Of course, it was all just staged; they swept away the vendors, finished their photo op, and after they left, the vendors all came back.

I think the grandparent's point is that if they can't/won't even enforce laws that they actually claim to enforce, LSD use -- something the local government explicitly has not cared about for quite some time -- has already been unofficially decriminalized. I don't really agree with the overall premise there, though; without getting into whether this particular decriminalization is a good idea, leaving intentionally-unenforced laws on the books just leads to abuse. If particular laws shouldn't be enforced, then they should be repealed entirely.

I think they’re saying that pshychedelics laws are already entirely not enforced so this does nothing.

Here is the resolution they adopted: https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5742708...

https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11095427&GUID=46...

I think it is useful because it provides a fairly compelling and surprisingly specific list of justifications.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com