I don’t think legalization is better for everyone, though. I live in Oregon and I’ve been very disappointed with the impact of decriminalizing possession. Cases are no longer clogging the courts, instead we have people using in my neighborhood park and on public transit. I stopped taking the train after a ride where we had to evacuate because someone was smoking fentanyl (apparently even the second-hand smoke can affect a person). It was, apparently, not his first time.
You seem to support it, how would you address the externalities?
FWIW, OP said they think legalization would stop the cartel, and you're describing the local effects of decriminalization. These are different things. Personally, I don't think either makes sense without having support systems already in place, like easily available SIS, rehab, readily available naloxone and a lot of other general welfare that we're missing in the US, like support for the homeless, mental health care, etc.
Just as sort of an analogy to what I'm saying, citizens of all the states had access to some gambling addiction hotline even before gambling was widely legalized.
> I stopped taking the train after a ride where we had to evacuate because someone was smoking fentanyl (apparently even the second-hand smoke can affect a person).
This is obviously proscribed under most localities' current regulations, since we mostly ban regular tobacco smoking indoors. Legalization advocates are not advocating for tolerating involuntary exposure or other externalities. Enforce the existing laws against second hand smoke, DUI, etc.
> we have people using in my neighborhood park
Annoying for sure. In my neighborhood, dog shit and hobo piss are omnipresent sidewalk hazards. But I don't think there's a solution to the dregs of society being a highly visible/smellable nuisance - real estate tends to be stratified by class, and I'm not financially equipped to insulate myself like the upper ones. Until we decide to actually deal with the economics that produce these frictions, it's just a fact of life.
I'm with you. "Legalize everything" stops working when addictive substances are involved.
To play Devil's advocate for the opposition though, perhaps we need Fentanyl Island where we send people that want everything legal. Okay, not a serious proposal ... or maybe I'm channelling Brave New World — a book I have come to believe was in fact supposed to represent a Utopian future after all.
> "Legalize everything" stops working when addictive substances are involved.
I dunno. We tried making alcohol illegal for a while in the US. Alcohol is pretty addictive, isn't it? And we ran into the same problems we have with other illegal drugs, for the same reason.
> "Legalize everything" stops working when addictive substances are involved.
I don't really think that's the case. Prohibition is what enables all the evils we hate. If all of these drugs were legal, and cheap, and sold at or below cost by the government, _and all other sales were illegal_, then guess what would disappear overnight? Dealers, smugglers, junkies supporting an expensive habit by fencing stolen goods.... and most overdoses. Actual deaths. You still have your addicts, and maybe you get _some_ new ones - but they're getting safer drugs from a place where there are also resources for getting yourself clean. It really, really sounds like a win/win/win.
It’s not a win win because you’re spreading the drug use. And this had health consequences and social ones. I think the culture needs a shift, there are many countries with harsh punishments for drug dealing and the culture around drug usage just does not exist like it does in the US. Some places will even shun addicts and not help them with their addiction. And remarkably, these societies don’t have as many drug problems!
> It’s not a win win because you’re spreading the drug use.
Am I, though? As the fundamental claim behind your dismissal of all the other benefits, including the massive death tolls, it behooves you to back this one up.
> there are many countries with harsh punishments for drug dealing and the culture around drug usage just does not exist like it does in the US
Oh, they're harsh here, too. Can you show that the harshness of the penalties has led to a reduction in drug use?
> Some places will even shun addicts and not help them with their addiction
Cruelty and brutality can certainly influence peoples' behavior. So can compassion and understanding. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree about how morally righteous it would be to just crush and brutalize anyone involved in the illegal drug trade. Whatever "illegal" is defined as, based on our government's criteria (and disregarding groups like the AMA).
Please go to other countries and see how much cleaner, safer, and peaceful they are without accepting the terror of drug crime in public. There are clearly cultural and contextual differences, but it really goes to show that we do not have to tolerate open crimes and accepting criminal behavior to be forced on the public.
> Please go to other countries and see how much cleaner, safer, and peaceful they are without accepting the terror of drug crime in public.
Nobody thinks drug crime is good. I discussed a solution that would instantly end drug crime, because I think drug crime is a horrible, unacceptable problem.
> but it really goes to show that we do not have to tolerate open crimes and accepting criminal behavior
It really feels like you didn't understand the fundamental concept of legalizing drugs. That doesn't mean legalizing crime. And it doesn't have to mean legalizing public intoxication any more than legalizing alcohol did.
Another haha-only-serious plan would be for the government to stop seizing drugs at busts and instead covertly intercept them, lace a certain percentage with ultra-lethal poison, and send them on their merry way. As the body count rises, it becomes way too dangerous to buy anything through illegal channels.
Or just deputize Duterte and let him execute every addict and dealer he can get his bloody hands on. Genius idea, I wonder why no one else thought of the utterly psychopathic solution?
I don’t live in Oregon but complaints here about drug use on transit—and antisocial activity in general—have also increased sharply since the beginning of the pandemic. So, I suspect if there is actually a causal relationship between legalisation and antisocial behaviour, that it is currently heavily outweighed by other more significant changes that have occurred in the same period of time.
There’s a value somewhere in the horrors of untreated addiction getting first-hand visibility. The true cost of policing, prosecuting, and jailing end-users must be enormous, maybe it will rally people to demand those resources get put toward direct outreach to try to address the root causes of the issue.
Maybe it’s a feature, not a bug.
If that's a feature, it's a costly one, at the expense of ceding the public square to the substance abuse crowd. This LA Times story about the decline of the Metro system since the pandemic almost brought me to tears. I've enjoyed the lines and stations mentioned in the story, and I can see why they're deserted now.
> we have people using in my neighborhood park and on public transit. I stopped taking the train after a ride where we had to evacuate because someone was smoking fentanyl (apparently even the second-hand smoke can affect a person).
This happens regardless of the legality. The big question is whether they can be encouraged to take their usage to safe sites, which is why the whole encampments thing that people don't want was key to a plan involving decriminalization. That's to say, the big picture matters in harm reduction, not the individual steps. We have a large system of incentives that drives the industrial prison complex that have all been in place a long time. You won't see material improvements with one law passed.
> You seem to support it, how would you address the externalities?
The first step is getting our police count up; we had 300 cops for the entire city and were only answering active violent calls. They've hired 300 more. The next step is getting the people who are ready to get off the streets off by opening up the transitional sites that the city and county are fighting over. After all that, we need to invest in non-12 step recovery centers for anyone battling chemical addiction. What you're left with after that is manageable.
I say all of this as someone who has lost a lot of friends to the opioid crisis and has watched Portland's meth problem first hand. I watched heavy-handed policies fail time and time again, deity-focused 12 step programs try to shame people into recovery and fail, and watched as forces of power used those failures to fuel a drug war and prison complex that rivaled no other country on Earth. This isn't just about doing things differently; it's about stopping the hard-nose crap that got us here with no end in sight and actually addressing the problem. The journey will be painful as the journey to here has been painful but it'll be worth it.
> I say all of this as someone who has lost a lot of friends to the opioid crisis and has watched Portland's meth problem first hand.
Sorry to hear that. I’ve been fortunate not to have friends or family caught up in it, but we lost a neighbor last year.
I hope you’re right that things will get better.
In the meantime, it feels disingenuous to act like the impact so far has been positive for everyone, or like legalizing and hard-nose crap are the only options. I think it undermines trust and pits different parts of Portland against each other. It’s easy to get a laugh or an eye roll from my neighbors on the north side of town when I pass along some of the ”obvious” solutions my friends and colleagues from the west side have shared with me. Please consider our perspective: even if we double the police force and start addressing crime more promptly, our neighborhood is still worse off because we have more crime. Other parts of the city don’t seem to appreciate that.
> it feels disingenuous to act like the impact so far has been positive for everyone
I definitely didn't mean to give that impression. They are not positive times; my point was that these times were expected. An entire system has been built around the industrial prison complex that compounds these issues. We won't see improvement for a bit.
> Please consider our perspective: even if we double the police force and start addressing crime more promptly, our neighborhood is still worse off because we have more crime.
100%. Money was diverted away from neighborhood groups and given to racial identity groups years ago. That's when this decline started; just this week that money has been reallocated to neighborhood groups. The county has picked up funding of the racial identity groups; if you notice, those donations come from one person and most of these organizations help that person get elected materially.
> Other parts of the city don’t seem to appreciate that.
I'm still newish to Portland, but if it's any comfort I live in SouthEast. These points aren't just forum talking points to me, they are the very way I understand my immediate world and experiences.
Well it's not legal to smoke it on the bus either. Not to mention, this was going on well before decriminalization in OR, and it's happening up here in WA too.
Treat it the same as drinking in public. Fentanyl should be legal for anyone to buy and use, but that doesn't mean it's ok to do it in public and expose others to it.
You seem to support it, how would you address the externalities?