With talk of abolishing prisons in vogue (and the specific meaning apparently up for debate), it might be useful to at least imagine what some steps towards abolition might look like.
Regarding the free heroin proposal (which I think is mostly genuine, not *modest*), I've wondered about that in regard to San Francisco. The city has provided addicts with housing, medical care, food, spending money, safe places to shoot up, narcan, etc. But they still need more money to buy drugs on their own, so theft and shoplifting continues. And even gets worse, as more people are attracted to the location for it's relative legal tolerance. If the city could also just give them the drugs too, maybe that would be a relative win/win - some people would disappear into city services who houses and cares for them while providing them the drugs they prefer, but with much less impact on strangers.
But then there are the videos of zombie like folks standing (or bent over) on the sidewalk, oblivious to what's going on around them. Is facilitating that (but in a safe non-public space where it didn't impact other citizens) being caring, or would it turn into a cruel parody of caring, helping people gradually kill themselves with as little inconvenience to others as possible?
From time to time, a recovering addict writes about their life, and I've yet to read one success who advocated for a soft policy on drugs and the law. They typically describe being enabled for years to continue by "harm reduction programs", until some event caused them to change (like going to jail for more than a short period, or sometimes having a child - which obviously don't have that effect for everybody). Some do report that recovery programs which give them a lot of space at the beginning, while they pull their minds together, before requiring them to go more deeply into counseling, as being helpful - so they are not advocating meanness for the sake of meanness or mistreatment. Just stopping the shielding from due consequences out of "kindness".
I'd like to hear their perspective on free heroin, fentanyl, tranc, meth etc as another datapoint.
After writing the above, I read your link from 2018 regarding Switzerland. Very interesting, and perhaps promising if done with clear thought rather than to further an ideological narrative.
Property crime is generally not driven by folks procuring money to secure necessities like food and shelter, and therefore there's no reason to think that providing addicts with housing etc. would have any appreciable impact on property crime. The "money for necessities" and "money for drugs" piles should not be considered as fungible.
It's important to be clear on this topic as there are a lot of related issues that get confused together. My "free heroin" proposal is strictly about reducing property crime. How much overall drug dependence is affected, or how much the downtown scene is degraded, or how much this program would attract out-of-towners, etc are all issues worth discussing but they're distinct from my specific argument.
Just to confirm, I think the first sentence in your second paragraph might have an accidental double negative? It parses better for me if I leave out the final "not".
And thanks for that insight (assuming I understood it right). There is a certain ideology around here that tries to portray shoplifting, car breakins etc as canonically just desperate people trying to feed their kids. It's meant to be generous and compassionate, but I believe that compassion without sufficient ground in objective reality can turn sour.
And that's part of why I find what I've read from you so far so interesting - a mixture of genuine compassion with a strong dose of reality feedback rather than naivete or narrative capture. You are not "lock em all up and throw away the key" nor "they are all just misunderstood but good people". Reality is more complex than that, and no policy is likely to be (more or less) successful unless it engages with reality.
Woops, yes that was an unintended double negative.
> There is a certain ideology around here that tries to portray shoplifting, car breakins etc as canonically just desperate people trying to feed their kids.
This ideology isn't based in fact. There's generally plenty of basic help available to help needy individuals. Food stamps offer around $200/month for groceries and sometimes hot bars, which is a huge boon for food access. The only way it's possible for someone to starve today in America is if they have a severe cognitive impairment, which is why metrics have diluted to measure "food insecurity" instead. Shoplifting to pay rent is generally extremely counter-productive given the legal risks involved. The only motivation that can really fire people up to chance jail is drug addiction.
I really don't know why this ideology resorts to such fabrications. Maybe it's a defense mechanism against cognitive dissonance because somehow acknowledging that people steal for drugs threatens too many other beliefs. I don't understand that worldview because here I am acknowledging that thieves are mostly drug addicts, and still finding a way to argue for free heroin (and some compassion too).
Regarding the free heroin proposal (which I think is mostly genuine, not *modest*), I've wondered about that in regard to San Francisco. The city has provided addicts with housing, medical care, food, spending money, safe places to shoot up, narcan, etc. But they still need more money to buy drugs on their own, so theft and shoplifting continues. And even gets worse, as more people are attracted to the location for it's relative legal tolerance. If the city could also just give them the drugs too, maybe that would be a relative win/win - some people would disappear into city services who houses and cares for them while providing them the drugs they prefer, but with much less impact on strangers.
But then there are the videos of zombie like folks standing (or bent over) on the sidewalk, oblivious to what's going on around them. Is facilitating that (but in a safe non-public space where it didn't impact other citizens) being caring, or would it turn into a cruel parody of caring, helping people gradually kill themselves with as little inconvenience to others as possible?
From time to time, a recovering addict writes about their life, and I've yet to read one success who advocated for a soft policy on drugs and the law. They typically describe being enabled for years to continue by "harm reduction programs", until some event caused them to change (like going to jail for more than a short period, or sometimes having a child - which obviously don't have that effect for everybody). Some do report that recovery programs which give them a lot of space at the beginning, while they pull their minds together, before requiring them to go more deeply into counseling, as being helpful - so they are not advocating meanness for the sake of meanness or mistreatment. Just stopping the shielding from due consequences out of "kindness".
I'd like to hear their perspective on free heroin, fentanyl, tranc, meth etc as another datapoint.
After writing the above, I read your link from 2018 regarding Switzerland. Very interesting, and perhaps promising if done with clear thought rather than to further an ideological narrative.
There was an extended discussion about this issue on the Motte in response to the Bailey episode on policing: https://www.themotte.org/post/688/the-bailey-podcast-e034-an-unhinged/142286?context=8#context
Property crime is generally not driven by folks procuring money to secure necessities like food and shelter, and therefore there's no reason to think that providing addicts with housing etc. would have any appreciable impact on property crime. The "money for necessities" and "money for drugs" piles should not be considered as fungible.
It's important to be clear on this topic as there are a lot of related issues that get confused together. My "free heroin" proposal is strictly about reducing property crime. How much overall drug dependence is affected, or how much the downtown scene is degraded, or how much this program would attract out-of-towners, etc are all issues worth discussing but they're distinct from my specific argument.
Just to confirm, I think the first sentence in your second paragraph might have an accidental double negative? It parses better for me if I leave out the final "not".
And thanks for that insight (assuming I understood it right). There is a certain ideology around here that tries to portray shoplifting, car breakins etc as canonically just desperate people trying to feed their kids. It's meant to be generous and compassionate, but I believe that compassion without sufficient ground in objective reality can turn sour.
And that's part of why I find what I've read from you so far so interesting - a mixture of genuine compassion with a strong dose of reality feedback rather than naivete or narrative capture. You are not "lock em all up and throw away the key" nor "they are all just misunderstood but good people". Reality is more complex than that, and no policy is likely to be (more or less) successful unless it engages with reality.
Woops, yes that was an unintended double negative.
> There is a certain ideology around here that tries to portray shoplifting, car breakins etc as canonically just desperate people trying to feed their kids.
This ideology isn't based in fact. There's generally plenty of basic help available to help needy individuals. Food stamps offer around $200/month for groceries and sometimes hot bars, which is a huge boon for food access. The only way it's possible for someone to starve today in America is if they have a severe cognitive impairment, which is why metrics have diluted to measure "food insecurity" instead. Shoplifting to pay rent is generally extremely counter-productive given the legal risks involved. The only motivation that can really fire people up to chance jail is drug addiction.
I really don't know why this ideology resorts to such fabrications. Maybe it's a defense mechanism against cognitive dissonance because somehow acknowledging that people steal for drugs threatens too many other beliefs. I don't understand that worldview because here I am acknowledging that thieves are mostly drug addicts, and still finding a way to argue for free heroin (and some compassion too).