2020 Elections

[mahagonny]

We - all of us Americans - need to do more to root out racism from the language and customs and psyche of our society. Only then will it be impossible for an overweight middle aged idiot with heart disease to get high on fentanyl and amphetamine, get in trouble over an additional stupid little crime, overwhelm a couple rookie police officers by peeing his pants and carrying on like a child, then finally be roughed up by an overzealous veteran cop with a history of violence until his life is snuffed out. As the vice president elect pointed out, it's all about race and the demonstrations need to continue.

[financeguy]

This is incidentally unrelated to the new Netflix film Hillbilly Elegy. My aunt wanted to know if I'd watched it since we'd discussed the book after it came out. We got into a disagreement over the "what to do" question about those in the same situation as the drug addict mother. My response was (and is) that asking what you can do for those people is a fine question to ask, but only after asking the question of how do we protect those in society who are not f*ing up from the effects of their behavior. Unfortunately this priority all to often takes a back seat to what we can do for the criminal.

I have no animosity toward her, Floyd or anyone else who has exhibited criminal behavior either due to drugs or for unrelated reasons. I simply do not wish to deal with them personally until there's a reasonable chance they are not going to continue their criminal behavior. What's the best approach? A jail with punishment as objective? A treatment facility? A different medical option? A hybrid solution? Something else? I don't really care as long as they are in no way interacting with me in my daily life. If this means incarceration rates are longer, so be it. 

[kaysixteen]

You are absolutely right, of course.   Misguided liberal-ish notions of not looking down on people like this does them no good, nor society.   Sadly, I see people like this every day at work in Rusty City (and in the neighborhood I live in)-- new policies on weed legalization are but one aspect of exactly the wrong thing being done with people like this, to the great hurt of them and society at large.

[marshwiggle]

I have no animosity toward her, Floyd or anyone else who has exhibited criminal behavior either due to drugs or for unrelated reasons. I simply do not wish to deal with them personally until there's a reasonable chance they are not going to continue their criminal behavior. What's the best approach? A jail with punishment as objective? A treatment facility? A different medical option? A hybrid solution? Something else? I don't really care as long as they are in no way interacting with me in my daily life. If this means incarceration rates are longer, so be it.

I wish proponents of "harm reduction programs", such as safe injection sites, would publish statistics about their rate of getting people into treatment programs and how many are drug-free X years later. Any sane person can see that it's better to get these people (back) to being productive members of society than to incarcerate them, but it's not at all clear how frequently that happens. And there is evidence that the existence of safe injection sites will induce some people to try harder drugs ("moral hazzard"), but it should be possible to run the numbers and establish objectively whether the overall effect is positive.

I (probably like many other people) would be glad to support funding for these programs if the evidence indicates that they have an overall benefit. Just keeping people alive longer, without getting any of them out of their addictions, is an extremely low bar to set.
 

[mahagonny]

You are absolutely right, of course.   Misguided liberal-ish notions of not looking down on people like this does them no good, nor society.   Sadly, I see people like this every day at work in Rusty City (and in the neighborhood I live in)-- new policies on weed legalization are but one aspect of exactly the wrong thing being done with people like this, to the great hurt of them and society at large.

Not looking down on people like these is a Christian thing to do. But then, so is accepting that one may say 'there were good people on both sides.'

Assuming we believe that we would all like to see black Americans become yet more prosperous, safe and fulfilled, I suggest that we democrats applaud those blacks who are recently having success as republican politicians. That would include those who are strict on law enforcement.

About marijuana: it's not nearly as safe as people believe. But then why fight a drug war over things like alcohol and THC. It never works.

[ciao_yall]

I have no animosity toward her, Floyd or anyone else who has exhibited criminal behavior either due to drugs or for unrelated reasons. I simply do not wish to deal with them personally until there's a reasonable chance they are not going to continue their criminal behavior. What's the best approach? A jail with punishment as objective? A treatment facility? A different medical option? A hybrid solution? Something else? I don't really care as long as they are in no way interacting with me in my daily life. If this means incarceration rates are longer, so be it.

I wish proponents of "harm reduction programs", such as safe injection sites, would publish statistics about their rate of getting people into treatment programs and how many are drug-free X years later. Any sane person can see that it's better to get these people (back) to being productive members of society than to incarcerate them, but it's not at all clear how frequently that happens. And there is evidence that the existence of safe injection sites will induce some people to try harder drugs ("moral hazzard"), but it should be possible to run the numbers and establish objectively whether the overall effect is positive.

I (probably like many other people) would be glad to support funding for these programs if the evidence indicates that they have an overall benefit. Just keeping people alive longer, without getting any of them out of their addictions, is an extremely low bar to set.

Well, having them using out of sight, instead of lying on the street, is certainly a nice start.

We have a needle exchange once a week around the corner in our "transitional" neighborhood. It's the cleanest safest evening of the week. Only the civilized junkies show up for that.

[Sun_Worshiper]

I don't care about George Floyd as a person, I care about police brutality. But more immediately, I care about the President and his allies trying to dismantle American democracy. You claim to be upset by that too, but for some reason you change the subject away from it or, in our last exchange, make excuses for Trump, every time the topic comes up.

The smart thing to do then, in my opinion, would be to lobby for better ways to curtail police brutality, using as evidence, the total number of Americans of all races brutalized by police over a specific period, which is much higher than just the number of POC brutalized by police. You would have a stronger case and more people engaged. But thanks to the irrational objection to the the phrase 'all lives matter' and any associated sentiment, that's not going to happen.

Again, I'm not actually talking about this, but rather the ongoing assault on democracy by the President.

[Kron3007]

As a matter of arithmetic, the longer offenders are imprisoned, the fewer offenses there will be on the street.

Problem is what constitutes an offense? A large share of the incarcerated are in prison on account of the so-called War on Drugs. One hell of a lot of that is for possession, not violence.

Legalize and tax; tax and legalize.

Your arithmetic is flawed though.  It assumes that the probability/rate of criminal offense is static when we know this is not the case.  Long jail sentences lead to an increased rate of recidivism, so the math is not that simple and longer sentences do not necessarily result in less overall crime, even if criminals spend less time on the street.  As you mention, many people start their career in jail for drugs, or other minor crimes, but harsh punishment can lead to escalation.

Again, it may feel right to punish the bad guys but if the main objective is to reduce overall crime rates this may not be the most effective or efficient approach.  As a person of science, I think policies should be data driven...   

[Kron3007]

You are absolutely right, of course.   Misguided liberal-ish notions of not looking down on people like this does them no good, nor society.   Sadly, I see people like this every day at work in Rusty City (and in the neighborhood I live in)-- new policies on weed legalization are but one aspect of exactly the wrong thing being done with people like this, to the great hurt of them and society at large.

Not looking down on people like these is a Christian thing to do. But then, so is accepting that one may say 'there were good people on both sides.'

Assuming we believe that we would all like to see black Americans become yet more prosperous, safe and fulfilled, I suggest that we democrats applaud those blacks who are recently having success as republican politicians. That would include those who are strict on law enforcement.

About marijuana: it's not nearly as safe as people believe. But then why fight a drug war over things like alcohol and THC. It never works.

What I find odd is why taking drugs is a criminal offense in the first place.  What is even weirder is that the people who are most likely to be the most hard line about this are the same people who tout small government, self determination, and personal liberties.  For example, you can't tell me I have to wear a mask, but dont let my neighbour smoke a doob!   

I am in Canada, where Cannabis has been legal for a while now.  The sky has not fallen.  In fact, it has created tax revenue, taken money from organized crime, and has been mostly beneficial.  Personally, I think all drugs should be legal...

[marshwiggle]

What I find odd is why taking drugs is a criminal offense in the first place.  What is even weirder is that the people who are most likely to be the most hard line about this are the same people who tout small government, self determination, and personal liberties.  For example, you can't tell me I have to wear a mask, but dont let my neighbour smoke a doob!   

Then you have to have specific legislation about "impaired [EVERYTHING]" with the corresponding increased penalties. Drunk (or high) drivers, pilots, health professionals,...... need to be get SERIOUS jail time for endangering others by their "totally legal" hobbies.

I am in Canada, where Cannabis has been legal for a while now.  The sky has not fallen.  In fact, it has created tax revenue, taken money from organized crime, and has been mostly beneficial.  Personally, I think all drugs should be legal...

One of the annoying things about cannabis (and vaping) is that in the rush to legalize everything they are starting to see the danger to underage people engaging in these things. (Cognitive development, emotional effects, etc.) Should there be penalties for adults providing these for young people? How severe?

If all drugs are legal, should selling fentanyl be legal? Why not? (If not, "Officer that garage full of product is for my own personal use. I like to buy in bulk.")

[mahagonny]

Personally, I think all drugs should be legal...
[snip]
In fact, it has created tax revenue, taken money from organized crime, and has been mostly beneficial.  Personally, I think all drugs should be legal...

Make them just like alcohol & the state lottery, a tax you pay for the privilege of being stupid.

One of the annoying things about cannabis (and vaping) is that in the rush to legalize everything they are starting to see the danger to underage people engaging in these things. (Cognitive development, emotional effects, etc.) Should there be penalties for adults providing these for young people? How severe?

If all drugs are legal, should selling fentanyl be legal? Why not? (If not, "Officer that garage full of product is for my own personal use. I like to buy in bulk.")

Not to mention cannabis can cause serious prolonged mental illness in some adults. Depersonalization, derealization, anxiety disorders. And increase the likelihood of schizophrenia in young adults who are genetically predisposed.

I know people hate to hear from the self-righteous about inebriating chemicals, but the facts are on our side.

[Kron3007]

What I find odd is why taking drugs is a criminal offense in the first place.  What is even weirder is that the people who are most likely to be the most hard line about this are the same people who tout small government, self determination, and personal liberties.  For example, you can't tell me I have to wear a mask, but dont let my neighbour smoke a doob!   

Then you have to have specific legislation about "impaired [EVERYTHING]" with the corresponding increased penalties. Drunk (or high) drivers, pilots, health professionals,...... need to be get SERIOUS jail time for endangering others by their "totally legal" hobbies.

I am in Canada, where Cannabis has been legal for a while now.  The sky has not fallen.  In fact, it has created tax revenue, taken money from organized crime, and has been mostly beneficial.  Personally, I think all drugs should be legal...

One of the annoying things about cannabis (and vaping) is that in the rush to legalize everything they are starting to see the danger to underage people engaging in these things. (Cognitive development, emotional effects, etc.) Should there be penalties for adults providing these for young people? How severe?

If all drugs are legal, should selling fentanyl be legal? Why not? (If not, "Officer that garage full of product is for my own personal use. I like to buy in bulk.")

1) Legal or illegal, we need laws around impaired driving.  This was one of the big issues in Canada when it was being legalized.  Everyone was saying if it is legal people will drive stoned and we need laws.  Fact is that people were driving stoned before it was legal and that issue did not change at all.  It is still illegal to drive impaired in any way, and this issue is not related to the legality of taking the drug in question.

2) As with point 1, underage people have always been smoking pot.  Surveys in Canada found that it was easier for youth to access cannabis (when it was illegal) than it was to get alcohol.  So, again, the legal status has little impact on this issue.  As with alcohol, there are penalties for adults providing cannabis to youth. 

3) Yes, fentanyl should be legal.  Legalization dosn't mean you can sell it on the street, it means that there is a legal source that is regulated.  The main issue with fentanyl is that it is often found in other street drugs and people accidentally overdose.  The whole point of a legalized supply chain is so that you can ensure quality control and accurate dosing.  People are using drugs, it is best to make sure they are as safe as they can be.     

[Kron3007]

Personally, I think all drugs should be legal...
[snip]
In fact, it has created tax revenue, taken money from organized crime, and has been mostly beneficial.  Personally, I think all drugs should be legal...

Make them just like alcohol & the state lottery, a tax you pay for the privilege of being stupid.

One of the annoying things about cannabis (and vaping) is that in the rush to legalize everything they are starting to see the danger to underage people engaging in these things. (Cognitive development, emotional effects, etc.) Should there be penalties for adults providing these for young people? How severe?

If all drugs are legal, should selling fentanyl be legal? Why not? (If not, "Officer that garage full of product is for my own personal use. I like to buy in bulk.")

Not to mention cannabis can cause serious prolonged mental illness in some adults. Depersonalization, derealization, anxiety disorders. And increase the likelihood of schizophrenia in young adults who are genetically predisposed.

I know people hate to hear from the self-righteous about inebriating chemicals, but the facts are on our side.

Have you been watching reefer madness again?

I am not saying that there are no negative effects to drugs, but why do you care if I choose to use them?  Do you also want to mandate my physical activity level to help with my cardiovascular health and mental well being?  Will you force me to eat my broccoli too?  Again, it is ironic that the people who tout personal responsibility want to decide what I ingest.

[marshwiggle]

3) Yes, fentanyl should be legal.  Legalization dosn't mean you can sell it on the street, it means that there is a legal source that is regulated.  The main issue with fentanyl is that it is often found in other street drugs and people accidentally overdose. The whole point of a legalized supply chain is so that you can ensure quality control and accurate dosing.  People are using drugs, it is best to make sure they are as safe as they can be.   

There's something very disturbing about people employed by the government to administer poison (i.e. dangerous chemicals for no medical reason) and being paid by taxpayers to do so with the justification that we're administering the poison in a way that is "as safe as can be".

This gets into the whole idea of medically assisted suicide for people with mental illness. If a clinically depressed person wants to commit suicide, should the government provide the "service" so that it can be done as safely(?) effectively as possible?

[Kron3007]

3) Yes, fentanyl should be legal.  Legalization dosn't mean you can sell it on the street, it means that there is a legal source that is regulated.  The main issue with fentanyl is that it is often found in other street drugs and people accidentally overdose. The whole point of a legalized supply chain is so that you can ensure quality control and accurate dosing.  People are using drugs, it is best to make sure they are as safe as they can be.   

There's something very disturbing about people employed by the government to administer poison (i.e. dangerous chemicals for no medical reason) and being paid by taxpayers to do so with the justification that we're administering the poison in a way that is "as safe as can be".

This gets into the whole idea of medically assisted suicide for people with mental illness. If a clinically depressed person wants to commit suicide, should the government provide the "service" so that it can be done as safely(?) effectively as possible?

With legalization, it is not necessarily government people administering it.  It is simply a legal framework for people to produce, sell, and use it.  Alcohol is a horrible drug that kills tens of thousands in the US every year, but is sold legally.  This makes sense because if it were not regulated, people would still drink but would do so in more dangerous settings and there would be safety concerns with unregulated production (ie methanol contamination).  There is also the fact that it would line the pockets organized crime. 

It is the same with drugs.  People still use them, but they are at higher risk because they are forced into the shadows and many street drugs are contaminated (ie fentanyl) and gangs are making billions. 

The pitch for legalization is not to promote drug use.  It is just an acceptance that we have lost the war on drugs and that there are more effective, safer approaches.  Taking the same course and expecting different results is insanity...