View Full Version : It Was Just Pot, They Said
Some see hope, others see problems in Colorado push to 'defelonize' drug possession
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/360/some-see-hope-others-see-problems-in-colorado-push-to-defelonize-drug-possession
Some Colorado lawmakers want to make felony drug charges a thing of the past. They see it as a way to stop "arresting away" our drug problem, but critics argue it comes with a whole host of other issues.
"The war on drugs has completely failed," said Rep. Leslie Herod, D-Denver. "The system is broken and this is a way to fix it."
[snip]
Can't disagree. But the war on poverty has also failed along with all the social programs. Why must one continue while the state punishes workers and rewards a recreational lifestyle?
Story mentions this report...
https://komonews.com/news/local/komo-news-special-seattle-is-dying
We have the same idiot voters, same stupid ideas, and will start having the same outcomes.
This should be a great discussion!
First
"My goodness, Denver is about to turn itself into the homeless capital of the Rocky Mountain region," said 18th Judicial District Attorney George Brauchler.
I can't imagine there is any other place in the Rocky Mountain region that currently hosts more homeless than Denver already, but I don't know.
Next, I take issue with this statement, but I need some time to flesh out exactly why.
Why must one continue while the state punishes workers and rewards a recreational lifestyle?
What do you mean about the state punishing workers?
I'd argue the point that this rewards a recreational lifestyle, but not necessarily your overall point, as soon as I figure out what that is.
[snip]
What do you mean about the state punishing workers?
I'd argue the point that this rewards a recreational lifestyle, but not necessarily your overall point, as soon as I figure out what that is.
The litany of overlapping taxes, fees, and redistributed costs imposed on those of us who work.
Compared to the benefits given to those who choose not to work from our paychecks. And it is pervasive! Can't count the number of social media whiners talking about their benes. Their pics are full of tats/pot/etc. Able bodied, able minded, don't work.
Keep pretending this a freedom issue all you want. The worst combination of Chicago and Seattle is Denver's future on this course.
Sounds like we'll really have to flesh out specific arguments to discuss. To start I'd say that of course all the fees and taxes and such are going to be aimed at the largest, richest segment of the population, which is people who are gainfully employed. I know that's not specifically what you meant, but if the state needs to make money, it's not going to be from people already living off of state provided benefits.
I've been dealing heavily with people who are "disabled" a lot lately so I'm right there with you on that particular topic, probably.
The drugs include heroin, fentanyl, cocaine and most other illicit substances. Under the proposed measure, those caught with small amounts of these drugs would face a misdemeanor instead of a felony charge.
I'm curious what a "small amount" of fentanyl is, because a "small amount" of fentanyl as typically described by lawmakers is enough to kill about 1,000-10,000 people.
Doesn't that, by definition, make it a "arsenal-of-death" in the hands of these "high supremacists" just waiting to mow down an entire town, that should warrant national news every time its found and all the criminal penalties that go with hiding such "arsenals"? When are we going to take steps to stop the next mass drugging? https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/13/health/california-mass-drug-overdose/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/15/health/new-haven-overdoses/index.html
I do wish there were per-capita homeless comparisons across the state, tracked over time.
Montrose isn't so bad, but it seems like there's a disproportional crap-ton around Grand Junction any time I go there. I wonder how it compares to Denver on a per-capita basis. The only place I know of that is nearly free from homeless is Craig... something... something about those brutal -30 winters.
In reality, government should have zero say in what you freely put in your body. And at the same time, it should not provide you means to sustain your life after freely ingesting any substance. Let nature take its coarse, and yes I mean let ODs die on the street, jobless starve, ect.
Government should be function to protect private property and life from those who steal or cause harm to others. As well as provide for means of commerce.
Government should not be educating nor providing healthcare.
Government should not be educating nor providing healthcare.
That's false and short sided. I guarantee none of us would want to live in a world where there is no assistance like that.
BladesNBarrels
04-13-2019, 15:10
I'm curious what a "small amount" of fentanyl is, because a "small amount" of fentanyl as typically described by lawmakers is enough to kill about 1,000-10,000 people.
Doesn't that, by definition, make it a "arsenal-of-death" in the hands of these "high supremacists" just waiting to mow down an entire town, that should warrant national news every time its found and all the criminal penalties that go with hiding such "arsenals"? https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/15/health/new-haven-overdoses/index.html
On another forum, there was a discussion about Fipronil and its toxicity.
One response brought a little more perspective, with a touch of humor:
"Fipronil is very toxic. I read that even a concentration of one part per trillion is toxic to bees. That is one liter per cubic kilometer. Think about it. That?s not much.
It was in Organic or Physical Chemistry in college that we were discussing the toxicity of some substance, that someone in the class said that one gram of that particular substance could kill a million people. To which, Dr. Burr countered: That is like saying that a teaspoon of semen could impregnate 250 million women. The problem is distribution!"
BladesNBarrels
04-13-2019, 15:15
Government should not be educating nor providing healthcare.
May get an argument about that:
The purpose of our Federal Government, as found in the Preamble of the Constitution, is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
The libertarian and darwinian approach is probably the most flawed of all solutions. True, in time (say, 50-100,000 years) the problem would genetically resolve itself that way as to the current issue (opiates, etc.) although there will always be a new chemical that can do the same, or worse.
The problem with the libertarian aspect is it is taken from a flawed perception of a typical, mid-30's, "white-guy" with his shit put together, and with relative luck in his life, and little memory of his youth. It doesn't account for the reality of the human species, especially our anatomy and physical development.
Do you know how infants, toddlers, and children have developmental milestones? Those are external indications of brain development. You wouldn't expect a toddler to be able to make informed, logical decisions about drug use. The brain undergoes multiple periods of rapid change in our life, completely reorganizing and re-wiring, processing thought entirely differently in transitory periods. These include a period of infancy, childhood, teenage, and a few in adulthood. A brain of a typical child is actually far more active - and would appear far more intelligent - in a brain scan, prior to their upcoming pruning and reorganization.
Well, you don't become an "adult" at eighteen, I'm sorry to say. The typical "adult" has developmental milestones and their brain continues to change - develop - and their cognitive processes continue to mature into their 30's. Late teens and early twenties individuals are largely predictable as a group because of this development, and their cognitive processes are not yet fully developed. That's not to say, they aren't responsible for their decisions, only that they aren't quite as capable of making wise ones.
It's easy to look back, cocky as hell, and say "pfft if drugs were legal i'd never have used and there wouldn't be a problem". However, you cannot understand the butterfly effect, and most certainly one of the factors that kept you from using drugs - among others - was their illegality, whether you recognize it or not. If drugs are legal and available over the counter like pez dispensers, teenagers and young adults can EASILY be led into their use, especially if they happen to be around anyone capable of manipulating them into doing it, and it has little to do with "choice", it has more to do with sheer "luck".
Look back upon your life, and consider the mistakes you have made - some of them massive. Maybe you didn't ever try any illegal drug of any kind, but you still made MASSIVE mistakes, and luckily, they didn't catch up with you. Now, consider where you would be if any of those mistakes warranted an automatic death penalty.
You don't get to pick who your children's friends are, not really. And they lack the understanding of difficult psychological concepts and understanding until they are much older. Kids and teens have always done stupid shit since the beginning of time. Do you really want drugs to be freely available at every turn, so that out of all the serious mistakes your child will make, the "dead" one is right there? Do you really want drugs to be so freely available at any turn, where older manipulators can influence their decisions, before your child is practiced in relationships?
The thing about consciousness, is we aren't as conscious as we think we are. Our decisions occur subconsciously, and they are based primarily upon our memories and our experiences. You can't teach the mistakes out of someone; wisdom literally has to be learned, there is nothing that replaces actual experience. That's why you made dumbass mistakes when you grew up, and your kids will too (likely outside of your knowledge). Presuming that you can simply "teach" your kids not to make dumbass mistakes is probably the pinnacle of ignorance.
We are biological meat bags with predictable brains, all of which were born in complete ignorance, testing our environment to find our way. I won't live in a place that freely places the equivalent of rat-poison and spring traps all through society, as I'm not such an idiot to believe my children are immune from manipulation and mistakes.
Sounds like we'll really have to flesh out specific arguments to discuss. To start I'd say that of course all the fees and taxes and such are going to be aimed at the largest, richest segment of the population, which is people who are gainfully employed. I know that's not specifically what you meant, but if the state needs to make money, it's not going to be from people already living off of state provided benefits.
I've been dealing heavily with people who are "disabled" a lot lately so I'm right there with you on that particular topic, probably.
Yes, I think you understand my rage.
Legit disabled I have no problem voluntarily funding programs to help, it's why we give to charities. This is probably less than 1.5-2% of the population and could be managed with death/disability insurance program. People who choose to be junkies? Nope. But gov is here to force me any way they can.
The libertarian and darwinian approach is probably the most flawed of all solutions. True, in time (say, 50-100,000 years) the problem would genetically resolve itself that way as to the current issue (opiates, etc.) although there will always be a new chemical that can do the same, or worse.
The problem with the libertarian aspect is it is taken from a flawed perception of a typical, mid-30's, "white-guy" with his shit put together, and with relative luck in his life, and little memory of his youth. It doesn't account for the reality of the human species, especially our anatomy and physical development.
[snip]
This was a really good post! Perspective is very important. Quoting and bolding a couple of great thoughts.
As a freedom/natural rights issue, this would sort itself out if we didn't have a welfare state and the hand-wringers didn't rule over us and our lives. The problem starts with the "concern" and then evolves into a moral panic. Because collectivists can never appropriately force the bad actor to be accountable, they can only redistribute the negative consequences to good actors.
They are turning natural consequences/biology 180 degrees and completely perverting it.
I don't think it's coincidental that they are trying to disarm us while doing this. I know I see a lot of things through the lens of gun rights but it would seem Coloradans should be asking for stronger gun rights with this change. Yet again, they are pushing it the opposite direction.
OxArt's post was good, but it goes in both directions. It took my half way through that text to figure out he was actually talking about the opposite perspective that I thought he was. I'm referring to how we can't realistically expect to live in a society where we leave those with problems to just figure it out. There ARE societies like that on the planet today, but they never left the jungles and are still in the stone age.
OxArt's post was good, but it goes in both directions. It took my half way through that text to figure out he was actually talking about the opposite perspective that I thought he was. I'm referring to how we can't realistically expect to live in a society where we leave those with problems to just figure it out. There ARE societies like that on the planet today, but they never left the jungles and are still in the stone age.
It was more common in the history of this country to be able to buy these scheduled substances than not. One used to find cocaine and opiates in a "drug store" and they were purchased without prescription. Yes, they were abused and people most likely OD'd and died from that abuse.
WoD followed WoP for a reason. We've had WoP for ~50 years and WoD for ~30. The country is ~243 years old. Humanity is the same.
I hardly think the choice is "suffer the junkies" or "stay in the jungle."
(limited to this issue) I think I would argue that any "one" solution of the respective camps would be a complete and utter failure; truly a hybrid approach taking pieces from each camp is probably the best solution.
Recognize: We are biological, and just like weeds, insects, and animals (catnip) there are MANY chemicals - both natural and synthetic, that will alter the way we process thought or feel, sometimes permanently.
1) Every kind of chemical shouldn't be legalized and freely available like candy. That's stupid, and will result in many more addictions than there are presently, most of which "don't deserve it".
2) Some people will inevitably expose themselves or get exposed, and then become addicted to chemicals. It's literally a component of biology. Some of them began their addiction willfully and intentionally, fully aware and with full sight of the consequences; most of them did not, at minimum, were shortsighted and/or manipulated. The range of chemicals with these effects is broader than a product selection at a grocery store.
3) Some people, addicted, clean, or otherwise, are just pure fucking evil.
4) Some people can never break the habit of addiction in any circumstance.
5) Biology though, does make it a bitch to break an addiction cycle once a person is addicted.
5) Many more, under the right circumstances, are likely capable of getting clean, and stopping recidivism.
6) Addicted people commit crimes at an incredibly higher rate than non addicted people.
7) Repeat recidivism is incredibly expensive. Enforcement, long term jail, support services, etc.
Realistically, we need to stop the compassion arguments and other touchy-feely bullshit, and approach this topic from a logical angle.
If it isn't incredibly clear, the "most fixable" aspect of this system is the addiction cycle - for #5. And as expensive as it is, it is the far cheapest of the solutions, and the most realistic. However, it is ignorant to apply this to all persons. Identifying #3 and keeping them in prison is important (skipping any further side-investment in them) and identifying #4 and letting them be - them - is also important, mitigating punishments that are purely repeat-drug related without any other factors (homelessness, trespassing, shoplifting, robbery and assault). If certain people are incapable of breaking the addiction cycle, but otherwise stay within the bounds of the law, then yeah - they don't need to be in prison over the mere fact of addiction. That typically, is pretty unusual that someone fits that typecast.
I do like serious enforcement of homeless and drug-related crimes (over and above, say enforcing drugs), treated as multipliers, much like firearms are in any kind of violent assault, and then providing them with a very strict choice: long jail time or long treatment time; with positive outcomes. As a component of that, I also think a psychological screen should be undertaken - potentially with imagery, both to study this problem in greater depth as mass-imagery is available to study, and also to screen out evil-sons-of-bitches who shouldn't have the treat-and-release option available.
That's my complete argument to solution, in a nutshell.
I think we need to narrow down specific points of contention.
There seems to be a lot of research going on now using things like MDMA, Ibogaine, ketamine, and even psilocybin to break addiction. All this research is decades behind due to over reaching government and BS "war on drugs" policies that have prevented these studies in the past. I'm only mentioning this as an example of one of the many failure points of the War of Drugs, not to suggest that toy store shelves should place Barbies between open bottles of bleach and PEZ dispensers filled with fentanyl.
There seems to be a lot of research going on now using things like MDMA, Ibogaine, ketamine, and even psilocybin to break addiction. All this research is decades behind due to over reaching government and BS "war on drugs" policies that have prevented these studies in the past. I'm only mentioning this as an example of one of the many failure points of the War of Drugs, not to suggest that toy store shelves should place Barbies between open bottles of bleach and PEZ dispensers filled with fentanyl.
Which I think is great news for those who want to get clean.
Decriminalizing hard drugs is creating fewer incentives to get clean. The hand wringers/statists seem to be completely pre-occupied with finding ways to spread the consequences around than finding solutions.
There seems to be a lot of research going on now using things like MDMA, Ibogaine, ketamine, and even psilocybin to break addiction. All this research is decades behind due to over reaching government and BS "war on drugs" policies that have prevented these studies in the past. I'm only mentioning this as an example of one of the many failure points of the War of Drugs, not to suggest that toy store shelves should place Barbies between open bottles of bleach and PEZ dispensers filled with fentanyl.
Not in disagreement there. I don't advocate for the "war on drugs", only against the extreme libertarian opposite LET THE WEAK DIE!
Most importantly I think unbiased research is incredibly important, the most important, and we need to be collecting a ton of real data for it. To some extent, I think as long as people knowingly consent and a study has some level of predictable safe outcome, we need to lift some [not all] of the "ethical" constraints on human trials. I also strongly wished there was a much better dedicated effort to study the living brains [magnetic] of addicts of all types, so that all kinds of advanced research could be undertaken in addition to a deep-learning/AI direction. I recognize it would be incredibly expensive, but a lack of real understanding of the facets of the issues is far more expensive (compounding), as is ignoring the problem altogether.
One of the best solutions to a negative chemical dependence is likely replacing it with a less-dangerous, or hopefully, nearly harmless chemical dependence. The addiction cycle of biology almost requires it. And like I was inferring, each isolated camp is wrong , but not entirely wrong - including the "war on drugs" camp. Criminalization of dangerous, highly addictive substances that serve no known benefit is important [especially in concert with other crimes]; but they also shouldn't be shunned or isolated from research. Likewise, merely being addicted shouldn't automatically send someone to prison for a long time, ala- three strikes. There are people who truly do manage their addiction and lead productive, perhaps shorter lives. That is their right to (libertarians are not entirely wrong). The compromise is to have severe penalties for the combination of drugs + illegal behaviors, simply so that we can overcome the constitutional burden to long enough involuntary institutionalization and treatment, as an alternative to a lengthy prison term.
I think that there is a much larger conversation here. Kind of like changing the legal system so that felons that have done their time can vote when they get out. There are lots of things wrong with society, and any "fixes" shouldn't be viewed as cure alls because they clearly are not.
Flesh out what ya want to discuss, maaaan.
PS Never is any fix of any kind a "cure all", there is always "someone left behind" an aspect most people fail to address - no worse offender than progressives though, who pat their back the hardest of anyone with all that virtue.
Partially why I advocate logic and "maths" based solutions, and strip out touchy feely. People are always going to die. Limiting burdens/costs to society, both financial, and suffering while considering the negative consequences of any action is vitally important. All this is irrelevant though, because we don't affect policy.
Virtue signaling white guys in gated white suburban neighborhoods, isolated from all of these problems, with millions of dollars in the bank, that's who is presently affecting policy. As I often say "There's over seven billion opinions on the planet, but their's is the only correct one".
So take your daym medicine Colorado, only they know what you really need!
I think that there is a much larger conversation here. Kind of like changing the legal system so that felons that have done their time can vote when they get out. There are lots of things wrong with society, and any "fixes" shouldn't be viewed as cure alls because they clearly are not.
The larger conversation should be about how to reduce Government's impact in all aspects of society. Make Government smaller, and less intrusive. Make Government adhere to a balanced budget, etc.
In short, the conversation to be had, is not how government can do it better, but rather should government be doing it at all.
-John
Well personally when I see a bill that wants to put fewer people in jail, I'm generally for it. Skip is looking at a very broad picture of freedom where no small bill can really do anything in the scope of the broader picture.
The U.S. does imprison as many people per capita as does North Korea. No question there is too many jailed.
On the flip side, did you see the "Seattle is Dying" documentary someone else posted? I don't normally watch things (normally too political and biased either direction), but that one does bring a lot of facts to the table and does show a result of the progressive policies now proposed in Colorado.
Status quo isn't right, for sure. Just curious where you think the best balance is, if anywhere. (accepting that no solution is perfect).
The U.S. does imprison as many people per capita as does North Korea. No question there is too many jailed.
On the flip side, did you see the "Seattle is Dying" documentary someone else posted? I don't normally watch things (normally too political and biased either direction), but that one does bring a lot of facts to the table and does show a result of the progressive policies now proposed in Colorado.
Status quo isn't right, for sure. Just curious where you think the best balance is, if anywhere. (accepting that no solution is perfect).
The Seattle is dying video is completely true
Great-Kazoo
04-13-2019, 20:15
Want to do drugs w/out repercussion? Here, sign this waiver that goes in a data base. You OD or seek treatment for substance abuse. TFB, you signed the waiver, you're on your own.
It's more than a drug problem though. It's directly tied to the transient problem, which I'm sure we can all agree is exponentially worse now than a decade ago. So it's not like a persons drug use is confined to their home, it spills out and tent camps, burns fires, trashes, and shits right outside your business/restaurants/tourist places/ etc. on sidewalk, and then often spills into petty crime. Then, do we take the same libertarian approach to shitting in public? Do we imprison people at serious costs to the rest of us for repeated petty crimes? Do we decide not to imprison anyone essentially giving them free license to shoplift, shit, vandalize, etc, without reprocussion? (Seattle). It's not so easy as putting blinders on and saying "if people wanna do hard drugs, lets just let em, it's no skin off my back". One leads to the other, and they can go a looooong loooong time shitting on your sidewalk in a tent without OD'ing. Or at the park you would otherwise take your kids/grandkids. Or off the nature trail. Etc. etc. Or do you imprison them for life for shoplifting fifteen times. What's your solution for the whole kaboodle?
ETA as addressed in other places, I don't equate homelessness with a drug problem. The transients you see in the tent camps and on city streets are not "homeless" in the classic sense. People who are homeless due to non-drug issues don't typically tent camp with the addicts on a sidewalk. They sleep in cars, couch surf, find a family member/friend (cycle around), or make use of what services they can. The trashy, tent transients have an incredible proportion of drug problems, close to being "all of them". So yeah, there is causation.
OtterbatHellcat
04-13-2019, 22:10
Want to do drugs w/out repercussion? Here, sign this waiver that goes in a data base. You OD or seek treatment for substance abuse. TFB, you signed the waiver, you're on your own.
This is it pretty much.
You can't force somebody to want to live.
Bailey Guns
04-13-2019, 22:45
The Seattle is dying video is completely true
I just watched that. Powerful stuff. I was in Seattle for just a few hours a couple of months ago. Long enough to see it's a total shithole.
kidicarus13
04-14-2019, 08:19
The Seattle is dying video is completely trueReplace Seattle with Denver. We're not too far away.
BPTactical
04-14-2019, 08:26
I will be very blunt and to the point on this subject.
Fuck That Shit!
theGinsue
04-14-2019, 08:34
I will be very blunt and to the point on this subject.
Fuck That Shit!
Well thought out reply - and I second it!
Want to do drugs w/out repercussion? Here, sign this waiver that goes in a data base. You OD or seek treatment for substance abuse. TFB, you signed the waiver, you're on your own.
Could work. There'd be problems with the children of users.
To my knowledge, no state has been able to even drug test program/welfare applicants so that kind of solution is out of the question. I think Florida tried and stopped.
[snip]
Virtue signaling white guys in gated white suburban neighborhoods, isolated from all of these problems, with millions of dollars in the bank, that's who is presently affecting policy. As I often say "There's over seven billion opinions on the planet, but their's is the only correct one".
So take your daym medicine Colorado, only they know what you really need!
I'm not sure that guy is going to keep being as isolated in his bubble as he currently is given the pace of things.
$500,000 buying power used to give you good mobility away from these problems. Not anymore. We're seeing it here in HR.
And if you have a gated community, you still have to leave at times. Your kids have to get to school. You have to go to work. The really odd thing is that Denver is becoming desensitized to the change. People living in multi-million dollar homes seem to be fine with this and experience on a daily basis. I have yet to see any grassroots resistance to Denver's camping law change...
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/360/does-denvers-urban-camping-ban-need-to-go-voters-decide-this-may
Heroin is a $80-150/day habit from what I understand. A habit that isn't funded from a hard day of work. There is only so much stuff on the street to steal. The economics of this problem demand that it spread.
I ain’t the smartest guy but this is a stupid fucking idea.
I ain’t the smartest guy but this is a stupid fucking idea.
Why?
I like how this means a different thing to each individual.
I'm struggling with the idea that this will create significantly more homeless. Sounds like I need to watch that Seattle doc.
Sounds like I need to watch that Seattle doc.
Definitely.
It's not the "de-felonization" all by itself, it's the inevitable neutering of all enforcement that inevitably goes with it; to say the effect it is entirely "decriminalization" of all aspects of transient life is more accurate, regardless of what the bill text is.
It definitely requires understanding Seattle (an actual test) to understand the expected outcome. PS: That doc also covers another state with an entirely different method.
I'm interested in what people would think about less punishment for drug possession, but more control of people being homeless and filling public spaces.
Side note: remember when Fentonite was talking about all the people he deals with getting sick from weed, and he said that the majority of people came in wearing pajamas? While that's funny, it also means that most likely those people were settled in at home to get blasted. That's where I prefer all people to get loaded.
I'm interested in what people would think about less punishment for drug possession, but more control of people being homeless and filling public spaces.
Side note: remember when Fentonite was talking about all the people he deals with getting sick from weed, and he said that the majority of people came in wearing pajamas? While that's funny, it also means that most likely those people were settled in at home to get blasted. That's where I prefer all people to get loaded.
You don't offer many personal opinions [pick-me] how, exactly, do you have "more control of people being homeless and filling public spaces" without arbitrarily putting them in prison for forever, or forcibly subjecting them to treatment or institutionalization? Considering that virtually all of transients have a serious drug addiction (above and beyond MJ) you sort of have to address one to address the other. (ETA here: Also how can you make mere homelessness a "serious crime" on its own to deal with that problem? There's significant opinions calling that an extreme and unusual punishment)
Being homeless on it's own also shouldn't be severely punished or per se illegal either. Trying to get a new job, drive to a new city for an interview, sleep in your car in some empty business parking lot? What's wrong with that? Homelessness isn't the underlying issue, it's drug use (and to minor extent, mental illness) that produces a special class of homeless called a "transient", whom has little to no intent of ever being a member of society, and in the "broken window" criminal justice theory, starts to reduce enforcement to non-existent until they freely shit anywhere, can vandalize, shoplift, and steal just about anything, from anyone, without repercussion - ever... and that is what happened to Seattle, in a nutshell. They are almost, entirely, addicted to major controlled substances.
So without addressing the controlled substances, how do you address the transients? Hide them on a remote island somewhere, a penal colony, and wait for them to die? Keep shuffling ever growing numbers of transients around, as if having them temporarily cycle through locations is any different than them staying? Or do you just give up entirely and let transients transient (Seattle's solution). Or do you also, perhaps address the controlled substances that are undoubtedly, causation for the vast majority being transient in the first place?
How about, by way of example, you make it a very serious crime to sell any quantity of a controlled substance, but not to buy or possess it in amounts that a person could safely consume inside of say, two weeks.
How about, by way of example, you make it a very serious crime to possess any quantity of a controlled substance while the guardian, supervisor, or caretaker of any child under the age of 16.
How about you make it an affirmative defense to possess a controlled substance on private property with permission of the owner, in amounts not exceeding what a person could safely consume inside of say, a month [where you are not responsible for children], while making it quite illegal to be high on any controlled substance and loiter on public property for any length of time, and then you make drug possession of controlled substances while committing lesser crimes (vandalism, shoplifting, etc.) a stacking offense, that doesn't otherwise exist for drug possession on it's own.
And then you use the harsh sentences to try to direct the transients into long term treatment as opposed to paying for their repeat incarceration for life. Thanks to the Supreme Court, we pretty much don't have the ability to directly institute anyone anymore, so that's not a viable solution as much as it might make sense. But if they face down a significant enough, justified jail sentence, it's a much easier option to take.
If you disagree with this theoretical opinion, by all means explain the aspects that you disagree with. Flesh out in the slightest how homeless [transients] are controlled, for starters.
ETA: This suggestion is purposed to decriminalize the use and abuse of illegal narcotics, so long as they 1) don't become a dealer or 2) they don't stay high in public, bothering people, or 3) they're not responsible for kids, and 4) they otherwise remain law abiding.
Outright decriminalization of hard narcotics? It's never worked. See if you can name one place that has tried it where it's improved anything in any fashion.
That's a long post I'll have to read later. I was just throwing an idea to the wind. This proposed law is about drugs, but the thread is about transients. Hard to keep up.
Okay, so I'm all caught up with why everyone keeps talking about transients when this bill is about decriminalizing drugs. The problem with just decriminalization alone is that it doesn't change anything else about the overall situation with narcotics. It doesn't make sense to lower penalties on things unless other aspects of those things are regulated as well.
I like all the examples of provided of when penalties are lower, and when they would be higher, especially being around kids. That seems easy enough to add into a law.
The U.S. does imprison as many people per capita as does North Korea. No question there is too many jailed.
On the flip side, did you see the "Seattle is Dying" documentary someone else posted? I don't normally watch things (normally too political and biased either direction), but that one does bring a lot of facts to the table and does show a result of the progressive policies now proposed in Colorado.
Status quo isn't right, for sure. Just curious where you think the best balance is, if anywhere. (accepting that no solution is perfect).
My folks live in Washington and they brought up how terrible Seattle has become...and it continues to get worse due to their progressive policies. These policies flat out don't work, but that won't stop the sponsors from continuing down that path. The excuse they regularly use is that they 'just haven't done enough'.
Aloha_Shooter
04-15-2019, 09:17
The excuse they regularly use is that they 'just haven't done enough'.
Typical coming from the Left. Socialist policies continue to fail because "we just haven't stolen taxed the rich enough" and "we haven't spent enough on those who refuse to take charge of their own lives."
Great-Kazoo
04-15-2019, 14:57
The excuse they regularly use is that they 'just haven't done enough'.
With other peoples money
Why?
I like how this means a different thing to each individual.
I'm struggling with the idea that this will create significantly more homeless. Sounds like I need to watch that Seattle doc.
I don?t think there would be much deterrence for those wanting to try it.
I don?t think there would be much deterrence for those wanting to try it.
I'd say there isn't much deterrence now. If you're a youth, you don't really have anything to think about losing, like OxArt was saying earlier in the thread.
If you're at a party or something, you're thinking you'll just get high and continue to chill. People who consider the worry possible outcome aren't going to try in the first place. The sizeable population of hard drug users we have today and become so under the threat of the law already.
I would agree, there isn't much of a deterrence now . Drug addicts are not the type of person to be always looking towards future consequences or savings; they are hedonists (but there again, so are most Americans anymore). The point of retaining the right kind of "criminalization" is perhaps, partially deterrence (to those that are not hedonistic, who easily mentally disregard trying drugs even once because they are illegal), but perhaps more importantly, so that all the other problems that accompany addicts can be dealt with - the "broken window" crimes and transients.
The problem with decriminalization really boils down to removing the only viable tool of dealing with transients.... and almost all of the transients are addicts, with a decent portion also having mental illness. "Criminalization" done right should sort of be like how firearms multiply the choices prosecutors have with certain types of property crime and minor assaults, which interestingly enough has entered the minds of many kinds of crooks (who will only hold up a gas station or a bank with say, a finger or a toy gun).
Decriminalize, and you're left with little to no enforceable way to resolve the tent campers crapping outside your business in public space and repeatedly shoplifting/vandalizing, thanks to various court rulings, plea deals, and weak punishments for those kind of offenses, its at most a revolving door at the courthouse for citations. You just have to get used to the addicts being your new neighbors, and they start to lose all fear of enforcement/police.
Why should tent camping on the sidewalk and crapping in the street not be a punishable offense though?
There used to be vagrancy laws. Then again, there also use to be state mental hospitals for those that couldn't couldn't function in society.
BushMasterBoy
04-15-2019, 23:17
There used to be vagrancy laws. Then again, there also use to be state mental hospitals for those that couldn't couldn't function in society.
There used to be vigilantes too. I bet they don't do that stuff in front of a motorcycle gangs club. Or a mobsters restaurant.
And they damn sure don't shit in front of the police station...or do they?
JohnnyDrama
04-16-2019, 07:57
I was thinking about this thread yesterday as I walked the dog. There are two houses in the neighborhood where I used to live who's previous occupants did a lot of drugs, sold them, and possibly manufactured them. Heard gunshots one day... The occupant/owner of one house had his mother intervene. She sent him off to rehab and sold his house to pay for it. The place is now owned by an older couple who have really fixed the place up. The other was a rental. We used to refer to it as "Angry House". There was frequently a lot of yelling heard from there. It is now and has been boarded up for the last five-six years since the occupants were evicted. The owner says the place is a total loss.
I don't see how de-felonizing drug possession will fix anything. I'm pretty sure the good representative from Denver who proposed that as a solution has not seen what drug use does to people and communities.
I'd say there isn't much deterrence now. If you're a youth, you don't really have anything to think about losing, like OxArt was saying earlier in the thread.
If you're at a party or something, you're thinking you'll just get high and continue to chill. People who consider the worry possible outcome aren't going to try in the first place. The sizeable population of hard drug users we have today and become so under the threat of the law already.
I can see your point. I always knew I had something to lose though, I think most of us on the board are the same. Why are we different?
I think that you thought you had something to lose because you had parents, teachers, law enforcement, tv commercials, etc telling you that drugs were bad and you believed them. Social influence and pressure is often more significant than statutes. If you grow up in a bad situation and can't really imagine your life being worse, then doing drugs probably doesn't sound so scary.
On the flip side, seeing people use drugs like coke or pot and not have their life fall apart can reduce your fear as well. I think it's important that parents do a good job teaching kids about drugs and that they aren't for them.
I'm a bit unique in that I never had alcohol until I was about 19 years old. My dad would always make a big deal about it (almost to the point that I wanted to drink to spite him) and I paid attention. I don't really regret not having a story about the time I got drunk at 14 or something either. I guess I'm saying that as drug laws loosen, as they are tending to do at this time, it's doubly important to raise kids that it's still not for them. Basically treating it like alcohol.
You’re correct Irving, I had those things. I remember having a plan for the future too. Maybe that was a part of it. Maybe I got lucky.
Looking back I just never really wanted to drink, smoke or do drugs. I went to parties and had friends that did it but I just didn’t. I did try the mint tobacco for a bit but stopped, that was in HS. That was as close as I got to smoking.
I know you’re all thinking “This guys a complete square.” [ROFL2]
You?re correct Irving, I had those things. I remember having a plan for the future too. Maybe that was a part of it. Maybe I got lucky.
Looking back I just never really wanted to drink, smoke or do drugs. I went to parties and had friends that did it but I just didn?t. I did try the mint tobacco for a bit but stopped, that was in HS. That was as close as I got to smoking.
I know you?re all thinking ?This guys a complete square.? [ROFL2]
*folds arms* I snorted a line from a pixie stick once. It burned like hell....
Definitely three factors come into play strongly, and the failure of any of the three can cause a drug addict.
1) Genetics and personality; 80% of personality has been proven to be genetic, if you end up with a child with a need for constant stimulation, you're chances are not good. This one is mostly luck.
2) Parental upbringing. If a kid doesn't have the right kind of positive influence, their chances are not good. This is the most controllable.
3) Not being closely associated with very bad friends. This one is mostly luck as well, with some aspects of it that are controllable if you develop awareness (and have some balls as a parent, early on).
You've all seen kids with great parents that did their best, and they still wound up on meth or otherwise became a lowlife. I really tend to think it's this simple in 99% of cases... is just a failure of one of these three things, and bewm, probably going to try that shit. On the other hand, succeed with all three, and you're guaranteed they won't.
*folds arms* I snorted a line from a pixie stick once. It burned like hell....
Definitely three factors come into play strongly, and the failure of any of the three can cause a drug addict.
1) Genetics and personality; 80% of personality has been proven to be genetic, if you end up with a child with a need for constant stimulation, you're chances are not good. This one is mostly luck.
2) Parental upbringing. If a kid doesn't have the right kind of positive influence, their chances are not good. This is the most controllable.
3) Not being closely associated with very bad friends. This one is mostly luck as well, with some aspects of it that are controllable if you develop awareness (and have some balls as a parent, early on).
You've all seen kids with great parents that did their best, and they still wound up on meth or otherwise became a lowlife. I really tend to think it's this simple in 99% of cases... is just a failure of one of these three things, and bewm, probably going to try that shit. On the other hand, succeed with all three, and you're guaranteed they won't.
Pretty sure life is a little more nuanced than that. Not terrible advice overall though.
Saw this article this morning...
Pharma CEO: 'This opioid crisis has become a fentanyl crisis' (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/opioid-fentanyl-crisis-us-154503926.html)
The opioid crisis has become increasingly worse over the last decade and is estimated to cost the U.S. government nearly $38 billion in lost tax revenue due to employment loss.
Opiant Pharmaceuticals (OPNT), the company behind the overdose reversal drug Narcan, is in the process of developing nasal nalmefene, a drug aimed at treating opioid overdose — particularly synthetic opioids like fentanyl — in a more effective way.
“It really reflects the fact that this opioid crisis has become a fentanyl crisis,” Opiant Pharma CEO Roger Crystal told Yahoo Finance’s First Trade. “The majority of opioid overdose deaths in 2017 contained fentanyl. And fentanyl, while still an opioid, is a different beast.”
There were 70,237 drug overdose deaths in the U.S. in 2017. During that time, nearly 30,000 deaths were attributed to synthetic opioids — including fentanyl — which is an increase of more than 9,000 over the prior year, according to CDC data.
If Opiant Pharma is successful with nasal nalmefene, it could drastically decrease the number of overdose deaths from fentanyl. Crystal described nalmefene as “a similar type of molecule to Naloxone,” the drug that makes up Narcan. However, he pointed out, “it’s more potent, so it binds tighter, and it also lasts longer.”
Fentanyl has the ability to stop a user from breathing in less than a minute. CDC statistician Merianne Rose Spencer told NPR that since 2013, “fatal overdoses involving fentanyl doubled, ‘rising at an exponential rate.’”
Although Crystal believes that Narcan is effective, “what we are learning is that more and more naloxone is required to initially revive someone for an opioid overdose, and naloxone only lasts an hour to two in terms of its half-life.”
He added: “[Fentanyl] is 50 times stronger than heroin. It lasts longer than heroin. And, in fact, you need to intervene even quicker than you would with a heroin overdose.”
This is because “fentanyl is more likely to cause an overdose than heroin because it’s so potent and because the high fades more quickly than with heroin,” NPR reported. And often, fentanyl is mixed into heroin without the drug user even being aware.
“The concern is: Can someone, even if they’re initially revived, potentially fall back into an opioid overdose state?” Crystal said. “We think [nasal nalmefene] could be quite promising to address that.”
It's nice that the government wants to do something about this because they're losing tax revenue. [facepalm]
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.