[umvi]

> Good. Putting people with addiction issues in jail was the wrong approach.

A big problem is that addictions are expensive and people are willing to commit crimes to feed addictions when they run out of money. Anecdata of 1, but one of my friends in high school got addicted to heroin, and he ended up in jail not because of possession of heroin, but because he started stealing so he could come up with the money to buy more... so in that sense decriminalization won't necessarily help, but I agree that possession of drugs for personal use should not necessarily result in jail time.

[BurningFrog]

Addiction is only expensive because drugs are criminalized.

The drugs themselves would be cheap if legalized.

[umvi]

legalization and decriminalization are slightly different.

Drugs will only be cheap if:

- they are legal to commercially manufacture and distribute (not merely decriminalized)

- they aren't taxed excessively

Cigarettes, for example, are cheap to manufacture, but still expensive due to high taxes in a lot of places (up to $10+ per pack).

[jjk166]

Yeah, but who's giving handys under the bridge for a carton of cigarettes?

If you are already committing crimes every day buying and possessing something, then committing crimes to feed the habit isn't a big jump. Conversely, if you haven't done anything illegal yet, most people will pay a hefty premium to avoid having to do anything illegal.

[almost_usual]

So you’re saying alcoholism isn’t expensive? There are tons of homeless alcoholics.

[driverdan]

Alcoholics end up homeless because they can't maintain a job to pay for housing.

[goldenkey]

Alcoholism isn't expensive. There are russian vodkas that are cheap and yet triple filtered. I personally help and know a few homeless by the train so they've shown me these things.

[ska]

  Alcoholism isn't expensive.

Only if you discount opportunity costs. Alcohol isn't inherently expensive. Alcoholism can consume your entire life.

[almost_usual]

> Alcoholism isn't expensive.

Tell that to someone who spends most of their money on those cheap russian vodkas.

[B_ryJenkins]

It only costs all of their money because they are less likely to have a steady income source (job). Not because the alcohol is expensive.

[goldenkey]

These guys drink the whole day, the very definition of alcoholics. And they still have plenty of spending money. I don't know what evidence you have, but it sounds like it's pretty much just a "tell that."

[almost_usual]

You don’t know crippling alcoholics. The withdrawal will kill you if you don’t drink or take benzos.

[dvtrn]

What factors lead to their addiction? What factors lead to their homelessness? Are these factors mutually exclusive? Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?

[almost_usual]

Well when withdrawal starts setting in you pretty much need to drink or take benzos to sleep, not go insane, or die.

If you don’t have a good family or friend support system homelessness is easy to fall into.

[panzagl]

They'll be cheap if sale and distribution is legalized- this just amps up the demand side of the curve.

[tclancy]

That assumes an economic elasticity that I don't think drugs have.

[m0zg]

A lot more people would die of heroin if it was "cheap" and available. It's very easy to OD with it. Not to mention it turns anyone into a junkie in the span of a few weeks, and it's _very_ difficult to get off it.

There seems to be this false equivalence in the minds of some folks between hard drugs and e.g. pot. This has no basis in reality. Pot won't fuck you up. Meth most definitely will.

[BurningFrog]

> It's very easy to OD with it.

No.

Many/most overdoses happen because the illegal supply has very uneven strength. If the new batch is twice as potent as the previous one, you won't know until you wake up dead.

When you get your Heroin at Walgreens, this never happens.

[leetcrew]

> Many/most overdoses happen because the illegal supply has very uneven strength.

this is true, but opioids in general have a low therapeutic index (ie, the ratio between an effective dose and LD50 is rather low). even with a known dose, the risk of OD is among the highest of commonly abused drugs. in fairness, I should note that the therapeutic index for most opioids is close to that of alcohol. people die of alcohol poisoning every year (though far fewer than OD on opioids) despite the proof being printed clearly on the bottle.

[ska]

Not to mention acetaminophen/paracetamol. Alcohol is something like 10:1, tylenol may be as low as 3:1. Morphine is much safer, 70:1 or so - not sure about heroin.

I do think inconsistent supply is a larger contribution to OD risk than the relatively tight TI, but this is hard to study properly partially because of criminalization.

[leetcrew]

I was going off this table: https://web.cgu.edu/faculty/gabler/toxicity%20Addiction%20of... (page 689), which does not include morphine. it's surprising that the margin is so much larger for morphine, since heroin is essentially a prodrug for morphine. the figures I found for morphine all seem to assume an oral ROA for morphine, but IV for heroin. perhaps that explains some of the difference? it could also be that the definition of "effective dose" is different in an abuse context vs. a medical one. also now that I go back and look more closely, it seems the TI of opioids is a fairly wide range, so my comment is not entirely correct as written.

I'm glad you brought up paracetamol as well. I find that people often overestimate how dangerous illicit drugs are, while at the same time being totally blase when it comes to stuff you can buy off the shelf at any pharmacy. frankly, I find tylenol kind of scary and try to use it only when absolutely necessary.

[m0zg]

Except of course it's pretty difficult to consume 10x the amount of alcohol without puking, and people develop tolerance to morphine, which shrinks the safety margin, and makes it dangerous if a formerly "normal" dose is injected after a relapse.

[the_other]

Pot will definitely fuck you up if you're on the wrong end of the response curve.

That said, criminalising drugs has absolutely made the situations around and with them worse for more people. Those with the greatest gain in the current situation are the warlords in South America, the commercial jails and politicians stoking fear of drug use.

A great number of people can and have used a wide range of drugs successfully, peacefully, creatively, introspectively and with joy for 1000s of years. The current predominant legislation doesn't seem to reflect the will of a huge number of people. I don't have stats to say "a majority", but it wouldn't surprise me, especially if you include alcohol.

The problems exist. Better methods need to be sought to deal with them than criminalisation.

[m0zg]

> A great number of people can and have used

And a great number of people have died because of this use. I mean, are you really going to argue that it is possible to have a "normal" life and take heroin or meth at the same time? I'm not saying taking heroin should be a felony, but selling it definitely should.

[reassembled]

I had a relatively normal life, working a job in tech and keeping up a stable relationship with my girlfriend while also using heroin every day. Of course I would rather have not been going down to the Mission every morning to procure the stuff. The lifestyle that accompanied the illicit use was ultimately the problem for me, not the use of the substance itself.

Thousands of people are high functioning and doctor-prescribed amphetamine users (Adderall) in this country and we don't bat an eye. As soon as you call it "meth" people get weird about it.

[the_other]

I agree, those two in particular seem to fuck people up. We need to do something about that.

But I am going to argue that a VAST number of people take caffeine, alcohol, cocaine, MDMA, LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, sugar, 2CB, DMT, ayahuasca, amphetamine and many others in a wide variety of settings with largely positive results. As such, the general trend of legislation around the world against (most) of these chemicals seems grossly at odds with on-the-ground opinion and practice.

[m0zg]

I'm in full agreement with you there. I see no reason to jail people for taking non-addictive psychoactive substances. I voted to legalize pot in my state (measure did pass), even though I'm not a user myself. IMO, pot, for example, is strictly better than alcohol from both health and addiction standpoint. I think that not only should we allow pot, we should allow people to grow it for their own consumption. As to other non-addictive drugs, I'll defer to those who have studied them. LSD, for example, is known to sometimes fuck people up in its own ways, and it is generally not safe to take without supervision.

[hospadar]

> I'm not saying taking heroin should be a felony, but selling it definitely should

And in Oregon, it still is, presumably because the people agree with you?

[m0zg]

Yes. People in the thread suggest it should be "cheap" and "available at Walgreens".

[tayo42]

> Not to mention it turns anyone into a junkie in the span of a few weeks,

This isn't true. Quick google search says only 25% of people why try it will become addicted.

[B_ryJenkins]

Maybe not anyone, but 25% is still a horrendous statistic

[stickfigure]

"People who try heroin" is not a random sample. It's hard to draw significant information from that, even if the survey is accurate.

A better comparison, assuming legal pharmaceuticals, would be: What percentage of people who try Oxycontin become addicted?

I don't know that number, but I suspect it is relatively low.

[m0zg]

It's a weasel statistic. 75% of people try it once or twice and "don't get addicted". Those who partake with some regularity are almost guaranteed to get addicted. We're losing tens of thousands of people in this country to opioids per year, but if you mention that opioids are dangerous, there will always be a HN "statistician" "quickly googling" things.

[jamil7]

In that specific case decriminalization would indeed help, those caught stealing to feed an addiction that end up with a criminal record then face the difficult reality of trying to find employment with a that record. On top of that doing jail time often means soliciting with other criminals, making contacts and building the wrong kinds of networks.

Decriminalization in combination with rehab and community service programs sets those people up for a far better chance of overcoming addiction.

[umvi]

Correct me if I'm wrong, decriminalization just means you won't be charged with a crime if you are in possession of drugs, but you will still be charged with stealing if you steal. Stealing for the purpose of buying drugs does not get a free pass under drug decriminalization afaik.

[jamil7]

Yeah this does make sense and my comment didn't really take that in to account. I guess I imagined more leniency when a drug addict is no longer seen as a criminal.

[B_ryJenkins]

From what i know that is correct, there definitely would have been more backlash if they changes the laws on theft along with this.