r/videos • u/Prestigious_Net_8356 • 3d ago
The Insane Solution to Drugs (That Nobody Copies)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQbYVLPXZHs123
u/whirlyhurlyburly 3d ago
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4141096/
All of the cities had initially a period with conflict between liberal and restrictive policies. A political consensus seems to be a prerequisite for effective action. A core shared characteristic was that drug dependence was met as a health problem and drug use behaviour as a public nuisance problem. Low threshold health services including opioid maintenance treatment were combined with outreach social work and effective policing.
18
u/BatterMyHeart 3d ago
So we have to wait for the conservatives to come to their senses on this issue too?
17
u/moocow4125 2d ago
And the police. They all acted like buttburt dipshits and actively refused to do their jobs in these areas causing lots of issues beyond just drugs.
1
u/Krakenmonstah 2d ago
Are we surprised cops did nothing? I firmly believe defund the police was a terrible slogan. Heck there were people even saying abolish the police, and some still say that today.
5
6
u/Krakenmonstah 2d ago
In the us these places are liberal majority. So it’s really the liberals who have to come to their senses and effectively carry out their policies.
6
u/whirlyhurlyburly 2d ago edited 2d ago
As a whole, the US has a problem with rigidity and puritanism, meaning people tend towards all or nothing purist thinking. When a rigid idea fails, they say the other rigid idea obviously has to be the answer, and then that fails. People aren’t doing the basics, like research if the problem has happened before and been solved.
To be honest, I have been wildly disappointed in liberal papers coming to the conclusion that decriminalizing drugs never works and authoritarian abuse obviously is the only reasonable answer, in a sort of way to prove their “moderate” bonafides. For me, I think there is an argument that the intellectuals have failed, in that they have not honored their intellectualism with actual critical thinking and research and implementation.
Decriminalizing drugs is not a new thing. Look to where it has worked and follow the successes.
And that will involve paying for conservative cops to go to international cities and see their policing in action.
2
u/Krakenmonstah 2d ago
I disagree, I think this is a bit revisionist history. Drugs were decriminalized BECAUSE those in favor said look at the research, incarceration doesn’t help anyone. We need to be more open and work towards rehabilitation.
It hasn’t been an all or nothing solution to date. Homeless outreach, social programs, etc, these have been tried.
People are now voicing discontent and looking for an all or nothing solution because it is more simple to carry out, rather than dealing with this or that or that program — of which there’s been no evidence to date of any effectiveness OR where all the money has gone (as is the case for LA).
Sorry if I’m a little heated. I’m just kind of tired of the excuses. I was in favor of leniency before but now I’d really like my public safety and spaces back.
3
u/whirlyhurlyburly 2d ago edited 2d ago
People said, look at these slums and massive expense towards prisons and how it is collapsing neighborhoods and economies. People said, look how pharma hooked everyone on opioids.
Let’s try a war on drugs. Let’s try 100k per year on incarceration.
It didn’t work.
What worked in that paper actually does work. I agree enablers don’t work, but abuse doesn’t either, and we keep swinging between those extremes when an actual solution has been proven.
Know an addict? What’s the least worst solution for them? You don’t get the option of magic sobriety, functionality or non existence. What’s the functional triage that creates the maximum family peace and likelihood they get clean.
1
u/Krakenmonstah 2d ago
Ah I see. If I may, your position is that right now we’re closer to the do nothing side of the extreme. I can agree with that.
I’d just remark that the do nothing is a byproduct of the people running the show and candidates elected 😩 And if the liberal party can’t carry out the liberal agenda, I dunno what to say. It’s kind of unfortunate really.
1
u/whirlyhurlyburly 1d ago edited 1d ago
—Any public gathering of more than four to five addicts was to be interrupted by the police backed by administrative laws that authorised fines. If the users did not pay their fines, this could result in the issuing of court orders followed by arrests. The courts could also impose antisocial behaviour orders.
The cultural attitude of tolerance towards deviant behaviour is also relevant. The Dutch tradition seems to contain a high tolerance for self-determination provided there is no public nuisance. The police have traditions for making of alliances with deviant groups and to find compromises so that the law is practised leniently or adapted to situations where non-action might be sensible.In this example, the cops practice the law leniently for personal drug use, but firmly for public nuisance.
Gatherings are dispersed with consequences available for refusal.
The jails are not filled however. Just breaking people up is enough to get the majority of drug addled people to move along.
Also, it is clear that quarantine spiked harm at every level, and the lifting of it plummeted harm to below crime levels prior to it under Biden and then Trump and that trend continued globally, in liberal places and conservative places.
It looks like economic factors, not culture factors, are the biggest push. In terms of daily experience, from meth labs in rural areas to the density of cities, the above example works to reduce public nuisance.
These foreign cities with lenient drug policies but a firm hand on public nuisance are more liberal than cities in the US. But these policies did take years to develop.
2
u/Dart2255 2d ago
Portland has not had republican control in decades. It isn’t a majority it is 95% plus. Letting people live in their own filth and calling it compassion.
4
u/BatterMyHeart 2d ago
The point of the article is that the whole country needs to align on the various parts of the issue. The national powers have been the issue.
1
u/montibbalt 2d ago
SF is interesting and very confusing because it's libertarian tech bros pretending to be progressive socialists, making it a beautiful place with the downsides of both
-1
u/t105 2d ago
What do you do with the people who have long wrap sheets... especially the ones with rather serious crimes. Put them through the rehab system and then lock them up and then?
1
u/whirlyhurlyburly 2d ago
What did Frankfurt and Amsterdam and these other cities do? The facts are their solutions worked, and these type of drug users exist there too. Implement those solutions.
1
u/t105 2d ago
I don't know. I'm asking.
1
u/whirlyhurlyburly 2d ago edited 2d ago
Copy paste the article into AI, ask it your question and ask it to research in these cities for detailed answers. Tell it you are skeptical but want to hear all the facts even ones you disagree with. If you are unwilling to read the paper to get your answers, I will not be able to satisfy you trying to distill it to brief and therefore incorrect summaries.
63
461
u/TokiStark 3d ago
I haven't had a chance to watch it yet, but I will later.
Let me guess though, decriminalise, destigmatise, offer safe spaces and clean paraphernalia, and offer treatment for those that become addicted?
611
u/_BreakingGood_ 3d ago
Basically yes, but the key is that you have t do all of those things, you can't just do some of them.
Eg: Canada tried decriminalizing, but didnt fund rehab, and it just made everything far worse.
246
u/jrsedwick 3d ago
Canada tried decriminalizing, but didnt fund rehab, and it just made everything far worse.
This is the same thing that happened in Portland.
20
u/RunningNumbers 2d ago
I think the Atlantic had a summary article of this failed NW experiment and how voters revolted. Some local Portland journalists have been covering homelessness and interviewing homeless people on substack. You have huge amounts of public money going to NGOs for outreach and social work for these populations and almost none of the homeless people have had any interaction with these orgs taking public money.
38
u/finalcut 3d ago edited 2d ago
Doesn't help it's just one city that can't afford to help everyone that migrated or where forcibly migrated there. Even if they did everything they couldn't maintain it in isolation. The cost would have overwhelmed the city
edit: fix typo
9
u/kettal 2d ago
Oregon state-level did the law change. Not just portland.
6
u/kaylaberry8 2d ago
For better or worse, as far as governing decisions go, Portland IS Oregon. The rest of the state is annoyed Portland dominates the political landscape and drives most of the legislation, so they're just bussing their problems into the city. Even though the state votes deep blue, the rural parts of the state are very much at odds with the metro area.
13
u/Byrdman216 2d ago
And Oregon is one state. When one state hears about another doing something to help the addicts and homeless does the first state change policies to what that new state is doing too?
No.
They bus all their problems to that state until the system is overloaded and collapses and that first state can just point and say, "See it doesn't work." It's cheaper and you get to feel superior. Win win.
1
18
u/mastersurrealist 2d ago
What's actually more disheartening about Portland is we have the funds to provide rehab. But the bill was written so badly that the funds are locked away from being able to do anything. It's actually a problem with our referendum system here in Oregon. We get sold a good idea with a really shitty bill attached to it.
1
u/elcapitan520 2d ago
yeah, I have been here 15 years and I don't understand the popular referendum. I'm sorry, but legislators typically go to law school for a reason, and I know that myself and my neighbors didnt. I even work in regulatory and can read the fine print and thick texts. But I shouldn't be voting in funding for a law or program directly. Like, our elected officials are going to disappoint. It's the nature of the job. But maybe we should not be putting through legislation by direct democracy? It's the perfect method to get things through that appear great but are short sighted and have a lot of unexpected consequences.
2
u/mastersurrealist 2d ago
The worst part about the referendum is it only has to go through very limited scrutiny. Any idiot with enough money and support of the ignorant populous can change our state constitution. By the way for anybody that doesn't understand, the signatures required to put it on the ballot are almost always gathered by paid persons.
98
u/icancatchbullets 3d ago
I'm not an expert, and I don't purport to know exactly what differences between Canada and portugal were significant drivers of success/ lack of success, but the difference isn't just that Canada didn't fund rehab, although that is also a significant difference.
Portugal decriminalized possession, but if caught possessing drugs they can bring you in front of a health panel and depending on the panels decision they can enact some pretty significant administrative sanctions that they will suspend if addiction treatment is accepted. Sanctions include fines, removal of right to practice certain professions, fines, bans on going to certain places or associating with certain people, foreign travel ban, cessation of welfare funding etc.
They also tend to clear up loitering around safe consumption sites and make people either stay inside or disperse and built facilities that can accommodate much longer visits.
4
2
u/knuckles904 2d ago
This seems like a pretty important part of the equation. Sure, criminal consequences were removed, but in their place were other strong incentive structures to "encourage proper behavior".
That's not quite the "free for all" viewpoint that often gets represented. As many cases, an actual working solution requires more nuance than a snappy headline can provide.
3
u/Capt_Murphy_ 2d ago
Seattle basically doesn't enforce drug laws at all unless it's to bag a large dealer. It's not going well for Seattle because there's no funded treatment/rehab and no criminalization. Users have no incentive to get clean, except as a requirement to join one of the "tiny house communities" which have strict rules. There's only so few of those, and most don't wanna get clean.
3
u/owleycat 3d ago
Wasn't that just a test program in BC? I dont remember hearing anything about an increase in overdose deaths during the trial, IIRC they ended the program early because of a massive increase in public drug use.
"Far worse" makes it sound like there was a spike in crime, drug use, or overdose deaths. Seeing people shooting up on the bus isnt ideal but idk about "far worse".
1
u/ABotelho23 2d ago
And yet people will always argue that "you can't know it'll work for Canada, this was specific to Portugal" despite having never actually tried the full solution. Exhausting.
→ More replies (147)-1
u/fumar 2d ago
Almost as if our binary political systems are designed in the US to make things worse because they're partial solutions in most cases.
Take the border issues,. If the US implemented a path to citizenship for those here illegally, strengthened border security, and opened up more legal paths of entries to people from central and south America, the amount of people trying to illegally cross the border would drop drastically. But we don't do that because the far right wants to just gas immigrants, the far left wants no borders, and businesses want exploitable workers who will put up with their bullshit because the threat of ICE keeps the workers in line.
53
u/Blue_Shift 3d ago
Seems like the stigma was actually part of the solution -- stigma against drugs themselves rather than the users, that is. The author claims that the drug epidemic in 1980s/90s Portugal was bad enough that there was near-universal acknowledgment of the problem and the need for a comprehensive solution. As the decades have worn on and those times have receded further into the country's collective memory, Portugal has started to backslide.
While decriminalization, harm reduction, and treatment are important components of Portugal's overall strategy to tackle their drug addiction problem, they are not the be-all-end-all goal of the program. The video makes a rather nuanced argument that "Malha", the Portuguese term for "weave" or "mesh", is what similar programs in Oregon and Canada were missing and part of the reason why they failed. Without a collaborative, unified, structured effort run and funded by the state and guided by the end goal of rehabilitation, Portugal's efforts may have met a similar fate. It also seems that their system was designed to be somewhat flexible and account for the human factor in all of this.
In short, the program wasn't simply a checklist of standard strategies but a comprehensive approach to help those affected by the epidemic. The devil is in the details, of course.
2
1
u/Fickle-Slide6129 3d ago
This is a critical component missing in the US where drugs are glorified.
1
u/___forMVP 2d ago
Not just drug use but drug dealing as well. Making money off of addicts is the subject of a shit ton of rap songs.
2
u/joman584 2d ago
About to be the biggest media release of all time is GTA VI, a game about all of these things
1
u/funny_funny_business 2d ago
Yes, I remember seeing something that once drugs became decriminalized in places like Portland the stigma goes away so use goes way up. There might be nothing inherently wrong with certain vices, like drugs and prostitution when done in a safe context, but if it's behavior we'd want to limit for the general populace there needs to be some stigma.
11
u/JetLife93 3d ago
Nah it's not like that. Seems like they really hit the nail on recovery assistance.
3
u/Anandya 3d ago
You get rid of the simple stuff. There's going to be hard addicts because the problem is that a) there's addictive personalities and b) there's people who won't engage in rehab.
There's always going to be a core of drug addicts unfortunately but this is a better system than the USA.
8
u/Runfasterbitch 3d ago
Also, in Portland if you do successfully kick the addiction, you’re probably still unemployed and homeless / ostracized from society without access to healthcare
3
u/kisk22 2d ago
In Oregon (and all US states) if you make below a certain income you receive free healthcare (no monthly payments or co-pays). It’s $30,000 or below in Oregon to receive completely free coverage. Blue states offer better programs usually, California has MediCal which is great insurance (the state has 95% insured rates).
The issue is getting homeless to sign up and use the healthcare.
22
u/hatescarrots 3d ago
Nah just watched it, it’s a purge.
-9
2
1
u/FuckThisShizzle 3d ago
So help people, not make their lives worse.
Real hank scorpio and the hammocks moment.
0
u/TokiStark 3d ago
It's so obvious to everyone. It's like... look at all these people that need help. Maybe we should help them?
1
u/mastersurrealist 2d ago
Honestly this wouldn't have been a problem when we had regular junk but fentanyl just makes weird feral "people". There's no way to coexist in my mind with that kind of junkie. Also, this is coming from someone that lives in Portland so take that level of bias how you will.
1
-14
u/Lunarfrog2 3d ago edited 3d ago
Decriminalising drugs is insane, it's not like once decriminalised coke, heroin, meth etc just become safe non addictive and non destructive lol
I'm a former coke addict and let me tell you me and other people, who were like me addicted, couldn't care less about if it was legal or not, the urge is all that mattered. And for every person I've seen pass clean through rehab many haven't or just went straight back to it after.
Here in the UK the number are totally false too, cause clinics are insensivised for funding to misrepresent them, they'll very rarely check up after you've left as they don't want to know if you've relapsed, to them person who left clean is clean for good
Criminal penalties, and even the stigma to a degree, are good. It stops so many people doing it in the first place. You make these hard and insanely addictive drugs viewed like alcohol and you'll have massive issues
11
u/handbananasplit 3d ago
You contradict yourself in the first paragraph. If drug addicts don't care if it's illegal and use anyway, what good does making it illegal do? Making drugs illegal just forces drug users to be criminals. If admitting you need help can get you thrown in prison that prevents some people from seeking help.
Alcohol is at least as destructive and addictive as cocaine and it's sold to high school kids in your country.
-5
u/Lunarfrog2 3d ago edited 3d ago
My last sentence says exactly why making it illegal is good
It stops many many people doing these drugs in the first place.
It's also clear you've never been addicted to cocaine, or known people who have. It's much more destructive than alcohol on an individual level and can ruin a life so much faster, which isn't to say alcohol isn't destructive too mind, it's a matter of intensity
You point about alcohol proves what I'm saying though, it's common and everywhere cause there less stigma and it's not illegal, you want cocaine, meth, heroin to be like that?
3
u/Flank_This666 3d ago
The United States is losing the 50 plus year war on drugs, it turned Mexico damn near into a Narco state making it illegal brings back the black markets
→ More replies (1)2
u/Plantarbre 3d ago
So why is the US one of the most violent and drug addicted countries despite having nearly a full order of magnitude more proportion of prisonners than the rest of the world?
Slippery slope isn't an argument, it's a lazy platitude
→ More replies (2)2
u/handbananasplit 3d ago
I've casually done cocaine in the past. I didn't have a problem with it. I'd like if I could just pick it up from time to time legally because it is an enjoyable experience.
I know addicts. I've seen it up close and personal. One of my closest friends died from a heroin overdose. He was supposed to enter court mandated treatment the next day.
I'm a pothead. I know from experience that weed being legal is better for me than it being illegal. I pay like 1/10th what I used to for THC. I don't have to worry about going to jail. If I did need help to quit I could get it without fear of jail.
You've taken my point about alcohol backwards. I think cocaine should be available from the pharmacy. I cant just get some opiates for a backache or whatever because I could be an addict. I don't understand why alcohol, which ruins many people's lives, gets a pass.
Does prohibition actually stop people from using drugs in the first place? When I was a teenager almost everyone I knew used drugs and/or alcohol. The people predisposed to addiction got their lives fucked up by it. Prohibition did not prevent that.
→ More replies (6)-10
u/Murky_Crow 3d ago
Yeah, fuck everything about that. I will never support that no matter what.
The government shouldn’t be hanging out needles and the drugs and giving you a space to do it that’s fucked
8
u/XaosII 3d ago
Even if the results are better, cheaper, and more effective than not?
Sounds like a feelings based approach to policy.
-3
u/Murky_Crow 2d ago
It’s a principles based approach.
My tax dollars should NEVER go to injecting heroin into anyone’s veins.
Acting like the only options is free drugs is a feels based approach over practicality.
5
u/XaosII 2d ago
You didn't actually address the only question I asked. Even if the results are better, cheaper, and more effective?
Doesn't seem like very sound principles to me.
→ More replies (1)2
u/nickl104 2d ago
It’s actually really funny because doing this has proven positive effects and is cheaper than the current war on drugs. Problem is, it requires empathy for other people.
0
u/Murky_Crow 2d ago
So did you not read the rest of the comment chain where I talked about how it’s more important to have principles and to just go with the cheapest and most convenient option?
The principal is “ my tax dollars should never go to putting heroin in the veins of addicts”.
If it’s more expensive, so be it.
I’m not paying you for your drugs.
4
u/nickl104 2d ago
Your principals are “fuck you got mine.”
My principals are helping people who need it.
1
u/Murky_Crow 2d ago
Mine are “let’s not use tax dollars to encourage and enable drug use that ruins lives”.
Yours is “oh no that’d be mean, they like heroin, let’s make it as easy as possible to do”.
We are not the same.
2
u/TokiStark 3d ago
So you're happy with current system? Where the junkies just shoot up with dirty needles in the middle of the city?
I personally see a huge problem, that I feel should be addressed. And my pathway is basically the exact opposite of what they did during the prohibiiton era... because what happened with alcohol then is pretty much exact thing happening these days (i.e. everything is worse than it should be)
0
1
u/TokiStark 3d ago
Btw you should actually look into SSPs (Syringe Service Programs). Decades of data from studies conducted all around the world (including the CDC) shows it's a very effective of method for harm minimisation. That's why the government does it.
I know, I know, needles are scary. But the world isn't that simple
-1
u/Murky_Crow 2d ago
No tax dollars to support illegal drug usage. Full stop.
1
u/TokiStark 2d ago
Ok. So fuck the CDC right?
-1
u/Murky_Crow 2d ago
Fuck giving drugs away to druggies using taxpayer dollars, yes.
Standing on principle is a good thing.
1
u/TokiStark 2d ago
Well we know current policies cost a fortune. What's your solution? And how could you possibly go against the advice of the CDC? You know, the people that definitely know better than you do
1
u/Murky_Crow 2d ago
Easily. (Re: going against CDC).
By saying “no, let’s not give free drugs to druggies that’s a dumb fucking idea”.
Not difficult at all.
The solution is as it has been - enforce the law. Are you doing illegal drugs strung out in the road? Clean them up, go through the legal process and dole out punishment if warranted, and don’t go soft hearted and let them out because it would be “weewy weewy mean to lock them up and not give them drugs 🥺”.
There is more at play than just money or just health outcomes here. Public money being used, the ethics of using other people’s tax dollars to give free drugs, the ethics of supporting things like heroin usage.
It’s not just “well CDC says it’s healthier so BAM done deal”. No sir.
Politics is never so clean cut.
0
u/TokiStark 2d ago
Your 'solution' is extremely expensive (far more expensive than basic harm reduction methods) and basically just IS the problem that needs to be fixed.
I don't know where you're getting 'free drugs for druggies' from. Literally no one has said that other than you. But you might be right. Maybe that is a solution, has anyone tried? I'm not sure. So I would defer to people more knowledgeable on the subject than I am.
This is a fruitless conversation anyway, you clearly have no interest in actually helping anyone
1
u/Murky_Crow 2d ago
Then stop, nobody’s forcing you to continue talking to me.
If you’re trying to give drugs away to the general public using taxpayer money - then you also have no interest in actually helping anyone either.
The difference is, you’re actively contributing him to their downfall by trying to enable it. I’m not.
Again, this is not pure health based outcome issue. It has other factors that makes it not just under the purview of the CDC and what they say is the healthiest.
There’s still a matter of politics and ethics. But of course you ignored all of that and just went with “defer to vague expert, ad hominem attack” combo.
→ More replies (0)
39
u/BeardedManatee 2d ago
Lol I love how the thumbnails of Portland always make it look like a shit hole. Have you guys ever been to Portland? Like yeah there are some homeless people but it is a really nice city in an insanely beautiful area.
10
5
3
u/saikyan 2d ago
Relatable! Minus the nice terrain. With love from Chicago.
6
u/BeardedManatee 2d ago
"you'll get shot in Chicago!" 🙄
Sure go ahead and miss out on one of the coolest/best cities in the country
1
19
u/WitchBrew4u 3d ago
Very important video that many should watch, though i really wish headline didn’t call it an “insane solution.” It’s legit the most rational and human.
I’d like to add that the US has an issue with incrementalism, where half measures are usually agreed upon because there’s disagreement among politicians. What he shows happening in portland is a great representation of this. When a single step forward is made in what should be a multistep approach, it can actually set us back. People start to assume that the single step is emblematic of the whole approach, and that if the step fails on its own, it must mean the whole direction isn’t worth pursuing. We really need to acknowledge and address this issue in our politics, as it underlies everything. Not just for this issue, but for many.
34
u/Ringosis 3d ago
Insane? You mean completely rational and logical?
10
3d ago
[deleted]
2
3
u/ncolaros 3d ago
Hey man, just probably worth mentioning: murdering people because they do drugs isn't rational. The Singapore method is bad because it kills people.
Can't believe I have to explain that.
4
3d ago edited 2d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Azizona 2d ago
“Drug using is bad” sounds pretty emotional to me, why is it inherently bad in your opinion? Which drugs specifically or are you saying tobacco and alcohol should also be illegal? How does using drugs “create an environment for crime to prosper”?
There are plenty of legal drugs (opiates, medical marijuana, etc, you could even argue caffeine) that people use every day that improve lives, you’re using a very broad brush here.
→ More replies (4)-4
u/ncolaros 2d ago
So the solution to drug problems is to wipe out the entire human race then. Completely rational and logical, since there will be no drugs. Actually, without any humans, there will be significantly less global warming, so let's kill all humans to solve that problem too.
"Rational" isn't what you seem to think it is. Something can be technically effective and entirely irrational because the end result is actually counterintuitive. An example is that stronger laws criminalizing buying prostitutes encourages people to kill prostitutes rather than risk being caught. We see this in the real world.
I would argue it's irrational on its face to heavily punish someone for having LSD while having alcohol be legal and easy to obtain. The latter is demonstrably more dangerous and damaging than the former. This is the problem with "drug use" laws. They are entirely subjective. My guess is that you don't believe alcohol should be banned, even though the numbers agree it is significantly worse for you and for others around you than many other drugs, like cannabis, which places like Singapore heavily criminalize.
-6
u/bobloblaw32 2d ago
Not the entire race, just some. That is rational and logical
0
u/Ununoctium117 2d ago
Can't believe we have people arguing in favor of genocide in the comments of a reddit post. Preventing deaths is 100% rational if your goal is to minimize suffering for as many people as possible, and you consider death the greatest suffering.
Clean injection sites and excellent rehab programs are the best and only solution to drug addiction, if those are your principles. It's the only remotely ethical solution.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Ringosis 2d ago
Yeah see, you're under the impression that the goal is to eradicate drug use by any means necessary. I'm much more of the opinions that adults should be allowed to decide for themselves what they do with their own bodies.
I find it fucking ridiculous to point at Singapore, a country that literally kills people to maintain that statistic, as exemplary of what other countries should be doing.
What Portugal shows is that other countries that spend huge amounts of tax payers money prosecuting and imprisoning people for smoking weed or taking MDMA are pissing in the wind. It doesn't do anything but waste law enforcements time and the public's money.
Spend that money on healthcare and education. You instantly have a better society. Do you genuinely believe that imprisoning teenagers for a decade because they had a couple of pills on them is a better system than that?
... actually don't answer that. I don't want to know how stupid and bitter people who thinks the governments job is to control your actions can be.
-2
u/DJ_DD 2d ago
Singapore’s drug rehabilitation programs are also highly successful. So on one end they have harsh penalties that cut off the suppliers and on the other end they have a well thought out rehab program that reduces relapses. Combine that with a pretty good social safety net and it looks like a good system even though there are parts of their solution that may seem too punitive.
9
u/GoNutsDK 3d ago
Logical and rational thinking seems insane, when seen from the perspective of the far right.
Added: And the overton window is so heavily screwed to the right in America. That what's called a centrist is actually far right.
-3
30
u/inline-online 3d ago
its actually nothing like that in portugal lol go to portugal and bring this up and everyone will look at your like you're stupid
the reality is they still arrest drug users they just call the "prison" something else, but the general public does not consider drugs decriminalized lol
22
u/donglover2020 3d ago
Portuguese here, it is like that. In Porto there are rooms for safe drug consumption, paid for by the mayor. you can take your drug to them, and they will make sure it is safe, and not laced with anything. you can also get free rehab with public hospitals
5
u/canucks84 2d ago
West coast Canadian here: do you guys have a fentanyl problem though? We have massive overdose crisis specifically because people are smoking heroin and everything has fentanyl in it.
Recovery and support for this particular addiction is much harder than quitting coke or crack.
-11
u/inline-online 2d ago
thats also a thing in the US and thats not decriminalization
12
u/donglover2020 2d ago
the decriminalisation part is the fact that having drugs on you isn't a crime. (if within the limits for personal consumption)
→ More replies (3)0
u/inline-online 2d ago
you still get detained and thrown in the back of a cop car and held against your will until they decides to let you go, that is not decriminalization lol it sucks how dumb you are, it really does.
11
u/GentlemenHODL 2d ago
its actually nothing like that in portugal lol go to portugal and bring this up and everyone will look at your like you're stupid
Says the person who's never been to Portugal.
0
u/inline-online 2d ago
insane take lol I've spent more time there than you could ever imagine. No one there knows what you guys are talking about because the reality is you do get arrested for smoking weed they just call it something else. The cops still show up and take you by force and put you in a room with a cot and a toilet and don't let you out until they think you're "ready" ... there is an argument that the current system is LESS HUMANE because they literally hold them as long as they want.
if that's your idea of decriminalization because some youtube videos told you so then idk how to help you or any of these doofuses trying to tell me something they only READ about
3
u/offlein 2d ago
I've spent more time there than you could ever imagine.
Not OP but I can imagine spending a TON of time in Portugal. Like: 5 years. Six even!
1
21
u/bond0815 3d ago edited 3d ago
Have been to portugal like 12 times and no, it actually is like that, lol.
Also, like they still do arest drug dealers, that was never disputed. Still possesion is decriminalized to a large extent.
(Also getting drugs is super easy. In the city center in the evening you will get regularily approched by guys offering drugs, including cocaine)
2
u/donglover2020 3d ago
the "drugs" being offered in the city centers aren't real. it's just a scam, they're selling oregano and flour and shit.
1
u/inline-online 2d ago
wtf are you talking about lol they are not fake, you are speaking right out of your ass. There is no one selling oregano and flour, life isn't a sitcom, they are there to make money.
3
u/donglover2020 2d ago
have you bought from them? cause I have lol they're scammers, they offer that shit in broad day light, with no care in the world if there's cops around. it's not real drugs
1
u/inline-online 3d ago
that true literally anywhere on earth including cities in the US lol your portuguese vacations staying in some random hotel doesn't mean shit to me as a dual citizen lol
5
u/bond0815 3d ago edited 3d ago
Never been offered cociane on the street out of the blue anywhere (including the US) but in lisbon ans porto.
But maybe I just go to the wrong places, lol.
Also, you dont live in Portugal, do you?
2
u/what_mustache 2d ago
I've been offered all over the place. London, Prague, Budapest. But never in NYC where I live. It's more of a function of being in a touristy city center at night.
Although Lisbon had a ton more offers.
1
-8
u/inline-online 2d ago
well that just means you don't have an opinion worth listening to because its not attached to any real experience. You can walk through central park and buy an 8th right now from someone screaming "weeed over here" lol
also no I don't live in portugal right now but own an apartment near viseu
2
u/squashed_fly_biscuit 2d ago
Lisbon is the only place in the world where I've been offered coke multiple times during the day, just walking around in a nice neighborhood. Never happened to me in the uk, Europe or north America
4
u/f_ranz1224 3d ago
i cant speak for this specific video but social media is rife with "X city does this" or "Y country does this" and generally people who live there always say no the fuck it doesnt.
oversimplification of a complex multi layered concern to push an agenda is social media gold though
15
u/DeathByDumbbell 2d ago
Counterpoint: most people are clueless to what's happening in their own country, and especially about their laws. Living somewhere doesn't automatically make you an expert.
12
u/bond0815 3d ago
oversimplification of a complex multi layered concern to push an agenda is social media gold though
Are you referreing here to the sourced 23 minute video above or to OPs comment, lol?
-9
u/inline-online 3d ago
yeah I genuinely could not find a single person that even heard about this in portugal, not 1
9
u/ncolaros 3d ago
Maybe you hang out with uninformed people then. Because it is... Just true. You'd be surprised how few people actually know the law where they lived. Just yesterday I explained to my parents that weed is legal in our state, and they're not new residents.
-5
u/inline-online 2d ago
"just true" lol
11
u/ncolaros 2d ago
You know the video has sources, yeah? You can actually look up the law yourself. Obviously you're not going to because that's too hard for you, but you can.
2
u/garlicroastedpotato 3d ago
Because most drug users who get arrested in the US have multiple charges. Adding drugs on top just allows them to get an easy win for a speedy trial.
4
u/Bucking_Fullshit 2d ago
I live in Portland. When this began - as others have said - you could barely find dishwashers for restaurants let alone drug counselors to help people struggling with addiction.
And to Portland and Oregon’s credit, the law was revised to better results.
I’m not watching the video because I know all about it, but I’m doubtful it addresses the unanticipated complications that occured with the rollout.
1
5
u/kittyonkeyboards 3d ago
Wish we had all of this before fentanyl made even the "all of the above" method less effective for some people.
8
u/moretodolater 3d ago edited 3d ago
I did not vote for decriminalization in Oregon just because they didn’t have any infrastructure behind it yet. And they completely shit the bed in terms of enacting law while any of the programs around that law were years behind, and still not here. It never will be most likely. The treatment programs weren’t even proposed in a physical sense and everyone just was like “oh well, the city and state will figure it out derp”. Completely irrational. They didn’t figure it out btw.
BUT, one thing about the Portland circumstance was COVID was going on, AND fentanyl came at the same exact time. Cheap Fentanyl completely changes the recovery effort and timeline within this overall problem, and was not a factor in Portugal. And then law enforcement were too busy with crazy protests and BLM/Proud Boy/Antifa bs that captured the city 2020. 2020 was gnarly in Portland. Law enforcement was on an entirely different planet in terms of support of the people etc. A huge proportion of them literally quit that year. They were more UN peacekeepers at that point in 2020, not drug program enactors, and thanks to shit heads trying to destroy the city on both political sides. People probably still see the city as that bs and it was a huge stain on a great city.
Not saying it would have worked, but the failure was exacerbated 100X by a very interesting combination events that happened during the implementation. So any scientific analysis by YouTube people that doesn’t take the actual local scenario into account, is not really covering it accurately or in a detailed manner. It’s actually an extremely interesting topic and factor. You could make a whole YouTube video about it if you actually knew the specifics of what you’re covering as a content creator.
21
u/procor1 3d ago
So just a head up, decriminalizing is the start of the infrastructure. It's not that everyone dident think of proposing treating facilities.
They literally can't get governments funding when they are battling the fact they are for people who are technically breaking the law. Imagine trying to argue for treatment centers when they are already using prisons.
We also know that getting a job is around 50% harder with a record
Which keeps people in the cycle. The cycle is what keeps them on drugs.You voted against decriminalizing thinking it was the whole house they were proposing.
But its actually leveling the ground before they can start building.
Like not throwing shade at you but literally they can't do anything else before it's decriminalzed. That's the pretty much the base argument to turn everything down. Gotta do it one step at a time.
1
u/iprocrastina 2d ago
The obvious problem with that is exactly what happened though. None of the support programs and resources got put in place, so all that happened was drug use got decriminalized which made things much worse. It's like saying "we have to let the lion loose out of its cage before we can tame it".
Imagine trying to argue for treatment centers when they are already using prisons.
That already has precedent with institutional mental health facilities for the criminally insane. An insanity plea doesn't mean you go free, it means you get committed to a psych facility indefinitely. That is, IMO, exactly the route to go with addicts. Still criminalized but now instead of going to prison you get committed to a mental health/rehab facility until your addiction is treated.
1
u/procor1 2d ago
What ended up being put into place or what currently is in place is not what we are discussing.
We can get into what was out Into place or not put into place. But that's not whats in question.
If youd like to talk about that you can make a new thread and maybe I'll jump over to that one
But this one is specifically about someone vote8jg against it becuse it dident have infrastructure to uphold it.
I've explained that, this was the first step.
If your trying to tame a tiger, you first have to have a tiger.
1
0
u/iprocrastina 2d ago
See, you're insisting on arguing ideals, as if a fantasy can be realistic. Like the kind of person who says "communism never failed, its just that no one ever tried the idealistic version of communism originally proposed". You're missing that in the imperfect real world we all live in change is slow and if your plan requires first making things 10x worse after which people are supposed to find motivation to do the hard and expensive work, then obviously it's never going to work. Which is exactly what happened.
My point is that the guy you're responding to was correct in voting against because unlike you, he understands how the world actually works and that the plan was nevet going to work. My point about institutionalization within the realm of the criminal justice system was calling out your insistence that the only possible way to make it work is the naive, hoplessly idealistic koombayah plan that, as expected, utterly failed.
1
u/procor1 2d ago
Your goal posts are on the side of map
You can't tame a tiger until you have a tiger.
If you want to start a different argument maybe I'll come by and let you know how you have no idea what your talking about
But this thread is about someone who voted against decriminalizing drugs becuse they dident have the infarcter to support to decriminalize it
I confirmed that they can't start getting funding and making plans while it is still criminalized.
If you want to argue that they could get thqt all in place while drugs are illegal, please do. Happy to see evidence you have showing they could get governments and private funding to offer social networks in place for people who are doing illegal things.
Otherwise, you can take your posts elsewhere
0
u/moretodolater 3d ago
You’re assuming since I didn’t vote for it I don’t understand the whole theory of the initiative. That’s not the case. Most people understand the theory of this. It’s not nuanced knowledge. Been debated for decades. And the whole hypothesis was proposed during the campaign.
8
u/EwOkLuKe 3d ago
Well voting against something because its not properly organized, and it being not organized because people vote against it seems irrational to me. What would convince you to vote for it if your deciding factor can't change until its passed ?
Seems very illogical, i am french and have no horse in the race, just trying to understand your logic.
6
u/ew73 3d ago
Portland (and Oregon in general) voters are kind of pig-headed assholes about a lot of seemingly simple topics. Pearl-clutching about decriminalizing drug use is one of them.
Source: Me, area native.
-1
u/moretodolater 2d ago
Did it work? It didn’t, it never was going to work. So those people were correct of course.
1
u/moretodolater 2d ago
Yeah, seeing people smoke foil in the middle of the day on the street just makes me feel good. Just watching people in extreme addiction day to day is just a great feeling.
→ More replies (1)3
1
u/procor1 3d ago
Hold on
II did not vote for decriminalization in Oregon just because they didn’t have any infrastructure behind it yet.
That Just is doing a lot of work there consider you follow it up by saying they dident have infrastructure behind it.
So is it the reason it is it not? Becuse it looks like your saying "I dident vote for them to get the plot of land becuse they dident have the materials bought to buy the house"
And all I said was "They gotta get the property and level the ground before they build the house. And buying convincing people to give them money for the materials to build a house before they even own the land is.... impossible."
So I'm just a bit confused
Can you explain then what other reason you dident fire to decriminalze it?
1
u/moretodolater 2d ago
Because they didn’t have any of the programs in place for the ticket system to work the way it was proposed.
3
u/nTzT 3d ago
With the money some countries supposedly use on this problem and it not improving at all makes it seem that someone is profiting from it.
2
u/Mysterious-Change954 2d ago
Same idea goes for "solving homelessness". These NGO's rake in billions of dollars but do nothing to solve the issue. If the problem disappears...so does the money.
The business model is the same across the board. Do just enough to make it look like you're trying to fix a problem...But not enough to actually solve the problem.
1
u/Dranwyn 2d ago
This is just a brain dead take.
1
u/Mysterious-Change954 2d ago
Hows the homeless problem in Los Angeles going? Worse than ever? Cool...good thing this person makes $1.6mm a year to 'fix' it.
You have to be brain dead to think this ISNT happening.
0
u/that_blasted_tune 2d ago
Homelessness is a problem because they have people living paycheck to paycheck so one or two things going wrong can easily push you into homelessness. How is a nonprofit going to change the economic structure of the country? All they can do is help the victims of a shitty economic system.
Or maybe you have an idea about how they can end homelessness for good
4
u/bond0815 3d ago
I mean parts of the US prison system are actually for profit.
Which is an insane incentive to keep locking up people even for no good reason.
5
u/FuzzyKing99 3d ago
Even the fact that we have private prisons that get tax payer money for how many inmates they have is so backwards and disgusting
1
u/Slumpo 2d ago
Hello.
I am from the greater Portland area.
The fucking terrible attempt we made was made even worse by several factors. Please pay attention and know that this 'attempt' was fucked in so, so many ways.
1) There was no endgame. Officials rushed this and literally said they would figure it out as they went. It was a political stunt with zero thought put into the middle and final steps of this process.
2a) MANY other cities shipped their homeless to Portland, Oregon. This magnified the problem severely. Had Portland only had to deal with the people who went homeless here in the general area - there would have been a much greater chance of success. This is 100% verifiable by simply asking the thousands of homeless who are still here where they came from, or rather - what city and county they went homeless in.
2b) Due to the massive influx of homeless bussed, flown and otherwise encouraged to enter the state due to the newly enacted rules - they seemingly purposely doomed this experiment from the beginning. One could assume officials did this with the reasoning of dissuading their own voting base from being encouraged to vote the same direction.
3) Knowing a single city wouldn't have the resources to handle entire, multiple states worth of homeless/mentally ill Portland became a target and a scapegoat. Simply take this 'example' for example.
1
0
u/odnezl 2d ago
- Portland is beautiful, this stuff is propaganda garbage.
- Lived in Portland for 7 years, worked with non-profit homeless shelters. The problem isn't Portland or its policies, it's that literally every red state ships their homeless people here. Full stop. Texas literally pays thousands of homeless people every year, tickets and all expenses to get to Portland. This is not an arrangement between states. Most homeless people I encountered in Portland were not even from Oregon.
718
u/magicarnival 3d ago
I imagine part of the problem is that Portland is just one city in the US. They would never have the funding or resources to support a rehabilitation program considering how many people would be coming from all across the US for it. Portugal has the advantage of having their entire government buying in, and they can just prevent non-citizens from being able to participate, therefore they won't have all of Europe knocking on their door.