Hacker News Reader

I hate to be that HN guy who nitpicks an otherwise spot-on comment, but anyway...

One correction: many opiate users, yes, even heroin users, can be functional members of society. There are many folks you would never know use H, at least until they accidentally get some fentanyl and die.

Same thing with meth(which is actually a prescription medication). I'll say that there is always a very high probability that some life stress transforms a casual usage pattern into full-blown addiction though. I've seen it first hand with a family member who used meth for years "on the weekends, to get things done" until some stress in their mid-40s turned them into a hallucinating IV meth user.

More or less though, I think we should maintain criminalization of public usage of most drugs, but I'm open to whatever pragmatic approach maximizes public health and safety while lowering crime.

Fair point. This I think goes along with the idea of a functional alcoholic. People can be functional and fine for a very long time, until they aren't. This likely has less affect on the community during their 'functional' phase. I am for the most part against public use and intoxication.

You’re ignoring the right of someone to do with their body as they see fit, in favor of giving power to governments over people’s bodies. Prohibition didn’t work for alcohol despite’s its negative effects. Doesn’t work for prostitution or gambling either.

Sure, as long as those people don't negatively affect others. Who cleans up after the addict? Who pays for their property crimes or aggression? Who has to clean up their body after an OD or discover it?

I'm open to decriminalizing everything, start with steroids. As long as there are harsh punishments for public intoxication, property damage, theft and all the adjacent crimes that addiction causes, have at it. It can't result in a wasteland of addicts in every down town though

To add, I've known many folks who were infrequent users of cocaine, about once or twice a year during holidays or parties or the like.

I also knew one person who worked in finance and EVERYONE did coke; he wasn't addicted and stopped using when he switched fields (he hated the 80h weeks).

These anecdotes contrasted heavily with my experience in the Bronx in the 80s, where drug users were overwhelmingly drug abusers and generally awful people. I still won't use recreational drugs (other than caffeine and alcohol) but I don't judge people who do.

It is very possible to use hard drugs and not be addicted . I used to use cocaine socially before kids but I think back and really no positives. Going to bars and in and out of bathrooms in groups. Was really just asking to get arrested for possession. Problem with drugs like that is you think you are invincible but really at least in my case I was just being stupid and lucky.

My take is that we're going from a criminalization based "screw them, warehouse them in jail and ruin their lives with felony convictions" policy to a laissez-faire "screw them, let them die on the street" policy.

The part that hasn't changed is "screw them." Nobody really cares about these people. They're viewed as an inconvenience and the debate is over the least costly way to either warehouse them or shove them aside somewhere. Most people view addiction as a moral failing and think addicts deserve whatever they get.

I've never been in favor of drug criminalization except possibly in the case of the most addictive and deadly hard drugs (crystal meth, fentanyl, concentrated opiates), but I always hoped that legalization would come with a redirection of funding from prisons and police into treatment. The latter part just isn't happening, or isn't happening with any effectiveness. My take is that nobody gives a damn and decriminalization is more about saving money than freedom or better treatment approaches.

The movie Traffic already said it. "Treatment of addiction? Addicts treat themselves. They overdose and then there's one less to worry about."

The problem as I see it is that any "treatment" requires the addict wanting to be treated

You could argue that the Taliban are the government that cares the most about addicts, because they are actually making addicts change the way a parent corrects a child

But addicts are grown ups with free will

Truth and I would change that statement just a bit:

Any * successful * treatment requires the patient to want treatment.

In addition, the triggers for it all need to be addressed.

Those can be:

Simple pain, trauma

More complex financial issues, housing, etc...

PTSD of various kinds, war, abuse and the like.

Without a plan to address triggers and desire to be done with it all, treatment success is extremely unlikely.

I agree but I find it is actually harder to recover when the focus is on finding the reasons for addiction

We are fallen creatures and simply accepting our fallen nature might be more productive

Yeah, I did not mean to place the why in front of the basics.

The primary is to want to be done.

It all starts there.

How ending it goes really depends on the person. Take it one struggle at a time. Wash, rinse repeat.

Having finished, one tends to look around and ask, "what now?"

And that is what I meant. Have some options for people that are not doorways back.

They should couple decriminalization with stringent arrests for public use and public intoxication. It’s so damn simple, why won’t they do it. Set a limit above which you’re not allowed to be loitering on the streets like they do with alcohol.

This is definitely part of the answer. Walking through the streets of San Francisco a while ago with my kids I was shocked to see people just lying on the side walk in pools of their own vomit. Also was very protective of my kids walking past people that were obviously on drugs and out of their minds. These people became not so much people but just a threat. It seemed inhumane to just leave them like that. With that said, I would not want the job of dealing with them for what I am sure is a relatively low salary with the reward of seeing most people you help back on drugs the next week.

>These people became not so much people but just a threat.

This is part of the problem. They are a threat, but they're also still people.

Sure but I very much value my kids over strangers engaging in destructive behavior on the street. Why risk myself and my family for them?

Don't value them over your family.

Just don't think of them as less than human.

Thats the thing, I don't. With that said, there is almost nothing more dangerous to a human than another human. I wish them nothing but happiness in life but I am also not going to ignore the fact that they are on drugs and potentially mentally compromised. A danger to themselves and others.

You literally commented "These people became not so much people". I'm not sure how else to take that.

I can tell you're frustrated about having to see homeless people. Let's just drop it there, then. I hope your community heals.

Not my community, I was just visiting San Francisco

What did you do to help these people who were suffering? Did you just glare and step over them?

Yes. What would you like me to do? Walk up to each one I came across, my little kids in tow and try to have an intelligent conversation with them? Give them all my money? Invite them back with me to my hotel like the pied Piper of addicts?

I want them out of the way and far away from my kids. I was pretty clear that I perceived them as a threat.

How are they a threat? They're lying in a pool of vomit, it's pretty clear they need help. Maybe teach your kids a bit of compassion?

Again, I refer you to my parent comment, how should I provide help & compassion? Which option should I select?

As far as how are they a threat, really?

The internet is overflowing with articles like this. https://www.foxla.com/news/lapd-woman-stabbed-in-head-scisso...

I’m with you on most of what you said but probably calling 911 may be one option that lets you continue along your way while helping someone that may be in a life or death situation.

I would generally agree with you but there were dozens of people like this there, some better, some the same. I wish I was exaggerating. Dude wasn't dying, he just found a good spot to vomit and take a nap.

I'm sorry but giving wildly exaggerated options and suggesting and they're your only options is a bit disingenuous. How about just checking that they're okay instead of glaring at them for inconveniencing you?

And yes, really, I'm asking how they're a threat when they're unconscious? Just because they're homeless doesn't make them dangerous. This attitude of the homeless being a nuisance or and inconvenience instead of part of the community only exacerbates the problem and makes them less likely to receive the help they need. Homelessness is a complex issue and I'm not sure what the solution is but seeing them as people in tough circumstances that need help is a start.

There were people like this all over the city. Literally thousands of people who actually live there walk passed them every day. I did as they did, figured the people that live there know better than a tourist. Did you want me to kneel down next to each one, my kids next to me and give them a shake? What are the odds someone passed out on hard drugs, likely with mental issues is going to react well to being woken by a stranger?

I invite people in my community into my home. Do you expect me to invite homeless addicts into my house?

Homeless people are a "nuisance and inconvenience" to the community. To argue otherwise is to be disingenuous.

These are just from yesterday

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/homeless-man-accused-of-fat...

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/pittsburgh-police-arrest-suspect...

> Homeless people are a "nuisance and inconvenience" to the community. To argue otherwise is to be disingenuous.

Okay, it's pretty clear that you're discussing this from a place of ignorance and privilege. I suggest educating yourself better before engaging further on this subject.

Are you arguing that the majority of people don't see homeless people as an inconvenience? Or that people are glad to contribute large amounts of their tax dollars to support them? I'm arguing from a place of reality, not imaginary "how it should be" perspective. No one besides a few on the far left wants homeless addicts in their community. If you think that the vast majority of people like the homeless and addicts in their community you are not being realistic.

What is there to educate myself on? I want to live in a safe neighborhood where my kids don't have to worry about stepping on needles or vomit, where my wife can walk down the street without being catcalled by dudes that have not showered in 3 weeks. Where stores and cars are not broken into. Is that wrong? And before we touch on all we need is more housing, sure but that's expensive, takes a really long time to build and how are the addicts going to pay rent or are we just going to raise taxes? Plus I don't want an apartment complex full of addicts next door.

I'm well aware that the majority of people don't want anything to do with homeless people. I'm saying this needs to change. It's exactly this attitude of not wanting to deal with people they find inconvenient that ostracises and stigmatizes them further, cutting them off from the support they need and leading to further antisocial behaviour. It's particularly unfair since they're typically homeless through circumstances beyond their control. They're people, just like us, and they are part of the community.

If you'd like to gain more of an understanding, I think the best way is to talk with them directly about their experience. Volunteering is an excellent way to do this.

That's one of the interesting things I noticed about Amsterdam. It is notorious for the availability of cannabis, but it's very clear that you don't consume in public or around the neighborhood. (Modulo a group of teens I saw passing a joint around in the park). The coffeeshops are clearly intended to contain the drug use. Unlike California where you smell weed everywhere.

There is so much absurd regulation of marijuana in California, that the gray and black markets are still thriving. There is too much demand and not enough legal supply because of bullshit red tape. Making it easier to grow legally is the path to taking organized crime and violence out of it.

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.

-- Albert Einstein

In a later comment you ask ...how should I provide help & compassion?

I would say one-on-one as an individual walking the streets, you probably shouldn't, especially if you have children in tow.

We need to address our nationwide affordable housing crisis. California is disproportionately impacted and takes a lot of the blame for it, but I think they are basically the dumping ground and whipping boy for a national failure.

Decriminalization is helpful in part because if you criminalize use of the drug, it makes it harder to seek treatment. People who expect to go to jail for trying to get the help they need are more likely to not come forward and to continue to try to fix their problems themselves.

We need a better understanding of why people do drugs, what the underlying root causes are. It's hard to solve a problem without knowing why it exists. Given our long track record of not getting results, I think we have room for improvement in how we frame this problem.

I agree with you for the most part. There is a massive housing cost crisis. I bought my house 5 years ago for $320k and its worth just under $600k now. For the same house. It makes no sense. Plus its not like I can sell it and get 2 more at the original price. I don't know how entry level salary people could even consider home ownership now.

I don't think decriminalization of hard drugs works without an ample amount of long term money set aside for treatment. Plus money for additional law enforcement to aggressively enforce existing property, violence and public intoxication laws. People should not have to endure a slipping down life because others choose to do drugs.

As far as the why people do drugs, I'm not sure we need that much study. It starts out fun, then it turns into something to numb the pain, then its something that is needed. I've done a myriad of drugs in my time, thankfully I never passed the fun phase. I don't presume to know what drove people to the 'numb the pain' phase and I do feel for them. I am not willing to upend my life or endanger my kids to find out. There is also a limit, how much money should society be expected to spend to constantly on an individual who keeps going through treatment and keeps going back to using? With that said, I do think the number is above zero.

My patience fails though at those that endanger others and commit crimes to further their addiction.

To be clear, I am not someone who thinks "bad behavior" just needs "sympathy and compassion." I'm absolutely not interested in creating a situation that endangers innocent bystanders in the name of feeling sorry for anyone.

I'm just someone who thinks drug use happens for a reason and doesn't get resolved with sheer self discipline. It gets resolved when the reason for using gets resolved.

Referencing Portugal feels weird. Most reports I see are still very favorable to the outcomes they are seeing, is that changing?

Decriminalizing doesn't change people with a drug problem into not having a drug problem, true. It does, at least, free them from also having a legal problem. Idea being that they can seek and get treatment for their drug problem, now. Something they can't do when it is criminal. (Indeed, reading the Wikipedia page for Portugal shows increased treatments as their first bullet in favor.)

I'd also guess that it makes it easier for treatments to be offered. As, right now, offering help there is basically aiding illegal activity.

Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-dru...

discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36638752

Thanks for the link, I'll try and take a deeper dive later. Cursory read is not favorable to the article, though. Problems include,

  * Having to concede that Portugal is still doing better than most of Europe.
  * Leaning on pandemic years for a lot of the excess growth.
  * A passing discussion of funding and other costs.

I see most of this was covered in the discussion here. Will see what else is mentioned.

> Not sure what the answer is but just waving a wand and making hard drugs legal is not it.

Make them actually legal (and thus more safe), tax them heavily, use a portion of said taxation to educate properly and then support and rehabilitate those who need it. Don't allow unsafe activities in public places that cause an unsafe environment.

This really isn't that complicated, we've just been under the spell of prohibition for so long waking up can be a bit disorienting.

Yeah, it's not complicated when you can make up stuff with 0 evidence and have no responsability anyway.

What did I make up and what did I say that requires evidence? And what responsibility do you imagine I’d require to have the opinion I relayed?

Of course nothing is simple if given a close enough look, but there are also rather straightforward solutions here such that we shouldn’t feel just totally stumped about what to do.

problem with this kind of reasoning is that there is very little real data on a world where drugs are decriminalised / legal. while the things you listed could all be negative consequences of such a world, since it was never tried we don't know and its just a conjecture...

There's also a genie out of the bottle problem. Once you decriminalize drugs and people start using them it's very hard to flip a switch and make them stop. To get the data could very well require a massive sacrifice if it turns out to be a very bad idea

Possibly. On the other hand - all drugs started out decriminalised and the reasons for the criminalisation were not always or even usually out of concern for the well being of the user, but racism against the chinese (opium) and black people (marijuana)