
Seattle has stopped charging people for personal drug possession - pseudolus
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/no-charges-for-personal-drug-possession-seattles-bold-gamble-to-bring-peace-after-the-war-on-drugs/2019/06/11/69a7bb46-7285-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html
======
dogmatic_di
As someone living there right now the article really doesn't properly cover
the discontent in the city.

There is an overwhelming sense that Seattle has done too much to encourage
homelessness (particularly with the expansion of policies like this one).
"Tent City" has spread so far that it's getting into the suburbs and from a
residents perspective it's getting far worse not better. I have routinely seen
people shooting up and smoking glass pipes (not marijuana) in broad daylight
in the Downtown and Pioneer Square areas. There's shouting, theft, property
crime at all hours of the night near my apartment (Though strangely compared
to SF I know very few people who have had their cars broken into).

Regardless of the tone of this article, Seattle is not a model to follow, it's
a cautionary tale.

~~~
CodeMage
Could someone please explain what it means to "encourage homelessness"? At a
first glance, it looks like a passive aggressive implication that homeless
people, if they just tried harder, wouldn't be homeless. Can anyone help me
see what I'm missing?

~~~
moduspol
We had a post here last week about soda taxes in Philadelphia and it seemed
like common sense that by making sugary drinks more expensive, you are
encouraging people to consume it less, which results in fewer people drinking
it.

We can discuss this with no implication that there's a static amount of soda
consumption in the world, or that people want to be obese from consuming it.
We understand life is a series of choices, "when to consume sugary drinks"
makes up some of them, and that by disincentivizing that choice, people are
more likely to choose a different beverage.

Nobody "chooses" homelessness, but like anything else, becoming / staying
homeless often is the result of numerous choices, some of which are easier
than others for various reasons. When you artificially remove bad consequences
from some of those choices, it is not surprising that those choices are made
more often.

~~~
filoleg
The big difference is, you can simply stop consuming soda drinks if the habit
becomes too expensive, but if you are a homeless person, you cannot really
just stop being homeless.

~~~
moduspol
The claim isn't that you can "just stop being homeless."

> Nobody "chooses" homelessness, but like anything else, becoming / staying
> homeless often is the result of numerous choices, some of which are easier
> than others for various reasons. When you artificially remove bad
> consequences from some of those choices, it is not surprising that those
> choices are made more often.

Consuming soda is just one way people can become obese. The problem is
obesity. If you are an obese person, you may not really be able to "just stop"
being obese, but if policy leads to people choosing healthier beverages, it
helps fight obesity.

...and the opposite is true, too. It would not be difficult to imagine what
might happen if we subsidized soda until it was free, for example. Except we
probably wouldn't have advocates claiming that because nobody wants to be
obese, the incentives can't possibly be affecting the increase in soda
consumption.

~~~
filoleg
I see your point. I agree that we shouldn't incentivize drug consumption.
However, the current way of de-incentivizing drug consumption through making
it illegal doesn't seem to work well. Luckily, there is more than one way to
de-incentivize something like that (look at the soda tax, for example!).

The issue with drugs (as opposed to soda) is that the illegality in itself a
lot of times tends to make people homeless by heavily limiting their
hosing/employment/etc. perspectives. De-incentivizing drug consumption by
heavily taxing them and making the proceeds go towards rehabilitation for
addicts and helping those people get on their feet and find employment? I am
with you on that. But I cannot really support, in good conscience, punishing
drug users to the point where they are pushed to become homeless.

~~~
moduspol
> But I cannot really support, in good conscience, punishing drug users to the
> point where they are pushed to become homeless.

To a large extent I agree with your point here, but these cities are well
beyond simply not punishing drug users.

Mobile safe injection sites, needle exchange programs, cash handouts,
unfettered defecation in streets, naloxone handouts, lack of enforcement of
petty crimes like vehicle break-ins and theft. There are plenty of policy
decisions being made here that affect the choices people make, and none of
that even touches on actually enforcing drug laws.

Moral and financial cases can be made for any of the above, and we can debate
that, but to me it's really drinking the Kool-Aid to claim these don't
encourage homelessness. They certainly make it easier to make bad decisions
that can start or keep you on the track of homelessness.

------
gedy
I lean heavily towards giving people the freedom to do what they want, but in
'private' and without burdening public life of others. If people want to light
up or shoot up, so be it. But I think a community must have ways to discourage
or push people out of the public sphere who practice unwelcome and unsocial
behavior. The gov't fully feeding, clothing, and sheltering large groups of
addicts is impractical and unviable in most/all places.

~~~
aisenik
I'm a transgender woman. Applying your thought process seems to me,
inevitably, to mean I can't live in society.

I work downtown cooking for a bar (despite my deep involvement in tech as a
child/teen and early work programming and some infrastructure stuff, life's
challenges haven't enabled me access to significant wealth or appreciable
social status). I've found survival, and I deal with drug addicts, mentally
ill, the deeply traumatized and abandoned. The biggest thing anyone needs in
these circumstances is love and acceptance.

Coming from a place of privilege, your leaning to exclude the suffering from
society is wildly antisocial and a leading cause of the rise in "eat the rich"
mentalities.

~~~
throwaway743
Their keyword is unwelcomed behavior, there was no mention of identity. Unless
you're behavior is out of control, this doesn't apply.

~~~
SkyBelow
For many, just being transgendered and not attempting to pass as cisgendered
is unwelcomed behavior.

I think the issue is the choice of word 'unwelcomed'. Aggressive may be better
in capturing (what I assume is) the author's intent, but I would still find it
a bit lacking. Some homeless behavior isn't aggressive but is unpleasant
enough to cause people to make changes to avoid it. How do you describe such
behavior without also describing behavior that a different group may choose to
avoid that they really shouldn't be avoiding?

Maybe we can define it as aggressive or unsanitary. Not perfect, but it is the
closest I can get without shooting over the intent.

~~~
wysifnwyg
However we have to define it so that it can be an issue we can actually
address.

------
throwawaysea
Seattle is a city that has made a lot of bad decisions. It is suffering from
rampant drug abuse, property crime, and gross mismanagement under the current
city council, which seems obsessed with following an ideologically-motivated
progressive agenda instead of common-sense good governance.

The policy of not enforcing laws, not prosecuting (either certain crimes or
certain cohorts of offenders) has caused the city's problems. There are two
sets of laws - one is for law-abiding tax-paying residents who are just trying
to live their lives without disruption, and the other is for everyone else,
who somehow are seen as victims through a twisted social-justice lens, instead
of malicious actors. The law-abiding tax-paying residents should not have to
give up their public spaces, safety, property, or contribute more taxes in
order to accommodate the huge rise of permanently-homeless service-refusing
people that want nomadic or drug-centric lifestyles.

Those people do not contribute to society and are making society worse for
those who do want to contribute. And yes, there has to be a consequence for
that, in order to deter such behavior and lifestyles and not attract an influx
of them into the city. This article does not make real the frustration
experienced by most residents of Seattle, as it has deteriorated towards SF
2.0 in these last 4 years.

~~~
imperialdrive
In response to the 'dead' reply, you make some points that stick. I'm curious
what kind of solution could exist to address the issue(s) you describe. Hoping
to hear more thoughts.

------
hash872
People are conflating 'drug decriminalization' with other policies. I'm
agnostic on other homeless policies, but strongly support decriminalizing
possession. You can be for more social services for the homeless, or, more
law-and-order and advocate for more cops on the beat to stop car camping,
burglary, etc. All while agreeing that spending thousands on incarceration
just for possession is a poor use of societal resources.

I'd advocate for a) outlawing public drug _usage_ (the same way alcohol is
legal but public consumption is not). And b) an officer on the scene can still
confiscate illegal drugs- motivating addicts/homeless to be discreet and low-
key. Both of these will help prevent public spaces from becoming a free-for-
all, while not wasting valuable money on arresting an addict for the 20th time

~~~
aisenik
public alcohol usage is very much legal. we manage it by providing regulations
on dispensing/selling alcohol. in my city alcohol may be consumed in most
parks and in the majority of municipalities it is legal to serve alcohol in
public establishments meeting basic business regulations.

alcohol of course, is a deadly and addictive drug that increases incidences of
violence, property crime, and other anti-social behavior.

~~~
undersuit
I gotta ask, which city or even country? The United States has extensive and
varied laws on public consumption and intoxication. Places like Las Vegas are
the exception, not the norm.

~~~
aisenik
denver

but most places do have bars and serve alcohol in restaurants, which counts as
public consumption of alcohol

~~~
asdff
They let you walk around with an open beer in denver? They don't let you smoke
weed openly on the sidewalk. The places you listed are all examples of private
consumption of alcohol , and those places have liquor licenses as well. Even
on Bourbon Street, the heart of hedonism, there are rules like your container
can't be glass.

~~~
aisenik
>in my city alcohol may be consumed in most parks

this is true

and it is my experience that most places consider restaurants and such a place
where a member of the public can be charged with "public intoxication," though
to my knowledge that's not a thing that's punished here

------
tinyhouse
Just finished watching Seattle is Dying. I don't understand why so many
American cities suffer so much from drug problems. Everywhere in the world you
will find homeless people, but outside of the US I haven't seen anywhere so
many drug addicts. Is it all those depressing suburbs with shitty education
and people who are bored to death with their life? Is it lack of support from
family? I don't get it.

I feel that's the root of the problem and where the US should invest heavily.

~~~
adventured
The US drug abuse problem is multiple things colliding over many decades.

Extraordinary wealth & extremely high disposable incomes (very large profit
magnet), by far the largest pharma economy, a pharmaceutical culture you won't
find anywhere else, a many decades long history of general persecution of drug
addicts, and a healthcare system that doesn't take good care of the homeless
or drug addicts.

That covers both the prescription abuse and blackmarket issues.

The wealth & income in the system acts as a huge magnet. If you're going to
sell drugs somewhere (legal or illegal), you want to do it in the US. The US
has nearly double the median personal disposable income of the EU, under one
big roof. The culture encourages a drug-solution approach to everything. The
doctors, nurses, admin, hospitals, pharma companies and healthcare system
overall have been _very_ happy accomplices, feeding the problem for decades to
great personal profit. A lot of prescription writers should be in prison for
playing assist in murdering tens of thousands of Americans. The persecution of
drug addicts makes everything worse on the back-end once a person has become
an addict; it pushes them away from treatment, it isolates them from society.
The poorly constructed healthcare safety net in combination with the cultural
& legal / political persecution, then finishes them off, leaving them little
to no proper safe recourse or way back out - ending far too often in death.

~~~
tinyhouse
These make sense. I've experienced it myself in the US when I felt the medical
stuff is pushing me towards the most money making for them option than the
option that made the most sense for me.

------
remarkEon
What a depressing thread.

In one corner, we have people that are absolutely exhausted of the current
state of affairs. The trash, the needles in parks, human feces, the tents ...
etc. They want _someone_ to do _something_ about it, but it's not clear at all
what that _something_ really is or who would do it. If it were clear, we
wouldn't be arguing about it. There are real costs to a draconian reversion to
hardcore enforcement. People will get hurt, unnecessarily.

In the other, we have people that seem completely convinced that enforcing any
kind of norms against anti-social behavior - indeed, outright dangerous
behavior - is simply an extension of the War on Drugs, and further
criminalizes marginalized people by cycling them through a prison system that
seems equally uninterested in actually solving the problem. And there are real
costs here, too. People are getting hurt continually by repeat offenders, and
by the other social costs of living where parts of the city are unclean or
unsafe, or both.

I've lived in Seattle since 2011 (with a 29 month cumulative absence for a
deployment and then for school), and I think it's just absolutely nuts to
think that decriminalizing usage has done anything but make this problem
worse. I understand the impulse behind it. I really do. But we can't keep
trying to convince ourselves that this is "working", unless "working" is
really "condition people to think that this is the new norm". Obviously, I
guess I sit in the first corner. There's no real middle ground between these
two cohorts, as far as I can tell. One group sees the other's concerns as
reactionary or uncompassionate, and the other see's the first group's
compassion as naive and even a deep enabling of the problem.

For me, I don't want to live in a city like this. That's maybe the only middle
ground that exists between the two groups - neither want this. But my sense is
that we're at a true impasse here, and that, and I'm just being realistic
given the political arrangement here in Seattle, we're going to keep doing
"more of this", whatever "this" is. The second camp has clearly captured city
leadership, and decriminalization, lax or no enforcement of existing laws, and
a general apathy (or maybe it's faith) about the situation will guide policy.
We'll become the next SF, and then wake up one day wondering "how did this
happen"?

~~~
notJim
> They want someone to do something about it, but it's not clear at all what
> that something really is or who would do it

> it's just absolutely nuts to think that decriminalizing usage has done
> anything but make this problem worse

From reading these two statements and others in this thread, it's hard for me
to see how you're the one arguing _against_ criminalizing people, and yet
that's how you're describing yourself. What does "enforcing norms against
anti-social behavior" mean in this context, if not putting people in prison or
issuing citations (which eventually lead to prison)? I'm genuinely unsure if
there's some third option I'm not thinking of.

The thesis seems to be that if you just do that enough, those people will go
somewhere else or decide to stop being homeless. The problem is, _that 's what
we used to do_ and _it didn 't work_. Those people are from here, and they're
not homeless by choice. Even if some do move on, they'll just end up homeless
somewhere else.

The frustrating thing is that there is a solution to this, which is called
housing first. The basic idea is that you give people housing they can live
in, and then provide services like addiction counseling and job training to
get them into a better place. But you start with the housing, because without
stability in your life, it's hard to tackle challenges like this, and not
having housing results in all kinds of other social problems. The problem with
housing first of course is that it's expensive, which requires taxation.

To me the real problem is that the council has insisted on sticking to
ineffective half-measures. We had the beginnings of a tax for affordable
housing last year, although it was still too small, but the council backed
down when Amazon and other large companies raised hell. What this ended up
doing is making it clear that the council has no solution to this that they're
willing to pursue, which has lead to this impasse.

~~~
remarkEon
I guess I don't really disagree with what you said.

>What does "enforcing norms against anti-social behavior" mean in this
context, if not putting people in prison or issuing citations (which
eventually lead to prison)?

Not being okay with it, which implies that we'd so something about it. Which
does mean things like citations, at a minimum. Right now it's totally normal.

>The frustrating thing is that there is a solution to this, which is called
housing first...

Broadly, I agree with this paragraph. I think we should take the billion we
spend in this city on homelessness (not sure that stat is actually true since
I've never seen the line item in the budget but people say it a lot) and build
these places ... and then make them mandatory, or at least semi-mandatory.
That might sound extreme, but frankly many of these people clearly don't have
agency anymore given their addiction and they've become a danger to themselves
and others. So that's my "out there" suggestion. Build the housing, fund the
medical and job-training services, and deliberately - not passively - push
people into them.

Of course, this presupposes that lack of housing is the first incident
problem. Maybe it is, maybe drug use is in some cases. I don't particularly
care for drug use, so my personal preference is that we repeal the
decriminalization rules and reverse some of the cultural acceptance that's
taken hold here of this behavior. We've probably missed the boat on that one,
since most here seem to take the libertarian approach that what someone does
with their body is "their business", despite the fact that it often becomes
someone else's very quickly.

>...backed down when Amazon and other large companies raised hell.

If the city council wanted to just tax Amazon then they could've done that,
but instead that cast such a wide net that medium sized low-margin businesses
that don't have enormous capital behind them were wrapped up in it too - so I
understand why they backed down. There wasn't any real self reflection from
them after that happened, so I tend to agree that we're stuck in an infinite
loop of "more of this".

~~~
shkkmo
> Of course, this presupposes that lack of housing is the first incident
> problem.

Not at all. Even if a person's drug abuse is what led them to lose their job
and housing, the drug abuse can't be the issue you fix first. The lack of
housing makes solving any other "first incident problem" massively more
difficult.

> I don't particularly care for drug use, so my personal preference is that we
> repeal the decriminalization rules and reverse some of the cultural
> acceptance that's taken hold here of this behavior.

The problem is that criminalization of drug use and homelessness has
absolutely failed to have a positive impact on either issue and quite arguably
has made both problems worse.

------
ariehkovler
These experiments tend to work at reducing secondary crimes etc.

However, they also are usually unpopular at the same time, leading to a
backlash and a drug clampdown again. It's the drug policy circle of life.

~~~
merpnderp
These conditions are exactly what prompted the drug war's start in the first
place. Neighborhoods were tired of the addicts and petty (and sometimes not so
petty) crime which plagued their day-to-day lives.

I wouldn't be shocked if 10 years from now, these coastal cities are leading
the charge on a tough on drugs reversal.

~~~
fzeroracer
Well, not quite. The reason why the drug wars got started wasn't because of
addicts or petty crimes. It was a form of class warfare because they wanted
the dirty poors and minorities to stop using their poor drugs.

The history behind the War on Drugs is very explicitly a one divided on racial
grounds and a cursory look at things like the legality of marijuana or
mandatory minimums tells the full tale.

~~~
merpnderp
If this were true, how did the drug laws passed in the 70's hang around for so
long? If there was no reason but racism, why didn't Obama, who in his first
term had super majorities in Congress, simply wipe them away? You take away
the agency and voices of people who live in crime ridden poor neighborhoods
which suffer the consequences of high levels of addiction.

In the capital of my state, in just the last few weeks, we've had people high
on pcp attack cops (after strangling his girlfriend), shoot at traffic, and
pick up a child out of a stroller and slam them on the ground, all unprovoked.
Those victims aren't racist in wanting to not have to deal with people high
out of their minds.

~~~
fzeroracer
You're essentially asking why Obama, a fairly centrist liberal by many
accounts, didn't end racism forever.

There's a very good reason why black people are disproportionately arrested
for drug-related crimes, especially Marijuana, despite having similar usage
rates as others.

There's also the fact that members of the Nixon administration outright
admitted this fact.

~~~
merpnderp
The reason Obama didn't do anything isn't that he's not that worked up over
racism, it's just not as simple as waving your hand and saying everything
would be great if it only for those racist laws. Drugs reduce inhibitions.
People with reduced inhibitions do crazy things, often hurting other people.
Families are often willing to support draconian measures so that their kids
aren't endangered by some random stranger in some drug induced state of manic
paranoia.

Victims of drug crime should have a voice too.

------
the_watcher
No matter the merits of the case to be made for this specific policy, the
state of Seattle isn't one of the highlights.

To clarify: there are all sorts of factors at play in Seattle's troubles, my
point is that if you believe a the policy "we should stop charging people for
personal drug use", "just look at Seattle!" isn't going to be convincing to
most of the country.

------
lstodd
All those comments to the tune of "those bums are bums because they are
addicted" ... they make me so sad.

Can anyone not see it's the other way around? Really?

