> The real question we should be asking is why can't these poor people get access to proper medicine and treatment?
Well, here in San Francisco you can access both relatively easily. But it turns out that people with substance abuse addictions tend not to exhibit strong executive functioning (at least contemporaneously) as compared to the average non-abuser. So when you remove all coercive policies whatsoever (because of abstract academic arguments that equivocate all policies short of giving out free drugs and free money and turning a blind eye to dealers), you manifestly end up nurturing a base of hard-core, long-term addicts. Also, fentanyl is cheaper and some users have even begun preferring fentanyl for its unique effect. Here in San Francisco fentanyl is becoming (or has already become) less an adulterant and more the drug you're knowingly buying. Plenty of people--users and public service workers--do carry naloxone, though. So that's something.
> So when you remove all coercive policies whatsoever (because of abstract academic arguments that equivocate all policies short of giving out free drugs and free money and turning a blind eye to dealers), you manifestly end up nurturing a base of hard-core, long-term addicts.
Except that's not at all what happened in Portugal (or in other European programs)...?
> Except that's not at all what happened in Portugal (or in other European programs)...?
The Portugal narrative hasn't actually been as positive as initially reported by the Cato papers that were based on the first few years following the policy change. More recent data has shown an uptick of lifetime drug use and an increasing trend of drug deaths that doesn't really support the initially successful picture of their program.
One of the challenges with interpreting the Portugal data is that they had relatively low drug use to begin with. The initial declarations of victory for their decriminalization programs were based on relatively small numbers and sample sizes that wouldn't pass muster in more rigorous analysis.
I know the narrative about Portugal was set years ago by the Cato papers and a few authors, but it isn't really the success story that it's made out to be. It did, however, reduce the number of drug-related prosecutions, though that's an obvious downstream effect of removing a class of drug-related offenses.
The opioid and fentanyl epidemic exploded over this last decade and earlier. If the data you say exists shows this trend, I'd like to that trend compared to the corresponding trends elsewhere in the world.
In the US[1], for example, drug overdose deaths went from about 20k in 2001 to 40k in ~2006, then to 80k in the mid to late 2010's, and now over 100k as of last year[2].
Drug usage increased in almost all places on the globe or perhaps we have better means to track it. You have to compare it with instances where drug prosecution is strict and those places saw an even higher rise in drug abuses and drug death. By significant margins in some cases bordering on a complete other magnitude. I think Fentanyl in the US is a good example although it also increased in Europe. In countries where usage and dealings are illegal too.
The lie isn't that Portugal has a good approach, the lie is that places like SF are emulating Portugal. SF is anarchy, and an insult to Portugal, and an immoral horror show for addicts.
The lie is that there are no coercive policies in Portugal for drug addicts. It is not all treated like mental health, especially in the US. Public drug use is illegal, police enforce it, and addicts who are arrested can be jailed if they have more than 10 days personal supply, and they can be coerced in to treatment. Open drug scenes like we have in San Francisco are not all allowed.
If you were a junkie looking to earn a quick buck for your next fix and you decided to engage in petty theft how long do you think you'd get away with that kind of behavior in Portugal?
Compare to SF.
There's your answer.
It's not the drugs that's different. It's that one jurisdiction actually gives a crap about making sure the ancillary problems (that are the reason drugs were ever criminalized to begin with) are mitigated.
> If you were a junkie looking to earn a quick buck for your next fix and you decided to engage in petty theft how long do you think you'd get away with that kind of behavior in Portugal?
There's a whole prepackaged narrative for right wing types about drug harm reducement being so bad it's counterproductive.
Example headlines:
Why We Must Arrest Drug Addicts
This is revealing as to where they are coming from:
> People who want to kill themselves in the privacy of their own homes by smoking fentanyl should be free to do so. But people who use drugs, camp publicly, and break other laws stemming from their addictions, such as shoplifting, should be arrested.
And a big part of it is lying about how other countries deal with drugs to try to paint liberal American cities in a bad light.
>Well, here in San Francisco you can access both relatively easily.
It's no surprise that San Francisco is attractive to a certain kind of lifestylist. But when you look at the country you have 2 million addicts and only 400k on methadone. I find it very hard to believe that the average methadone clinic is running at 20% capacity.
Commenters are so weird. 90% of the effort in that comment went into the first paragraph and guess what people responded to? It's gone. It's not worth arguing.
The poster I responded to asserted some utter nonsense about a serious issue. I provided a source refuting those claims. That is what is worth discussing. The reality is that there isn't enough opioid treatment access. Whether this is true in SF specifically, I didn't find a source confirming or the opposite.
Your claim that tents aren't being removed isn't true either.
It's plausible that enforcement in SF is lighter than what is efficient (prison overcrowding will do that), but the claim that it isn't happening is, again, false.
"The poster I responded to asserted some utter nonsense about a serious issue."
Your comment "commenters are so weird" was a reply to my comment, so presumably was directed at me. I didn't assert "some utter nonsense".
"Your claim that tents aren't being removed isn't true either."
The article you linked says that tents are being removed from the Tenderloin, so that they can be relocated to other areas of the city. So, unless you live in the Tenderloin (a small % of SF), your experience will be just like mine: tents are permanent and are not being removed by the police.
Well, here in San Francisco you can access both relatively easily. But it turns out that people with substance abuse addictions tend not to exhibit strong executive functioning (at least contemporaneously) as compared to the average non-abuser. So when you remove all coercive policies whatsoever (because of abstract academic arguments that equivocate all policies short of giving out free drugs and free money and turning a blind eye to dealers), you manifestly end up nurturing a base of hard-core, long-term addicts. Also, fentanyl is cheaper and some users have even begun preferring fentanyl for its unique effect. Here in San Francisco fentanyl is becoming (or has already become) less an adulterant and more the drug you're knowingly buying. Plenty of people--users and public service workers--do carry naloxone, though. So that's something.