Socialists and millionaires think everything is about money. Guns? Cultural wars? None of that makes any sense economically.
Because defunding the police is such an easy lift, why not just sprint right to where the electorate is even more unlikely to follow? Tell you what, let's keep a lid on the fabulism until we can get Trump out. Then all the crazies in Crazytown can bring out their various proposals. Deal?
"There is no need for a sex worker or a drug user to ever encounter an armed enforcer of the law."
What about Christine Smith? She's the sex worker that Robert Yates shot in the head. She lived. Did she not need to encounter an armed enforcer of the law? Or should we still have Robert Yates out in the community, killing sex workers?
Or what about all the sex workers that Gary Ridgway killed? I suppose you're right -- they don't need to encounter an armed enforcer of the law, because they're dead. Thankfully those armed enforcers of the law existed, so he is now in prison, where he belongs. But I guess holding serial killers of sex workers accountable for their crimes is now bad in the world we live in, and the better philosophy is to let them go free so they can keep right on killing.
In Washington state, de-funding is the easy part. Raising new revenue is the hard part. So if taking funding from police departments is part of a reform program that simultaneously increases funding to drug treatment programs, mental health services, social outreach, etc then any push to slash policing budgets must include a revenue source for these things at sufficient levels to pick up the slack. Otherwise, in a year or two, the social problems that police are doing such a bad job at addressing will simply go unaddressed, and the "Seattle Is Dying" crowd will take power on a wave of public ill will.
What @1 said.
Replace car streets with pop-up bollards (those metal tubes you see everywhere in Europe) and pedestrian/bike streets that allow trucks during specific hours.
Words have meaning and need to be chosen with care and wisdom. "Defund the police" is a terrible slogan, one easily weaponized by Trump and his minions to attack Democrats in November. Think things through, people!!
I'm with you on a lot of drugs. But do you really want to be the one responsible for signing off and making it open season for meth use? You have to admit that tweakers are something of a problem.
And btw, how can the spellcheck algorithm not know "tweakers"? It's 2020 FFS.
lol, are people here really arguing the SPD was really arresting much of anyone for either sex work OR drugs? give me a break - they haven't been allowed to, in essence, for ages.
i'm not a huge fan of police, but this is a ridiculous statement by the author.
sex work and drug use is already quasi-legal for wealthy 'customers' - i have plenty of friends who are wealthy ($100k and up income) who enjoy coke and seem to have no problem getting it. Fremont is filled with brothels (i mean asian massage parlors) who give happy endings. 2- min walk from google and walk-ins welcome. so the 'what about the meth' argument is a straw-man. The problems of the meth crowd are as much related to poverty as they are their drug of choice. there's a cycle of poverty (working poor) - low education - psych trauma - drug use that is at play. The real issue with decrim of prostitution is that many 'legal' brothels would still exploit their workers, and policing that would require, well, police. Seems polyanna to think otherwise.
Gotta admire the trolls here for keeping such firm footing on those slippery slopes.
The left is having a rare moment of influence and visibility, and as usual they look like wild-eyed maniacs even though their ideas are sound. “Defund the police” is a horrible slogan that is guaranteed to scare the shit out of every white person over 35 who has only ever had peripheral engagement with the issue of police brutality. It doesn’t sound like it has anything to do with community-based policing, revamped drug laws, and other sensible measures that have broad support. Instead, it sounds like a dangerous lurch. Even if it generates support in the short term the backlash will likely be vicious, and will almost certainly get more people killed in the long run.
@15 You've got so much concern weighing you down there that I'm surprised you still have the emotional energy left to post blog comments.
@16, I’m managing, somehow.
As usual I don't disagree with you. But this was a cause and issue that erupted unplanned and spontaneously owing to circumstance. And as you note, it's legitimate and with merit. I've seen plenty of effort to clarify the actual meaning and aims thru my dumbassed Facebook feed, as well as thru other mainstream channels. Not sure what more we can/should be doing going forward. What do you suggest? Rebrand? Something like "Re-allocate Funding For Emergency Services" doesn't quite roll off the tongue, and anyway I think that ship has sailed.
@ 15, that was truly insightful and well written.
@16: You're little snippy barbs are annoying and add no value to the conversation.
I agree with some defunding (certainly not 50% right away), but the headline has it backwards: IF we decriminalize drugs and sex workers THEN we will need fewer police.
So many substantive reforms can be made that are either cost neutral or maybe even more expensive. We should focus on the substance of the proposals, not just blindly slash budgets. And, again, a big part of the problem are the laws themselves, and other things like rules of engagement, sentencing guidelines and unions. One suggestion: Require police to be licensed by the state so we can have another means of holding them accountable and work around the unions.
As @15 mentioned, this great moment of national unity risks being squandered by overreaching and polarization. One of two likely outcomes, if we don’t find common ground: 1) Tensions reach a breaking point in the not so distant future and/or 2) elections skew heavily conservative for the next few years and further increasing polarization.
Yes, thank you, gun control is the missing piece of the puzzle that no one wants to talk about. We have a militarized police force because we have a militarized public. Period, end of story.
This is utterly to everyone except for Americans, because we are so used to the idea of an armed public that we can't conceive of it being any other way.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.