Hacker News Reader

Comment by monero-xmr | Hacker News Reader

Individual freedom should be restricted where your actions begin to harm the quality of life for others. Meaning camping on public sidewalks and parks, injecting drugs openly, panhandling, and other nuisances. Children shouldn’t have to walk through drug addict encampments on the way to school.

View on HN

I find it notable that you threw in panhandling and "other nuisances" right up there with doing drugs in public. They don't seem comparable.

Why? The point is that it's all behavior that causes people to fear for their safety. I could care less if someone is on drugs or a drug user. What I do care about is public spaces being not safe because of the behavior of people in them.

Panhandling makes people fear for their safety?

Yes. Homeless folks are often erratic and dangerous to others.

So are teenagers, but I suspect you don't get spooked when they try to sell you candy bars or nag you for a signature.

There's value in being discerning about one's fears, and it's probably best to get a handle on the less justifiable ones before sending the state after people.

Normal teenagers are much less likely to assault you, in my experience.

And it wouldn't be reasonable or fair to judge all teenagers like those who are likely to, would it?

No. Of course not. Teenagers in an environment that is healthy where they are acting like well-adjusted human beings requires little to no scrutiny. Teenagers acting hostile and physically dangerous, yelling at passersby, and threatening violence deserve attention and scrutiny. In my case, the same pattern of thought and observation goes for homeless folks.

Somebody doing drugs behind the Walmart doesn't bother me. The endless stream of people at the gas station who "just need some money to get home" does bother me.

So drug use is OK as long as you can do it off the streets?

And of course, some drugs are more okay to do in public than others.

Some drugs lead to a lot more of anti social behaviors in public than others

Yes? Like shitting is OK as long as you do it in a toilet, and not on the sidewalk.

Drug use is ok as long as you are not harming/impeding the public.

Children shouldn't be afraid to walk down the street because it is filled with zombified addicts.

We don't allow public nudity, hate speech, etc etc.

You should be allowed to do as you wish in your private residence, as long as you are not harming society.

Seems like more of a homelessness problem than a public drug use problem.

Are we going to enforce public drunkenness laws too?

Public drunkenness laws are often more enforced than some of the drug laws (to be fair, some drugs just turn you into a comatose zombie).

We can point to homelessness, mental health, lots of things are related. However, the key is that the public need to be protected first, AND then we need to solve the other issues.

If public drunkenness was an issue and we had drunk people causing public safety issues, than yes, we would enforce public drunkenness, but that doesn't seem to be the issue.

Of course. I fully support weirdo silicon valley types taking drugs out in some desert far away from other people. Please just keep it there.

>> injecting drugs openly

How does someone injecting drugs openly harm the quality of life for others? I can see it for the other things you mentioned.

Is it just, "I don't want to see that"? Because there are many things I don't want to see.

Not saying we shouldn't throw people in jail for drug possession. I'm OK with that. But if you're going to criminalize injecting drugs openly, you've got to live up to the fact that you're not a libertarian anymore.

Navigating around discarded needles is fun, even better when you have a curious dog that likes to sniff around.

If you want to enforce littering, enforce littering.

It would have the same effect as the drug laws?

Enforcing laws has a different effect than not enforcing laws.

What I mean to say is that when you start arresting homeless drug users for littering and public defecation and removing encampments due to environmental issues (which Portland has started doing since they can't just do it for being homeless), the same activist types come out and accuse the city of the same things as the drug legalization people.

You can say "oh well just enforce public disorder laws" and I actually agree with you, but the same groups behind drug legalization do not.

I spoke at the Portland city council hearing on this issue on Wednesday and the majority of groups there were criticizing the city's approach to removing individuals who were leaving needles or blocking sidewalks or setting up drug tents on school property.

The drug legalization is a dog whistle for what they really want.

Some would argue their quality of life goes down more from not being able to get high in the street than everyone else's does from watching it.

Ultimately it's more a property rights issue imo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com