Drugs win the War on Drugs

[52-80 19096]

(But unironically)

The governor of Oregon has declared an emergency in the city of Portland a few years after the state became the first in the nation to largely decriminalize drug use. 

Oregon paved the way as the first state to decriminalize drug use, passing Measure 110 in 2020. 

Instead of incarcerating drug users, the measure focused on addiction and recovery, with Portland police officers hand out citations for public drug use. People can have a chance for treatment and have their fines waived if they contact specific rehabilitation services, but calling that hotline is voluntary. 

"We've had three years of this law that has not delivered on the promise that voters thought they were getting," Washington County district attorney Kevin Barton said. 

The hope was that a more humane approach would help curb addiction in the state, which saw nearly a thousand accidental overdose deaths in 2022. However, overdose deaths have continued to rise since 2020….

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oregon-officials-declare-fentanyl-state-emergency-amid-rising-overdoses/ar-BB1hynFo

[Orange&White 5516]

If only y'all could see how shocked I am right now.

[JohnnyRage 1617]

I was unaware that they decriminalized Fentanyl.

[Wally Fairway 5524]

24 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

(Drugs win the War on Drugs

 

 

22 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

If only y'all could see how shocked I am right now.

In other news, water is wet

[High Plains Drifter 10978]

 

Two questions: 

1) haven't overdose deaths been rising everywhere, including in states that have draconian drug enforcement? 

2) isn't the point of decriminalization less crowded prisons, not lower rates of drug deaths?

 

 

 

[cabowabo 4453]

Elections have consequences.

[Js1 85113]

Drugs won? 

[Celery Man 20886]

Portland bad 😉

but yeah, is this law responsible for fentanyl? did portland kill sam's brother?

[52-80 19096]

17 minutes ago, JohnnyRage said:

I was unaware that they decriminalized Fentanyl.

Fentanyl got the same lax treatment as cocaine, heroin, etc, until it was re-criminalized just last summer in HB2645. 

[We’reTexas 1469]

8 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Two questions: 

1) haven't overdose deaths been rising everywhere, including in states that have draconian drug enforcement? 

2) isn't the point of decriminalization less crowded prisons, not lower rates of drug deaths?

 

 

 

1) Yes 2) No, proponents argue for both. 

[Brisketexan 104628]

I mean....yeah....without digging into detailed number crunching, it looks like what we have is a data point that the negatives of drugs (addiction, overdoses) continue to perform about the same in states that decriminalize drugs compared to those that criminalize it.  In other words, this would point to the primary benefit of decriminalization being that we don't crowd prisons, create a massive criminal class, etc.  Which is good.  But it's not the only upside we'd like to see.

In other words: 1) drugs are bad, mmmkay?  And 2) criminalizing them doesn't make a bit of difference when it comes to the bad they do.  Kinda like prostitution -- maybe it's bad, maybe it's good, but we damned well know that whether it's legal or ciminalized doesn't make a bit of difference in whether it's actually available.

I WOULD like to see a scenario where the resources and dollars that used to be poured into law enforcement as to drugs are spent on treatment services and the like.  I doubt we're seeing a real change there, but again, I don't have all the numbers in front of me.  

Edited January 31 by Brisketexan

[52-80 19096]

2 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Portland bad 😉

but yeah, is this law responsible for fentanyl? did portland kill sam's brother?

their lawmakers seem to make that connection: they have to revert part of 110 due to fentanyl
 

https://www.opb.org/article/2024/01/23/oregon-democrats-bill-recriminalize-drug-possession-step-up-treatment-access/
 

https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2023/06/24/oregon-legislature-criminalizes-possession-of-fentanyl-undoing-a-small-part-of-measure-110/

[crash_davis 23084]

Wrong or right, I consider homeless and tweaked out druggies passing out on streets as the same people. Yes there are homeless people down on their luck and need help making ends meet. We should be helping them. Druggy homeless fuckers, eh...

So that begs the question, who is responsible in fixing the homeless/drug issue? No matter the answer, we taxpayers are paying for it, whatever "it" is, whether it be enforcement and incarceration or copious amounts of mental hospitals and free mental care and drug treatment. Selfishly, I don't care, just get them off the streets/woods and into something, jail or mental health center, I don't care.

 

[South Austin 52147]

[Celery Man 20886]

I'm not necessarily pro decriminalizing drugs. I don't really have a hard stance on that, just stating that here.

The article in OP connects a state of emergency in Portland and the rising number of drug overdoses to the decriminalization of drugs in the state. My suspicion is that the growing prevalence of Fentanyl is the primary cause of the increase in drug deaths. Changes in law reacting to the prevalence of fentanyl is not an indicator that the laws themselves caused fentanyl to become prevalent.

[Celery Man 20886]

3 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

Wrong or right, I consider homeless and tweaked out druggies passing out on streets as the same people. Yes there are homeless people down on their luck and need help making ends meet. We should be helping them. Druggy homeless fuckers, eh...

So that begs the question, who is responsible in fixing the homeless/drug issue? No matter the answer, we taxpayers are paying for it, whatever "it" is, whether it be enforcement and incarceration or copious amounts of mental hospitals and free mental care and drug treatment. Selfishly, I don't care, just get them off the streets/woods and into something, jail or mental health center, I don't care.

 

it's an impossible problem and there are no good answers. but fyi good people both fall prey to and recover from addiction. basically every addict is a piece of shit (because of the nature of addiction), but they are also redeemable.

[crash_davis 23084]

1 minute ago, Celery Man said:

it's an impossible problem and there are no good answers. but fyi good people both fall prey to and recover from addiction. basically every addict is a piece of shit (because of the nature of addiction), but they are also redeemable.

What can we do to speed up the redeemable part? I'm tired of cities and parts of cities getting fucked by assholes.

[MissingInAction 24824]

The threat of fentynol has seriously curbed my cocaine usage. #winning 

[Brisketexan 104628]

4 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

I'm not necessarily pro decriminalizing drugs. I don't really have a hard stance on that, just stating that here.

The article in OP connects a state of emergency in Portland and the rising number of drug overdoses to the decriminalization of drugs in the state. My suspicion is that the growing prevalence of Fentanyl is the primary cause of the increase in drug deaths. Changes in law reacting to the prevalence of fentanyl is not an indicator that the laws themselves caused fentanyl to become prevalent.

This.  Compare the fentanyl addiction and overdose rates over time between Oregon and states that have kept full criminalization in place.  If there's a material delta between those rates over time, then that may tell us that decriminalization has a positive/negative effect on addictions and overdose.

If there's no material difference, that tells us that it doesn't much matter whether drugs are legal or illegal, the negative outcomes from drugs are about the same (which, to me, shifts the burden to the proponents of criminalization -- so, if criminalization doesn't materially HELP reduce the problem...why do we criminalize drugs?  It's not doing any good).

[Celery Man 20886]

6 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

What can we do to speed up the redeemable part? I'm tired of cities and parts of cities getting fucked by assholes.

difficult problem, but it's goddamn near impossible to crawl out of addiction if you have no path towards redemption. If you were a good guy before you hurt your back and got hooked on opiates but now you're a felon, all the more difficult to see your way out of your situation. Obviously complete decriminalization is not a nice tidy solution but throwing them in jail doesn't make them go away and underneath the disease are people a lot more like you than you probably realize.

[We’reTexas 1469]

When we talk about the drug addiction crisis, in my view we are talking about two interrelated but distinct issues: there’s drug addiction as a public health issue and there is drug addiction as a crime and safety issue. The former takes a structural view, while the latter focuses more on agency.  For along time the US addressed the problem as a crime and safety issue, and we good urban liberals now wholeheartedly reject the War on Drugs and embrace a structural view of the problem.

However, drug addiction does raise crime and safety issues, and efforts to treat them as such cause bitter fights in places like Portland about “returning to the war on drugs.” Meanwhile, states and municipalities lack the resources to adopt harm reduction policies at scale, and federal law prohibits one of the most  important measure - safe injection sites. So what I see in Oregon and other coastal cities/states are half-assed approaches that lack clear direction and need federal alignment and funding. 

[nbmishoid 941]

1 hour ago, crash_davis said:

Wrong or right, I consider homeless and tweaked out druggies passing out on streets as the same people. Yes there are homeless people down on their luck and need help making ends meet. We should be helping them. Druggy homeless fuckers, eh...

So that begs the question, who is responsible in fixing the homeless/drug issue? No matter the answer, we taxpayers are paying for it, whatever "it" is, whether it be enforcement and incarceration or copious amounts of mental hospitals and free mental care and drug treatment. Selfishly, I don't care, just get them off the streets/woods and into something, jail or mental health center, I don't care.

 

Society is responsible.  The drug addled homeless haven’t the capacity to be responsible 

[crash_davis 23084]

4 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

Society is responsible.  The drug addled homeless haven’t the capacity to be responsible 

So it's our fault because they are homeless druggies? My sarcasm meter is broke.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  Compare the fentanyl addiction and overdose rates over time between Oregon and states that have kept full criminalization in place.  If there's a material delta between those rates over time, then that may tell us that decriminalization has a positive/negative effect on addictions and overdose.

If there's no material difference, that tells us that it doesn't much matter whether drugs are legal or illegal, the negative outcomes from drugs are about the same (which, to me, shifts the burden to the proponents of criminalization -- so, if criminalization doesn't materially HELP reduce the problem...why do we criminalize drugs?  It's not doing any good).

Yeah, this is a useless correlation. If you look at it hard it probably does show that criminalization has no influence on the overdose rate. 

But it doesn't prove anything about decriminalization. 

[nbmishoid 941]

Whether it is our fault is not the issue.   Similar to systematic racism.  We didn’t make the problem, supposedly, but we are the only ones here, we being society, that can do something.  Should do something,imho

[Brisketexan 104628]

6 minutes ago, We’reTexas said:

When we talk about the drug addiction crisis, in my view we are talking about two interrelated but distinct issues: there’s drug addiction as a public health issue and there is drug addiction as a crime and safety issue. The former takes a structural view, while the latter focuses more on agency.  For along time the US addressed the problem as a crime and safety issue, and we good urban liberals now wholeheartedly reject the War on Drugs and embrace a structural view of the problem.

However, drug addiction does raise crime and safety issues, and efforts to treat them as such cause bitter fights in places like Portland about “returning to the war on drugs.” Meanwhile, states and municipalities lack the resources to adopt harm reduction policies at scale, and federal law prohibits one of the most  important measure - safe injection sites. So what I see in Oregon and other coastal cities/states are half-assed approaches that lack clear direction and need federal alignment and funding. 

Really good post.  Very few issues are one-dimensional and/or perfectly binary.  Drugs/addiction is definitely one of those issues.

And there are countless issues where it's complex, requires real attention, and the pitch is "we should stop doing X, and start doing Y," and the folks in charge stop doing X....but don't really follow through with the plan to start doing Y.   You have to make the switch effectively, or else you get run over by the consequences....this scene is a great metaphor:

[hayden_horn 11360]

2 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

So it's our fault because they are homeless druggies? My sarcasm meter is broke.

there's the main problem right there: we don't have to assign fault for addiction. it's not your fault, crash, but it's all of our responsibility to help where we can and sometimes even where we can't. you can't monetize grace. 

[Huckleberry 32704]

3 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

Whether it is our fault is not the issue.   Similar to systematic racism.  We didn’t make the problem, supposedly, but we are the only ones here, we being society, that can do something.  Should do something,imho

But if he can't blame them while absolving himself of any responsibility how can he feel superior to them? 

[Brisketexan 104628]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

there's the main problem right there: we don't have to assign fault for addiction. it's not your fault, crash, but it's all of our responsibility to help where we can and sometimes even where we can't. you can't monetize grace. 

Bingo.  Our curious obsession with assigning fault, and placing the responsibility for curative action on the party at fault, before doing ANYTHING meaningful to solve the problem, is nuts.

Imagine that an arsonist sets a wildfire that is now sweeping towards your home.  Our prevailing attitude would be "no, the public shouldn't expend its resources, like using the fire department, to solve this 'fire problem.'  We need to find the arsonist, and he need to fix the problem he created."  Fuck that shit.  There's a fire.  It's a public and private good for us to expend resources to put that fire out, because the public at large is really the only entity that has the ability to do so.

[Foosters 17734]

Like most societal issues that are dropped onto the lap of the criminal justice system to "solve," the drug issue is a housing, economic, mental health, and medical crisis that needs to be addressed at all levels. By the time they reach the CJ system, its kinda too late.

We don't have the stomach to actually address the issue, so we make half-hearted efforts  - a local proposition here, a tax increase there, a ribbon cutting ceremony at a treatment facility - but the underlying and systemic issues remain.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

10 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

Society is responsible.  The drug addled homeless haven’t the capacity to be responsible 

Pretty true. But as a recovering addict myself, there is a point at which you may have the opportunity(s) to accept offered help and then do the necessary and a responsibility to do so. 

[crash_davis 23084]

Grace, patience, and more importantly, money, are not endless. 

[hayden_horn 11360]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Pretty true. But as a recovering addict myself, there is a point at which you may have the opportunity(s) to accept offered help and then do the necessary and a responsibility to do so. 

sometimes people have the capacity to ask for and/or accept help/opportunities. sometimes they don't. 

but we (the responsible ones) shouldn't give up because someone isn't ready or whatever

[crash_davis 23084]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

But if he can't blame them while absolving himself of any responsibility how can he feel superior to them? 

If feeling superior is expecting people to act civilized and not like dipshit leeches to society, then yea, I'm feeling superior as fuck.

[hayden_horn 11360]

1 minute ago, crash_davis said:

Grace, patience, and more importantly, money, are not endless. 

grace is. 

or should be. 

[crash_davis 23084]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

grace is. 

or should be. 

So should personal responsibility, but here we are.

[Brisketexan 104628]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Pretty true. But as a recovering addict myself, there is a point at which you may have the opportunity(s) to accept offered help and then do the necessary and a responsibility to do so. 

 

Just now, crash_davis said:

Grace, patience, and more importantly, money, are not endless. 

These are true.

Which is why drug possession, use, and addiction shouldn't be treated as a criminal issue per se.  BUT, a chronic addict who will not get help, and continuously presents a hazard and commits crimes BECAUSE of their addiction?  Yeah, there's a place in the criminal justice system for that.  Probably not the place we have NOW (just treat em like every other criminal), but society has an interest in getting the chronic and stubborn addict out of the general public, and in a place where the public is protected from the hazards that person causes.

[Celery Man 20886]

20 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

there's the main problem right there: we don't have to assign fault for addiction. it's not your fault, crash, but it's all of our responsibility to help where we can and sometimes even where we can't. you can't monetize grace. 

 

[nbmishoid 941]

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Pretty true. But as a recovering addict myself, there is a point at which you may have the opportunity(s) to accept offered help and then do the necessary and a responsibility to do so. 

As it turned out, thank god, you did have the capacity, overall.  Not the situation for the bulk of the homeless addled.

[Celery Man 20886]

You can’t really misunderstand addiction hard enough to cause people to get better.

[safe sex 11684]

Constant stress and trauma physically changes your brain

Easy access to power, money, and security physically changes your brain

[We’reTexas 1469]

Pretty good article in NYT today comparing San Francisco’s approach to that of Portugal, the model for many progressives of a harm reduction approach.

Quote

San Francisco is in the middle of a drug crisis. Overdose deaths reached a record high last year, topping 800. Public drug use is widespread in some neighborhoods.

How did San Francisco get to this point? In part, it follows the national story: The rise of fentanyl, a synthetic opioid, and a destabilizing pandemic caused a spike in addiction and overdose deaths.

But San Francisco’s drug crisis has outpaced the country’s. In 2014, the city’s overdose death rate was roughly in line with the national average. As of last year, its rate was more than double the national average, and San Francisco was No. 4 for overdose deaths among U.S. counties with more than 500,000 people. The country’s overdose crisis worsened over the past decade as fentanyl spread, but San Francisco’s worsened much more quickly.

Drug overdose deaths per 100,000 residents

12-month rolling averages. Drug death numbers for 2023 are provisional.

Source: CDC WONDER

By The New York Times

Local policy changes are partly to blame, some experts say. In 2014, California voters passed Prop 47, reducing drug possession to a misdemeanor from a felony. Different parts of the state have interpreted the change differently. In San Francisco, law enforcement has responded by scaling back efforts against drugs, de-emphasizing incarceration and effectively allowing public drug use.

 

Those who support at least partial decriminalization often cite the experience of Portugal, which decriminalized all drugs more than two decades ago and then saw a decline in drug-related problems. In 2019, the San Francisco district attorney at the time, George Gascón, even visited Portugalto learn more. But while San Francisco and other liberal cities have embraced some aspects of Portugal’s decriminalization laws, they have struggled to replicate Portugal’s success.

The comparison with Portugal is not perfect. For one, fentanyl has not taken over Portuguese drug markets, and has a relatively small presence in Europe as a whole. Still, the comparison gives a way to think about the challenges that San Francisco and other cities have faced. Those challenges can be broken down into five parts, each touching on a different aspect of drug policy.

Decriminalization

What Portugal did: Decriminalization is widely misunderstood; it’s not full legalization, but removes criminal penalties for small amounts of drug possession. In 2000, Portugal passed a law that decriminalized all drugs, including heroin and cocaine. But it kept some penalties, like fines and license suspensions, to incentivize people to get addiction treatment and deter outdoor public drug use. If police officers catch someone using drugs, they can, and often do, still cite them.

Along with decriminalization, Portugal also invested in addiction treatment and created a system that tries to push people to seek help for addiction. “Decriminalization by itself means nothing if you have nothing else to offer,” João Goulão, the architect of Portugal’s system, told me.

 

What San Francisco did: California’s Prop 47 did not technically decriminalize drugs, leaving possession as a misdemeanor. But the police do not stop or otherwise intervene with drug users, even as they use in public view, and prosecutors rarely file charges for drug possession or use.

With a new district attorney as of mid-2022, the city started arresting more drug dealersand some users. But drug users still do not worry about arrests, and public use remains common. Residents often feel as if they have to check on drug users on sidewalks. “That’s how I found my first dead body,” said Adam Mesnick, owner of a deli in the South of Market neighborhood.

Mayor London Breed has tried to straddle the line between a focus on public health and law enforcement, while acknowledging the deteriorating situation. “While we want to get people the help they need, we can’t continue to allow drug dealing and public drug use to continue,” her office said in a statement.

Addiction treatment

What Portugal did: In Portugal, the government provides much of the treatment. It is largely voluntary, mostly free and readily includes medications (like methadone) that studies show are the most effective approach for opioid addiction. The system has faced some problems in recent years, particularly staff shortages and waiting lists. Dr. Goulão says those difficulties are a result of national disinvestment, as the country has dealt with debt crises.

Portugal also has a system to encourage drug users to get treatment, since refusing care is a common feature of addiction.

 

When people are cited for drugs, they are sent to so-called dissuasion commissions. The commissions talk with people — using techniques like motivational interviewing — to persuade them to stop using drugs and seek help. But the commissions also have the threat of penalties, including community service and the revocation of a professional license, to more forcefully push someone into treatment if persuasion fails. “There’s a little bit of muscle involved,” Dr. Goulão said.

What San Francisco did: San Francisco, California and the federal government fund addiction treatment. But the system is fragmented. Some providers offer medications for opioid addiction, while others reject medications as replacing one drug with another. Some treatment is effectively free or paid for by insurance, but other services can charge patients thousands of dollars or more. As a result, patients frequently struggle to find a treatment option that both works for them and that they can afford.

San Francisco also has trouble nudging people into treatment. In some cases, the city offers drug users the option of treatment as an alternative to jail or prison. But this is available only when an addict is charged with more serious crimes, like robbery, that carry jail or prison time. Drug use alone is not enough.

One program started by the city last year offers people treatment after they are charged with drug use or sales. But if the users refuse treatment, they are typically released anyway. From May 30 to Jan. 4, just 25 people accepted treatment after an arrest, in a city where tens of thousands of people use drugs regularly.

Harm reduction

What Portugal did: Harm reduction prioritizes keeping people alive over getting them to stop using, an idea that gained prominence during the H.I.V. and AIDS crisis of the 1980s and ’90s. Portugal has widely adopted some harm reduction measures, such as needle exchanges. But the government made getting people into treatment its top priority, particularly through dissuasion commissions. (Local activists have criticized the government for not further embracing harm reduction approaches.)

 

Across the country, harm reduction services often act as a gateway to addiction treatment. Staffers at these services work with the treatment system to link clients to more help. “What we want is to provide citizens a way to change their life, if they so wish,” Dr. Goulão said.

What San Francisco did: San Francisco has become one of the biggest supporters of harm reduction, which has proliferated in the U.S. during the opioid crisis. The city has not just adopted traditional harm reduction strategies. It has also led the way on new ones, such as passing out straws and foil to reduce the chance of infection among people who use fentanyl.

San Francisco’s harm reduction programs don’t require staff to guide clients toward treatment. The programs argue that such pushiness could scare away clients who are not interested in quitting drugs.

Michael Discepola, director of health access at the harm reduction program GLIDE, said his organization was fine with clients continuing to use drugs as long as they did so in a way that the group saw as safe. Abstinence is not always the correct goal, he argued.

Can an approach focused so much on harm reduction work? Maybe, but its track record is not promising. British Columbia, in Canada, is a global leader in harm reduction. People can use drugs at supervised sites. Some programs prescribe and distribute opioids, including heroin, with the aim of providing a safer supply than what’s on the streets. Yet in 2023, British Columbia set a record for overdose deaths. Harm reduction policies probably reduce deaths, but they have not turned the crisis around.

 

Personal attitudes toward drugs

What Portugal did: Portugal is a predominantly Catholic, somewhat socially conservative country that still by and large discourages and stigmatizes drug use. Though culture is a slippery and broad concept, experts say it is important (often pointing to the public health campaign against smoking as an example). The social attitudes in Portugal probably helped to deter drug use and encourage treatment even as the legal system eased up. “That certainly played a role,” Dr. Goulão said.

The country has taken steps to show compassion for addicts, including decriminalization, to make it easier for them to get help. But it continues to see drug use as socially damaging — a “love the sinner, hate the sin” philosophy.

What San Francisco did: San Francisco takes a more libertarian approach. Local activists often talk about drug use as a right— that people should be able to put what they want into their own bodies. They have also worked to destigmatize drug use, to make it easier for people to open up about it and seek help.

In early 2020, a downtown billboard showed happy young people seemingly enjoying a high together. “Know overdose,” the billboard said. “Do it with friends. Use with people and take turns. Try not to use alone, or have someone check on you.”

The billboard is no longer there, but to critics, it represented a school of thought that came close to loving the sin, or at least accepting it. San Francisco “is on the extreme of a pro-drug culture,” Keith Humphreys, a drug policy expert at Stanford, told me.

 

A comprehensive strategy

What Portugal did: The biggest challenge to addressing a drug crisis is making everything work together. In the 1990s, Lisbon was called the “heroin capital of Europe.” About 1 percent of Portugal’s population used hard drugs. Hundreds died each year, a large toll in a small nation.

Portugal’s now-famous response — decriminalizing drugs and funding new addiction treatment programs, harm reduction services and dissuasion commissions — came from changes in national laws that reflected a unified top-down plan.

In recent years, some drug problems have ticked up, as The Washington Post reported. But for the most part, the system remains. Portugal’s drug-related deaths are still a fraction of what they were in the 1990s. The country also has fewer such deaths, after accounting for population, than most of its European peers.

Drug-induced deaths per 100,000 residents in European nations, 2020

* Country does not have 2020 data, so earlier periods were used

Sources: The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction; World Bank

By The New York Times

What San Francisco did: What one American city does, with limited resources and jurisdiction, is hard to compare with what an entire country does. On a federal level, the U.S. has yet to agree on a successor to what has come to be seen as its draconian war on drugs. But to the extent San Francisco’s leaders could have come together to create a comprehensive drug policy plan, they never did.

 

Instead, city officials mostly break down into two factions. One side, represented by the San Francisco Department of Public Health and locally funded nonprofits, has focused on harm reduction efforts. The other side, led by law enforcement agencies, wants to increase the role of the police and punishment to stop drug use and dealing.

The two sides are often at odds. For example, District Attorney Brooke Jenkins argues that the straw-and-foil distribution program isn’t supported by research and could be enabling drug use without a public health benefit. “No one has shown me the evidence,” she said. The Department of Public Health defended its work in a statement: “We want to make sure people do not die of an overdose before they have a chance to seek treatment.”

It’s a debate happening everywhere, with particular intensity in San Francisco. “To get a strategy, you need an objective,” said Nils Behnke, former chief executive of St. Anthony’s Foundation, which provides housing and treatment to drug users in the city. “That does not exist here.”

 

[David Dennison 18661]

I guess it's time to recriminalize alcohol.

[sheeeit 129]

Its a tough issue for sure.  Not sure if it means much but purely by the numbers, the annual number of overdose deaths in Oregon have doubled since 2020.

https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PREVENTIONWELLNESS/SUBSTANCEUSE/OPIOIDS/Documents/quarterly_opioid_overdose_related_data_report.pdf

 

The problem with the Oregon law was that they did one good thing in making "open air" or "public" drug use not a felony but they fucked up the end game by not making treatment mandatory.  If you look at any counseling plan for the families of addicts they all say some variation of keep loving them but stop enabling them and you must follow through on consequences. 

I think a fairly sensible plan would be a law similar to the Oregon law but give a first offender the voluntary option to seek no cost treatment and no jail time.  As seeen already, almost no one will do the voluntary treatment (under 1%).  But give them the chance.  A second offender should only have a choice between jail and treatment and a third offender probably needs jail or they must voluntary be committed to a mental health facility.

I also think this should be something the Feds should help with on cost.  Build or takeover a number of facilities scatterrred throughout the country that only treat addicts that are facing jail time.  Work with local businesses and let the patients start working while still under treatment in the facility.  It would not be overly expensive.  We could fund the entirety of the program with a fraction of the money we send overseas.

I think it is critical to input the job training with the program.  Once the initial withdrawal episodes are over, get them on a routine where they are doing something meaningful.  But still have a facility to live in where they get counseling, medication, safety, food etc.  Being hopeless is a terrible thing.

[Welshy 907]

17 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I also think this should be something the Feds should help with on cost. 

You mean all taxpayers, I think, when you say "feds." That's a tough pill to swallow.      <--see what I did there?

 

[sheeeit 129]

53 minutes ago, We’reTexas said:

Pretty good article in NYT today comparing San Francisco’s approach to that of Portugal, the model for many progressives of a harm reduction approach.

 

Pretty good article but doesn't reaaly drill down into the issues.  I am sure like many here, I have been to Portugal a few times and loved it.  But their drug plan is now facing significant problems similar to cities/states here that have largely decriminalized drugs. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/

One of the biggest issues has to do with mental health.  It is much, much easier to have a person in Portugal commited involuntarily to a mental health institution.  I do think our laws in the US are too lenient on this.  It is certainly a touchy issue and has the ability to be abused but I think the pendulum on involuntary commitments has swung too far.

 

[Brisketexan 104628]

23 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Pretty good article but doesn't reaaly drill down into the issues.  I am sure like many here, I have been to Portugal a few times and loved it.  But their drug plan is now facing significant problems similar to cities/states here that have largely decriminalized drugs. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/

One of the biggest issues has to do with mental health.  It is much, much easier to have a person in Portugal commited involuntarily to a mental health institution.  I do think our laws in the US are too lenient on this.  It is certainly a touchy issue and has the ability to be abused but I think the pendulum on involuntary commitments has swung too far.

 

Well, when you realize that drug use and abuse is often self-medication of an underlying mental illness, this makes even more sense.  The Portugese model and situation is helping us see that treating drug use and mental health separately ain't smart.  They are often companion issues.

And this is also one of those where the American pendulum swung too far.  Too easy to commit people?  That was a problem.  But now, it's very hard to get someone committed, or even to get care.  And there sure as shit isn't funding for it.  For prisons?  Yeah, we fund those.  Care?  Fuck that pussy shit.  It's penny wise, and pound after pound of foolishness.

[fattyflattie 4636]

2 hours ago, crash_davis said:

If feeling superior is expecting people to act civilized and not like dipshit leeches to society, then yea, I'm feeling superior as fuck.

Bruh, just put off retirement for another year or two. You need to grow a heart, and give up some more taxes.  You don’t need to leave anything to the kids anyway,  we’ve got junkies that need support.  

[hayden_horn 11360]

2 hours ago, crash_davis said:

If feeling superior is expecting people to act civilized and not like dipshit leeches to society, then yea, I'm feeling superior as fuck.

 

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Bruh, just put off retirement for another year or two. You need to grow a heart, and give up some more taxes.  You don’t need to leave anything to the kids anyway,  we’ve got junkies that need support.  

what does all this contempt do for you? do you wrap yourself in it? does it help you face the real world, this idea that you are so much better than those who suffer? when you've reduced them to savages, what's next? shall we get rid of all of em?

[fattyflattie 4636]

3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

 

what does all this contempt do for you? do you wrap yourself in it? does it help you face the real world, this idea that you are so much better than those who suffer? when you've reduced them to savages, what's next? shall we get rid of all of em?

Aside from further draining the taxpayers wallets, ruining large parts of communities, and the associated crime that follows drug users?  And don’t be silly, if there was a way they would have been rid of decades ago.