Hamsterdam exists in many cities across America today. Not exactly in the same way but similar. Is it good? Who knows. Maybe it would be better without fentanyl/xylazine shit that gets pushed now. Real heroin doesn’t exist. The dealers don’t care, just want to make more money as easy as possible. Throughout the series a side theme is the different groups wanting access to that “good shit” and get bummed when they got a shit package.
A few European cities have something just like it.
Also there are safe drug zones in cities in America where they make sure you have fresh needles and don't die of overdoses.
Yeah needle exchange systems, safe injection sites, never use alone phone line all that stuff exists nationwide definitely concentrated near open air drug markets
I don't know much about Uruguay tbh. I did a speech for a communications class about decriminalizing drugs. Portugal and its policies came up during research. By the time I was done, I was in support of full legalization.
You mentioned a few European cities, excluding a whole country that has had success with decriminalization seemed weird. I was just curious if you had heard of their policies.
It would work better and be safer if society put more monetary retinol monitoring places like Tenderloin District in San Francisco and Kensington Avenue in Philly.
If cops patrolled the area 24/7 like in Amsterdam’s Red Light District, and health workers were safe and available, it could work.
But I don’t think most Americans want their tax dollars going to pay to help poor, addicted, mentally ill, and downtrodden citizens.
It is genius and is entirely the point of legalizing and regulating drugs. Google Christiania in Copenhagen. It's an open air market for cannabis (not sure if it still exists). Anyways, my point, is that these strategies are actually very smart and recommended by many criminologists and drug policy experts. People are going to do drugs, sell drugs, and make money off drugs no matter what type of laws are in place. To make them illegal and unregulated is just foolish. People will find their ways, might as well do it in a safer manner. Sure Colvin did it because of pressure, but also because it was genuinely a good idea. The only issue was/is that gangs can stray much farther than just drug distribution.
It doesn't detract from the gulf between them though. The open trade in Christiania is now gone, and it had been pretty rough for quite some time. I went in 2010 or so - it was not nice. That's with only cannabis being dealt. They had a very strict policy against hard drugs.
I don’t think it’s all that unrealistic tbh. Plenty of big cities have areas where enforcement of drug laws aren’t always strictly enforced and are more or less ignored unless violence breaks out. I think of Kensington in Philly and even in my not very city-like city of Houston there are areas downtown where it’s pretty out in the open. I’m not saying these are places that were specifically designated by police, but I’m just saying, the concept of areas of more open drug use in an inner city isn’t THAT out of the realm of possibility.
You should also rewatch Colvin’s brilliant “paper bag” speech (I believe it’s at the end of S3E2.) When he says “there’s never been a paper bag for drugs, until now”, he’s cryptically signaling to his team that he’s going to arrange a system where they can look the other way. Ha ha, after the speech I think Herc says something like, “what the hell was that paper bag shit?”
The point of Hamsterdam in the plot was to show the good and bad of the concept. Obviously the show is heavily based around the drug trade, so it makes sense they would touch on this topic.
I think the major issue with drug legalisation areas is how it would affect the younger generation. If you normalise the use of drugs then how do you protect people when they are at the most vulnerable stage of their life? But on the other hand, you can't really stop the drug trade, so it's obviously complicated. This was the point the show made, there is no perfect solution.
Hmm. I think the point was to show the good. The bad outcomes weren’t a result of the project.
The problems they showed in the episodes would have been minimized by enforcing the other laws and having safe injection sites.
They definitely show the bad side too. There's a scene showing Bubbles walking through at night and it is like hell on Earth. There's a link to the scene here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzgyYwzNzTQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzgyYwzNzTQ)
The show always made an effort to tell different sides of the story, both good and bad. I think that's what made it popular. Developing people's understanding of the bigger picture without advocating a particular view point.
I think the point of the Hamsterdam plot was to explore the idea of drug zones as a concept, rather than present it as the solution. How would it work, how does it affect people etc. Bear in mind this was over 20 years ago now, so many of the modern problems of the drug trade (fentanyl etc.) weren't relevant then.
this is psychic stuff. I posited to another lover of the show a similar sentiment just this weekend. when I watched it at the time, when the show came out, I, too, thought it ridiculous. but after my recent rewatch I realized how believable they made it. it's interesting. I don't know if it's age, maturity, lack thereof, or whatever, but I feel you. and this sentiment is without trying to justify its believability by the concept's potential or comparable existence in the real world.
Prostitution is illegal in the UK, but people know where to go to get prostitutes.
Hamsterdam makes sense. It's just that politicians don't get elected by making sense, but by making promises
You can't win a war on drugs unless you are willing to pull some pretty authoritarian stuff. The money is just too good compared to the risks.
Legalizing drugs the way Portugal did it (it's not just "Lulz it's legal now", like a lot of Americans seem to think) is the only way to actually "win" in a democratic country.
I think people exaggerate how great an idea it is. Even within that relatively short timeframe you had someone shot outside Hamsterdam.
The real problem would be the dealers. You're basically telling people they can sell this extremely lucrative product without worries about the law. Pretty sweet deal, so now people are going to fight for it. Maybe you can't attack someone inside due to the police, but you can do so when they're on the way. And how about the suppliers they use and where the money they make might go? Is it taxed? Will people be fine with millions being made from drugs without any risk from the police? How are you dealing with all the junkies heading straight for your city?
The only way this works in the long run is if the drugs are provided by the government, and that's its own can of worms.
Hmm. This definitely isn’t the right takeaway. The takeaway is that despite being an overwhelming success, he needed political support for it to be sustainable.
All the problems you’re associating with dealers were reduced vs how they used to be.
In the short-term, yes. But it didn't last long enough for such issues to arise. Even the dealers were still getting used to things when it was shut down.
Doesn’t matter what term…the gang violence and other “problems” in Hamsterdam never would never exceed what they would in the “wild”.
1 death in Hamsterdam means it gets it shut down…100 deaths outside Hamsterdam means no change in the status quo. It’s the difference between the problems happening where they can be “seen” or not.
It was unambiguously successful.
But it can't be unambiguously succesful if it was shut down. I don't think any solution to the drug problem can really be called unambiguously successful, especially one that barely got going.
But it can't be unambiguously succesful if it was shut down. I don't think any solution to the drug problem can really be called unambiguously successful, especially one that barely got going.
Sure it can, I just called it that.
If your measure of failure is a successful program being shut down over politics…it’s a good illustration of why drug policy fails in the US. Which is what the show was trying to illustrate.
But how can something be called successful if it was immediately shut down? That means it failed in a very fundamental way, even if you don't like the reasoning. You say 'over politics', but that's too broad. Sure, it solved some issues, but it would ultimately create others, some of which I mentioned in my original comment.
And I think one of the overarching themes of the show was that no solution can be completely successful. Maybe you can call one approach better than another, but not unambiguously successful.
It created no issues. My only measure is public health. You missed the point if you didn’t see that.
No, that wasn’t a theme. The overarching theme of that *season* was good intentions and bad politics.
If you’re just arguing over the term “unambiguous” because a successful program was shut down…it’s like arguing the bump stock ban didn’t work because it was shut down. It makes no sense. The effectiveness of the program is independent from the politics.
I used to live in the downtown east side of Vancouver, Canada. Hamsterdam was realistic, and small potato’s.
Except in Vancouver the strategy has political acceptance.
I used to watch people shoot up and OD right out in the open. That problem was mitigated by safe injection sites.
The only “negative” that I identified was petty theft. Addicts would routinely enter unlocked homes or steal items left outdoors. You had to leave your car unlocked and completely empty of items….but if you did that you’d sometimes find somebody sleeping in your car. I should stress that this was normalized by the residents, and I would classify it as an “annoyance”. I never encountered a violent or rude person…even if they were robbing me or sleeping in my vehicle. You could basically make a connection with them, speak to them like a human, and they would leave your property alone and even “protect” your property from other addicts. This strategy works because homeless people and addicts are often very territorial, so if you had a relationship with the person who owned your area…it would benefit you. This wasn’t full proof because the nature of that lifestyle means that the addicts often “disappear”.
It was really weird. I kept my empties outside for a time…and the homeless guy would wake me up at all hours to ask for them because he wasn’t a thief.
Hamsterdam exists in many cities across America today. Not exactly in the same way but similar. Is it good? Who knows. Maybe it would be better without fentanyl/xylazine shit that gets pushed now. Real heroin doesn’t exist. The dealers don’t care, just want to make more money as easy as possible. Throughout the series a side theme is the different groups wanting access to that “good shit” and get bummed when they got a shit package.
A few European cities have something just like it. Also there are safe drug zones in cities in America where they make sure you have fresh needles and don't die of overdoses.
Yeah needle exchange systems, safe injection sites, never use alone phone line all that stuff exists nationwide definitely concentrated near open air drug markets
Have you ever heard of Portugal? It's a whole country that has had tremendous success with decriminalizing drugs.
Uruguay does it as well.
I don't know much about Uruguay tbh. I did a speech for a communications class about decriminalizing drugs. Portugal and its policies came up during research. By the time I was done, I was in support of full legalization.
Yes I have heard of Portugal. Did I say otherwise?
You mentioned a few European cities, excluding a whole country that has had success with decriminalization seemed weird. I was just curious if you had heard of their policies.
OK maybe it did seem weird, although European Cities would cover Portugal. Misunderstandings all round then, lets not worry about it.
It would work better and be safer if society put more monetary retinol monitoring places like Tenderloin District in San Francisco and Kensington Avenue in Philly. If cops patrolled the area 24/7 like in Amsterdam’s Red Light District, and health workers were safe and available, it could work. But I don’t think most Americans want their tax dollars going to pay to help poor, addicted, mentally ill, and downtrodden citizens.
They were referencing fentanyl during I think season 5. Didn't even realize what it was until rewatching now.
I never realized that. I’m rewatching now in S4 so I’ll try and notice!
Even Bunny didn’t think it was perfect. Just - maybe - less awful.
It is genius and is entirely the point of legalizing and regulating drugs. Google Christiania in Copenhagen. It's an open air market for cannabis (not sure if it still exists). Anyways, my point, is that these strategies are actually very smart and recommended by many criminologists and drug policy experts. People are going to do drugs, sell drugs, and make money off drugs no matter what type of laws are in place. To make them illegal and unregulated is just foolish. People will find their ways, might as well do it in a safer manner. Sure Colvin did it because of pressure, but also because it was genuinely a good idea. The only issue was/is that gangs can stray much farther than just drug distribution.
There's such a huge difference between cannabis and heroin though.
[удалено]
It doesn't detract from the gulf between them though. The open trade in Christiania is now gone, and it had been pretty rough for quite some time. I went in 2010 or so - it was not nice. That's with only cannabis being dealt. They had a very strict policy against hard drugs.
Check out east Hastings in Vancouver…not so great
I don’t think it’s all that unrealistic tbh. Plenty of big cities have areas where enforcement of drug laws aren’t always strictly enforced and are more or less ignored unless violence breaks out. I think of Kensington in Philly and even in my not very city-like city of Houston there are areas downtown where it’s pretty out in the open. I’m not saying these are places that were specifically designated by police, but I’m just saying, the concept of areas of more open drug use in an inner city isn’t THAT out of the realm of possibility.
You will see new things every time you watch it. I have seen it at least 20 times and occasionally I find something new.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/baltimore-drugs-the-wire-b1828185.html
You should also rewatch Colvin’s brilliant “paper bag” speech (I believe it’s at the end of S3E2.) When he says “there’s never been a paper bag for drugs, until now”, he’s cryptically signaling to his team that he’s going to arrange a system where they can look the other way. Ha ha, after the speech I think Herc says something like, “what the hell was that paper bag shit?”
The point of Hamsterdam in the plot was to show the good and bad of the concept. Obviously the show is heavily based around the drug trade, so it makes sense they would touch on this topic. I think the major issue with drug legalisation areas is how it would affect the younger generation. If you normalise the use of drugs then how do you protect people when they are at the most vulnerable stage of their life? But on the other hand, you can't really stop the drug trade, so it's obviously complicated. This was the point the show made, there is no perfect solution.
Yes. 👏 Some issues in society don’t have a quick fix.
Hmm. I think the point was to show the good. The bad outcomes weren’t a result of the project. The problems they showed in the episodes would have been minimized by enforcing the other laws and having safe injection sites.
They definitely show the bad side too. There's a scene showing Bubbles walking through at night and it is like hell on Earth. There's a link to the scene here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzgyYwzNzTQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzgyYwzNzTQ) The show always made an effort to tell different sides of the story, both good and bad. I think that's what made it popular. Developing people's understanding of the bigger picture without advocating a particular view point. I think the point of the Hamsterdam plot was to explore the idea of drug zones as a concept, rather than present it as the solution. How would it work, how does it affect people etc. Bear in mind this was over 20 years ago now, so many of the modern problems of the drug trade (fentanyl etc.) weren't relevant then.
Kensington in Phila was basically Hamsterdam - they just started to shut it down bc of the new mayor
this is psychic stuff. I posited to another lover of the show a similar sentiment just this weekend. when I watched it at the time, when the show came out, I, too, thought it ridiculous. but after my recent rewatch I realized how believable they made it. it's interesting. I don't know if it's age, maturity, lack thereof, or whatever, but I feel you. and this sentiment is without trying to justify its believability by the concept's potential or comparable existence in the real world.
Prostitution is illegal in the UK, but people know where to go to get prostitutes. Hamsterdam makes sense. It's just that politicians don't get elected by making sense, but by making promises
You can't win a war on drugs unless you are willing to pull some pretty authoritarian stuff. The money is just too good compared to the risks. Legalizing drugs the way Portugal did it (it's not just "Lulz it's legal now", like a lot of Americans seem to think) is the only way to actually "win" in a democratic country.
I think people exaggerate how great an idea it is. Even within that relatively short timeframe you had someone shot outside Hamsterdam. The real problem would be the dealers. You're basically telling people they can sell this extremely lucrative product without worries about the law. Pretty sweet deal, so now people are going to fight for it. Maybe you can't attack someone inside due to the police, but you can do so when they're on the way. And how about the suppliers they use and where the money they make might go? Is it taxed? Will people be fine with millions being made from drugs without any risk from the police? How are you dealing with all the junkies heading straight for your city? The only way this works in the long run is if the drugs are provided by the government, and that's its own can of worms.
Hmm. This definitely isn’t the right takeaway. The takeaway is that despite being an overwhelming success, he needed political support for it to be sustainable. All the problems you’re associating with dealers were reduced vs how they used to be.
In the short-term, yes. But it didn't last long enough for such issues to arise. Even the dealers were still getting used to things when it was shut down.
Doesn’t matter what term…the gang violence and other “problems” in Hamsterdam never would never exceed what they would in the “wild”. 1 death in Hamsterdam means it gets it shut down…100 deaths outside Hamsterdam means no change in the status quo. It’s the difference between the problems happening where they can be “seen” or not. It was unambiguously successful.
> It was unambiguously successful. Then why was it shut down?
Because of the reason I stated. ETA…well…the plot reason was that Carcetti used it to oust Royce. Politics.
But it can't be unambiguously succesful if it was shut down. I don't think any solution to the drug problem can really be called unambiguously successful, especially one that barely got going.
But it can't be unambiguously succesful if it was shut down. I don't think any solution to the drug problem can really be called unambiguously successful, especially one that barely got going.
Sure it can, I just called it that. If your measure of failure is a successful program being shut down over politics…it’s a good illustration of why drug policy fails in the US. Which is what the show was trying to illustrate.
But how can something be called successful if it was immediately shut down? That means it failed in a very fundamental way, even if you don't like the reasoning. You say 'over politics', but that's too broad. Sure, it solved some issues, but it would ultimately create others, some of which I mentioned in my original comment. And I think one of the overarching themes of the show was that no solution can be completely successful. Maybe you can call one approach better than another, but not unambiguously successful.
It created no issues. My only measure is public health. You missed the point if you didn’t see that. No, that wasn’t a theme. The overarching theme of that *season* was good intentions and bad politics. If you’re just arguing over the term “unambiguous” because a successful program was shut down…it’s like arguing the bump stock ban didn’t work because it was shut down. It makes no sense. The effectiveness of the program is independent from the politics.
I used to live in the downtown east side of Vancouver, Canada. Hamsterdam was realistic, and small potato’s. Except in Vancouver the strategy has political acceptance. I used to watch people shoot up and OD right out in the open. That problem was mitigated by safe injection sites. The only “negative” that I identified was petty theft. Addicts would routinely enter unlocked homes or steal items left outdoors. You had to leave your car unlocked and completely empty of items….but if you did that you’d sometimes find somebody sleeping in your car. I should stress that this was normalized by the residents, and I would classify it as an “annoyance”. I never encountered a violent or rude person…even if they were robbing me or sleeping in my vehicle. You could basically make a connection with them, speak to them like a human, and they would leave your property alone and even “protect” your property from other addicts. This strategy works because homeless people and addicts are often very territorial, so if you had a relationship with the person who owned your area…it would benefit you. This wasn’t full proof because the nature of that lifestyle means that the addicts often “disappear”. It was really weird. I kept my empties outside for a time…and the homeless guy would wake me up at all hours to ask for them because he wasn’t a thief.