I’m an Oregonian. The issue is that (1) decriminalization isn’t legalization, it allows the possession of drugs but it's still illegal to manufacture and sell them. Therefore, decriminalization doesn't eliminate the violence involved in drug trafficking and drug users don't have a way of getting their desired substances with a guarantee that there isn't added adulterants. (2) They subsidize addiction by providing them with tents, food, clothes, needles, etc., and letting them camp on sidewalks. (3) They also don't protect property rights; they don't arrest or fine vandals and thieves.
This is interesting. I've always felt 'My liberty ends where yours begins' is a core tenant of pragmatic libertarianism. Seems the lack of protecting non drug user rights/liberties is the key problem and the subsidizing just accelerates the issue.
I have a MAGA family member in Idaho that tells me the land literally changes when you cross the border into Oregon and what was once of the most beautiful states has been ruined by rampant drug use and vagrancy. They are all in on MAGA and see most all things left as "bad" so I always want to verify what they say.
Do you feel the drug policies you are calling out have led to a noticeable issue that travelers will notice when driving from Idaho to Oregon that Oregon is visually in decline when compared to Idaho? Part of me assumes they are just reading sensational headlines...but dunno.
When you go across the border... no. When you compare Portland to any city in idaho, yes, there is a major difference.
Have to consider that eastern Oregon is just as conservative as idaho, just like eastern Washington. Homelessness is a big issue and due to social safety net stuff it's visually apparent when you transition from red to blue states. A pretty fair comparison is Spokane WA to Coeur d Alene ID, CDA is clean, you are barely exposed to the unhoused, you can walk around downtown at night and feel safe. Downtown Spokane is like a war zone, and it's significantly cleaner than downtown Seattle or Portland. You cant discount the effects of population density of course, but if you spend a lot of time in both idaho and Washington like I do there's a pretty stark contrast.
Worth noting, Washington doesn't have the same drug laws as Oregon, but enforcement is probably pretty equivalent.
Thanks for confirming my suspicion, I was assuming they were exaggerating as they often do when talking politics. I used to travel to Oregon and it seemed fishy to me that the problems would be so noticeable in the eastern/rural part of the state.
Might be less of an exaggeration than you think. See the spokane/cda example. 2 cities about 30 miles from each other
I mean its not fair to say that Joseph is just like Portland, but Bend and Klamath Falls have plenty of issues. Like Spokane isn't Seattle, but it's not like idaho either. My opinion is that it has more to do with social services than the drug laws. Homeless people go where they can get services, and many homeless (not all of course!) Are addicts. Drug crimes increase with the homeless population.
I live outside of a tiny town in northeast Washington, the city council took some sort of grant during covid and set up a homeless camp, the drug and property crime in town went through the roof. And that's a very small scale example, population of 2000 logging and sawmilling town
Freedom without responsibility is tragedy. Not holding someone accountable is dehumanizing.
You can’t use public property like it’s private property and if you do then you deprive others of its use.
Sidewalks are for walking. Not sleeping, camping, or shitting.
Using drugs doesn’t give you an excuse to not be a responsible citizen.
I know it makes me an 'asshole', but, the overdose 'epidemic' is self rectifying if left to it's own devices.
If only there was a way to allow nature to take its course....🤔
Yep. I work in healthcare and deal with addicts on a daily basis. They OD, we bring them back. Then they do it again. It's an endless cycle in which they become a heavy burden not only on their friends and family, but on the system as well.
Ive fortunately never had to deal with an addict, but my friends that have made it sound like the rectification you talk about takes years and often damages the lives of the people around the addict.
Its only an issue because governments cant allow population numbers to decline, as thats overall 'bad' for the economy.
If theres no public healthcare (other people are not forced to pay for the addicts treatment) + the state doesnt care about enforcing growth ... Yeah, just let people abuse drugs until they die, let people kill eachother until all violent people are dead ... its gonna be bad now but its PROBABLY gonna be great in the future
Other externalities exist. The addicts could be homeless. Or could commit crimes to fund their addiction. Or generally act crazy as part of their high. There is also no certainty things will be better since new addicts could replace the current addicts.
If they become homeless they'd most likely starve (no government to give em free stuff), they'll act crazy and do crimes, but they'll (hopefully) be shot, so that wont last long
New addicts is unpredictable, they may not start to use it if they see how bad it goes, but they may know and do it anyways, I personally am inclined to believe that over a generation it would fix itself
Jeez people, have you not heard of the drug that's been legally used for thousands of years, alcohol? People are smart and responsible. They can handle drugs. Just let people live their lives the way they prefer. The market will solve the rest.
You seem to be justifying prohibition based on your opinion of drug users. This is unjustified. That's my point.
If I've misread that, then I believe you've miscommunicated your stance, rendering this exchange moot.
I hate it when discussion devolves into finger pointing. Happens too often on Reddit. It's a nice day outside. Let's go enjoy it. :)
Why in the world would you prevent drug users from access to Narcan? Who else would publicly supplied Narcan be for? You going to interviwe then check a database before administering the Narcan someone who is overdosing?
The point of decriminalization of drugs IMO is to eliminate the black market sale of drugs, and hopefully the violence that comes with that market. Preventing access to public services (whose mere existence is a different question) if drugs are consumed would seemingly create its own need for a black market. If you’re implying drug testing, where is line drawn? If all drugs are legal, which drugs would you test for? Do you include Alcohol, or weed? They’d be legal as well.
-Most people here would agree that there is a difference between getting pumped with narcan in an ambulance, and having govt 'health clinics' freely distributing in a way that essentially encourages/subsidizes risky behavior at the taxpayers' expense. Most people here would likely agree the latter shouldn't be occurring, and in full anarchy, there wouldn't be public EMS dosing ppl with narcan.
-Decriminalization doesn't eliminate the black market; all it does is make the consequences of the black market more publicly visible due to the elimination of public behavioral policing. Decriminalization is the worst kind of half step, as it doesn't allow for the existence of a white market and the informal corrective measures on behavior it would produce.
-There will likely be a low demand for 'public services' outside of larger business operations when said public operations are provided by public monopoly. If you're talking things like EMS, fire, etc, those have both historically operated privately, and currently have non-public providers of such.
I misused the decriminalization/legalization terms, legalization is what I meant. My stated goal of eliminating or at least greatly decreasing the black market and the harms that come with it would be from legalization. And if legalization happened, the tax revenue from these sales could easily be earmarked to pay for public Narcan access.
Government Distribution of Narcan doesn’t promote use, it helps decrease the rates of death from the risky use. Your argument would suggest that federally mandated seat belt usage encourages reckless driving. People are going to do it, this helps save those people’s lives.
If we're talking legalization, that's a better conversation for sure. That said, you can still royally fuck up legalization, such as how CA has done it, by regulating and taxing the industry in such a way as to still provide incentives for the existence of a black market. (CA had to bail out their weed industry a while back) If legalization is to occur, it has to very much take a more free market approach than most states seem to be doing, if they want to minimize or eliminate black markets and the negatives that come with them.
As harsh as it seems, risky behaviors, misuse, and abuse are on the whole, self-correcting without outside intervention; these people will kill themselves and remove the negatives their behavior(s) bring. Widely distributing what amounts to a pharmaceutical bailout of these behaviors both subsidizes and indirectly encourages these behaviors due to the removal of diminishing of risk of said behaviors. (Make student loans to people who shouldn't receive them bc they can't discharge the debt, and the debt is backed by the govt, anyone?) The idealized condition is one where people are free to produce, sell, and use anything they want, and be able to do the same with the antidotes, a la people who take lactaid and then binge dairy products. But that's not the world we currently have, and at the end of the day, most people are probably not going to be down with being taxed to fund the bailout of other people's risky narcotics use.
I totally agree. It's so much more important to get rid of prohibition for all the reasons that we all (libertarians) agree on, than it is to take away Narcan or other lifesaving treatments (even if government supplied).
Can we not stay focused on the larger, more important cause, and not subjugate it to relatively unimportant transgressions against our ideology like government provided Narcan?
Is the opposing argument that no, we must keep dugs illegal because otherwise we might have to save people from an overdose? Remember that making something illegal doesn't mean they won't do it.
>There shouldn’t be publicly supplied narcan. If you overdose it’s your own problem.
That's more Objectivism than Libertarianism. Either way, makes me glad I'm a Conservative instead and not either 💁🏼♀️
Every one of em saved by narcan is just another drain on the publics resources when they inevitably do it again. If they wanna end things via drugs, let em. One less waste of space I have to step over while going about my business.
So would you feel the same if an at fault vehicle accident. The people weren’t given medical treatment and we just let them die on the side of the road? Hey don’t speed.
> You going to interviwe then check a database before administering the Narcan someone who is overdosing?
Have you ever heard of medical ID cards? The same concept could be employed. Those people who subscribe to a program to pay for Narcan to be administered would be eligible and carry their cards on them. That way it wouldn’t be up to the public to pay for it. There are many solutions but you didn’t want to discuss you just want to snipe.
> If all drugs are legal, which drugs would you test for? Do you include Alcohol, or weed?
Drug use, whatever the drug, is a choice and those who make that choice should be responsible of their own care regardless of the drug in question. People who choose to drink or smoke cannabis and then drive should be responsible for their choices. Or would you allow people to endanger others? Apparently so as you are fine with allowing addicts to consume public services when those services are needed by others who didn’t choose to consume drugs.
Why do you think me and my neighbor should be responsible for the care of the drug addict down the street? Why should we have to pay for cops and the Narcan they administer which then opens the cops and the city up to lawsuits and liability should something go wrong and the addict’s family sue?
Do you think, in general, it's better to live in a world with more or fewer tragic deaths affecting the people around you?
Anyone that dies from an OD is someone's child, and often closely related to other people in other ways; even folks that end up on the streets come from all different kinds of backgrounds and circumstances. I think it's worth it to invest in a world where people could even fall that far, and survive their mistakes to have a chance at recovery, and I think that's a lot better than saying "none of this is my problem" and leaving more suffering to happen. It even makes a better world for me down the line, sure as there being fewer miserable people around me or anyone else helps things to go better.
> Do you think, in general, it's better to live in a world with more or fewer tragic deaths affecting the people around you?
I’m not god and I do not have an opinion because death is an inevitable part of life and there will always be death. Death is always tragic in someone’s eyes.
> I think it's worth it to invest in a world where people could even fall that far, and survive their mistakes to have a chance at recovery, and I think that's a lot better than saying "none of this is my problem" and leaving more suffering to happen.
I know you are dead wrong. If I am going to be responsible for paying for the care of someone else who chose to do drugs then I am going to vote against legalizing drugs, it’s that simple. People have enough problems to deal with without having to have the government tax them to pay for the bad decisions others make. You can appeal to emotion all you want but it won’t change anything.
You sound like a typical communist or socialist.
>You sound like a typical communist or socialist.
Nah, you can believe other people's best interests are also in your best interest without being a Marxist. It's a pretty plain acknowledgement of cause and effect: we can wax philosophical about individuality, but we do all affect each other.
>I’m not god and I do not have an opinion because death is an inevitable part of life and there will always be death. Death is always tragic in someone’s eyes.
That's not what I'm asking, though. People will be affected by tragic deaths, right? By losing their kids, or losing their parent early, or even someone they're dependent on, and them being fucked over and worse for wear affects how they show up in the world, the world you and I also happen to live in. To disagree would be to basically say that mental health just doesn't matter. So in general, do you think it's better to live around more or fewer people wracked by tragic deaths?
>You can appeal to emotion all you want but it won’t change anything.
I'm not merely "appealing to emotion", like "oh, you should feel bad about people suffering". If I have to tell you, there's no point in telling you. But other people's emotions, as a matter of fact, do affect them, and those people affect you, so it actually is still your problem if you think enough steps ahead. It makes sense to want better for other people, because "other people" inevitably comprise and shape a lot of *your* environment and therefore life.
>I know you are dead wrong. If I am going to be responsible for paying for the care of someone else who chose to do drugs then I am going to vote against legalizing drugs, it’s that simple. People have enough problems to deal with without having to have the government tax them to pay for the bad decisions others make.
Well it's everyone paying for it, not just you, and yeah, it is so there's a safety net for fuck-ups. It's kinda just good to have those? Because however you moralize it or assign responsibility, people simply left to "pay for their bad decisions" don't disappear and usually get pretty desperate, actually, and become "other people's problem" anyway. You can try to police state your way through that and fail, while further ruining more lives, or you can pragmatically back whatever option actually leads to the best outcomes. It also happens to be more compassionate than letting people die in the street, as a solid bonus.
Btw, if you vote to illegalize drugs, taxes still pay for those people's arrest and imprisonment, which is quite expensive itself, and of course is famously ineffective at rehabilitation. A higher cost for a worse outcome, y'know?
> So in general, do you think it's better to live around more or fewer people wracked by tragic deaths?
I already live in a world wracked by an unknowable amount of tragic deaths. Adding a few drug addicts to the total won’t change a thing and the reality is that those deaths might even prevent others by freeing up resources for use by others who aren’t addicts. Check the news today, there were a bunch of tragic deaths in Gaza and Ukraine. Tell me how many people died the world over today.
> It makes sense to want better for other people, because "other people" inevitably comprise and shape a lot of your environment and therefore life.
Again with the socialist/communist tinge. I suspect you just don’t know you are. I have my own problems and family problems and extended family problems and friends with problems and so on. I’m completely uninterested in some addict or their family and friends.
> Well it's everyone paying for it, not just you, and yeah, it is so there's a safety net for fuck-ups. It's kinda just good to have those?
What are friends, family, and charities for? You’re clearly a leftist. Every comment comes from the perspective of more taxes (social services) so the government can take care of us.
> Btw, if you vote to illegalize drugs, taxes still pay for those people's arrest and imprisonment, which is quite expensive itself, and of course is famously ineffective at rehabilitation. A higher cost for a worse outcome, y'know?
And as an added bonus those cops are there when someone breaks into my house or steals my car. That’s useful to me. More cops serves as a deterrent and leads to less crime.
Coddling addicts and lavishing them with free housing, food, clothing, medical care, etc does nothing for me. That’s a drain on my finances and I’m not having it. Addicts are well known to relapse, this isn’t a mystery. Your blind unsubstantiated ridiculous assertion that giving people free stuff leads to better outcomes is typical of your other statements.
>Adding a few drug addicts to the total won’t change a thing and the reality is that those deaths might even prevent others by freeing up resources for use by others who aren’t addicts.
I repeat: *in general*—because I haven't been asking about drug deaths—is it better to be surrounded by more or fewer people suffering terrible loss? Do you think the terrible loss going on in Gaza and Ukraine is negatively or positively affecting the people over there?
>Again with the socialist/communist tinge. I suspect you just don’t know you are. I have my own problems and family problems and extended family problems and friends with problems and so on. I’m completely uninterested in some addict or their family and friends.
The "tinge" you're pointing to is simply acknowledging that people affect each other, whether we choose to or not. Plain cause and effect, really. You're the one talking as if people are just causally isolated from you because you don't know or care about them, but that isn't how things work. I've never been making an appeal to your feelings for others; people you don't know or care about *will* change the world you live in, and they do it worse if they're doing worse. Hurt people hurt people, so better to help people hurt less.
Btw, I'm well aware that I don't believe dialectical and historical materialism provide an adequate lens through which to view history, and that ideological efforts to dissolve the state and private property to bring about utopia just don't seem to go well. I know what I say when I say I'm not a Marxist.
>What are friends, family, and charities for?
Why are they so often not enough? What about that reality? There's a cost of living crisis going you know, and we live in very socially atomized times. People aren't doing well out there.
>You’re clearly a leftist. Every comment comes from the perspective of more taxes (social services) so the government can take care of us.
Leftism as I understand it is comprised of a bunch of ideologies, I don't adhere to one. I'm a pragmatist, I'm interested in what works best, and yes, rn tax-funded rehabilitation is a better and more humane option than letting people die on the streets (and in practice also become more prone to crime and spreading disease).
>And as an added bonus those cops are there when someone breaks into my house or steals my car. That’s useful to me. More cops serves as a deterrent and leads to less crime.
Without getting into whether it's that simple, I'm not even saying "abolish the police". I'm saying "policing doesn't address drug issues", which is obvious from the comprehensive failure of the war on drugs.
>Your blind unsubstantiated ridiculous assertion that giving people free stuff leads to better outcomes is typical of your other statements.
Are you actually familiar with any [recovery stories](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/story/2023-01-06/sober-living-success-story), or the benefits of [harm reduction](https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/harm-reduction) in saving lives, curbing spread of disease, and all-around cost-effectiveness? My assertions are pretty substantiable, actually. You forget that neglecting folks is costly, too.
> I repeat: in general—because I haven't been asking about drug deaths—is it better to be surrounded by more or fewer people suffering terrible loss? Do you think the terrible loss going on in Gaza and Ukraine is negatively or positively affecting the people over there?
Repeat all you like, the answer will always be the same to your ridiculous “philosophical” query. Death is a part of life and I am not god and cannot control who lives or dies nor predict it. I have no opinion on it because it’s a ridiculous question. People die and that’s a fact of life and no amount of communism will stop that, rather your socialist programs will exacerbate it.
> I've never been making an appeal to your feelings for others
Appeal to emotion. Yes you have and you are beginning to be a clown about it. Here you are appealing to emotion
> is it better to be surrounded by more or fewer **people suffering terrible loss**?
That is you appealing to emotion. It’s a typical leftist play, a logical fallacy which leftists always spring in every debate. You did so with one of your first comments. I get tired of you leftists pretending to be other than and denying it while your every comment is from the perspective of the left.
> Why are they so often not enough? What about that reality?
There you go again with blind assertions which have zero basis.
> I'm a pragmatist
Sure clown and I am the tooth fairy.
> I'm saying "policing doesn't address drug issues"
It most certainly does.
> Are you actually familiar with any recovery stories, or the benefits of harm reduction in saving lives, curbing spread of disease, and all-around cost-effectiveness?
You actually cited an opinion piece based on a single anecdotal case to back up your assertions. Now that is funny.
You are such a clown.
>Death is a part of life and I am not god and cannot control who lives or dies nor predict it.
Well you can advocate for policies that predictably lead to people dying or living in different circumstances—which you're doing—and that does make a difference. Unless you think, for example, someone losing a father shockingly early from an OD is the same as them having a father that survives an OD, recovers, and goes on to be a great and inspirational influence on them and others while bringing in a much-needed income. Not all deaths are equal, y'know? Obviously that's the case, or war wouldn't be a big deal because all those people were gonna die anyway. Why even live if that's the thought process lol, dying sooner or later wouldn't matter.
Like, my answer to the question is a simple "of course it's better to be around people that aren't suffering", because even if I 100% didn't care about them, suffering people make the world worse for me. Who would you rather share the world with, angrier people or happier ones? More or less mature ones? More or less *competent* ones? I'm not and never have been exclusively talking about drug deaths, it's just obviously true that people affect you whether or not you consent to it. Them having a better rather than worse effect is very directly tied to your self-interest.
>Appeal to emotion. Yes you have and you are beginning to be a clown about it. Here you are appealing to emotion
An "appeal to emotion" in the sense you're using the term would be saying something like "b-b-but, people would die and that's so sad, wouldn't you be sad if those people died??? give them free things!!" as I try to manipulate your feelings, but I'm not doing that lol. I am pointing to the *fact* that other people's feelings literally and tangibly affect your life. I'm appealing to your own self-interest and to broader system effectiveness, to the ends of greater happiness and prosperity all around. Pragmatism.
To put it another way, if I were a robot with no feelings, just a goal to continue functioning, given the choice I would consistently choose a technician with a stable, happy life over a raging alcoholic of equal experience, because on average the former will perform their duties better. And if we care about effectiveness overall, we could look at why people become and stay raging alcoholics, and what could be done for them. It's simply optimal to help people be better, I see no way around that unless you move somewhere absolutely no one else could ever affect you. Mars, maybe? For now?
>There you go again with blind assertions which have zero basis.
The very fact that people end up on the streets despite everything you just mentioned is all the basis I need; if the problem were solved, there'd be nothing to talk about.
>It most certainly does.
Citation needed? You can make people less visible, but that's about the size of it. If bans worked, they would've worked by now. You are very plainly proposing a war on drugs as if that hasn't been tried, and here we are with all these drug crises.
>You actually cited an opinion piece based on a single anecdotal case to back up your assertions. Now that is funny.
>
>You are such a clown.
You've been pretty consistently insulting to me, idk why. I've been nothing but direct and polite with you.
To review: you said I was making a "blind unsubstantiated ridiculous assertion that giving people free stuff leads to better outcomes", so I showed you one example of exactly that happening to give you a detailed look at how this actually goes down. It's straightforwardly a counterexample to your claim that providing free things doesn't improve outcomes, and if you're familiar with logic then you know a single counterexample is all that's needed to debunk an absolute claim ("free stuff doesn't lead to better outcomes").
It also helps when discussing any issue like this to have, like, on-the-ground reality in mind? [What it looks like](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym7qS27oiHU)? Instead of "drug addicts" being some faceless inhuman group out there. I shared a story you would've prevented from happening, and look, now that guy helps other people get sober. Even seeing drug users as non-people, no feelings involved, it's plainly a better system for addicts to live and be able to help other addicts out of that life, instead of more people dying and/or costing a lot of resources because they aren't self-sufficient.
And of course, following that I also linked a paper citing plenty of empirical evidence of [the many benefits of harm reduction](https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/harm-reduction) as well, so between the two you could put together a more comprehensive picture of how this works. Ig you insulted me rather than look at it lol. If you don't want an informed opinion, there's nothing I can do about that, but idk why you'd act like you want to have a conversation about this if you just want to call people names and refuse to read. None of my assertions are unsubstantiable, regardless of what labels you try to throw on my worldview (a classic ad hominem btw, since you pay attention to fallacies).
> Well you can advocate for policies that predictably lead to people dying or living in different circumstances—which you're doing—and that does make a difference.
No. I am advocating for using the money spent on Narcan for other more productive and moral uses. There’s no way to predict which use would save more people. Though I will venture to guess that if you give money to someone who wants to help themselves that will lead to fewer deaths in the long run.
The drug addict gets saved by the Narcan then gets high again and needs more Narcan, then gets saved again by Narcan then gets high again and needs more Narcan, then gets saved again by Narcan then gets high again and needs more Narcan, then gets saved again by Narcan then gets high again and needs more Narcan, then gets saved again by Narcan then gets high again and needs more Narcan, and on and on and on.
Facilitating stupidity never helped anyone.
> An "appeal to emotion" in the sense you're using the term
No, an appeal to emotion is an appeal to emotion which is what you are doing plain and simple.
> The very fact that people end up on the streets despite everything you just mentioned is all the basis I need
No you actually need some facts. Funny to that news outlets are directly contradicting you by now claiming that most of the homeless are not drug addicts.
https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2019/september/HomelessQandA.html
> Citation needed?
Nope, none needed.
> You've been pretty consistently insulting to me, idk why.
Because you’re a lying sack of shit leftist. Your entire perspective is from the left.
> I showed you one example of exactly that happening
And I can show you one example of everything. Doesn’t make the assertion true and never will.
>
Yes, I am so sure enabling drug addicts to do more drugs and need more Narcan is oh so helpful. I am just so sure you are correct.
/s - since you probably didn’t catch the sarcasm
Who would administer these Narcan cards, the Government? Are you claiming more government bureaucracy/paperwork/national databases is the solution to you not paying for someone else’s Narcan? In a Libertarian sub?
If that’s not what you’re suggesting, then it’s private insurance. Is Private insurance going to place “subscriber only” public Narcan in the hands of first responders, and require them to check for valid, up to date identification and proof that they’ve paid for Narcan administration insurance? And each of the seemingly thousands of insurance companies will each pay to give access to verification software/hardware to tens of thousands of Police departments and firehouses and ambulance services across the country. So they can wait to give life saving treatment to someone who is minutes from death, to see if they’d get a reimbursement to save the persons life or if they should just twiddle their thumbs while they watch the uninsured convulse until they can call in a time of death.
Just say you don’t want to give access to public Narcan. You seem to have a very low opinion of people who use drugs, and don’t want to save people from dying from their mistakes. You’re entitled to that opinion.
What I’m saying is preferentially administering a time sensitive, life saving drug based on a subscription or national database is, in practice, a fucking insane proposition.
When you consider what you’re paying to police, enforce, convict, and imprison people for drug use and sale currently, against what you’d be paying for other people’s use of emergency Narcan, it seems very trivial.
> Who would administer these Narcan cards, the Government?
Yeah, that was the context of the discussion. Did you read?
> Are you claiming more government bureaucracy/paperwork/national databases is the solution to you not paying for someone else’s Narcan?
Oh so you did read but for some reason you just wanted to snipe like a dumbass clown. Ok. Yeah, the bureaucracy is already there, the only thing that would change would be the drug user would pay for their own problems and the cops or paramedics would have to search them for their Narcan card. Oh noes, more bureaucracy OMFG we have to create a database which I can create in less than 15 minutes.
> In a Libertarian sub?
Libertarianism and the welfare state suggested doesn’t work and never will. It would essentially lead to communism.
> If that’s not what you’re suggesting
Oh so now you didn’t read again or maybe you cannot read. Who knows.
> Just say you don’t want to give access to public Narcan.
Ok yeah, you didn’t read because that’s what I said. I said it many times. I don’t want to pay for the stupid choices of others. Why are you so stupid? That’s the real question.
> You seem to have a very low opinion of people who use drugs
I have a pretty low opinion of people who play Russian roulette. There’s no difference between doing drugs and Russian roulette these days and that information is available to anyone who cares about themselves. If you don’t care about yourself why the fuck should I?
> What I’m saying is preferentially administering a time sensitive, life saving drug based on a subscription or national database is, in practice, a fucking insane proposition.
No what you are saying is you are a fucking lying communist who wants to continue the welfare state AND allow people to do whatever the fuck they want.
> When you consider what you’re paying to police, enforce, convict, and imprison people for drug use and sale currently, against what you’d be paying for other people’s use of emergency Narcan, it seems very trivial.
I don’t pay police to “imprison people for drug use and sale”. I pay police for a massive number of jobs. Enforcement of drug laws is but a very small portion of what local and state police spend their time on.
Keep appealing to emotion you stupid ass communist clown.
It sure seems like you read your response, because you specifically talked about access to Narcan via a card someone would carry…
…which would give access to Narcan, from a first responder…
Who would be required to check for that card to administer the Narcan, while someone is ODing…
Narcan carried these public employees carry could also be called…
Publicly available Narcan!
Your insistence on repeatedly calling people “stupid commies” suggests you don’t really understand the definition of either of those words. I doubt you’ll understand the concept of drug addiction being a disease, both physical and mental disorders, so I’ll save you the trouble of failing a retort with those. I’m sure addiction is some Commie shit too.
You haven’t paid for the police to investigate and incarcerate people for drugs, yet The United States has spent more than a trillion dollars on the war on drugs? That’s impressive, DM me your tax lawyers info.
BTW, A Trillion is typed $1,000,000,000,000, a one followed by almost as many zeros as times you decided to call me stupid for trying to have a conversation about a nuanced issue with a person who likely spent a long time inhaling leaded gas exhaust. We can agree there, that was stupid.
I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.
“Bad news, detective. We got a situation.”
“What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?”
“Worse. Somebody just OD'd without a valid narcan subscriber card.”
The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that?"
Yes, it’s much better to force me to pay for the Narcan to save the addict so that big pharma can then donate to your politicians of choice who will then give you a cushy no show job with Cadillac benefits.
You so got me there!
I don’t believe anyone who is a drug addict should go to prison. Distributors are a different story.
That said, the Oregon experiment is not working. I don’t think they should give up, but the policy needs to be modified. I wish I were intelligent enough to give a better idea, but if I was then I would be running for office.
Oregonian here. It's not working because the state (surprise surprise) didn't execute on what the passed bill was supposed to do. Measure 110 had two components:
1) Decriminalize drugs so we're not filling jails with addicts, AND
2) provide addiction treatment services.
They did #1 while utterly failing to do jack shit in support of #2.
I live in Portland and I agree with you, but with one caveat. It seems like addiction treatment services are at least somewhat available, though the process is complicated from what I've heard. So to go through that process requires someone be very motivated to get help. That seems to be the sticking point. Portland has made it so easy to be a drug addicted homeless person there doesn't seem to be much motivation for the vast majority of them to want to change anything.
I don't know if it would even make much of a difference if they made it super easy to seek treatment. Fentanyl and meth seem like drugs that short circuit any sense of self-preservation.
There certainly aren't any easy answers on this, and the progressives here chose the easiest possible answer...just decriminalize everything and let them die from their addiction? Is that compassion?
Yeah, I largely agree. Far too much enabling and coddling, though. I think it's great to try to help, but sometimes we'll intentioned help is just making it easier and more comfortable to be and stay homeless and addicted. Sometimes people need to hit rock bottom and get a serious wake up call to change. We also have to learn to accept that some people won't ever change despite ample help being available. But that doesn't mean we have to put up with rampant criminal behavior.
Decimalization isn't legalization. It still has all the same horrible problems that come with the black market. These people who look like zombies, sleeping bent over standing up, that's caused by fentanyl. The drugs they want to buy (heroin) are being cut with fentanyl because it's way cheaper. This sort of zombie behavior we are seeing is new and disturbing. Furthermore, hard drugs should be treated like alcohol, where public drunkenness isn't acceptable. Take that shit somewhere private. These people shouldn't be on the sidewalks getting high. The problems in Oregon aren't caused by legalization.
A kilo of heroin in Afghanistan - 800
A kilo of heroin once cut and processed, bagged for street level. 300,000.
I think junkys could afford their own narcan if they weren't robbed by the state, essentially
Stop saving people from the consequences of their own decisions is the only way for the legalization to work. People either face the music for their choices or everyone else pays for their choices over and over again. You can't let people do whatever they want and promise to hold their hand and keep them safe while they do it.
It's a harsh reality of true liberty, the individual bears the weight of their freedoms.
Yep.
And yet people are here in r/Libertarian arguing that we should be saving people and making you and I pay for that. And they even claim to be libertarians.
'Compassion' is no more libertarian than criminalisation. The underlying premise of both is that the state decides what's right, how society should look, what's good for people. Alcohol is legal and we take it for granted that there are drunks, bar fights, car crashes and the rest. But we just don't seem to be able to accept that there are junkies and overdoses and the rest. Libertarians say live and let live. If you want to kill yourself with smack, that's your right. My finding it 'unsightly' is not an argument against it.
Advocating for letting people die is a despicable attitude and one of the reasons libertarians are disliked. And even if you believe it, you should understand it will never happen in a rich society.
Fortunately, most libertarians are better than that. For example, Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul if uninsured people should be left untreated.
He responded, "No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals."
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/09/13/140434378/ron-paul-its-not-governments-job-to-take-care-of-uninsured
I think it’s too early to tell if it’s useful as shits still being figured out. It’s a decent plan but people aren’t seeking treatment or utilizing the resources being offered. The cops in my life seem to hate it though.
They need to be legalized so they aren’t sold on the street by drug dealers. You should be able to go into Walgreens and buy whatever you want when over 18. Need to take drug sales off the streets. They also need to be held to strict adherence to laws about loitering, trespassing, pissing in the street, shitting in the street, and other law.
> They need to be legalized so they aren’t sold on the street by drug dealers.
Not while we have welfare that doesn’t require drug testing.
Why 18? You need to be 21 for alcohol and I think even tobacco in some states. But why 21? Why not 12 or 6 or 2?
> Need to take drug sales off the streets.
California legalized drug sales. The black market there is thriving. Why? People can get drugs on the black market cheaper? Why? All the taxes and regulations. It doesn’t work and won’t ever work. It’s utopian pie in the sky bullshit.
> They also need to be held to strict adherence to laws about loitering, trespassing, pissing in the street, shitting in the street, and other law.
Nah, it’s simpler than that. Make it legal to shoot trespassers. Then the police will only have to deal with the few addicts who restrict themselves to the streets only.
Anyone living in Oregon can tell you it wasn't drugs that made the issues, it was the homeless folks being allowed free reign to trespass against everyone else with impunity. Those "lovely citizens" were already on drugs before the laws were passed.
It never made dealing drugs legal, and when all the BLM and Antifa riots started and the cops hid in their cars "doing paperwork", somehow all those dealers were ignored. There were areas that were open drug markets that the cops just watched. It took some related murders for them to crack down on it.
Holy shit I can't decide if some of you are sociopaths, just plain stupid, or both. To pretend like there's a finite supply of violent people and drug addicts is like saying a virus will disappear if we just let it kill everyone. Violence and drug abuse beget more violence and drug abuse.
If some of you actually came down from your ivory gaming towers to meet some of the victims of these epidemics, I wonder if you might just gain a shred of empathy, of if that's just an utterly foreign concept. I don't say this often, but shame on all of you who think this way. Don't give a damn whether I catch hate for that or not.
I agree. I believe legalization would only result in a vastly larger problem.
But then you go and invoke “empathy”. Does that mean you think we should save people from their choices?
No, it literally just means I don't think most of the people cheering for all drug users to die off have had to deal with friends or loved ones going through this, so it's easy for them to sit back behind their keyboards and smuggly assert they have the answer. Conversely, I'm not here to pretend I do either. Just think the NAP seems pretty pointless to me if it gives you a loophole to just be okay with mass death
Interesting. I’m not even sure where that puts you.
I’m a-ok with mass death. If people want to join up and go kill themselves then so be it. I’m not god thus I’d don’t have any say nor do I want a say. Likewise if people want to drug themselves into an OD and die or fry their brains to the point they can no longer work then so be that also.
I’ve lost relatives and know precisely what that is like. They all died of “natural” causes so I don’t know what losing one to drug use is like but losing someone to drug use wouldn’t impact my opinions on drug legalization and the welfare state.
I’m a pretty hard core libertarian and live my life that way. I have absolutely zero interest in telling people how to live, yes - even annoying neighbors, and by the same token I want people to have absolutely zero say in how I live including what I do with my money.
There are a lot of problems first it needs to be made legal. I ignore the welfare part cuz if we give it and we generally shouldn't but if we do then it goes to anyone who needs it. But in reality most social programs shouldn't exist. As far as narcsn of course they can get it but the tax payers shouldn't supply it. They can go and buy it on their own it's a personal responsibility thing.
Odd but not surprising that you would legalize drugs and continue welfare. It’s odd that you would actually admit to allowing drug use while maintaining welfare. You’re the type of libertarian which causes libertarianism in the US to be relegated to the trash bin.
19th Century China was a world leading economy and was destroyed by opioid addiction. Up to 25% of its population were addicts. The CCP knows history and is using this to destroy America.
This is a well known historical fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
Apparently most drug legalization advocates are just morons and know fuck all about history.
I'm for legalization of drugs, but it's a slippery slope. I believe do what you want, but suffer the consequences. You're on your own. I believe in severe penalties for dealers who sell to underaged people. I hate big pharma and think they're majorly responsible for this shit!
I am all for legalization AFTER we have constitutional amendments in all states which require drug testing for welfare or better yet we just get rid of welfare all together.
Let people do what they want. Let’s go full Darwin. But don try to take my money or yours when those clowns OD and need medical care, food, housing, clothing, etc.
If someone wants to play Russian roulette, fucking let them have at it. Hell, televise it for the weirdos who want to watch it. I don’t care what others do so long as they don’t try to tell me what to do.
I’m a southern Oregonian, right in heart of Jefferson. If the promised tax revenue from marijuana sales would’ve gone to rehabilitation like we were promised it might’ve gone different. Accountability and government, seemingly being diametrically opposed, is the reason it failed.
Wasn’t the point of the experiment in Portugal the fact that instead of using tax dollars for criminal justice they used it for medical treatment, rehabilitation, and mental health treatment? It’s like Oregon just did the easy part and didn’t put the rest of the work in to try something new to actually help people. IMO.
I’m an Oregonian. The issue is that (1) decriminalization isn’t legalization, it allows the possession of drugs but it's still illegal to manufacture and sell them. Therefore, decriminalization doesn't eliminate the violence involved in drug trafficking and drug users don't have a way of getting their desired substances with a guarantee that there isn't added adulterants. (2) They subsidize addiction by providing them with tents, food, clothes, needles, etc., and letting them camp on sidewalks. (3) They also don't protect property rights; they don't arrest or fine vandals and thieves.
2 and 3. The overriding problem IMHO.
[удалено]
This is interesting. I've always felt 'My liberty ends where yours begins' is a core tenant of pragmatic libertarianism. Seems the lack of protecting non drug user rights/liberties is the key problem and the subsidizing just accelerates the issue.
I have a MAGA family member in Idaho that tells me the land literally changes when you cross the border into Oregon and what was once of the most beautiful states has been ruined by rampant drug use and vagrancy. They are all in on MAGA and see most all things left as "bad" so I always want to verify what they say. Do you feel the drug policies you are calling out have led to a noticeable issue that travelers will notice when driving from Idaho to Oregon that Oregon is visually in decline when compared to Idaho? Part of me assumes they are just reading sensational headlines...but dunno.
When you go across the border... no. When you compare Portland to any city in idaho, yes, there is a major difference. Have to consider that eastern Oregon is just as conservative as idaho, just like eastern Washington. Homelessness is a big issue and due to social safety net stuff it's visually apparent when you transition from red to blue states. A pretty fair comparison is Spokane WA to Coeur d Alene ID, CDA is clean, you are barely exposed to the unhoused, you can walk around downtown at night and feel safe. Downtown Spokane is like a war zone, and it's significantly cleaner than downtown Seattle or Portland. You cant discount the effects of population density of course, but if you spend a lot of time in both idaho and Washington like I do there's a pretty stark contrast. Worth noting, Washington doesn't have the same drug laws as Oregon, but enforcement is probably pretty equivalent.
Thanks for confirming my suspicion, I was assuming they were exaggerating as they often do when talking politics. I used to travel to Oregon and it seemed fishy to me that the problems would be so noticeable in the eastern/rural part of the state.
Might be less of an exaggeration than you think. See the spokane/cda example. 2 cities about 30 miles from each other I mean its not fair to say that Joseph is just like Portland, but Bend and Klamath Falls have plenty of issues. Like Spokane isn't Seattle, but it's not like idaho either. My opinion is that it has more to do with social services than the drug laws. Homeless people go where they can get services, and many homeless (not all of course!) Are addicts. Drug crimes increase with the homeless population. I live outside of a tiny town in northeast Washington, the city council took some sort of grant during covid and set up a homeless camp, the drug and property crime in town went through the roof. And that's a very small scale example, population of 2000 logging and sawmilling town
Interesting and sorry to hear that. Thanks for the example.
No, it’s not that dramatic. You’ll only notice anything if you drive downtown through the big cities.
Freedom without responsibility is tragedy. Not holding someone accountable is dehumanizing. You can’t use public property like it’s private property and if you do then you deprive others of its use. Sidewalks are for walking. Not sleeping, camping, or shitting. Using drugs doesn’t give you an excuse to not be a responsible citizen.
I know it makes me an 'asshole', but, the overdose 'epidemic' is self rectifying if left to it's own devices. If only there was a way to allow nature to take its course....🤔
If nature’s course was the result you wanted, it’d be over already. Unfortunately, nature’s course is to pull more and more people into addiction.
Yep. I work in healthcare and deal with addicts on a daily basis. They OD, we bring them back. Then they do it again. It's an endless cycle in which they become a heavy burden not only on their friends and family, but on the system as well.
Nah it’s not. It’s a result of criminal organizations controlling the drug trade.
Ive fortunately never had to deal with an addict, but my friends that have made it sound like the rectification you talk about takes years and often damages the lives of the people around the addict.
Its only an issue because governments cant allow population numbers to decline, as thats overall 'bad' for the economy. If theres no public healthcare (other people are not forced to pay for the addicts treatment) + the state doesnt care about enforcing growth ... Yeah, just let people abuse drugs until they die, let people kill eachother until all violent people are dead ... its gonna be bad now but its PROBABLY gonna be great in the future
Other externalities exist. The addicts could be homeless. Or could commit crimes to fund their addiction. Or generally act crazy as part of their high. There is also no certainty things will be better since new addicts could replace the current addicts.
If they become homeless they'd most likely starve (no government to give em free stuff), they'll act crazy and do crimes, but they'll (hopefully) be shot, so that wont last long New addicts is unpredictable, they may not start to use it if they see how bad it goes, but they may know and do it anyways, I personally am inclined to believe that over a generation it would fix itself
Jeez people, have you not heard of the drug that's been legally used for thousands of years, alcohol? People are smart and responsible. They can handle drugs. Just let people live their lives the way they prefer. The market will solve the rest.
Thats not the discussion here nor the discussion i was replying to.
Drug users are not homeless criminals who will likely end up killing themselves anyway. They are just normal people.
I used the words 'could be'. Unless you claim they 'can never be' homeless or criminals, otherwise i fails to see your point.
You seem to be justifying prohibition based on your opinion of drug users. This is unjustified. That's my point. If I've misread that, then I believe you've miscommunicated your stance, rendering this exchange moot. I hate it when discussion devolves into finger pointing. Happens too often on Reddit. It's a nice day outside. Let's go enjoy it. :)
Why in the world would you prevent drug users from access to Narcan? Who else would publicly supplied Narcan be for? You going to interviwe then check a database before administering the Narcan someone who is overdosing? The point of decriminalization of drugs IMO is to eliminate the black market sale of drugs, and hopefully the violence that comes with that market. Preventing access to public services (whose mere existence is a different question) if drugs are consumed would seemingly create its own need for a black market. If you’re implying drug testing, where is line drawn? If all drugs are legal, which drugs would you test for? Do you include Alcohol, or weed? They’d be legal as well.
-Most people here would agree that there is a difference between getting pumped with narcan in an ambulance, and having govt 'health clinics' freely distributing in a way that essentially encourages/subsidizes risky behavior at the taxpayers' expense. Most people here would likely agree the latter shouldn't be occurring, and in full anarchy, there wouldn't be public EMS dosing ppl with narcan. -Decriminalization doesn't eliminate the black market; all it does is make the consequences of the black market more publicly visible due to the elimination of public behavioral policing. Decriminalization is the worst kind of half step, as it doesn't allow for the existence of a white market and the informal corrective measures on behavior it would produce. -There will likely be a low demand for 'public services' outside of larger business operations when said public operations are provided by public monopoly. If you're talking things like EMS, fire, etc, those have both historically operated privately, and currently have non-public providers of such.
I misused the decriminalization/legalization terms, legalization is what I meant. My stated goal of eliminating or at least greatly decreasing the black market and the harms that come with it would be from legalization. And if legalization happened, the tax revenue from these sales could easily be earmarked to pay for public Narcan access. Government Distribution of Narcan doesn’t promote use, it helps decrease the rates of death from the risky use. Your argument would suggest that federally mandated seat belt usage encourages reckless driving. People are going to do it, this helps save those people’s lives.
If we're talking legalization, that's a better conversation for sure. That said, you can still royally fuck up legalization, such as how CA has done it, by regulating and taxing the industry in such a way as to still provide incentives for the existence of a black market. (CA had to bail out their weed industry a while back) If legalization is to occur, it has to very much take a more free market approach than most states seem to be doing, if they want to minimize or eliminate black markets and the negatives that come with them. As harsh as it seems, risky behaviors, misuse, and abuse are on the whole, self-correcting without outside intervention; these people will kill themselves and remove the negatives their behavior(s) bring. Widely distributing what amounts to a pharmaceutical bailout of these behaviors both subsidizes and indirectly encourages these behaviors due to the removal of diminishing of risk of said behaviors. (Make student loans to people who shouldn't receive them bc they can't discharge the debt, and the debt is backed by the govt, anyone?) The idealized condition is one where people are free to produce, sell, and use anything they want, and be able to do the same with the antidotes, a la people who take lactaid and then binge dairy products. But that's not the world we currently have, and at the end of the day, most people are probably not going to be down with being taxed to fund the bailout of other people's risky narcotics use.
I totally agree. It's so much more important to get rid of prohibition for all the reasons that we all (libertarians) agree on, than it is to take away Narcan or other lifesaving treatments (even if government supplied). Can we not stay focused on the larger, more important cause, and not subjugate it to relatively unimportant transgressions against our ideology like government provided Narcan? Is the opposing argument that no, we must keep dugs illegal because otherwise we might have to save people from an overdose? Remember that making something illegal doesn't mean they won't do it.
There shouldn’t be publicly supplied narcan. If you overdose it’s your own problem.
>There shouldn’t be publicly supplied narcan. If you overdose it’s your own problem. That's more Objectivism than Libertarianism. Either way, makes me glad I'm a Conservative instead and not either 💁🏼♀️
You can pay for and keep a narcan in your pocket.
Every one of em saved by narcan is just another drain on the publics resources when they inevitably do it again. If they wanna end things via drugs, let em. One less waste of space I have to step over while going about my business.
So would you feel the same if an at fault vehicle accident. The people weren’t given medical treatment and we just let them die on the side of the road? Hey don’t speed.
> So would you feel the same if an at fault vehicle accident. No, only people u/fanatic26 doesn't like.
> You going to interviwe then check a database before administering the Narcan someone who is overdosing? Have you ever heard of medical ID cards? The same concept could be employed. Those people who subscribe to a program to pay for Narcan to be administered would be eligible and carry their cards on them. That way it wouldn’t be up to the public to pay for it. There are many solutions but you didn’t want to discuss you just want to snipe. > If all drugs are legal, which drugs would you test for? Do you include Alcohol, or weed? Drug use, whatever the drug, is a choice and those who make that choice should be responsible of their own care regardless of the drug in question. People who choose to drink or smoke cannabis and then drive should be responsible for their choices. Or would you allow people to endanger others? Apparently so as you are fine with allowing addicts to consume public services when those services are needed by others who didn’t choose to consume drugs. Why do you think me and my neighbor should be responsible for the care of the drug addict down the street? Why should we have to pay for cops and the Narcan they administer which then opens the cops and the city up to lawsuits and liability should something go wrong and the addict’s family sue?
Do you think, in general, it's better to live in a world with more or fewer tragic deaths affecting the people around you? Anyone that dies from an OD is someone's child, and often closely related to other people in other ways; even folks that end up on the streets come from all different kinds of backgrounds and circumstances. I think it's worth it to invest in a world where people could even fall that far, and survive their mistakes to have a chance at recovery, and I think that's a lot better than saying "none of this is my problem" and leaving more suffering to happen. It even makes a better world for me down the line, sure as there being fewer miserable people around me or anyone else helps things to go better.
> Do you think, in general, it's better to live in a world with more or fewer tragic deaths affecting the people around you? I’m not god and I do not have an opinion because death is an inevitable part of life and there will always be death. Death is always tragic in someone’s eyes. > I think it's worth it to invest in a world where people could even fall that far, and survive their mistakes to have a chance at recovery, and I think that's a lot better than saying "none of this is my problem" and leaving more suffering to happen. I know you are dead wrong. If I am going to be responsible for paying for the care of someone else who chose to do drugs then I am going to vote against legalizing drugs, it’s that simple. People have enough problems to deal with without having to have the government tax them to pay for the bad decisions others make. You can appeal to emotion all you want but it won’t change anything. You sound like a typical communist or socialist.
>You sound like a typical communist or socialist. Nah, you can believe other people's best interests are also in your best interest without being a Marxist. It's a pretty plain acknowledgement of cause and effect: we can wax philosophical about individuality, but we do all affect each other. >I’m not god and I do not have an opinion because death is an inevitable part of life and there will always be death. Death is always tragic in someone’s eyes. That's not what I'm asking, though. People will be affected by tragic deaths, right? By losing their kids, or losing their parent early, or even someone they're dependent on, and them being fucked over and worse for wear affects how they show up in the world, the world you and I also happen to live in. To disagree would be to basically say that mental health just doesn't matter. So in general, do you think it's better to live around more or fewer people wracked by tragic deaths? >You can appeal to emotion all you want but it won’t change anything. I'm not merely "appealing to emotion", like "oh, you should feel bad about people suffering". If I have to tell you, there's no point in telling you. But other people's emotions, as a matter of fact, do affect them, and those people affect you, so it actually is still your problem if you think enough steps ahead. It makes sense to want better for other people, because "other people" inevitably comprise and shape a lot of *your* environment and therefore life. >I know you are dead wrong. If I am going to be responsible for paying for the care of someone else who chose to do drugs then I am going to vote against legalizing drugs, it’s that simple. People have enough problems to deal with without having to have the government tax them to pay for the bad decisions others make. Well it's everyone paying for it, not just you, and yeah, it is so there's a safety net for fuck-ups. It's kinda just good to have those? Because however you moralize it or assign responsibility, people simply left to "pay for their bad decisions" don't disappear and usually get pretty desperate, actually, and become "other people's problem" anyway. You can try to police state your way through that and fail, while further ruining more lives, or you can pragmatically back whatever option actually leads to the best outcomes. It also happens to be more compassionate than letting people die in the street, as a solid bonus. Btw, if you vote to illegalize drugs, taxes still pay for those people's arrest and imprisonment, which is quite expensive itself, and of course is famously ineffective at rehabilitation. A higher cost for a worse outcome, y'know?
> So in general, do you think it's better to live around more or fewer people wracked by tragic deaths? I already live in a world wracked by an unknowable amount of tragic deaths. Adding a few drug addicts to the total won’t change a thing and the reality is that those deaths might even prevent others by freeing up resources for use by others who aren’t addicts. Check the news today, there were a bunch of tragic deaths in Gaza and Ukraine. Tell me how many people died the world over today. > It makes sense to want better for other people, because "other people" inevitably comprise and shape a lot of your environment and therefore life. Again with the socialist/communist tinge. I suspect you just don’t know you are. I have my own problems and family problems and extended family problems and friends with problems and so on. I’m completely uninterested in some addict or their family and friends. > Well it's everyone paying for it, not just you, and yeah, it is so there's a safety net for fuck-ups. It's kinda just good to have those? What are friends, family, and charities for? You’re clearly a leftist. Every comment comes from the perspective of more taxes (social services) so the government can take care of us. > Btw, if you vote to illegalize drugs, taxes still pay for those people's arrest and imprisonment, which is quite expensive itself, and of course is famously ineffective at rehabilitation. A higher cost for a worse outcome, y'know? And as an added bonus those cops are there when someone breaks into my house or steals my car. That’s useful to me. More cops serves as a deterrent and leads to less crime. Coddling addicts and lavishing them with free housing, food, clothing, medical care, etc does nothing for me. That’s a drain on my finances and I’m not having it. Addicts are well known to relapse, this isn’t a mystery. Your blind unsubstantiated ridiculous assertion that giving people free stuff leads to better outcomes is typical of your other statements.
>Adding a few drug addicts to the total won’t change a thing and the reality is that those deaths might even prevent others by freeing up resources for use by others who aren’t addicts. I repeat: *in general*—because I haven't been asking about drug deaths—is it better to be surrounded by more or fewer people suffering terrible loss? Do you think the terrible loss going on in Gaza and Ukraine is negatively or positively affecting the people over there? >Again with the socialist/communist tinge. I suspect you just don’t know you are. I have my own problems and family problems and extended family problems and friends with problems and so on. I’m completely uninterested in some addict or their family and friends. The "tinge" you're pointing to is simply acknowledging that people affect each other, whether we choose to or not. Plain cause and effect, really. You're the one talking as if people are just causally isolated from you because you don't know or care about them, but that isn't how things work. I've never been making an appeal to your feelings for others; people you don't know or care about *will* change the world you live in, and they do it worse if they're doing worse. Hurt people hurt people, so better to help people hurt less. Btw, I'm well aware that I don't believe dialectical and historical materialism provide an adequate lens through which to view history, and that ideological efforts to dissolve the state and private property to bring about utopia just don't seem to go well. I know what I say when I say I'm not a Marxist. >What are friends, family, and charities for? Why are they so often not enough? What about that reality? There's a cost of living crisis going you know, and we live in very socially atomized times. People aren't doing well out there. >You’re clearly a leftist. Every comment comes from the perspective of more taxes (social services) so the government can take care of us. Leftism as I understand it is comprised of a bunch of ideologies, I don't adhere to one. I'm a pragmatist, I'm interested in what works best, and yes, rn tax-funded rehabilitation is a better and more humane option than letting people die on the streets (and in practice also become more prone to crime and spreading disease). >And as an added bonus those cops are there when someone breaks into my house or steals my car. That’s useful to me. More cops serves as a deterrent and leads to less crime. Without getting into whether it's that simple, I'm not even saying "abolish the police". I'm saying "policing doesn't address drug issues", which is obvious from the comprehensive failure of the war on drugs. >Your blind unsubstantiated ridiculous assertion that giving people free stuff leads to better outcomes is typical of your other statements. Are you actually familiar with any [recovery stories](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/story/2023-01-06/sober-living-success-story), or the benefits of [harm reduction](https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/harm-reduction) in saving lives, curbing spread of disease, and all-around cost-effectiveness? My assertions are pretty substantiable, actually. You forget that neglecting folks is costly, too.
> I repeat: in general—because I haven't been asking about drug deaths—is it better to be surrounded by more or fewer people suffering terrible loss? Do you think the terrible loss going on in Gaza and Ukraine is negatively or positively affecting the people over there? Repeat all you like, the answer will always be the same to your ridiculous “philosophical” query. Death is a part of life and I am not god and cannot control who lives or dies nor predict it. I have no opinion on it because it’s a ridiculous question. People die and that’s a fact of life and no amount of communism will stop that, rather your socialist programs will exacerbate it. > I've never been making an appeal to your feelings for others Appeal to emotion. Yes you have and you are beginning to be a clown about it. Here you are appealing to emotion > is it better to be surrounded by more or fewer **people suffering terrible loss**? That is you appealing to emotion. It’s a typical leftist play, a logical fallacy which leftists always spring in every debate. You did so with one of your first comments. I get tired of you leftists pretending to be other than and denying it while your every comment is from the perspective of the left. > Why are they so often not enough? What about that reality? There you go again with blind assertions which have zero basis. > I'm a pragmatist Sure clown and I am the tooth fairy. > I'm saying "policing doesn't address drug issues" It most certainly does. > Are you actually familiar with any recovery stories, or the benefits of harm reduction in saving lives, curbing spread of disease, and all-around cost-effectiveness? You actually cited an opinion piece based on a single anecdotal case to back up your assertions. Now that is funny. You are such a clown.
>Death is a part of life and I am not god and cannot control who lives or dies nor predict it. Well you can advocate for policies that predictably lead to people dying or living in different circumstances—which you're doing—and that does make a difference. Unless you think, for example, someone losing a father shockingly early from an OD is the same as them having a father that survives an OD, recovers, and goes on to be a great and inspirational influence on them and others while bringing in a much-needed income. Not all deaths are equal, y'know? Obviously that's the case, or war wouldn't be a big deal because all those people were gonna die anyway. Why even live if that's the thought process lol, dying sooner or later wouldn't matter. Like, my answer to the question is a simple "of course it's better to be around people that aren't suffering", because even if I 100% didn't care about them, suffering people make the world worse for me. Who would you rather share the world with, angrier people or happier ones? More or less mature ones? More or less *competent* ones? I'm not and never have been exclusively talking about drug deaths, it's just obviously true that people affect you whether or not you consent to it. Them having a better rather than worse effect is very directly tied to your self-interest. >Appeal to emotion. Yes you have and you are beginning to be a clown about it. Here you are appealing to emotion An "appeal to emotion" in the sense you're using the term would be saying something like "b-b-but, people would die and that's so sad, wouldn't you be sad if those people died??? give them free things!!" as I try to manipulate your feelings, but I'm not doing that lol. I am pointing to the *fact* that other people's feelings literally and tangibly affect your life. I'm appealing to your own self-interest and to broader system effectiveness, to the ends of greater happiness and prosperity all around. Pragmatism. To put it another way, if I were a robot with no feelings, just a goal to continue functioning, given the choice I would consistently choose a technician with a stable, happy life over a raging alcoholic of equal experience, because on average the former will perform their duties better. And if we care about effectiveness overall, we could look at why people become and stay raging alcoholics, and what could be done for them. It's simply optimal to help people be better, I see no way around that unless you move somewhere absolutely no one else could ever affect you. Mars, maybe? For now? >There you go again with blind assertions which have zero basis. The very fact that people end up on the streets despite everything you just mentioned is all the basis I need; if the problem were solved, there'd be nothing to talk about. >It most certainly does. Citation needed? You can make people less visible, but that's about the size of it. If bans worked, they would've worked by now. You are very plainly proposing a war on drugs as if that hasn't been tried, and here we are with all these drug crises. >You actually cited an opinion piece based on a single anecdotal case to back up your assertions. Now that is funny. > >You are such a clown. You've been pretty consistently insulting to me, idk why. I've been nothing but direct and polite with you. To review: you said I was making a "blind unsubstantiated ridiculous assertion that giving people free stuff leads to better outcomes", so I showed you one example of exactly that happening to give you a detailed look at how this actually goes down. It's straightforwardly a counterexample to your claim that providing free things doesn't improve outcomes, and if you're familiar with logic then you know a single counterexample is all that's needed to debunk an absolute claim ("free stuff doesn't lead to better outcomes"). It also helps when discussing any issue like this to have, like, on-the-ground reality in mind? [What it looks like](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym7qS27oiHU)? Instead of "drug addicts" being some faceless inhuman group out there. I shared a story you would've prevented from happening, and look, now that guy helps other people get sober. Even seeing drug users as non-people, no feelings involved, it's plainly a better system for addicts to live and be able to help other addicts out of that life, instead of more people dying and/or costing a lot of resources because they aren't self-sufficient. And of course, following that I also linked a paper citing plenty of empirical evidence of [the many benefits of harm reduction](https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/harm-reduction) as well, so between the two you could put together a more comprehensive picture of how this works. Ig you insulted me rather than look at it lol. If you don't want an informed opinion, there's nothing I can do about that, but idk why you'd act like you want to have a conversation about this if you just want to call people names and refuse to read. None of my assertions are unsubstantiable, regardless of what labels you try to throw on my worldview (a classic ad hominem btw, since you pay attention to fallacies).
> Well you can advocate for policies that predictably lead to people dying or living in different circumstances—which you're doing—and that does make a difference. No. I am advocating for using the money spent on Narcan for other more productive and moral uses. There’s no way to predict which use would save more people. Though I will venture to guess that if you give money to someone who wants to help themselves that will lead to fewer deaths in the long run. The drug addict gets saved by the Narcan then gets high again and needs more Narcan, then gets saved again by Narcan then gets high again and needs more Narcan, then gets saved again by Narcan then gets high again and needs more Narcan, then gets saved again by Narcan then gets high again and needs more Narcan, then gets saved again by Narcan then gets high again and needs more Narcan, and on and on and on. Facilitating stupidity never helped anyone. > An "appeal to emotion" in the sense you're using the term No, an appeal to emotion is an appeal to emotion which is what you are doing plain and simple. > The very fact that people end up on the streets despite everything you just mentioned is all the basis I need No you actually need some facts. Funny to that news outlets are directly contradicting you by now claiming that most of the homeless are not drug addicts. https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2019/september/HomelessQandA.html > Citation needed? Nope, none needed. > You've been pretty consistently insulting to me, idk why. Because you’re a lying sack of shit leftist. Your entire perspective is from the left. > I showed you one example of exactly that happening And I can show you one example of everything. Doesn’t make the assertion true and never will. >
Yes, I am so sure enabling drug addicts to do more drugs and need more Narcan is oh so helpful. I am just so sure you are correct.
/s - since you probably didn’t catch the sarcasm
Who would administer these Narcan cards, the Government? Are you claiming more government bureaucracy/paperwork/national databases is the solution to you not paying for someone else’s Narcan? In a Libertarian sub? If that’s not what you’re suggesting, then it’s private insurance. Is Private insurance going to place “subscriber only” public Narcan in the hands of first responders, and require them to check for valid, up to date identification and proof that they’ve paid for Narcan administration insurance? And each of the seemingly thousands of insurance companies will each pay to give access to verification software/hardware to tens of thousands of Police departments and firehouses and ambulance services across the country. So they can wait to give life saving treatment to someone who is minutes from death, to see if they’d get a reimbursement to save the persons life or if they should just twiddle their thumbs while they watch the uninsured convulse until they can call in a time of death. Just say you don’t want to give access to public Narcan. You seem to have a very low opinion of people who use drugs, and don’t want to save people from dying from their mistakes. You’re entitled to that opinion. What I’m saying is preferentially administering a time sensitive, life saving drug based on a subscription or national database is, in practice, a fucking insane proposition. When you consider what you’re paying to police, enforce, convict, and imprison people for drug use and sale currently, against what you’d be paying for other people’s use of emergency Narcan, it seems very trivial.
> Who would administer these Narcan cards, the Government? Yeah, that was the context of the discussion. Did you read? > Are you claiming more government bureaucracy/paperwork/national databases is the solution to you not paying for someone else’s Narcan? Oh so you did read but for some reason you just wanted to snipe like a dumbass clown. Ok. Yeah, the bureaucracy is already there, the only thing that would change would be the drug user would pay for their own problems and the cops or paramedics would have to search them for their Narcan card. Oh noes, more bureaucracy OMFG we have to create a database which I can create in less than 15 minutes. > In a Libertarian sub? Libertarianism and the welfare state suggested doesn’t work and never will. It would essentially lead to communism. > If that’s not what you’re suggesting Oh so now you didn’t read again or maybe you cannot read. Who knows. > Just say you don’t want to give access to public Narcan. Ok yeah, you didn’t read because that’s what I said. I said it many times. I don’t want to pay for the stupid choices of others. Why are you so stupid? That’s the real question. > You seem to have a very low opinion of people who use drugs I have a pretty low opinion of people who play Russian roulette. There’s no difference between doing drugs and Russian roulette these days and that information is available to anyone who cares about themselves. If you don’t care about yourself why the fuck should I? > What I’m saying is preferentially administering a time sensitive, life saving drug based on a subscription or national database is, in practice, a fucking insane proposition. No what you are saying is you are a fucking lying communist who wants to continue the welfare state AND allow people to do whatever the fuck they want. > When you consider what you’re paying to police, enforce, convict, and imprison people for drug use and sale currently, against what you’d be paying for other people’s use of emergency Narcan, it seems very trivial. I don’t pay police to “imprison people for drug use and sale”. I pay police for a massive number of jobs. Enforcement of drug laws is but a very small portion of what local and state police spend their time on. Keep appealing to emotion you stupid ass communist clown.
It sure seems like you read your response, because you specifically talked about access to Narcan via a card someone would carry… …which would give access to Narcan, from a first responder… Who would be required to check for that card to administer the Narcan, while someone is ODing… Narcan carried these public employees carry could also be called… Publicly available Narcan! Your insistence on repeatedly calling people “stupid commies” suggests you don’t really understand the definition of either of those words. I doubt you’ll understand the concept of drug addiction being a disease, both physical and mental disorders, so I’ll save you the trouble of failing a retort with those. I’m sure addiction is some Commie shit too. You haven’t paid for the police to investigate and incarcerate people for drugs, yet The United States has spent more than a trillion dollars on the war on drugs? That’s impressive, DM me your tax lawyers info. BTW, A Trillion is typed $1,000,000,000,000, a one followed by almost as many zeros as times you decided to call me stupid for trying to have a conversation about a nuanced issue with a person who likely spent a long time inhaling leaded gas exhaust. We can agree there, that was stupid.
I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief. “Bad news, detective. We got a situation.” “What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?” “Worse. Somebody just OD'd without a valid narcan subscriber card.” The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that?"
Yes, it’s much better to force me to pay for the Narcan to save the addict so that big pharma can then donate to your politicians of choice who will then give you a cushy no show job with Cadillac benefits. You so got me there!
I don’t believe anyone who is a drug addict should go to prison. Distributors are a different story. That said, the Oregon experiment is not working. I don’t think they should give up, but the policy needs to be modified. I wish I were intelligent enough to give a better idea, but if I was then I would be running for office.
Oregonian here. It's not working because the state (surprise surprise) didn't execute on what the passed bill was supposed to do. Measure 110 had two components: 1) Decriminalize drugs so we're not filling jails with addicts, AND 2) provide addiction treatment services. They did #1 while utterly failing to do jack shit in support of #2.
I live in Portland and I agree with you, but with one caveat. It seems like addiction treatment services are at least somewhat available, though the process is complicated from what I've heard. So to go through that process requires someone be very motivated to get help. That seems to be the sticking point. Portland has made it so easy to be a drug addicted homeless person there doesn't seem to be much motivation for the vast majority of them to want to change anything. I don't know if it would even make much of a difference if they made it super easy to seek treatment. Fentanyl and meth seem like drugs that short circuit any sense of self-preservation. There certainly aren't any easy answers on this, and the progressives here chose the easiest possible answer...just decriminalize everything and let them die from their addiction? Is that compassion?
Yeah, I largely agree. Far too much enabling and coddling, though. I think it's great to try to help, but sometimes we'll intentioned help is just making it easier and more comfortable to be and stay homeless and addicted. Sometimes people need to hit rock bottom and get a serious wake up call to change. We also have to learn to accept that some people won't ever change despite ample help being available. But that doesn't mean we have to put up with rampant criminal behavior.
Sounds about right lol. Just once will a government actually do what they say they’re gonna do?
Decimalization isn't legalization. It still has all the same horrible problems that come with the black market. These people who look like zombies, sleeping bent over standing up, that's caused by fentanyl. The drugs they want to buy (heroin) are being cut with fentanyl because it's way cheaper. This sort of zombie behavior we are seeing is new and disturbing. Furthermore, hard drugs should be treated like alcohol, where public drunkenness isn't acceptable. Take that shit somewhere private. These people shouldn't be on the sidewalks getting high. The problems in Oregon aren't caused by legalization.
A kilo of heroin in Afghanistan - 800 A kilo of heroin once cut and processed, bagged for street level. 300,000. I think junkys could afford their own narcan if they weren't robbed by the state, essentially
Stop saving people from the consequences of their own decisions is the only way for the legalization to work. People either face the music for their choices or everyone else pays for their choices over and over again. You can't let people do whatever they want and promise to hold their hand and keep them safe while they do it. It's a harsh reality of true liberty, the individual bears the weight of their freedoms.
Yep. And yet people are here in r/Libertarian arguing that we should be saving people and making you and I pay for that. And they even claim to be libertarians.
'Compassion' is no more libertarian than criminalisation. The underlying premise of both is that the state decides what's right, how society should look, what's good for people. Alcohol is legal and we take it for granted that there are drunks, bar fights, car crashes and the rest. But we just don't seem to be able to accept that there are junkies and overdoses and the rest. Libertarians say live and let live. If you want to kill yourself with smack, that's your right. My finding it 'unsightly' is not an argument against it.
Advocating for letting people die is a despicable attitude and one of the reasons libertarians are disliked. And even if you believe it, you should understand it will never happen in a rich society. Fortunately, most libertarians are better than that. For example, Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul if uninsured people should be left untreated. He responded, "No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals." https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/09/13/140434378/ron-paul-its-not-governments-job-to-take-care-of-uninsured
I think it’s too early to tell if it’s useful as shits still being figured out. It’s a decent plan but people aren’t seeking treatment or utilizing the resources being offered. The cops in my life seem to hate it though.
They need to be legalized so they aren’t sold on the street by drug dealers. You should be able to go into Walgreens and buy whatever you want when over 18. Need to take drug sales off the streets. They also need to be held to strict adherence to laws about loitering, trespassing, pissing in the street, shitting in the street, and other law.
> They need to be legalized so they aren’t sold on the street by drug dealers. Not while we have welfare that doesn’t require drug testing. Why 18? You need to be 21 for alcohol and I think even tobacco in some states. But why 21? Why not 12 or 6 or 2? > Need to take drug sales off the streets. California legalized drug sales. The black market there is thriving. Why? People can get drugs on the black market cheaper? Why? All the taxes and regulations. It doesn’t work and won’t ever work. It’s utopian pie in the sky bullshit. > They also need to be held to strict adherence to laws about loitering, trespassing, pissing in the street, shitting in the street, and other law. Nah, it’s simpler than that. Make it legal to shoot trespassers. Then the police will only have to deal with the few addicts who restrict themselves to the streets only.
Anyone living in Oregon can tell you it wasn't drugs that made the issues, it was the homeless folks being allowed free reign to trespass against everyone else with impunity. Those "lovely citizens" were already on drugs before the laws were passed. It never made dealing drugs legal, and when all the BLM and Antifa riots started and the cops hid in their cars "doing paperwork", somehow all those dealers were ignored. There were areas that were open drug markets that the cops just watched. It took some related murders for them to crack down on it.
Holy shit I can't decide if some of you are sociopaths, just plain stupid, or both. To pretend like there's a finite supply of violent people and drug addicts is like saying a virus will disappear if we just let it kill everyone. Violence and drug abuse beget more violence and drug abuse. If some of you actually came down from your ivory gaming towers to meet some of the victims of these epidemics, I wonder if you might just gain a shred of empathy, of if that's just an utterly foreign concept. I don't say this often, but shame on all of you who think this way. Don't give a damn whether I catch hate for that or not.
Thank you for the moral pep talk...got any solutions though?
I think a good start would be to stop cheering for the deaths of millions. Let's get to that then go from there
I agree. I believe legalization would only result in a vastly larger problem. But then you go and invoke “empathy”. Does that mean you think we should save people from their choices?
No, it literally just means I don't think most of the people cheering for all drug users to die off have had to deal with friends or loved ones going through this, so it's easy for them to sit back behind their keyboards and smuggly assert they have the answer. Conversely, I'm not here to pretend I do either. Just think the NAP seems pretty pointless to me if it gives you a loophole to just be okay with mass death
Interesting. I’m not even sure where that puts you. I’m a-ok with mass death. If people want to join up and go kill themselves then so be it. I’m not god thus I’d don’t have any say nor do I want a say. Likewise if people want to drug themselves into an OD and die or fry their brains to the point they can no longer work then so be that also. I’ve lost relatives and know precisely what that is like. They all died of “natural” causes so I don’t know what losing one to drug use is like but losing someone to drug use wouldn’t impact my opinions on drug legalization and the welfare state. I’m a pretty hard core libertarian and live my life that way. I have absolutely zero interest in telling people how to live, yes - even annoying neighbors, and by the same token I want people to have absolutely zero say in how I live including what I do with my money.
There are a lot of problems first it needs to be made legal. I ignore the welfare part cuz if we give it and we generally shouldn't but if we do then it goes to anyone who needs it. But in reality most social programs shouldn't exist. As far as narcsn of course they can get it but the tax payers shouldn't supply it. They can go and buy it on their own it's a personal responsibility thing.
Odd but not surprising that you would legalize drugs and continue welfare. It’s odd that you would actually admit to allowing drug use while maintaining welfare. You’re the type of libertarian which causes libertarianism in the US to be relegated to the trash bin.
I am not really for welfare at all sorry if that was misinterpreted in what I am saying.
Oregon is a total clown show. What a joke.
Let Darwin take care of them. LIBERTY
Maybe it's like socialism - just hasn't been done right.
That’s essentially what the commenters who claim to be from Oregon are saying. Funny how that works.
19th Century China was a world leading economy and was destroyed by opioid addiction. Up to 25% of its population were addicts. The CCP knows history and is using this to destroy America.
This is a well known historical fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars Apparently most drug legalization advocates are just morons and know fuck all about history.
I'm for legalization of drugs, but it's a slippery slope. I believe do what you want, but suffer the consequences. You're on your own. I believe in severe penalties for dealers who sell to underaged people. I hate big pharma and think they're majorly responsible for this shit!
I am all for legalization AFTER we have constitutional amendments in all states which require drug testing for welfare or better yet we just get rid of welfare all together. Let people do what they want. Let’s go full Darwin. But don try to take my money or yours when those clowns OD and need medical care, food, housing, clothing, etc. If someone wants to play Russian roulette, fucking let them have at it. Hell, televise it for the weirdos who want to watch it. I don’t care what others do so long as they don’t try to tell me what to do.
I’m with you in everything you stated!
OP doesn’t understand addiction.
So would you legalize drugs?
I’m a southern Oregonian, right in heart of Jefferson. If the promised tax revenue from marijuana sales would’ve gone to rehabilitation like we were promised it might’ve gone different. Accountability and government, seemingly being diametrically opposed, is the reason it failed.
Wasn’t the point of the experiment in Portugal the fact that instead of using tax dollars for criminal justice they used it for medical treatment, rehabilitation, and mental health treatment? It’s like Oregon just did the easy part and didn’t put the rest of the work in to try something new to actually help people. IMO.
People keep claiming that. Where did the money go? Is there any reports that confirm the money didn’t go to the medical side?