Posted on 12/26/2019 2:15:16 PM PST by rktman
On Monday, during an interview with the Des Moines Register, 2020 presidential hopeful mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg said drug possession should not result in jail time.
Buttigieg said, “Incarceration should not even be a response to drug possession. What I have seen is while there continues to be all kinds of harms associated with drug possession and use, it is also the case that we have created in an effort to deal with a public health problem, we have created an even bigger problem — a justice problem, and it’s own form of a health problem when you think about the adverse aspects on a child. We have kids in South Bend who have grown up with the incarnation of a parent as one of their first experiences.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
OK, no penalty for possession, but DEATH for selling it.
Dead dealers would diminish the supply greatly!
Yeah because that’s done SO WELL to deter drug addiction and abuse in virtually every place it’s tried. It ALWAYS leads to MORE abuse.
I'll give you the condensed version as I am heading out to the store shortly.
Basically, we build what amount to dormitories and we house the addicts. Yep, lots of housing. These people are supervised and *confined* to the premises. They are offered counseling and rehab services and will be expected to perform some basic tasks required to help keep everything going. Cleaning, laundry, gardening and such. Cafeteria style eating arrangements for all.
Rehab and counseling are offered, not forced. Anyone that wants can refuse and will be allowed to sit in their room and given the drugs that they want (in non fatal doses). They will still be allowed to use the cafeteria, not gonna starve them. When they die, it's off to Potter's Field for them. Turnover should be fairly brisk.
Regarding this business of repeatedly reviving Fentanyl ODs, they would be informed that they are limited to XX OD revivals and when that is met, they will not be revived. Again, off to Potter's Field - again, brisk turnover.
That's the nuts and bolts. Obviously a lot of detail and fine tuning would be required. We get them off the streets and out of normal society. Those that want help receive it. Those that don't are not forced. They will solve their own problems soon enough.
Because help will be freely available for those who want it and are motivated, I don't see letting those that don't want to be helped to drug themselves to death as immoral. Let them decide.
What do we do about nonaddicted drug users?
And does your proposal apply to the addictive drug alcohol?
None
None
Wow, so you're off the grid as a sovereign citizen. Hope that works out for you.
To put this in more general terms,
any time restrictions are removed
from any enforced law, be it
poaching, shoplifting, etc., the
natural reaction is to be able to
do something that was once against
the law. If drug possession is
made legal, what happens to the
guy selling it? His market,
without a doubt, will expand,
as drugs will become more user
friendly.
(Just my .02)
True, but the mindset is "I might get killed if I deal" vs. "I WILL be killed if I'm caught".
Nonsense. Is the illegality of heroin or meth YOUR primary reason for not using them? It's way down on my list.
To put this in more general terms, any time restrictions are removed from any enforced law, be it poaching, shoplifting, etc., the natural reaction is to be able to do something that was once against the law.
You didn't answer my question. Note that using heroin or meth has grave intrinsic harms, which is not the case with shoplifting (unless an armed shopowner catches you).
Still a big IF in each scenario. And I'd reckon the odds of a competitor catching me are much higher than the odds of law enforcement catching me.
You and I have a completely different take on law enforcement related to drug cartels.
You and I have a completely different take on law enforcement related to drug cartels.
Do you deny that by enforcing drug bans, government restricts the drug market to criminals?
Do you deny that when the biggest busts are made, it inhibits the drug cartels from profiting off that merchandise?
Most drug use starts out as
“recreational”, whereby initial
use is stymied by the risk of
getting caught, and being charged
with posession of an illegal
substance. Dependency is gradual.
One doesn’t become a heroin
addict overnight. Take away the
risk of getting caught, the more
that are going to use.
An example would be a married
guy with three kids, with a good
job, car, and house, likes to
party on the weekends. His buddies
coax him into trying a “hit”.
Where he would have reservations
while the “hit” was illegal,
and he might lose all he has
due to a possession charge. That
threat of charge is no longer
there, freeing up the temptation
to use.
Take away the charge of
shoplifting, the more who would
steal. Take away the charge of
poaching, the more who would
take game, at whatever time,
for whatever reason.
His buddies coax him into trying a “hit”. Where he would have reservations while the “hit” was illegal, and he might lose all he has due to a possession charge. That threat of charge is no longer there, freeing up the temptation to use.
The grave intrinsic harms remain. To repeat: Is the illegality of heroin or meth YOUR primary reason for not using them? It's way down on my list.
don't I as a tax paying citizen have the right to live among peaceful, prosperous, righteous people ?.....when do the stinking needs of the druggies stop interfering in my life?
And illegal drugs are expensive because our drug laws give criminals a monopoly in that market. (Which Buttboy's plan does nothing to address.)
so now we should have the govt sell or just GIVE drugs away free to all those who want to use them?
No, ceasing to hyperinflate the price with a ban should be sufficient; I know of no evidence that many alkies commit crimes to afford their legal drug.
don't I as a tax paying citizen have the right to live among peaceful, prosperous, righteous people ?
You have the right to seek out such people among whom to live; you do not have the right to use government force, or my taxpayer dollars, to try to make people prosperous or righteous - particularly when such efforts are a proven failure.
See I told you you were going to start getting into details.
Answer to that would be how do we define non addicted drug users?
As far alcohol is concerned, and drug users for that matter, if they have not become a legal problem, as committing crimes and such, or being homeless and living on the streets etcetera, I don’t care. My goal here is to protect society and help those who wish to be helped.
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.