But I have known addicts, they don’t exactly take care of their things. It’s very easy to imagine that much of the state supplied housing would quickly become unsafe and or destroyed.

How do you handle that?

It’s not uncommon for it to be unsafe and destroyed.

But I also wanted to ask the OP (who mentioned housing as a right) how that could be avoided.

And have different sorts of housing. Some folks - not just addicts - could really benefit from a place modeled after a motel or hotel: Cleaning services and so on, private room and private bath. Some folks could do with a kitchen or provided food. Some folks could use these things yet would be better with a seperate bedroom and living room... well, you get the picture.

At no time is everyone - addict or not - going to be able to take care of things. We should help those folks.

Wow! Never could have expected that twist from your parent comment /s

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Most places can do this. The US can do it. Everything contrary is just excuses.

Most of places on Earth has snow, heat waves, no coasts, biting insects, or a combination of that. They are also not located in the richest country, in a place which historically produces jobs.

So, under this regime specifically San Francisco will get population influx until it is not usable for absolute majority of people (think a bro dormitory the size of SF), and that process will be repeated for many other lucrative locations on Earth (heck, many cities are arguably already going that route).

I don't see how free housing differs from sacrificing every place you like to tragedy of the commons on grand scale, until there is nothing for you to like there anymore and you move on yourself.

Other than that, there are places on Earth with basically free housing. Check out Vorkuta.

Honestly, if a person isn’t up for it, we need to stop trying to convince them to stay around and be miserable. Elective suicide should be a basic right, and drugs are one way out. We only create misery by “helping” people that don’t want hep.

Criminalize public drug use.

Provide basic unregulated housing, not unlike squattable buildings. Set up AI monitored surveillance and prohibit attempts to form any kind of exploitative enterprise. Self registration with biometric access. Provide fentanyl dispensers. Come through once a day and dispose of the dead.

Create an exit ramp where those that wish to can easily climb out through rehab into a viable path forward. Just by walking out they can register for rehab and get on a bus to a facility with an on-ramp to society.

Let them live in the stark misery that they choose so they can confront it head on and decide if that’s what they want. But keep them outside of the general population during their self destruction process.

Provide stepping-stone housing, mental health services, and educational on-ramps for people that need housing and can test clean of the typical death-spiral drugs.

It should be made clear that certain kinds of drug use are part of a suicide process. Make it unattractive to flirt with, and limit it to private spaces.

Social drugs such as alcohol and thc are not so incompatible with society and don’t really need regulatory interference aside from limiting access to minors.

Still a better love story than twilight.

Alcohol is very unsociable - calling it social seems odd to me. Anecdotally alcohol seems pretty destructive to me. I am middle-aged so perhaps I have seen more of the deeper long-term destructive effects than you? New Zealanders generally have quite a problem with alcohol abuse.

By your definition ecstasy is a social drug or any drug at a rave is social (Note I have never seen MDMA turn anti-social).

In my experience most drugs are “social” - the heroin users I knew were a tight crowd! Weed is definitely social for those that partake.

Serve cocaine, MDMA and meth at a wedding and everybody will have a social blast too.

I’m genuinely curious how you define sociability of a drug or substance. I know alcohol is detrimental to society at large. On an individual basis, I find it quite attractive for social gatherings.

Alcohol is deeply socially destructive - we know the stereotypical examples of damage in the the poor and the indigenous communities. The examples of damage in middle-class homes of the wealthy (e.g. doctors) and the average working class (tradies and nurses) is much less visible.

The words “social” and “alcohol” are immiscible.

I have an alcohol free home (I have seen too many friends slowly change from one small drink a night to a problem within a few years.

I have seen too many devastating consequences of “social” drinking to think it is safe.

And it was alcohol that was worse.

Most people don't care to use it (heroin) at all let alone regularly. Opiates cause nausea and retching in most areas drug abuse levels....

Alcohol was far more popular and consistently harmful...

Just ask the wives of the time what they'd rather thier husbands use....

Point being, like anything, it's complex. Yes, alcohol is a factor in abuse. But it's not the cause.

The context was the impacts of X substance vs Y substance, right?

In all cases the actual cause is the underlying problems but it's the substance that (is perceived as) causes the manifestation that otherwise wouldn't occur, right?

So what purpose did your comment actually serve into he thread other than to derail an extant line of discourse?

What I saw, you ended on a very vague set of statements that I assume were supposed to support that you were saying.

"Alcohol was far more popular and consistently harmful..."

Implication of alcohol being more harmful without evidence to support the claim.

History tells us lots of stories. For example, just because the temperance movement existed doesn't mean anything other than a bunch of people got it in their head that alcohol was the devil's drink and caused all of society's ills.

You also ended with an appeal to emotion, "Just ask the wives..." Instead of again supporting your claim that alcohol is more damaging with evidence.

To be clear, I'm not saying alcohol is or isn't more damaging. I'm saying that there isn't any evidence in these comments (yours and others) to support a claim of "X being worse than Y".

That's a line straight out of the temperance era.

I don't know why I needed to be more explicit....

I say this as the grandchild of an alcoholic. Alcohol is the problem. You're right that there're underlying things, but they lie there, just beneath the surface, mostly untouched and undisturbing without alcohol.

But we have learned that the social costs of prohibition of those drugs is higher than the benefit to society.

The same may be true of certain classes of hallucinogenic substances, especially since people tragically turn to solvents and extremely toxic substances as substitutes.

> war on drugs has been so expensive

> we need to try something radically different

You want something different and then advocate for the same?

Edgy, I would definitely have posted that on myspace when I was 14. Of course, that's not true. We are not hunter-gatherers, or pre-industrial farmers. We have abundance of all of life's necessities and even more.

>We only create misery by “helping” people that don’t want help.

You clearly haven't met any addicts, only observed them from a sneering distance and concluded whatever you wanted to conclude.

Suffice to say: I have. Several people who were on self-destructive paths, of whom you could have said "well fuck him, the fucker doesn't want help and is a burden to those around him, why should I waste money and effort with him?". With the necessary support they are now entirely different persons.

>Provide basic unregulated housing, not unlike squattable buildings. Set up AI monitored surveillance and prohibit attempts to form any kind of exploitative enterprise. Self registration with biometric access. Provide fentanyl dispensers. Come through once a day and dispose of the dead.

I sure am glad you don't make public policy, but you might have a future in dystopian fiction.

I didn't get the impression that the parent was against help. He explicitly mentioned providing rehab programs to those who wanted them.

They already move out of housing to seek out abandoned buildings because their choices are incompatible with society at large.

My idea is an attempt to align incentives for a better outcome.

And by default, I mean if you take no action. If you don’t believe me, try it some time. Do literally nothing to improve or maintain your living situation and see if that does not lead to misery.

People up inhere acting like I’m locking up addicts in death camps lol, but if you read my comment you can clearly see that what I am advocating is to let people do what they want without screwing up society at large.

> Honestly, if a person isn’t up for it, we need to stop trying to convince them to stay around and be miserable. Elective suicide should be a basic right, and drugs are one way out. We only create misery by “helping” people that don’t want hep.

What an absolutely miserable outlook on life.

All life is precious and fleeting. We should respect it.

I believe life is wonderful and precious… but it is , by default, misery.

If you do nothing (the default condition) to sustain or improve your existence, you will be miserable. That is the never ending tyranny of imperative action.

That is the fundamental nature of life, and not everyone is up for it. And that’s ok.

You're making LOTS of assumptions here.

I would be genuinely greatful if you could provide me with realistic examples of where this statement is incorrect.

The only ones I can think of are ones where someone else does the sustenance and improvement of your existence, like in the case of being a child or a ward of the state, perhaps? Also obviously where you are paying others to do so, but there you have actually caused this to happen and therefore are “doing” it.

I would suggest that the fundamental issue with your assumptions is a blurring of the lines when it comes to the objective and subjective. Specifically, nature and certain realms of human existence ARE objectively "harsh", unforgiving, uncomfortable, etc. However, that does not mean that all who exist or have existed in such realms are miserable.

If you've not seen this before, this show is just one (of a great many materials not so prevalent in modern western intensely consumer / advertising / so-called "achievement"-oriented cultures) reference with some real views of massive differences in (subjective) experience people can have across various "objective" realities:

https://www.themoviedb.org/tv/83990-the-kindness-diaries?lan...

In any case, your policy proposals earlier would, IMO, add up to poor outcomes. Not because they are inherently so bad / worse than what's been tried - more just due to the nature of the problem. Our tools / these sorts of tools are incredibly blunt compared to the complexity of the problem. And, trying to put in place some of what you propose, would definitely harm some people - in part simply in making the changes.

I am not claiming to be able to do any better, though, for sure.

But, I agree with you that my off the cuff policy proposal has many flaws and would harm some people. I think it might do less harm than good, but without a good bit of (probably unethical) a/b testing I’m really not sure.

Also what really makes people struggle with suicide can be quite different then just drug use.

Suicide thinking is an inflammation of the body that happens to all creatures when put under extreme stress. Their body is starting to control their mind. They aren't imagining pain, their body is literally in pain. Figuring what is causing the stress and how to reduce it is key.

Instead of saying oh they don't want to live, look at what is going on with their body. Overworked people get really suicidal would you want to get an exit ramp for them?

A lot of suicidal people also have been through a lot of unprocessed trauma that plain old consulting won't fix (as someone who went to 10 psychologist I personally find most of it useless as well, few people understand CPTSD and in fact I have had some psychologist blaming me for my problems and really badly mislabeling me. I was smart enough not to believe them but a lot of people might not. Most people don't understand what's like to live in bad circumstances for years they just think it's a personality disorder. This psychologist also never even asked if I grew up with a family history of violence because I seemed too normal in some ways. They were really bad at their job but at the time I thought if I could bully myself into changing myself with this psychologist help, maybe I could improve... It's only after some family died I realized what I was actually going through and found a term for it.)

Also by this logic of addicted users don't want to change it's like saying poor people choose to be poor, it's really hard to get out of systems and thought patterns to improve your circumstances. People spiral for a reason and it can be tough to overcome. Also really smart people can still be poor, being born in the wrong country or at the wrong time, or in the wrong circumstances etc etc can make a lot of difference. Having empathy for people and helping them understand themselves can make a lot of difference. I've helped a lot of suicidal people improve their circumstances (though it's hard), and it can be popular to be suicidal as a cultural thing too especially the more disconnected and trapped people feel. With suicide rates increasing you have to understand we have some systemic issues going on, it's not their fault they feel bad most of the time, it's just a bad system they are in, change the system change the people. Especially the youth. Also almost drug use abuse is because people feel disconnected from others. Which is largely a systemic issue now with loneliness shock rocketing.

Basically, that is, do everything you say while NOT punishing the public drug use and you just eating the social cost of that as part of life's natural consequences (or else, if you do criminalize it, make a criminal conviction for it both not affect the availability of rehab at all and make the conviction vanish entirely upon successful completion of the rehab and then eat and endure permanently the social consequences of THAT on the "life is misery by default" logic).

I’ve seen it first hand. Really nice guys, had no issues or violent tendencies, then got a hold of alcohol or drugs and it completely changed them. In the worst cases it went to the ultimate extreme and they wound up killing others.

Once you realize this, your perspective on the laissez-faire attitude changes. The reality is that some people are fundamentally incompatible with drugs and alcohol and society needs to put up boundaries to prevent collateral damage, even if we were OK with them killing themselves. I think some drugs are worse than others (For example I’ve never seen someone get violent after smoking Cannabis) but messing with your brain chemistry is not a trivial thing like the pro-legalize-everything camp wants to proclaim.

Not only that, but most drug users aren't addicts.

To the general public, when they hear the words "drug user" they immediately equate that with "addict", and many can't even imagine that people could use drugs and not get addicted.

But that's not true, as addicts are a small minority of drug users.

Drug policy affects far more than just addicts. Lots of non-addicted users are affected too.

Do you have any reliable data to back up that claim? In my experience users who purport to not be addicts are indeed addicts in massive denial about their poor choices.

While some % of those are people who got help and quit in the past year, or people on the start of a downward spiral/addiction, plenty of those seem to just be infrequent users.

Unless the drug kills you so frequently/quickly that you can't sustain use for long or is rapidly gaining users for a new addiction crisis, the level of greater than monthly users should be higher if most of those infrequent users are going to become addicts.

https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt3...

You can further see that the spread of yearly vs monthly use is closer for substances typically considered more addictive and wider for those less thought to be. (not a lot of LSD addicts out there, relatively speaking).

-------

My experience is that a lot of people are very quiet about their drug use outside the environment where they dabble in it and never mention it at all in company where they're uncertain about how it'll be viewed, so I also suspect that you may not recognize most of those people as people who'd use drugs at all.

I'm a big live music person and being around people using drugs somewhat comes with the territory, especially festival-type environments. But most of the people I've met at those things don't do much of those substances otherwise aside from possibly weed. They've got their once or twice a year time of hitting up the party drugs for their weekend of fun + music, but that's it.

Different drugs have wildly different addiction rates. Most people who use drugs are using the non-addictive stuff.

However, the people we traditionally view as addicts are almost certainly addicts even if they pretend they could quit anytime.

I've known a lot of folks that use hallucinogens: You aren't addicted to those, in general.

I've known a lot of folks with a liking to cocaine, but they can't afford to use more than a couple times a year. Or it just isn't something they want to feel every day. This applies to a lot of drug use.

I've met a lot of folks that only use drugs (or alcohol) when they have a sitter for their children.

You probably don't have reliable data to back up your claim either, and have the added mental block of deciding that all of the folks have poor choices. And unfortunately, you aren't using what you know about, say, alcohol and applying that to other druts. Most folks that drink alcohol aren't addicts or alcoholics. Even if they drink more than you, it doesn't mean they are alcoholics.