Erica - All of the points you mentioned are very important to discuss, but you have chosen the context and market dynamic for your article, and I suggest there are others. And there are other things to consider.
1> The War On Drugs was a bust from before it began; why? It never diminished demand, it filled our
jails and prisons with low level offenders, and the rich and powerful never got busted.
2> As Mr. El Monstro noted; prohibition didn't work - it spawned crime and alcohol poisoning, and
the roaring 20's. His other points similarly miss the mark; legalizing drugs does not require
regulation of the farming and manufacture. And the idea that street drugs will still be available,
though more expensive, and more potent is just another assumption based on no bill that has
passed anywhere yet.
3> If there were not many very highly placed people profiting from the current system, maybe it
would have failed, but instead it is estimated to be as big or bigger than the legal drug business.
4> Why do so many people scream "NO!" At the thought of legalization? Are they ignorant? No.
Are they somehow profiting from the illegal drug trade? Some are. Are they the gangs who are
running it? Probably - they don't want competition. And they sure don't want to be put out of
business.
5> If we had total legalization, what would it look like?
A) Age 18 = any drug you want you just go to any local pharmacy present your ID, and they give
you what you ask for. They would also have a closed booth for supervised safe injection.
RESULTS; No one needs to do any crime to get their drugs 24/7, so crime drops dramatically.
No one is wasted on the sidewalks, because police and/or social workers are authorized
to take them to 72 hour holding clinics at local hospitals. While there, they can receive
other services.
No one needs to buy drugs on the streets, because they get all they want for up to
enough cover whatever amount they personally use to get through a weekend.
All pharmacy chains would be required to provide at least one 24/7 store in each city
where they operate.
Pharmacies would be built like Fort Knox.
Police would be freed from responding to many small and violent crimes, and have the
time to help protect people in the streets, and at the pharmacies.
OD's might go up or down depending on user consumption choices.
Street could be cleaned up.
Police and social workers would have a responsibility tp go to schools and educate the
students on what these drugs are, and why it's not a good choice for them to
experiment with them.
B) All non-violent drug crime sentences would be cancelled from public view, but still on record for
DOJ and police only. No violent offender gets out of jail until their sentence is completed;
Exception is pardon by the Gov. or President of the US.
RESULTS: We treat people equally.
We free up many jail cells for new criminals to come.
If crimes drops and stays down, we can transfer COs to other LEO jobs.
C) Anyone convicted of dealing, distributing, or supplying any drugs scheduled for adult use only
serves time on the first offense, and gets death if there is a 2nd offense.
D) Young scientists who experiment on manufacturing drugs scheduled for adult use only, get a
quick ticket to reform school minimum two years.
E) Anyone wishing to grow or manufacture scheduled adult use only drugs would be required to
register with police, pass a basic safety test, make their facilities theft resistant, and provide the
City Attorney with proof of insurance for General Liability, Products, and Workers' Comp..
F) Rather than the gangs just being cut out with all production going to the big tobacco and
pharmaceutical companies, this would be the chance for the gangs to go straight, and use their
organizations to supply the government approved pharmacies.
G) Whomever is producing, just needs to meet state and federal safety standards to sell to the
government, and the government supplies the pharmacies based on local demand. The
government pays whomever is an approved supplier, and also pays the pharmacy for any
services it provides to the consumer.
There is no profit in stealing, because no one will be buying. No one pays for what they get
for free.
H) The government would run all kinds of creative ads based on psychologist advice on how to
help children understand that experimenting with any of these drugs is not only not good
for them, but can kill them.
Would any of this work, or help us? We don't know. What we do know, is that nothing else we've
done has worked. And our people do not seem interested in the Indonesian, Russian, or Chinese Communist models.
The utopian ideal of 'any drug you want' free, no questions asked in 'Fort Knox' like gvmnt drug consumption locations ignores the massive toll on society this creates. We already have incredible numbers of people staggering around in the streets of San Francisco, lying unconscious in the streets and being found dead. Federally mandated 'Housing First' academic ideologies ignore the fact addicts are more likely to OD behind locked doors than on the streets where they can be revived.
Once you are hooked on deadly drugs detritus and crime around you rapidly expands. Even if highly addictive drugs were free, the care, feeding and shelter issues are wildly expensive quite apart from the exploitation aspects of the addicted. The result is a nation of zombies under the care of a system that would rapidly be bankrupted.
There are lots of well meaning (and well paid) theoretical epidemiologists crunching data, academic 'experts' etc etc living and working well away from ground zeros promoting ideas of 'safe consumption' in a vacuum that don't even begin to address the societal repercussions of their concepts. The only way I can see 'safe consumption' being viable is in some form of open incarceration, an idea abhorrent to most progressive left idealogues...
I actually now believe keeping people away from the cartels behind fences is viable for recovery, a solution I never thought I would consider acceptable until after unsuccessfully chasing an opioid addict relative around for years to get him in and out of rehabs until he finally died by OD.
Thanks for sharing you thoughts coming from the voice of personal experience. Experiences that most Americans view as personal, private, and too embarrassing to share.
Whether you could tell our not, I'm not easy to label, because my views are determined by issues, not by ideology. Most San Franciscans are clearly Left of center in politics if not Marxist sympathizers. I advocate against doing anything that creates a magnet to attract more homeless,
however, on the drug issue, it cannot be separated from crime, so I would attack the crime aspect first, and the homeless issue second. I would abolish all homeless committees and defund non-profits supporting them etc., cutting off the care and the cash, and providing them a bus ticket to wherever their family is.
The only reason I made the effort to lay out the steps in my vision, is that normally the advocates for legalization only care about being able to profit from legalization and not go to jail, where I care about the whole impact including all that you mentioned. That's why I suggested this as a federal program well coordinated with a closed border etc., because if it were just a local program then it would be a magnet that none of us wants.
When you say "I actually now believe keeping people away from the cartels behind fences is viable for recovery, a solution I never thought I would consider acceptable until after unsuccessfully chasing an opioid addict relative around for years to get him in and out of rehabs until he finally died by OD." I don't understand exactly what you mean by that?
My goal is dramatically more and better anti drug education, dramatically less crime, and a conversion of the gangs from illegal ruthless business' to something productive where they no longer need to fight turf wars.
My limited knowledge of drug addicts suggests they come in a full spectrum from very highly functioning office workers using Heroin to the homeless passed on our sidewalks using Crack, Meth, or Fentanyl or whatever, and crapping in the streets. I make no assumptions, and only know what I've seen, heard and read. My impression is that society can't save people until the individual is ready to save themselves. The Delancy Street Foundation are experts on this subject.
I'm all ears with an open mind waiting for anyone to propose workable solutions. At least I gave you some new ideas. My sense is that ODs will go up when people can get whatever they want, and there is no good way to avoid that result. The difference is that they will OD without robbing you, breaking into your car, or beating up your mother or grandmother!
In my opinion so called Progressives are just the marketing version of new and improved Marxists. I have a great deal of empathy for those who are in dire circumstances regardless of how they came to be there, but without Courts supporting mandatory rehab programs, I see no end to the suffering in the streets.
We ruined millions of live in a foolhardy attempt to keep people from smoking a mostly harmless weed. Prohibition with alcohol didn't work, it didn't work for marijuana and it won't work with cocaine or opiates either. You can't stop people from doing what they want with their own bodies.
If you were serious about saving lives, you would not allow fentanyl of untested potency on the streets, you would regulate it and dispense approved doses of it. This would save 100,000 lives a year alone. Hundreds of thousands more have their lives ruined by your pointless moral crusading due to being imprisoned and branded with a felony conviction. And finally, your plans funnel billions to drug empired, ensuring the corruption of police, our elected officials and our institutions.
Sure there will be more users, almost assuredly a small amount. People with jobs and families aren't going to suddenly decide that it is a good idea to shoot up. And alcohol which is a far more destructive drug, is already available on every street corner.
Erica - All of the points you mentioned are very important to discuss, but you have chosen the context and market dynamic for your article, and I suggest there are others. And there are other things to consider.
1> The War On Drugs was a bust from before it began; why? It never diminished demand, it filled our
jails and prisons with low level offenders, and the rich and powerful never got busted.
2> As Mr. El Monstro noted; prohibition didn't work - it spawned crime and alcohol poisoning, and
the roaring 20's. His other points similarly miss the mark; legalizing drugs does not require
regulation of the farming and manufacture. And the idea that street drugs will still be available,
though more expensive, and more potent is just another assumption based on no bill that has
passed anywhere yet.
3> If there were not many very highly placed people profiting from the current system, maybe it
would have failed, but instead it is estimated to be as big or bigger than the legal drug business.
4> Why do so many people scream "NO!" At the thought of legalization? Are they ignorant? No.
Are they somehow profiting from the illegal drug trade? Some are. Are they the gangs who are
running it? Probably - they don't want competition. And they sure don't want to be put out of
business.
5> If we had total legalization, what would it look like?
A) Age 18 = any drug you want you just go to any local pharmacy present your ID, and they give
you what you ask for. They would also have a closed booth for supervised safe injection.
RESULTS; No one needs to do any crime to get their drugs 24/7, so crime drops dramatically.
No one is wasted on the sidewalks, because police and/or social workers are authorized
to take them to 72 hour holding clinics at local hospitals. While there, they can receive
other services.
No one needs to buy drugs on the streets, because they get all they want for up to
enough cover whatever amount they personally use to get through a weekend.
All pharmacy chains would be required to provide at least one 24/7 store in each city
where they operate.
Pharmacies would be built like Fort Knox.
Police would be freed from responding to many small and violent crimes, and have the
time to help protect people in the streets, and at the pharmacies.
OD's might go up or down depending on user consumption choices.
Street could be cleaned up.
Police and social workers would have a responsibility tp go to schools and educate the
students on what these drugs are, and why it's not a good choice for them to
experiment with them.
B) All non-violent drug crime sentences would be cancelled from public view, but still on record for
DOJ and police only. No violent offender gets out of jail until their sentence is completed;
Exception is pardon by the Gov. or President of the US.
RESULTS: We treat people equally.
We free up many jail cells for new criminals to come.
If crimes drops and stays down, we can transfer COs to other LEO jobs.
C) Anyone convicted of dealing, distributing, or supplying any drugs scheduled for adult use only
serves time on the first offense, and gets death if there is a 2nd offense.
D) Young scientists who experiment on manufacturing drugs scheduled for adult use only, get a
quick ticket to reform school minimum two years.
E) Anyone wishing to grow or manufacture scheduled adult use only drugs would be required to
register with police, pass a basic safety test, make their facilities theft resistant, and provide the
City Attorney with proof of insurance for General Liability, Products, and Workers' Comp..
F) Rather than the gangs just being cut out with all production going to the big tobacco and
pharmaceutical companies, this would be the chance for the gangs to go straight, and use their
organizations to supply the government approved pharmacies.
G) Whomever is producing, just needs to meet state and federal safety standards to sell to the
government, and the government supplies the pharmacies based on local demand. The
government pays whomever is an approved supplier, and also pays the pharmacy for any
services it provides to the consumer.
There is no profit in stealing, because no one will be buying. No one pays for what they get
for free.
H) The government would run all kinds of creative ads based on psychologist advice on how to
help children understand that experimenting with any of these drugs is not only not good
for them, but can kill them.
Would any of this work, or help us? We don't know. What we do know, is that nothing else we've
done has worked. And our people do not seem interested in the Indonesian, Russian, or Chinese Communist models.
The utopian ideal of 'any drug you want' free, no questions asked in 'Fort Knox' like gvmnt drug consumption locations ignores the massive toll on society this creates. We already have incredible numbers of people staggering around in the streets of San Francisco, lying unconscious in the streets and being found dead. Federally mandated 'Housing First' academic ideologies ignore the fact addicts are more likely to OD behind locked doors than on the streets where they can be revived.
Once you are hooked on deadly drugs detritus and crime around you rapidly expands. Even if highly addictive drugs were free, the care, feeding and shelter issues are wildly expensive quite apart from the exploitation aspects of the addicted. The result is a nation of zombies under the care of a system that would rapidly be bankrupted.
There are lots of well meaning (and well paid) theoretical epidemiologists crunching data, academic 'experts' etc etc living and working well away from ground zeros promoting ideas of 'safe consumption' in a vacuum that don't even begin to address the societal repercussions of their concepts. The only way I can see 'safe consumption' being viable is in some form of open incarceration, an idea abhorrent to most progressive left idealogues...
I actually now believe keeping people away from the cartels behind fences is viable for recovery, a solution I never thought I would consider acceptable until after unsuccessfully chasing an opioid addict relative around for years to get him in and out of rehabs until he finally died by OD.
Hi Oliver,
Thanks for sharing you thoughts coming from the voice of personal experience. Experiences that most Americans view as personal, private, and too embarrassing to share.
Whether you could tell our not, I'm not easy to label, because my views are determined by issues, not by ideology. Most San Franciscans are clearly Left of center in politics if not Marxist sympathizers. I advocate against doing anything that creates a magnet to attract more homeless,
however, on the drug issue, it cannot be separated from crime, so I would attack the crime aspect first, and the homeless issue second. I would abolish all homeless committees and defund non-profits supporting them etc., cutting off the care and the cash, and providing them a bus ticket to wherever their family is.
The only reason I made the effort to lay out the steps in my vision, is that normally the advocates for legalization only care about being able to profit from legalization and not go to jail, where I care about the whole impact including all that you mentioned. That's why I suggested this as a federal program well coordinated with a closed border etc., because if it were just a local program then it would be a magnet that none of us wants.
When you say "I actually now believe keeping people away from the cartels behind fences is viable for recovery, a solution I never thought I would consider acceptable until after unsuccessfully chasing an opioid addict relative around for years to get him in and out of rehabs until he finally died by OD." I don't understand exactly what you mean by that?
My goal is dramatically more and better anti drug education, dramatically less crime, and a conversion of the gangs from illegal ruthless business' to something productive where they no longer need to fight turf wars.
My limited knowledge of drug addicts suggests they come in a full spectrum from very highly functioning office workers using Heroin to the homeless passed on our sidewalks using Crack, Meth, or Fentanyl or whatever, and crapping in the streets. I make no assumptions, and only know what I've seen, heard and read. My impression is that society can't save people until the individual is ready to save themselves. The Delancy Street Foundation are experts on this subject.
I'm all ears with an open mind waiting for anyone to propose workable solutions. At least I gave you some new ideas. My sense is that ODs will go up when people can get whatever they want, and there is no good way to avoid that result. The difference is that they will OD without robbing you, breaking into your car, or beating up your mother or grandmother!
In my opinion so called Progressives are just the marketing version of new and improved Marxists. I have a great deal of empathy for those who are in dire circumstances regardless of how they came to be there, but without Courts supporting mandatory rehab programs, I see no end to the suffering in the streets.
We ruined millions of live in a foolhardy attempt to keep people from smoking a mostly harmless weed. Prohibition with alcohol didn't work, it didn't work for marijuana and it won't work with cocaine or opiates either. You can't stop people from doing what they want with their own bodies.
If you were serious about saving lives, you would not allow fentanyl of untested potency on the streets, you would regulate it and dispense approved doses of it. This would save 100,000 lives a year alone. Hundreds of thousands more have their lives ruined by your pointless moral crusading due to being imprisoned and branded with a felony conviction. And finally, your plans funnel billions to drug empired, ensuring the corruption of police, our elected officials and our institutions.
Sure there will be more users, almost assuredly a small amount. People with jobs and families aren't going to suddenly decide that it is a good idea to shoot up. And alcohol which is a far more destructive drug, is already available on every street corner.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/10/12/joe-biden-is-too-timid-it-is-time-to-legalise-cocaine