You may have some points here, but there’s no actual “war on drugs.” That was a splashy 80s framing and campaign promise. Some laws that need updating. Remember that legalizing drugs comes with its own problems and when corporate America drives the market.
What in the world is "cannabis social equity"?
We decriminalize drug use and possession... expunge all priors. Right!
That sets a real precedent for the legal system...should we do the same, say for white collar crimes. They seem to be prejudicial against white, males in their 50's.
Are we to believe, that magically we have some "drug rehab" program which springs into existence and then magically all the drug addicts, voluntarily leave their "free government provided housing, free food programs, medical services", renounce their drug dependency... and jump on board.
Yeah, that should work.
Or... we could continue with the existing laws and simply mandate a comprehensive and involuntary, drug treatment program as part of the sentence...one which lasts more than 2 weeks.
@2 "cannabis social equity" is the same bullshit as "social housing"
Its the latest in compassion babble, repackaged into a political agenda which is utterly useless and lacks any elements of meaningful change.
Its what you cling to when all the last crop of "social change concepts" visited on the city have utterly failed... say like do nothing micro housing, putting drug addicts in hotels, letting angry mobs loot and burn the city, $15 Now, Catch and Release Arrests...defunding the police... and the list goes on... and on....and on.
it never was a war on Drugs
only on the ones who chose
to use drugs. well Some
drugs: see: Big Pharma
oh and see the Sicklers
and their Oxycontin:
the SAFEST Oxy
you'll ever be
and 4 outta 5
thanks to the Suckler's
Massive ad Campaigns
we cannot have
both a Middle Class
and Billionaires in the USofA
to see whose
Side you're on.
too many Monie$?
not Enough Taxes?
off into Outer $pace!
spend $44 BILLION DOLLAR$
on a Messaging Machine
OWN 'our' Mass Media
to SELL whateverthefuck*
you Wanna? go ahead! it's
totes. YOUR. Call.
[nevermind the Masses 'liv-
ing' on your Streets in squalor]
[we'll have them outta
your Way in a jiffy!]
oh and Genocide
& thank God it ain't
Perhaps you're simply too young to have been around at the time, but there HAS been a War On Drugs (tm) for more than 50 years, and which started well before the "Just Say No!" bromides the Reagan Administration trotted out back in the '80's.
" "All we do is arrest the person, arrest their progress, and then subject them to a very high risk of overdose and overdose death when they’re released," he said during the presser.
That was certainly the case for Carmen Pacheco-Jones."
Except Carmen didn't overdose, so that case was not made. If Carmen had overdosed, then OK sure.
Informative, Rich. Thank you.
That OPB article discussing Oregon’s experience with decriminalization doesn’t exactly help your case:
“What it shows is that while Measure 110 was pitched to voters as a way to expand access to addiction treatment and recovery, the early spending has only led to about 136 people entering treatment — and that’s out of hundreds of thousands in Oregon who need but are not receiving treatment for substance use.”
Decriminalization for decriminalization’s sake will not help anyone, especially those looking for a path away from drugs. Yes, give people a path to treatment and recovery-but let them know that not choosing treatment will come with consequences.
Who is getting arrested in WA right now for drug use or possession? Certainly no one in Seattle or King County. What they are arrested for are the crimes they are committing to feed their drug habit (theft, fraud) or crimes committed while they are in the middle of a drug fueled episode (assault). I would bet if you ask the survey respondents whether they support giving people a get out of jail card just because they are an addict the answer would be a resounding no.
We should all understand that implementing this policy without a continued effort to reduce the flow of these substances into WA state will result in a massive increase in overdose deaths that will no doubt be borne by already marginalized communities. It's amazing how these progressive policies always sound so compassionate on the surface but in reality end up victimizing the people they are purporting to help further.
This is another one where an easy compromise solution is obvious, and will never be agreed on.
Yes, you clobber criminalization. Doesn't work long run, though you need a force mechanism for the % of totally unreachable people who will never get off the stuff.
There will need to be tracking of parallel problem issues. Without controls on usage, there likely will be both an increase in users (self bus therapy...you are an addict? You wanna live where you go to jail or where it's decriminalized?) and thus an increase in homeless population and crimes. There will likely have to be more enforcement on the latter and residential origin control efforts on the former.
Number 2 is where the radleft will shoot themselves and the policy in the foot. I can aread hear the whiny and trite platitudes and blithe "well, just give them more stuff!" whether it be housing or decriminalized property and even violent crimes (holdups, etc...) ala NTK. A state/locality can't absorb the costs of a regional/national issue.
But given I expect the usual complaints noted above, this policy will never happen, or will rollback as soon as the issues nameed start occcurring.
I would feel a lot more comfortable with this proposal if it had a sunset date with a renewal contingent on....something: Certain metrics being met or a mandatory renewal by the legislature or another initiative to confirm that it's still a good idea. I hear a lot of valid skepticism here, but the reality is we don't actually know what the net effect on society will be of decriminalization at this scale. Common sense says it could end badly, but worse than the status quo?
How can naloxone distribution be described as a harm reduction program?
It seems to simply prolong the harm, allowing the user to overdose again, and again, and again, never giving them the respite they so obviously crave.
I was about the decriminalization of all illicit drugs until I remembered this is a capitalist country. Can you even imagine? That might be scarier.
I guess you'd prefer they just die and, I dunno, reduce the surplus population or something?
@16 stats say people are more likely to recover if they're not dead, and arguably dying does more harm to the individual than not dying. Hence harm reduction! Good to ask questions.
I just want to respect the choice they have made. The choice which they have repeatedly made so obvious.
And honestly if it was you, what would you want?
the respite they
so obviously crave."
'set them free' toby?
cuz that's what
is in the terlet
you just need
a little Flush
But what kind of life do you offer? Trapped in a burned out shell blinking once for yes and twice for no.
@12: "Decriminalization for decriminalization’s sake will not help anyone, especially those looking for a path away from drugs."
It will help lots of people: citizens who do not want any more of their tax money wasted on the failed drug war (which only increases the prices of the drugs), people who've had their stuff stolen to pay for this high-priced illegal drug use, people who use drugs and suffer further from low (potentially fatal) quality, anyone who cares about any of the above persons -- those are just the immediate beneficiaries. Look what happened in Washington State after we voters legalized cannabis, and multiply that by several different types of drugs.
@13: You can't have it both ways. Either there is no enforcement of drug use now, or stopping enforcement will bring new problems. (From what I recall of my last few years in Seattle, there was no enforcement. Watching persons shoot up in daytime, in public, makes for very strong memories indeed.) It's our existing efforts to interdict drug supplies which raise their prices, and lower their quality. More of the same will get us nowhere.
It's the same answer as for cannabis. Tax and regulate, and require a large chunk of the revenues to go for treatment. (Oh, and sweep all of the homeless encampments, every one, every time, and offer these treatment programs to all of the inhabitants, as most of them are users.)
I can see both sides of this. On hte one hand, the current approach is not doing much to help anyone stop using. We sure as hell need more treatment, and a lot more of it. On the other hand, it is not the drugs per se that are fucking up the city. It is the crime that goes with it, and of course that is caused by the addicts themselves. And decriminalizing is surely going to lead to more users going to the places where it is decriminalized, because who likes jail? And it's pretty hard to see how that is not going to lead to more crime. Oregon's experience has not been stellar: https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2022/02/07/oregon-has-worst-drug-addiction-problem-in-the-nation-report-shows/
If this were paired with a serious crackdown on street crime and property crimes like theft (as in tolerate the drug use but not the crime that comes with it) it would probably have a better shot at getting more than the far-left vote.
@25 you’re right but that’s not what we’re talking about with this initiative. It can’t and won’t change federal law. The only thing it does is let people use without fear of arrest. There is still an illegal drug of unknown manufacture flooding out streets that will kill people. Don’t punish the users but you damn well better go after the suppliers or you’re just allowing organized crime and gangs to have free reign. If you think property crime and anti social behavior is bad now just wait.
@23 fortunately it's not up to you to determine the value of anyone else's life, so you don't have to tear yourself up over that question. What is the value of a life spent deeming others' lives not worth saving? Now there's a question for you.
let's not put the cart before the horse and decriminalize willy-nilly without first standing-up other infrastructure such as in-patient recovery and treatment.
lest we end-up in another situation where we aren't putting people in prisons but also aren't putting them into other systems which could help them.
speaking from experience as someone who was addicted to coke and booze...drugs are bad, mmmkay. they are fun, and bad.
@31: I don't see a problem with decriminalization for possession now (the dealers are another thing). But we can't wait for "programs" to be fully funded. Because that's just holding the futures of the addicted hostage to expanding support for the Homeless-Industrial Complex.
@32 - @31 is right. Otherwise we just wind up with more free-range addicts and all of the problems that come with them, with no way to address those problems (in other words, holding the rest of us hostage to the behavior of the addicts).
"What is the value of a life
spent deeming others'
lives not worth
Now there's a question for you."
well that's a
when one loses
is it Too Late
@33: That just puts the lie to the approach followed in Europe. Which is that it's the poverty and poor living conditions that drive addicts to commit crimes and bad behavior. Give them pharmaceutical quality drugs, a clean place to shoot up and live and they'll be tolerable, if not excellent neighbors.
I think it's worth a try. But as a probationary condition. We give them a hand up and they clean up their act. So they are already "in the system". And now with a track record of bad behavior. So then it's into the in-patient recovery program.
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.