The sooner the saner
Posted on 02/12/2020 8:01:35 AM PST by caww
n one breath, liberals say we need to decriminalize drugs and open up the prisons. In the next breath, they shed crocodile tears over the drug crisis and homelessness. The same people who demand that Congress and state governments spend even more money to “combat” the twin drug and homelessness crises never seem to connect the dots back to their decriminalization policies or admit that they are causing a rise in crime.
around 2014-2015 is when the drug crisis exploded nationwide, including in California, roughly around the same time homelessness soared, particularly in the Golden State, along with the rise in theft and other crimes..... What else happened around the same time? California passed Prop 47, which downgraded drug and theft crimes. The result was a logical consequence to an illogical policy.
The two culprits are the decriminalization of drug trafficking and the sanctuary cities that harbor criminal alien networks and gangs distributing the drugs for Mexican cartels such as CJNG. It’s not surprising that the political elites would rather focus on the rabbit hole of health care and pain management than on illicit drugs, because it would implicate the two biggest culprits that are sacred to the left-wing agenda – open borders and “criminal justice reform.”
The border, sanctuaries, jailbreak “reform” policies, gangs, crime, drugs, and homelessness are all tied together, creating one living nightmare for our communities. Sadly, it’s a man-made problem.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com ...
That never happened.
“Father forgive them for they know not what they do” - what’s that called when you do stuff and you don’t know you did it? And why does society put people like this in charge?
The sooner the saner
I’m the father of a recovering meth addict. There needs to be some criminality for use. It takes some form of detention keep them clean long enough to start their brain on a healing process, else they may never regain the ability to reason again. That said, I am not for letting them rot in prison with real criminals.
The right kind of rehab, with enough detention time and requirements to work, works better and, done right, is more cost effective in returning them to being productive citizens. But if they are determined to be a dopehead, long term incarceration, in some cases, may be the right answer. It is not a one-size fits all proposition, and sometimes corruption in the criminal justice system creates more problems than they solve.
I ask you to extend your analysis to answer this question, when do you take away the freedom of choice of the individual to abuse narcotics by labeling the very use a crime? I ask this because you seem to take both sides of the question. Some addicts, evidently your son, needed a moderate term of incarceration in a clinical facility to recover, such addicts, you quite rightly contend, are unlikely to recover absent such clinical intervention.
Note: the the forced intervention or incarceration in a clinical institution has to have some basis in law. Do you say that the mere act of consuming is that basis? Do you contend that only dealers should be incarcerated? If so, that rather vitiates the argument for rehabilitation of the users by incarceration or forced time in clinic.
Yet, for a chronic "dope head" you acknowledge that long-term incarceration, (does this mean jail time?) Is required. How do you oppose long-term incarceration for mere use? At what point do you say to the chronic addict, you are no longer the captain of your ship, you no longer have jurisdiction over your own body which we have granted to women to abort at will, we as the state are by force intervening in your life and we incarcerate you long-term in an institution, (presumably) for your own good?
I think you must answer the question, why do I not have the right to ruin my life by using drugs if that is my bent? Let us presume that I have committed no crime beyond using.
Finally, I think we both have to admit that addiction of an illegal substance virtually requires the user to become a pusher because of the economics inherent in the government rendering the trafficking drugs illegal.
What say you to that?
My son was in county jail for about 90 days because I refused to bail him out until he submitted to some time of rehab. Bail bonding laws have now been changed to where they would have let him out and the cycle would have continued. He submitted to a rehab facility, but there was a problem with that place (not good counseling and worked like a labor camp)to where he ended back in jail. Because he had started talking some sense by then, I agreed to bond him out and he came to live with me under the condition that he would stay clean, follow his Drub Court regimen and keep and work at a job.
At that point, he had been clean long enough to where he started to think more rationally. He was able to submit to Drug Court supervision that required group counseling and attendance at AA or drug recovery support groups. The most important aspect of Drug Court was that he had to submit to random drug testing, usually 3 to 4 times per month. If he messed up and used or missed a drug test (they had a color coding system). He messed up a couple of times by using and missed a call in, and the judge gave him some court sanctions, like 3 or four days in jail. But eventually he stayed clean and was dismissed from Drug Court. We learned along the way that it is not at all unusual that a recovering addict might slip up and use, but there was enough determination there on his part to stay the course and allow himself to fall into full relapse. By the time he had those lapses, he had a good track record on a job and was even beginning to look to the future.
The law does not address use, to my knowledge. Possession charges are the way that is enforced. That is ok with me, but the damage from use cannot be contained within the individual . . . it costs their family and it costs society. I think we definitely have an interest in discouraging use. I admit to having a bit of a libertarian streak in me, but there are very few people who can successfully insulate themselves to the point where they will not adversely impact people around them. So, in my mind, possession of small amounts usually equates to use and, yes, some level of criminality needs to remain so they can be at least supervised.
Believe me, I have had enough tools and stuff stolen from me to say that most users are a menace to society. It must be addressed and discouraged or it will grow into trafficking. Plus, about 7 or 8 of my son’s user friends are now DEAD. . . overdose and murder.
There are some who don’t just “mess up”, but repeatedly fall into relapse. Every counselor will tell you that the key rehabilitation is that the must, within themselves, come to a point to where the really WANT to get clean. By the nature of his lapses, the one-shot uses and his obvious sorrow it, and his fear that it would de-rail his Drug Court plan, I could tell it was his desire to get clean. Trained counselors experienced with addicts can recognize the difference.
To me, the fact that there has be a supply mechanism to support drug use is reason enough to invalidate someone’s “right to ruin their own life”. Their use typically is supportive of a supply system that also wrecks the lives of many others. If that part can be managed by a system that does not put others at risk, by all means fry your brains, but he should be allowed to die in the gutter where he falls if that is his choice.
The law needs to be very, very tough on traffickers. Need to get to work. Hope I didn’t miss anything major.
The will has to be involved and many are simply not at the place were they want to get off drugs. The false belief that they are bigger than the drug and it only happens to weaker people is throughout the drug using community. Including after seeing their friend die.
And so it was the law used the threat of incarceration to compel a kind of rehabilitation. For years we have used drunk driving incidents and other petty crimes to compel rehabilitation for alcoholics.
I understand fully the need to have some sort of leverage over an addict. I have a contrary understanding respecting the prospects for recovery, it is my information that statistically an addict in clinical treatment has an equal chance of long-term sobriety whether or not he is voluntarily admitted. I share your view of the utility of involuntary admission of addicts in need of treatment.
But I have serious moral and legal questions about bringing down hard the power of the state to compel incarceration or clinical treatment merely because the subject is convicted of possession or use. If there is a collateral crime, driving under the influence, assault such as domestic violence, theft etc. I fully support giving the addict a modern version of the Marine Corps.
We have not generally criminalized the use or possession of alcohol since prohibition but we do criminalize public drunkenness, drunk and disorderly, drunk driving, drunken assaults etc. In other words the alcohol is not the crime, rather the crime is the crime even if it is produced by the mind altering effect of the drug.
In my view the war on drugs has been long lost and to continue the hopeless struggle is to artificially create a lucrative market for drug lords at the cost of people like your son is a folly beyond comprehension. I believe that the war on drugs has perpetuated the drug menace rather than mitigated it. The collateral consequences of corruption disregard for the rule of law are societal costs that are rarely counted. The actual costs of incarceration and rehabilitation not to mention the human misery generated by a multilevel marketing scheme that is created and shored up by the government are almost impossible to calculate.
I really don't disagree, but as a parent, it was really about the only tool and leverage I had, it eventually worked, and it probably saved my son's life. Personally, I don't think most addicts get that way simply because they were out to have a big party and a good time. My experience with my son and several others was that the addiction resulted from terrible pain (emotional and/or physical)for which they sought to self-medicate. In other words, drug use is most often a symptom of a deeper problem. In many cases it is the result of a spiritual vacuum. I understand your legal concerns, but it breaks my heart for these people to be tormented and in anguish. For me, it was a choice of locking him up or losing him. I made the decision as a father, not a lawyer or judge.
In my view the war on drugs has been long lost and to continue the hopeless struggle is to artificially create a lucrative market for drug lords at the cost of people like your son is a folly beyond comprehension
Not so sure about that. My suspicion is that somebody in government is mopping up on the drug trade. I have long been suspicious that is why we have been in Afghanistan for so long. I also don't think the opposition to the border wall was only about immigration, but rather drug and human trafficking. And about drug use, the Democrat party sure spends an inordinate amount of their time trying to make our lives miserable . . . it has the impact of driving up drug demand. If they really wanted to, they might not be able to stop it, but they could easily put a far bigger dent in the drug trade. . . build the wall and untie the hands of ICE. I think it is abundantly clear that the Democrat party is doing everything they can to encourage anarchy in this country, including making drug trafficking easier. . . . JMHO I will say that local law enforcement sure does benefit from dealing with drug use. Cynical . . . yes. But I cannot unsee what I have observed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.