[JasonHarrison]

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

Perhaps the addicted can seek help in other ways without the fear or risk of being incarcerated.

[simonh]

Agreed. I do not agree with decriminalising the trade in drugs, but criminalising their possession for personal use is a really important practical step in fighting the trade in hard drugs and reducing addiction rates for many reasons.

It decouples the interests of drug traffickers from those of users making users more likely to cooperate with law enforcement, frees up social workers and medical professionals from the risk of criminal liability for associating with drug users in possession of or using drugs. It also makes it easier to address incidental associated health issue such as infections from dirty needles. Treating it as a health issue destigmatises it making it easier for users to talk about it and seek help.

This is not theoretical, this is from actual findings from countries like Portugal the Netherlands and Norway where trading in hard drugs is still illegal but possession and use are treated as public health issues. This is a policy that works.

[wayneftw]

> I do not agree with decriminalising the trade in drugs.

Why not? Do you support criminal cartels making lots of money off of them or do you think that the War on Drugs will actually get rid of that criminal element which profits from them at some point?

I don't see a problem with anyone putting anything they want into their own body. Arrest them when they commit an actual victim-ful crime like stealing but not before that.

To that end, I say sell them with regulation just like Alcohol. Keeping sales illegal means questionable sources, questionable quality and enormous profits for criminal gangs.

[dotandgtfo]

Fully agree with you, I just want to point out that Norway has a very strict stance against all drugs, so much so that you can lose your drivers license for having cannabis metabolites in your blood due too a lack of "soberness". It's mental.

[murbard2]

Not everyone who consumes drugs, "hard" or otherwise has an addiction issue or needs to seek help, though of course imprisonment is especially cruel when it targets those who do.

[GordonS]

You're right, some people simply enjoy occasionally consuming drugs. It's not much different to people consuming alcohol really, the only real differences are alcohol is generally more socially accepted, and that alcohol is generally considered to be more harmful to society.

If there was a guaranteed safe supply chain for recreational drugs that are currently illegal, things would be a lot safer too.

[unethical_ban]

There are certain drugs that simply should not be encouraged by legality. Heroin and meth, for example. Incredibly toxic, highly and immediately addictive, and easy to overdose.

There are drugs that, if you use them, you should be encouraged not to.

[sneak]

[Edit: This comment was an erroneous reply when I misread the comment to which I was replying, and is now removed.]

[redwoolf]

I don't understand why this is being downvoted. Addiction is a disease and shouldn't be criminalized. Part of the reason the opioid epidemic is so bad is that people don't seek help or call emergency services for fear of criminal punishment.

[ashtonkem]

One of the sad realities of American politics is that jailing people, and jailing people under inhumaine circumstances remains very popular. For any given behavior that is socially undesirable it’s easy to find a large enough constituency that says “lock them up and throw away the key”, even if as a society we all agree that our criminal justice system is ineffective and out of control.

[apexalpha]

Yeah, this is a big problem. A few years back there was white heroin being sold as cocaine in Amsterdam. So the Amsterdam government put up signs and issued warnings to call an ambulance immediatly if someone became unwell after using 'cocaine'.

Soon after it was discovered that a lot of American and British tourists were not doing this out of fear for getting arrested.

The Amsterdam government had to add a specific part to the signs (in English) saying you wouldn't be arrested if you called for help.

Creating a atmosphere of fear costs lives.

Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/12/02/you-w...

Sign: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://... (Bottom part)

[judge2020]

Was it downvoted? It's currently top of HN, isn't greyed-out, and is only 2 minutes old.

[bertil]

The intent expressed is likely laudable, and the helpful approach overall preferred by the HN crowd -- however, the context, specifically associating drug consumption with addiction might not be popular among people who use psychoactive substances occasionally and no see themselves as addicts.

[ekianjo]

Not every person using drugs is addicted. Let's not make that kind of claim.

[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.

[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.

[trentnix]

Incarceration is what triggered a family member to finally have success fighting their addiction. Loss of job and family wasn't rock bottom for them. Incarceration was. And they've since rebuilt their life and their family. Incarceration was the trigger that made that possible.

I'm sympathetic to your point and to all who are subject to any drug or alcohol addiction. But I feel compelled to comment that incarceration is not always the inhumane dead-end that it's painted as. It's one of many tools that can be used to rehabilitate those in need.

[drewcoo]

When we can't deal with issues openly, especially mental health issues, we often see the "tough" route promoted.

That would be "rock bottom" in your anecdote.

Consider how PTSD used to be treated back when it was "shell shock" and considered a personal moral failure. People were told there was nothing wrong. Many of those people "recovered," too. But was that the right way to treat people facing real problems?

[hospadar]

I'm SURE that there are MANY people for whom incarceration "worked" (i.e., didn't get back in jail, broke their addiction), but on the whole, there's a lot of evidence that incarceration is simply not the most effective (expensive/doesn't work well for many) strategy for reducing drug usage and drug-related health and social ills.

We don't have to guess, there's a lot (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-9125....) of evidence (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004727270...) that locking people up for drug use isn't _very_ effective (isn't very effective != completely ineffective) at reducing crime or recidivism, and great evidence that decriminalization (i.e. portugal https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1464837) sends crime (AND drug usage) downward, as well as a host of drug-related medical conditions.

(^ first page of google scholar results people)

[eloff]

Incarceration is not aimed at rehabilitating, it's aimed at punishing. That it occasionally rehabilitates by accident is not an argument in favor.

If the goal is rehabilitation, then let's talk about how to best do that.

[carapace]

Thousands of people have had their lives ruined by being incarcerated for possession of cannabis. Hundreds of thousands maybe. Most of them weren't addicts, or committing other crimes, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time with a bag of weed in their pockets or whatever.

It's good that your family member finally had success fighting their addiction, but at what price?

[aaomidi]

Did this person have a home to get back to? People to support them financially once he was out?

The way incarceration impacts people is extremely different.

[spaetzleesser]

I wonder what the proportion of people is for who incarceration is the start of recovery vs people for who incarceration is the start of a downward spiral.

My guess is that incarceration for non violent drug offenders has way more negative outcomes vs positive outcomes. I used to work out at a boxing gym and there were quite a few people whose possibility of finding an ok job was almost zero because a marijuana or cocaine conviction had put a negative mark on their background checks. This is especially true for poor neighborhoods where families don’t have the financial ability to support other family members who have problems.

[rm_-rf_slash]

If incarceration was a common rock bottom that addicts could build up from, I might agree with you, but knowing what we know about recidivism among addicts, it is likelier to be an aggregate negative even if a few people find a way to recover during their sentence.

[MrRiddle]

How do you rehabilitate a person if they’re unable to find a reasonable job afterwards?

[dahdum]

> But I feel compelled to comment that incarceration is not always the inhumane dead-end that it's painted as. It's one of many tools that can be used to rehabilitate those in need.

Most of Europe has compulsory treatment options instead of incarceration, but due to abuses in the past it's a non-starter in the US.

[frankfrankfrank]

I agree with the general sentiment of that, however the nuanced reality is far more complex than that. For many people the only treatment that actually worked is precisely prison. The reality of the rehabilitation industry across the board is not exactly a shining example of success, while prison does seem to show significant advantages. The question we have to ask ourselves these is essentially this one; what is better, someone that goes to prison for 5 years and gets treatment and comes out with a higher likelihood of recovery, or someone that spends 5 years in and out of treatment and living in drug addiction misery of exploitation and abuse and with a notably lower likelihood of permanent recovery?

Of the two examples the former is obviously better, even though a third, hybrid option that no one talks about is likely the best; a kind of reform complex/community akin to boot camp of the past broken people are broken down and rebuilt into new, functioning adults. For anyone who knows anything about the military, especially of the past, will know that in treatment of people, the bootcamp model is the very best option. It builds character, it shatters bad habits and compulsions, it builds support structures and deep bonds, it creates a pathway to hope, success, and achievement, it uses sticks and carrots to set people on a graduated path. It's literally everything that drug addicts need if one actually cares about them getting the devil off their back, and is not just interested in trying to feel good about themselves.

[dheera]

At the same time I would have serious concerns about public safety for certain drugs. While I agree jail isn't the answer, I think house arrest or curfews would be a good middle ground for drug abusers to maintain public safety while they engage in rehabilitation programs at the same time.

[ashtonkem]

There have been attempts to categorize and measure the social harms caused by heavy users of various drugs, and the actual measurable impacts don’t really line up with what people worry about. The study I saw put alcohol at the top of the list, due to the social cost of drunken fights, spousal abuse, and DUIs.

I’m sure there are some public safety issues that we should deal with for the various “hard” drugs decriminalized here, but I also find it fascinating how much social desirability affects which drugs we decide are a problem that require special treatment, since I’ve never seen anyone recommend house arrest or curfews for alcoholics.

[tmaly]

On the flip side, I can see some potential bad outcomes for young children being exposed to this.

[sesteel]

While you chose not to share what poor outcomes you are considering; your comment compels me to state the obvious: nearly all choices have trade offs.

[giantg2]

I agree that was not the right approach. I'm not sure this is the right approach either.

Keeping it criminalized, but as a summary offense with the punishment being an educational presentation/course on rehab options might provide some better outcomes. There are some tangentially related things to consider here too, like drug convictions preventing addicts from buying weapons.

[pstuart]

It's a health issue, not a criminal issue. Drug laws cause more crime -- by design.

[giantg2]

Why is this downvoted?