[Loughla]

The answer to that question in a society that allows (mostly) autonomy of choice is that we let them die on the street.

I'm not convinced that involuntary incarceration will actually fix the problem. I believe it will just take it off of the streets and out of the public consciousness.

[cameldrv]

I have a very good friend who was an addict, and I tried to help him turn his life around in many ways, but I couldn’t figure out a way. Professionals told me “he has to hit rock bottom.”

Anyhow he wound up getting arrested and spent a couple of weeks in jail where he got clean and decided to turn his life around. He went on to get a couple of masters degrees, get married, have two kids, and has a good job. He credits his time in jail for saving his life.

[ryoshoe]

At the core of this is that your friend came to the realization that he wanted to change his life. He can credit his time in jail for this. However that doesn't mean it will be the same for everyone, or that there's only a single potential trigger to get someone to recover from drug addiction

[cameldrv]

If the jail is properly run (and I will admit that this is a big if), there aren't any drugs in the jail. Some people, if they get clean for a little while, are in a position to reflect on what they're doing. The indignity of being locked up also puts a very fine point on it.

Now I don't think that this would necessarily work for everyone, but it worked for my friend, and I've heard a number of other similar stories. Sometimes you need to get a very clear message from society/the system that your behavior is unacceptable, and you need to get that message sober or it may not get through.

[y0eswddl]

what a naive position... "if a jail is properly run"

no cage can ever be a healthy environment.

[ratelimitsteve]

I have a friend who picked up heroin in jail, came out an addict and died of an OD in his basement. His daughter found him.

If your anecdote can prove your point, then mine can disprove it.

[ipaddr]

I think I know that family. Didn't the daughter get beat up everyday by that father and that's why he went to jail. Her life is so much better now.

[pessimizer]

I knew somebody who turned his life around after surviving an attempted murder. I still don't think that means that trying to murder people whose lives are going awry is a rational solution.

[0xBA5ED]

You're saying that spending time in jail is roughly equivalent to being a victim of attempted murder.

[pessimizer]

No, I'm saying that both things could have them same effect, so the existence of that effect isn't a proof that the solution makes sense.

If I tell you that covering something in red paint and covering something in tomato sauce will stain them both red, I'm not saying that red paint is tomato sauce.

I also know people who have changed their lives after heart attacks. Am I saying that heart attacks are roughly equivalent to prison stays?

[potsandpans]

Wow, it must be true if you said it!

[charcircuit]

>I believe it will just take it off of the streets and out of the public consciousness.

If antisocial people do not exist in the public consciousness, then that means the problem is fixed. Even you never have to worry about locking your front door, then the problem of burglars has been fixed even if technically would be burglars may exist in prison.

[pessimizer]

Drug addicts and the mentally ill don't have the problem of being "antisocial." They have drug addiction and mental illness. "Antisocial" is the problem that you have when you see them, and is the problem that is solved when you don't see them. It's a completely narcissistic way of looking at things.

For example, putting you in prison would also solve the problem of your objection to them. You would still be surrounded by drug addicts and the mentally ill in prison, but we wouldn't have to listen to you complain about it, so our problems would be solved.

But that's also not a good solution.

[charcircuit]

I think you are underestimating how few bad actors it takes to ruin a system, but I do agree with your point that you can also remove the people who think they are negatively impacted. For example in Counter Strike you can either ban the small percentage of cheaters or you could cultivate the community to not care if people are cheating.

[hn_throwaway_99]

> I'm not convinced that involuntary incarceration will actually fix the problem.

Not to sound too crass, but doesn't that pretty much "fix the problem" (i.e. homeless people on the street) by definition?

[verall]

> society has decided to stop jailing (committing) the homeless

> leaving them on the street is not helping them. committing them would give them access to (force upon them) care, and is the more humane thing to do

> I'm not convinced that involuntary incarceration will actually fix the problem

> doesn't that pretty much "fix the problem"?

Which problem? Every misunderstanding is someone replying to someone else without knowing who was replying to whom

[cwmoore]

Breathing problems? Stop the breathing. Solved, by definition.

[hn_throwaway_99]

That is a completely irrelevant analogy. I wasn't advocating for the Soylent Green solution.

[cwmoore]

You seem to have missed my meaning entirely. Making a problem invisible makes two problems. Soylent Green is the opposite of the direction I would advocate.

[JuniperMesos]

Taking the problem of crazy severely-mentally-ill people off the streets and out of the public consciousness is strictly better than having that problem be on the streets and in the public consciousness because it's happening around the public all the time. If nothing else, it reduces the chances that a random commuter will get randomly stabbed on the subway by a severely crazy person.

[cwmoore]

Rather have people hauled away on suspicion then? You know, before something happens? The people in the public places are the public. It’s likely that random stabbers have already been hauled away before for something else. You’re talking about running a training program for reinforcing the antisocial tendencies, and pensions for their paid captors.

[0xBA5ED]

Not a great solution, honestly. Long term drug abuse is almost never a victimless habit. I'm tempted to say never.

[mx7zysuj4xew]

This isn't the 1980s anymore. Using drugs is perfectly fine. A ton of people here on HN take drugs regularly, but few think it's worth to rock the boat against this kind of nonsense you're spreading

[Loughla]

Have you ever interacted with a heroine or meth user?

Sometimes using drugs is fine, depending on the drug, the reason, and the person. For example, I did cocaine once and immediately knew I needed to cut ties with those friends because if I had access to it regularly, I would ruin my life. Others can do coke recreationally and not have an issue. Others can't form the insight I had until their lives are in shambles, and maybe not even then.

[mx7zysuj4xew]

  > Have you ever interacted with a heroine or meth user?

Yes, I have, and so have you. The thing is You wouldn't notice that they were in fact drug users unless they told you.

[Rendello]

> Crack?! I've got company!

> Oh, relax! "Oh, I'm Mark, I'm in the '80s, I'm dying of heroin in a puddle in the corner in an advert!" Drugs are fine, Mark, everyone agrees now. Drugs are what happen to people, and that's fine, so shut up.

https://youtu.be/yoZ1EGxPaOE?t=19

[0xBA5ED]

You actually changed what I said then declared it nonsense. I said abuse, not use.

[mx7zysuj4xew]

Because the word "use" and "abuse" are interchangeable for prohibitionists

[amanaplanacanal]

How do you separate those legally? I ask, because we are discussing using the legal system here.

[filoleg]

I will admit, I didn't think it through super deeply, but I have a very simple (and possibly naive) proposal.

We separate them legally the same way we separate alcohol use vs. alcohol abuse. The consequences of getting caught for speeding vs. getting caught for speeding while under influence tend to drastically differ in magnitude, so I suggest we do the same for other kinds of drug abuse.

Being under influence shouldn't be a mitigating factor while committing crimes, but for non-driving offenses it often ends up being such. So I suggest we treat it the same way for violent crimes as we do for driving offenses.