Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

drpvn t1_j5z6zqo wrote

Sure, why not, it’s essentially legal to shoot up in public now anyway. We need to remove all fear of legal consequences from hard drug use.

22

drpvn t1_j5z7zqu wrote

It fixes the problem of that junkie shooting up on the corner.

Let me guess: you also believe that going after street-level dealers isn’t going to fix anything?

30

drpvn t1_j5z8xlt wrote

> No it doesn’t.

>They spend a few days at rikers, get let out, and do it again.

So you arrest them again. We have over 30,000 cops that we pay salaries.

The best policy, in my view, would be to arrest people who use in public and offer them a choice of treatment or jail. Like how they do it in Portugal.

18

YaBoiChibi123 t1_j5zd7tu wrote

If you’re gonna bring up European model of drug therapy then you should also bring up sites where people can use recreational drugs safely.

Criminalizing drug use literally does nothing but makes the users worse criminals. It literally just inflates the NYPD/prison budget to a level that is unnecessary

Either genuinely offer these people treatment or do nothing (and I quite literally mean do nothing). Those two options are profoundly better options than just throwing people in jail

0

YaBoiChibi123 t1_j5zelaf wrote

You wanna know what’s worse for society?

Throwing people in jail for drug charges. Those people won’t be able to find good jobs after leaving and will have to become hardened criminals during their stay in order to survive. That outcome is 10x worse for society than a junkie who uses some weird shit recreationally.

−5

drpvn t1_j5zfutb wrote

They won't find good jobs when they're dead or incapacitated from their drug habit, either.

I really do believe the best way to deal with this is Portugal's approach. But it seems like a nonstarter because it involves both policing (which the progressives don't like) and investments in treatment and safe use sites (which conservatives and many moderates don't like).

8

mission17 t1_j5zx5wp wrote

Predictably, this sub’s response: “but then how will I put addicted people in jail where they certainly won’t become less addicted?

15

sanspoint_ t1_j605mvm wrote

Nobody becomes a heroin addict by choice. That heroin and fentanyl abuse has become rampant is a result of doctors over-prescribing opiates to people with legit medical needs, getting them addicted. When the prescription runs out, they turn to heroin and fentanyl to deal with the addiction they got from their prescription.

6

sanspoint_ t1_j60f97f wrote

If you've got a chemical addiction to opiates, and you need that fix, you'll try anything that will make the pain go away. They didn't choose to get addicted, their doctors and the pharmaceutical companies caused that.

3

fieryscribe t1_j60ipkf wrote

> The bill would also create a task force to meet and study the best ways to “[treat] substance use disorder as a disease, rather than a criminal behavior.”
> ...
> The task force would help determine the personal-use possession thresholds for each kind of drug that would be reduced to a civil violation under the law.

Shouldn't the task force study this before the decriminalization happens?

4

fieryscribe t1_j60t6jo wrote

> It would eliminate the lowest-level drug charge in New York: drug possession in the seventh degree, a Class A misdemeanor. The charge currently applies to under a half ounce of heroin or opioids, or under 50 milligrams of PCP, 500 milligrams of cocaine, 1 gram of ketamine or 28 grams of GHB. It’s punishable by up to one year in prison. > Removing arrests, jail or prison as potential penalties, the bill would instead make low-level possession a civil violation, subject to a $50 fine.

As I understand it, it would remove this misdemeanor for all of these amounts. And then, they would set up a task force ... to figure out what amounts count as civil violations and what doesn't (which presumably would then be treated as a crime). What happens if they come up with the exact same amounts? Or lower?

Unless they (a) know the 21 members of this future task force and (b) know their expert opinion on all of these quantities, I'm not sure how this makes sense.

You've mistaken my stance on this. I'm of the opinion all soft drugs should be decriminalized. I just don't understand why they'd remove this first and then decide the quantities later, even if those quantities may end up being the same as now.

1

Hot-Hat-4913 t1_j610hgg wrote

Putting people in jail because they fell into addiction is a bad move. It costs a ton of money and all but ensures those people will be unemployable when they eventually get out of prison which just leads to even more problems.

If someone is engaging in hard drug use, the only compassionate and fiscally sane approach is to do whatever can be done to get them off drugs. Throwing them in jail when the only thing they've done wrong is become addicted to something—often as a result of depression or another mental health problem—is cruel and pointless. If they're a danger to other people, sure, you need to use force, but this is often not the case.

25

shant_jan t1_j61215i wrote

i think he's on to something. just think about it, after a year of prison guards bringing them in new drugs, let's just release them with no support system onto public transit and let the whole cycle repeat itself again!

oh and as a kicker, even if they were to get clean and get their shit together, lets also make sure no one will ever let them rent an apartment because of their record.

7

xSlappy- t1_j612wq0 wrote

We should have smart shops like Amsterdam that sell truffles. I’ve had a much better experience with truffles than I ever did with street mushrooms or LSD

1

brownredgreen t1_j612xgn wrote

JFC the drug war was the explicitly created and pushed to harass minorities and political opponents.

Maybe its a bad war to be fighting

Maybe we should end it? Fucking crazy idea i know, but worth trying

0

fafalone t1_j61hih8 wrote

You don't become physically addicted immediately, the majority of addicts did not start with prescriptions issued directly to them, and the vast majority of those prescribed opiates do not go on to get addicted. Pretending the exclusive cause of opioid addiction is people getting them directly from their doctor and accidentally getting addicted is profoundly inaccurate and a massive disservice to addicts since failing to understand causes won't result in good solutions. And indeed it's next to impossible to get them from doctors now, has been for years, and the collateral damage from this has been extreme. You have a sharp rise in pain related suicides and pain patients ODing on street drugs just trying to get relief their doctors won't provide, all because the CDC let the DEA run amok with no understanding of appropriate vs inappropriate prescribing.

Plenty of people know on some level what's going to happen when they continuously use again shortly after using. I certainly did. While there's certainly people who don't understand it, many are under no illusions about what will happen if you start using more often than once every week or two.

I spent a decade in active addiction. During that time I knew dozens of other addicts. Not one got addicted in the way you claim they all do. They either bought the pills illegally or were scamming doctors with fake paperwork or deliberately searching out pill mills to get prescriptions no legit doctor would give because they were already serious substance abusers and wanted a cheaper source.

6

fafalone t1_j61i7di wrote

Compelled treatment is useless. The best approach from a fiscal perspective and external harm perspective is to provide their substance of choice until they're ready to quit. This eliminates property crime, reduces other crimes committed, dramatically reduces ODs, and results in them being far more likely to maintain housing and employment, in addition to defunding gangs and cartels.

−4

fafalone t1_j61ify0 wrote

> Like how they do it in Portugal.

That's not how it works in Portugal. They're required to undergo an evaluation but enrolling in treatment is optional.

Because compelled treatment is useless and nothing but a waste of money with little benefit over jail.

4

fafalone t1_j61io9k wrote

They're most likely to maintain housing and employment when enrolled in heroin maintenance programs. No other program is more successful in that regard, especially not compelled treatment (which isn't what Portugal does), which has a success rate in the 1% or less range.

2

drpvn t1_j61kr7e wrote

I mean coerced treatment in the sense that if you reject services, there are consequences to that. They don’t automatically toss you in jail if you reject services, but you can be required to do community service or pay fines.

2

drpvn t1_j61m7s4 wrote

In case anyone’s interested in how Portugal handles this stuff, here’s an interview with João Goulão, the guy who decided Portugal’s approach.

https://youtu.be/LH0LBPfRjIs

6

Hot-Hat-4913 t1_j620zq2 wrote

I agree. Opiate addicts can often hold a job and live fairly normal lives if they have affordable access to drugs and if the drugs are what they're claimed to be. So much money and so many lives are wasted on the war on drugs.

−1

LikesBallsDeep t1_j62ftwq wrote

Generally agree the current drug war is an utter failure and treating it as a health issue makes more sense but this was funny.

> The fine would be waived if you get an assessment within 45 days of your ticket, and no one could arrest you for not paying the fine.

So.. what's the incentive for anyone to do either the assessment or pay?

2

RepresentativeAge444 t1_j62gmqs wrote

Yes let’s just continue the failed drug war that has resulted in the untold deaths of thousands, empowered the drug cartels filled out prisons with the highest prison population in the world and a bunch of other negatives I could list. We found out with prohibition that it doesn’t work. It creates a violent black market and had wasted a trillion dollars that could have been used for far more productive things. I’d tell you to educate yourself on the matter but I suspect you have no interest in that.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/06/17/the-us-has-spent-over-a-trillion-dollars-fighting-war-on-drugs.html

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2021/09/24/biden-should-end-americas-longest-war-the-war-on-drugs/amp/

4

supermechace t1_j6397vs wrote

Reading some articles the war on smoking is probably a better example than prohibition, as alcohol's detrimental effects are more immediate and increase faster on consumption compared to drugs along with delivery mechanism. The US has definitely messed up on the war on drugs in many ways but it's dangerous not to be aware that it's also a war being waged on America by other countries much like Britain on China with opium. Unfortunately the US priorities business over taking countries to task, it's a war of attrition if drug producers just hide behind borders. The US faltered on anti drug use messaging and was behind the curve on regulating legal opiates

2

supermechace t1_j63af5j wrote

US definitely messed up on war on drugs, but it's actually other countries ways of outsourcing their criminal elements to the US to deal with(or in some cases destabilize and profit off the US). They're protected by borders as the US would prioritize business interests rather than taking nations to task. Gateway drugs lead users to abuse harder substances helping users to eventually become a burden on community.

1

supermechace t1_j63bewg wrote

US has definitely messed up but What many people don't realize is that one primary root of issues it's a war waged on the US except that the government does not take other nations to task in order to reap big business profits. The history of China's opium war is a closer analogy.

1

_Maxolotl t1_j63cpty wrote

The weight allowed for opioids is too much.
Half an ounce of heroin is much more than a personal use quantity of heroin.

Decriminalizing that amount means any street level dealer who knows the details of the law could only be arrested during a controlled buy, not if they're searched for some other legitimate reason.

Lower that weight limit. Create more safe injection sites.

Otherwise this seems like generally good policy change.

This part is definitely good:

"SB2340 would also repeal two other laws in New York: one that makes it a crime to inject someone else with drugs, even with their consent; and another that makes everyone present liable for a drug possession charge if drugs are found in a car or in a room."

Absolutely insane that you can get charged for possession for being in the same room as a controlled substance, and we all know that a law like this mostly gets used as leverage against underprivileged people in plea bargaining or other forms of legal arm twisting.

3

NYY657545 t1_j63fuoq wrote

I’d love to see a stat on % of violent crimes committed while under the influence / in possession of versus not.

1

actionguy87 t1_j63t9vi wrote

Meanwhile hard drugs become so easy to get that instances of addiction skyrocket. Normalizing drug use is NOT the solution to helping addicts. If I were an addict caught in the vicious cycle of addiction, I'd pray everyday that someone would scoop me up and tie my ass to a bed until everything was out of my body. A system that actively ENABLED my addiction would be a waking nightmare.

3

supermechace t1_j63vupk wrote

Challenge is that drug pusher national cartels focus is on the USA due to the billions involved, making the scale much larger. A more analogous historical example is the "opium war" between Britain and China, except a point can be made that be made it's a war that's waged between economic classes

1

Xmaiden2005 t1_j646m7a wrote

While that is true for some people that is not everybody. Heroin addiction has been around for decades before that opium. People make choices and often they understand the risk, addiction is a consequence of choices. I think now a days its popular to claim the doctors,big pharma is responsible for addiction but that's just manipulation to gain empathy. Don't come for me I do understand some people did have this experience and were victims to a large degree.

3

Turtle_Shaft t1_j64zh4e wrote

While it’s a step in the right direction, it being NYC it’s not going to go well. I’m predicting that they’ll pass this without any plan for drug treatment or saf einjection sites and the streets are going to be even more flooded with drug addicts

2

Mammoth_Sprinkles705 t1_j65t6xj wrote

It's absurd that people can say the Democratic party cars about minorities when they lock them up by the millions every year in the war on drugs.

Democrats do more damage to minority communities with their support for the war on drugs than the KKK could achieve in their wildest dreams.

−2

Mammoth_Sprinkles705 t1_j6fejox wrote

And democrats have activity supported it and done nothing to stop it...Biden himself introduced legislation to increase prison sentences for crack possession in the 80s.

Yet his crackhead son has never been punished for possession strangely enough.

Sorry you support racists if you vote Republican or Democrat

1

manateefourmation t1_j6gscp0 wrote

Totally support this. These laws are not enforced today. If you go to any techno mass event, everyone is snorting something. Coke is available by delivery services in the city. So the only people who get caught are either as a secondary offense or just unlucky.

1