I will be very blunt and to the point on this subject.
Fuck That Shit!
Printable View
I will be very blunt and to the point on this subject.
Fuck That Shit!
Well thought out reply - and I second it!Quote:
Originally Posted by BPTactical
Could work. There'd be problems with the children of users.Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OxArt
$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/new...ecide-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.
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by vossman
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.
Definitely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
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.
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
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.