You probably just received an unexpected email from the journalist Michael Shellenberger, with a big new story by the two of us on Biden’s imminent decision on whether to legalize supervised drug consumption sites.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around how the authoritarians who run our country can be so extremely libertarian in this one area. What game are they playing here? What’s their motivation? It certainly isn’t principled support for civil liberties. I don’t get it.
I think you’re in the ballpark. Certainly looking to religion for an explanation is the right idea. I’ve spent much of the last few years exploring the implications of the realization that I in fact had a religious upbringing in my progressive Seattle community.
I also once tended to the flock as a public defender. I probably did so out of a combination of deeply held civil libertarian beliefs and religious motivation to act as shepherd for the poor. But I applied my civil libertarian principles to all aspects of civic life, which has since estranged me from the left. I couldn’t compartmentalize my principles the way the mainstream left has.
As something of a dedicated anti-drug war activist going back many years, I still don’t really know what to make of these bizarre policies we’ve been seeing around the drug camps. If you asked me several years ago what I think government should do about homeless encampments, I probably would have said “leave them alone.” Now that doesn’t seem like such a good idea. Looking forward to reading more about it from you and Michael.
We should legalize safe consumption sites and other harm prevention measures like providing clean needles and naloxone (Narcan). It saves lives, thousands in San Francisco alone.
Harm prevention is not enough alone, we also need to provide access to drug rehab on demand and use naltrexone and other promising treatments. A serious commitment to keeping people off drugs would mean a much more comprehensive intervention including long term assistance in housing, jobs and building a social network to help stay sober. Current rehab methods are woefully inadequate with a less than 10% success rate.
Arresting drug users is worse than useless, as drugs are easy to get on the inside and putting them in jail has no impact on drug use, drug price or availability. Arresting drug dealers is similarly useless, though this idea will not go down well with this crowd.
Actually, I agree with everything except your point about arrests. I do agree that sending users to jail isn't the answer, but arrests for crimes is both a) necessary because we live in a society and b) a tool to push people into mandatory TREATMENT, not jail.
There’s some interesting legal/policy history around treatment versus imprisonment. There was a push for treatment centers in the ‘70s, but at least in Washington State they never got funded. The sentencing statutes regarding the facilities are still on the books, but the facilities never existed. A rather bizarre moment in which the war on drugs may have gone in a different direction. I can email you some more info. There may (or may not) be some more interesting historical digging to be done there.
It already has been! Everyone who pays here has been made a paying subscriber there. If you're not getting the paid version, email me: leightonwoodhouse@substack.com
Being involved in the political decisions around Addactions, homelessness, crime
I plead, "Legalization or Legalization " is NOT the answer unless its hand in hand with programs that face the complex human, HUMAN. Social, Economic, political, legleslative, judicial, hand UP rather than a Hand OUT Forces at play.
We who have long worked for Equal Opportunities for all need to hear your short and long term objectives.
How is this a useful pathway towards a society where "Self medication" is not necessary and Opportunities to fully exercise personal Responsibility are offered and rewarded with out corruption
Leighton, since we had a cordial disagreement about harm reduction and the war on drugs, I've thought more about your views. I think you might be interested in the perspective of Julian Somers, a clinical psychologist and researcher at Simon Fraser University, who, on the basis of some fascinating research, argues against the "safe supply" and supervised injection sites approach that is in place in BC in favour of therapeutic communities in or close to the communities where they lived before migrating to, for these research subjects, Vancouver's downtown east side. Interestingly, with respect to the issue of involuntary treatment we discussed, Somers argues that the BC government's stated reservations about involuntary treatment are hypocritical given the number of drug-addicted people who end up being admitted to hospital or prison involuntarily. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8CGWDzhtho
Leighton, I don’t hear your voice in PUBLIC, the articles don’t sound like you. I’ve just reread four or five of your pieces. Your voice is so calm and methodical. Michael is much louder, not in a bad way but very different.
Thank you! Part of the reason is that I've been focused more on multimedia lately — podcasts but especially video. Good reminder though to make an effort to balance that out with more of the written word.
Sweet! Love to see your powers combine into a new supersite! We're getting more powerful every day!!!
Congrats, love both of your work, can't wait to see you guys work together more often
Shellenberger is a great journalist and excited to see the work you two will put out as a team.
Congratulations!
Great! Smart!!!
Thanks for the good read.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around how the authoritarians who run our country can be so extremely libertarian in this one area. What game are they playing here? What’s their motivation? It certainly isn’t principled support for civil liberties. I don’t get it.
I once tried to answer that precise question but even I'm not entirely convinced of my own theory. https://leightonwoodhouse.substack.com/p/the-flock
I think you’re in the ballpark. Certainly looking to religion for an explanation is the right idea. I’ve spent much of the last few years exploring the implications of the realization that I in fact had a religious upbringing in my progressive Seattle community.
I also once tended to the flock as a public defender. I probably did so out of a combination of deeply held civil libertarian beliefs and religious motivation to act as shepherd for the poor. But I applied my civil libertarian principles to all aspects of civic life, which has since estranged me from the left. I couldn’t compartmentalize my principles the way the mainstream left has.
As something of a dedicated anti-drug war activist going back many years, I still don’t really know what to make of these bizarre policies we’ve been seeing around the drug camps. If you asked me several years ago what I think government should do about homeless encampments, I probably would have said “leave them alone.” Now that doesn’t seem like such a good idea. Looking forward to reading more about it from you and Michael.
We should legalize safe consumption sites and other harm prevention measures like providing clean needles and naloxone (Narcan). It saves lives, thousands in San Francisco alone.
Harm prevention is not enough alone, we also need to provide access to drug rehab on demand and use naltrexone and other promising treatments. A serious commitment to keeping people off drugs would mean a much more comprehensive intervention including long term assistance in housing, jobs and building a social network to help stay sober. Current rehab methods are woefully inadequate with a less than 10% success rate.
Arresting drug users is worse than useless, as drugs are easy to get on the inside and putting them in jail has no impact on drug use, drug price or availability. Arresting drug dealers is similarly useless, though this idea will not go down well with this crowd.
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2018/03/more-imprisonment-does-not-reduce-state-drug-problems
Actually, I agree with everything except your point about arrests. I do agree that sending users to jail isn't the answer, but arrests for crimes is both a) necessary because we live in a society and b) a tool to push people into mandatory TREATMENT, not jail.
There’s some interesting legal/policy history around treatment versus imprisonment. There was a push for treatment centers in the ‘70s, but at least in Washington State they never got funded. The sentencing statutes regarding the facilities are still on the books, but the facilities never existed. A rather bizarre moment in which the war on drugs may have gone in a different direction. I can email you some more info. There may (or may not) be some more interesting historical digging to be done there.
go fuck yourself let people be safe
Are the pregant addicts safe? Or their babies like the ones on the streets of Portland? You make no sense, friend.
❤️
I think this is a good decision, but can my paid subscription here please be transfer there?
It already has been! Everyone who pays here has been made a paying subscriber there. If you're not getting the paid version, email me: leightonwoodhouse@substack.com
Best of luck to us ALL,
Being involved in the political decisions around Addactions, homelessness, crime
I plead, "Legalization or Legalization " is NOT the answer unless its hand in hand with programs that face the complex human, HUMAN. Social, Economic, political, legleslative, judicial, hand UP rather than a Hand OUT Forces at play.
We who have long worked for Equal Opportunities for all need to hear your short and long term objectives.
How is this a useful pathway towards a society where "Self medication" is not necessary and Opportunities to fully exercise personal Responsibility are offered and rewarded with out corruption
Peace and prosperity Through responsibilities 🙏
I recently discovered your work and his. Love to see the growth!
Leighton, since we had a cordial disagreement about harm reduction and the war on drugs, I've thought more about your views. I think you might be interested in the perspective of Julian Somers, a clinical psychologist and researcher at Simon Fraser University, who, on the basis of some fascinating research, argues against the "safe supply" and supervised injection sites approach that is in place in BC in favour of therapeutic communities in or close to the communities where they lived before migrating to, for these research subjects, Vancouver's downtown east side. Interestingly, with respect to the issue of involuntary treatment we discussed, Somers argues that the BC government's stated reservations about involuntary treatment are hypocritical given the number of drug-addicted people who end up being admitted to hospital or prison involuntarily. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8CGWDzhtho
Leighton, I don’t hear your voice in PUBLIC, the articles don’t sound like you. I’ve just reread four or five of your pieces. Your voice is so calm and methodical. Michael is much louder, not in a bad way but very different.
Thank you! Part of the reason is that I've been focused more on multimedia lately — podcasts but especially video. Good reminder though to make an effort to balance that out with more of the written word.
https://michaelmohr.substack.com/p/george-orwells-politics-and-the-english
Woot woot!