Read this … interesting NYT article on SF drug use and permissive culture

Lavender Room
1

“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.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/31/upshot/san-francisco-drug-crisis.html?bgrp=t&smid=url-share

2

Yeah. In 2020 Oregon decided to decriminalize drug usage. Today the governor and Portland mayor announced a 90 day “state of emergency” due to overdoses and deaths now 3x what they were before.

People have individual rights, but as a society we have a duty to protect people from even themselves when they are unable to. Unlimited individual rights unfortunately means open season for those who prey on the weak. You either have enforced laws or a toilet pit. Portland made their choice and now they are living (or dying) with it.

3

I am Portland right now. Downtown is a mess. Very unfortunate,

4

I’ve always taken the position that the War On Drugs approach was a big mistake and excessive libertarian decriminalization would also be a big mistake.

There is no magic approach that solves the societal toxicity of hard drug use. It’ll probably just take experimentation in walking the artillery fire between those two extremes to find a sweet spot we can live with.

5

I’ve always taken the position that the War On Drugs approach was a big mistake and excessive libertarian decriminalization would also be a big mistake.

There is no magic approach that solves the societal toxicity of hard drug use. It’ll probably just take experimentation in walking the artillery fire between those two extremes to find a sweet spot we can live with.

Our default to trying to control and micro manage people’s behavior and the crazy mish-mash of local and federal and international laws create lots of problems and send mixed messages. But I think the answer is out there, if we really want to improve things:
https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/is-portugals-drug-decriminalization-a-failure-or-success-the-answer-isnt-so-simple/

6

It’s happening in Canada too, especially Vancouver (safe supply and decriminalization). Recently the BC Supreme Court ruled that the police could not stop addicts from using in playgrounds, parks or schools. A number of professionals believe that “safe supply” is not the way.
A letter from a significant group of doctors with experience in addiction issues - Letter to Minister Nov 6a.pdf (dropbox.com)

7

People have individual rights, but as a society we have a duty to protect people from even themselves when they are unable to.

Why? Why should society save people from actively poisoning themselves (intentionally and with awareness of the dangers) so that they can do it again and again.

Are the drug users unable to help themselves or unwilling?

These drugs are well known hazards.

8

People have individual rights, but as a society we have a duty to protect people from even themselves when they are unable to.

Why? Why should society save people from actively poisoning themselves (intentionally and with awareness of the dangers) so that they can do it again and again.

Are the drug users unable to help themselves or unwilling?

These drugs are well known hazards.

I think this is the same argument as why society should care for people with mental health issues (and there is a large overlap with addiction and mental health issues).

9

But I think the answer is out there, if we really want to improve things:
https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/...swer-isnt-so-simple/

From that article, it sounds like “out there” means that Portugal doesn’t have it, and it’s somewhere else. :slight_smile:

trying to control and micro manage people’s behavior

At some point people need to be either controlled or micro-managed. Not everyone in the same way. Hopefully before the job falls to LEOs who are ill-suited to the task. But a lot of people appear to need intervention that isn’t asked for or wanted by the people who need the help.

10

At some point people need to be either controlled or micro-managed. Not everyone in the same way. Hopefully before the job falls to LEOs who are ill-suited to the task. But a lot of people appear to need intervention that isn’t asked for or wanted by the people who need the help.
The San Fran program is very much against stigmatizing drug use.
The shift is also present in drug-related service providers in San Francisco. Michael Discepola, director of health access at the program GLIDE, said that his organization wants people to use drugs more safely. Abstinence is not always the correct goal, he argued. When one client declared that he wanted to quit drugs, Discepola explained, GLIDE suggested “more realistic goals.”
So they had someone in their “harm-reduction program” who actively wanted to quit and they suggested alternatives.

I can understand some personal choice and being against things like seatbelt laws. But there is a difference between not having seatbelt saws and telling someone who wants to use a seatbelt that it isn’t a good idea.

11

But I think the answer is out there, if we really want to improve things:
https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/...swer-isnt-so-simple/From that article, it sounds like “out there” means that Portugal doesn’t have it, and it’s somewhere else. :slight_smile:

From the lessons in the article, I got the sense that portugal was most definitely on to something, but then conflict with EU laws and practices, and then lack of funding in portugal caused things to become suboptimal.

About micromanaging behavior, if that is necessary, why do we not do that in the usa regarding alcohol consumption? Alcohol causes 140,000 deaths every single year, year-in year-out.

12

About micromanaging behavior, if that is necessary, why do we not do that in the usa regarding alcohol consumption? Alcohol causes 140,000 deaths every single year, year-in year-out.
We have decided there is a big difference between killing yourself slowly (most alcohol and smoking deaths) and quickly (drug OD). If Oxy or Heroin caused liver failure over years of use then we would be much more accommodating of user’s choice.

13

About micromanaging behavior, if that is necessary, why do we not do that in the usa regarding alcohol consumption? Alcohol causes 140,000 deaths every single year, year-in year-out.
We have decided there is a big difference between killing yourself slowly (most alcohol and smoking deaths) and quickly (drug OD). If Oxy or Heroin caused liver failure over years of use then we would be much more accommodating of user’s choice.

Ok, but who has decided this? And why? What is the logic behind this? Also, some alcohol deaths are not that slow.

14

People have individual rights, but as a society we have a duty to protect people from even themselves when they are unable to.

Why? Why should society save people from actively poisoning themselves (intentionally and with awareness of the dangers) so that they can do it again and again.

Are the drug users unable to help themselves or unwilling?

These drugs are well known hazards.

It’s harm to themselves and harm to others. It’s a choice between getting people help, sometimes through force, or ignoring them and letting them go live in a tent across from your front door and crap on the sidewalk and steal anything that isn’t too heavy to carry. The Oregon bill was supposed to follow the path of Portugal and encourage more people into treatment, but that has not happened. Rather, Portland is now drug Disneyland.

In my lifetime there have been a lot of societal guardrails that have come down. We closed most of the mental institutions which pushed those people out on the streets. We’ve made it very easy to get credit. We’ve legalized all sorts of gambling and drugs. It is all in the name of *Freeeeeeedoooooommmeee *but in the background someone is making a lot of money off of other people’s misery.

Automobile safety regulations may be the most obvious counter example…imagine if we still drove around without seatbelts and headrests, 3 across the front, PBR in one hand and a Kool in the other, drum brakes, no crumple zones, no airbags, etc. That’s how we did it when I was just a kid!

15

People have individual rights, but as a society we have a duty to protect people from even themselves when they are unable to.

Why? Why should society save people from actively poisoning themselves (intentionally and with awareness of the dangers) so that they can do it again and again.

Are the drug users unable to help themselves or unwilling?

These drugs are well known hazards.

It’s harm to themselves and harm to others. It’s a choice between getting people help, sometimes through force, or ignoring them and letting them go live in a tent across from your front door and crap on the sidewalk and steal anything that isn’t too heavy to carry. The Oregon bill was supposed to follow the path of Portugal and encourage more people into treatment, but that has not happened. Rather, Portland is now drug Disneyland.

In my lifetime there have been a lot of societal guardrails that have come down. We closed most of the mental institutions which pushed those people out on the streets. We’ve made it very easy to get credit. We’ve legalized all sorts of gambling and drugs. It is all in the name of *Freeeeeeedoooooommmeee *but in the background someone is making a lot of money off of other people’s misery.

Automobile safety regulations may be the most obvious counter example…imagine if we still drove around without seatbelts and headrests, 3 across the front, PBR in one hand and a Kool in the other, drum brakes, no crumple zones, no airbags, etc. That’s how we did it when I was just a kid!

We can’t stop them from harming themselves, but we can stop helping them do it over and over again. I don’t suggest at all that they should be allowed to harm others.

By enabling drug culture/practice by repeatedly saving people from their own decisions, we prolong and increase the negative effects that their individual choices have on society.

At the extremes, we can either choose to lock them up or let them kill themselves. Half measures don’t seem to work in the majority of cases.

16

Well, I rode in the back of a pickup truck many times & also drank from the hose…

17

By enabling drug culture/practice by repeatedly saving people from their own decisions, we prolong and increase the negative effects that their individual choices have on society.

I think you’re taking a pretty narrow view of the situation, focusing only on the highly visible street-level homeless type abusers.

It’s not at all uncommon that before they reach that level, they’re not homeless. Often with jobs. A huge percentage of opioid deaths are not by homeless people.

There are many, many recovered opioid and alcohol abusers in this country. Literally millions.

I’m not quite ready to write off entire Appalachian communities, etc. Putting resources into education before people start using, or intervention very early in the process before misuse becomes full abuse.

That can reduce the odds that people reach the grim stage where recovery rates get vanishingly small.

18

We can’t stop them from harming themselves, but we can stop helping them do it over and over again. I don’t suggest at all that they should be allowed to harm others.

By enabling drug culture/practice by repeatedly saving people from their own decisions, we prolong and increase the negative effects that their individual choices have on society.

At the extremes, we can either choose to lock them up or let them kill themselves. Half measures don’t seem to work in the majority of cases.

Failure to act when one has the power to intervene in this instance is murder. Murder is frowned upon by most members of society.

Are you advocating that we let people die when we have the ability to save them? Your response sure reads that way.

19

I’m all for helping people who are trying to help themselves.

20

It’s happening in Canada too, especially Vancouver (safe supply and decriminalization). Recently the BC Supreme Court ruled that the police could not stop addicts from using in playgrounds, parks or schools. A number of professionals believe that “safe supply” is not the way.
A letter from a significant group of doctors with experience in addiction issues - Letter to Minister Nov 6a.pdf (dropbox.com)

Over 2000 people died in Vancouver last year from safe supply, right, freedoms, entitlements re drugs. On was in my hospital, the guy was in his mid 40s. What a fucking waste of life. And yet, politicians are pushing for more and more freedoms to use.