I'm not sure how to square this:

"likely creating a flood of new low-level cases for the backlogged criminal justice system"

With this:

"prosecutors dismiss the vast majority of misdemeanor cases"

So...because we've underfunded the crime lab, we should decriminalize drugs? Not a great argument, though there is some merit to questioning the approach to drug policy.
Seesawing between a failed war on drugs and "Hamsterdam" isn't great either. Could we maybe even just try to land on a policy that is somewhere between arrest them all and free for all? Something that would reduce the obvious harms of the hard drugs without just being an excuse for cops to lock up anyone they don't like?

@2: It also reduces the number of persons exposed to secondhand fentanyl smoke, but asking the Stranger to care in the slightest about innocent victims of crimes was a battle we commenters lost here, and we lost it a long time ago.

@1: As George Orwell helpfully explained, keeping two blatantly contradictory ideas in one’s head, believing each to be true as necessary, is a skill which takes time and practice. Your failure to do so indicates you’ll never be a supportive commenter here at the Stranger. ;-)

@4 I guess I am a bit of a skeptic when it comes to the Stranger predicting future events. I am still waiting on the tsunami of evictions that was supposed to take place following the end of COVID-19 emergency measures, and the utter collapse of Seattle's residential real estate market due to speculative foreign investment.

Offering a pathway to treatment and other supportive services is great. Blackmailing people with jailtime is not. State violence must be subject to the same level of scrutiny as private violence.

@2 the logic in TS's statement is flawed don't you think? By incarcerating people, in theory they will have less access to fentanyl which would seemingly preclude them from overdosing. Since we know fentanyl is in jails though even if they did overdose there are people standing by who could administer aid, so how does that square with leaving them on the street with no supervision and unlimited access to fentanyl?

As usual the logic here is lost on TS and even on The Seattle Times who published a similar piece today. The goal here isn't to help addicts get better. The goal is to protect the rest of us from them as @4 noted. If some of them take it as a wake up call and accept treatment that is just a bonus. There is also the added benefit that with additional scrutiny some of them will move to more friendlier jurisdictions.

@6: In what sense is jail time automatically “state violence”? I doubt anyone would relish the experience of incarceration, but it’s better than being assaulted on the street.

@6
Considering the now routine numbers of shootings and use of gun events, what makes you think private violence is under any level of scrutiny?

@2 you appear to be a sociopath

@4 & 7 do you think people should also be jailed for smoking nicotine in public to "protect" the rest of us?

@13: Anyone smoking anything in an enclosed public space in the state of Washington should be cited for it, full stop. That is the law, as enacted by voters in 2005 to protect the public health.

Anyone smoking anything, anywhere, in a way which nonconsensually threatens to place open flame into the personal space of another person should be charged with attempted assault, full stop.

To answer your question, if nicotine were to be made illegal, then the answer would be yes. Do you know of any such current attempt in Washington state, or are you merely wasting everyone’s time with sophomoric analogies?

Has anybody at The Stranger ever put any real thought into what impact this whole "no accountability or rules for anybody ever" philosophy they've adopted for the criminal justice system means for liberalism and government regulations in general? Because I'm pretty sure that's a rake being stepped on that will eventually cause outcomes conservatives would be pretty happy about in the long run.

@13 I'm confused now: is it about actual danger from secondhand smoke or legality? And, if the latter, would I be correct in assuming that during the past couple years when possession and public use of fentanyl were not illegal you didn't care at all about people possessing and using it?

Should say @15 there

@18, 19 -- I'm old enough to remember when Initiative 901 passed in 2005 and the conservative naysayers said it would ruin businesses and we wouldn't be free anymore and it was overreach on and on. Instead of that happening, things were just fine. Some people couldn't smoke in public places anymore but the rest of us could go to a bar and not choke on secondhand smoke that we didn't want to breathe in all night. It negatively affected a small number of people in exchange for drastically improving public spaces for the vast majority.

There's a lesson there for you if you care to learn it.

@17: The Stranger chortles with glee at the thought of the Jan. 6th insurrectionists getting punished for their crimes, https://www.thestranger.com/slog-am/2023/06/05/79022842/slog-am-washington-faces-lawsuits-from-unvaccinated-employees-gannett-journalists-launch-strike-spotify-lays-off-200-people

It just so happens the crime the Stranger wants punished wasn’t violent insurrection, it was holding political opinions the Stranger happens not to like.

@18: It’s about actual danger to other human beings, whether you care to admit it or not. That’s why the laws exist, to prevent harm from coming to innocent persons. You can like that or not, as you will.

@8 tensorna Forcing someone into a jail cell is an inherently violent action. What happens if the person does not consent to be placed in jail and tries to run away from the people who are attempting to take them in?

@9 Sir Toby II I don't think you actually believe in such a strong categorical statement - unless you oppose the right to self-defense? I'm happy to hear valid objections to my argument, but that doesn't seem to be one.

@23 so if it's about danger, and given secondhand tobacco smoke is at least as (and likely more) dangerous than secondhand fentanyl smoke, I ask again: do you also want possession and public use of nicotine made illegal? And if not why not

@25 if you honestly believe cigarette smoke is the same or less harmful than breathing in fentanyl I think you have probably already breathed in too much fentanyl. Fentanyl is a schedule 1 controlled substance and people are literally dying from being exposed to it for the first time. When was the last time someone who smoked a cigarette for the first time immediately died? The defense of assholes who want to expose the general public to a potentially deadly narcotic is sad and pathetic.

@28 we're talking about secondhand smoke try to keep up.

https://publichealthinsider.com/2022/04/05/its-safe-to-give-help-questions-and-answers-about-secondhand-fentanyl-exposure/

"Studies have looked at fentanyl concentrations in the bloodstream after someone has had secondhand fentanyl exposure from smoke. The levels are extremely low or not detectable. So, there’s no real risk for the everyday person being exposed to secondhand opioid smoke."

@24: What if the person doesn’t consent to the laws of our society, and just wants to beat anyone he doesn’t like, for as long and as hard as he likes, for any reason he likes — or for no reason at all?

You’re not actually making a good case for your abolitionist views.

Obviously we need to impose a Special Operations Tax on Billionaires to pay for this testing.

And draft their kids to do the actual grunt work.

@31: So, anyone who defines the safe level of fentanyl in her blood as zero can just stop riding Metro or Link, then? Even though all smoking is banned in those places?

I know you’re just trolling, but when you’re telling people to tolerate illegal behaviors because there’s not enough evidence (for you) to say these illegal behaviors are sufficiently harmful to everyone, you’ve already lost whatever argument you believe you’re making.

@34 anyone who disregards science and public health expertise can do whatever they want with their ignorant selves, I just thought you might be interested in some actual facts but apparently I was wrong

@35: And fifty years ago, we were told second-hand tobacco smoke wasn’t harmful to children. How’d that work out?

Smoking anything on Metro or Link remains illegal, because voters said second-hand smoke was harmful. Just so you know.

@32 I have said before and I maintain that use of force is justified in order to bring an end to a situation of active violence. I think that society would be healthier if this use of force was more distributed, instead of resting solely in the hands of a specialized group who are the only people authorized to use violence (eg, the police). I understand that we can't just flip a switch and make that happen. Making this expectation distributed means that we need the general population to have a baseline competence in risk assessment, de-escalation, and self-defense. That is not currently a regular part of our upbringing, and there are practical challenges to implementation. But I believe that it can be done.

@36 are you suggesting that Big Fentanyl is actively suppressing true information and promoting pseudoscience to mislead the public as to the true danger of secondhand Blues smoke?

Something can be obnoxious and antisocial, and worthy of prohibition, without being "harmful." Just so you know.

Anyway now that we've clarified that smoking in enclosed spaces is already illegal, and given there's no evidence possessing or using drugs outdoors is dangerous to the general public, do you have any other reason for supporting the proposed ordinance? Other than the obvious real reason that you simply want undesirables removed from your view

@37: Your example of “state violence” @24 consisted of an individual deciding to use violence to disobey laws. I therefore gave another example of lawless violence by an individual. If you can misplace the cause of the violence, then I can move the location. (If in fact I did so; I may not have.) In neither case is the assault justified.

“…society would be healthier if this use of force was more distributed,”

Would this distribution be to other employees of the state, or to persons formally licensed by the state? If these persons are neither, then how does the state maintain monopoly over the legal use of force within its borders?

@38: “… given there's no evidence possessing or using drugs outdoors is dangerous to the general public,”

Dirty needles aren’t dangerous to children who step on them? Encampment fires caused by meth’ cookers can’t harm anyone? The only thing “given” here is that no one is required to argue on the basis of your unvalidated assertions.

Speaking of which, why do you claim I supported the proposed ordinance? (Other than your desire to ‘win’ arguments by simply making up the necessary facts?)

@39 illegal dumping/improper sharps disposal and reckless burning can be dangerous and are already prohibited by law. But I was talking about simple possession and public use of drugs. And if you don't support making those acts illegal it's bizarre that you're trying (and failing) so hard to justify doing so.

@42: Again, why do you believe I support the proposed ordinance? You haven’t quoted a single thing I’ve written in support of it. Simply repeating your opinion that I support it doesn’t mean anything.

@40: Sir Toby didn’t originate the idea of overdoses automatically being fatal. The Stranger did, in the final paragraph of this very headline post:

‘“By just flippantly incarcerating people addicted to fentanyl, even just for a short stint, you vastly increase the possibility of them overdosing and dying,” Glibert said. She’s not wrong.’

So please, feel free to criticize the Stranger’s coverage of this topic. (And tell Gilbert that she’s wrong.)

@44: "And tell Gilbert that she’s wrong."

Gilbert is not wrong. The cited study addresses "Post-release opioid-related overdose mortality". And goes on to point out that it's the post release period, particularly without a release into appropriate care that are the hazard. So, don't let them out of jail until there's a bed open at a resident treatment program. Let the cities or the state decide whether they'd rather warehouse the junkies in more jail cells or provide the treatment resources.