- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Oregon just re-criminalized drug possession and use
Posted on 4/5/24 at 9:31 am to tsmi136
Posted on 4/5/24 at 9:31 am to tsmi136
It is my opinion that the issue here wasn’t the lack of enforcement of drug prohibition but the lack of enforcing all of the other laws that vagrant druggies were committing like burglary, vandalism, trespassing, assault, battery, public urination, armed robbery, etc. If they actually enforced basic laws to keep violent vagrants off the streets, then the drug use wouldn’t be as big of an issue.
Think of it this way: imagine a car is speeding. A car that is going 20 mph over the speed limit may or may not actually be endangering other drivers. If they’re driving on an empty stretch of interstate in broad daylight while driving in a straight line, they’re driving safely. If they’re weaving in and out of traffic, changing lanes without signaling, tailgating, running stop signs and red lights, or overrunning their headlights so they can’t stop before seeing potential obstacles in front of them, they’re probably a much bigger danger.
Speeding is illegal in both contexts, but is it the actually dangerous behavior in and of itself? While drug use is not good for society, what is really bad is when people rob, assault, and destroy innocent people and property. If one can do drugs in a way that only harms themselves, I don’t see an issue with it. However, the second they start weaving between cars, changing lanes without signaling, tailgating, running stop signs/traffic signals, and overrunning their headlights, they need to be taken off the goddamn road.
Think of it this way: imagine a car is speeding. A car that is going 20 mph over the speed limit may or may not actually be endangering other drivers. If they’re driving on an empty stretch of interstate in broad daylight while driving in a straight line, they’re driving safely. If they’re weaving in and out of traffic, changing lanes without signaling, tailgating, running stop signs and red lights, or overrunning their headlights so they can’t stop before seeing potential obstacles in front of them, they’re probably a much bigger danger.
Speeding is illegal in both contexts, but is it the actually dangerous behavior in and of itself? While drug use is not good for society, what is really bad is when people rob, assault, and destroy innocent people and property. If one can do drugs in a way that only harms themselves, I don’t see an issue with it. However, the second they start weaving between cars, changing lanes without signaling, tailgating, running stop signs/traffic signals, and overrunning their headlights, they need to be taken off the goddamn road.
This post was edited on 4/5/24 at 9:37 am
3
Posted on 4/5/24 at 9:37 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
I was softly on the "maybe we should decriminalize, prohibition isn't working" years ago.
marijuana shouldn't be criminalized. but shite like OxyContin should be heavily regulated and illegal to possess without a prescription (and also prescriptions should be monitored closely)
Posted on 4/5/24 at 9:44 am to BluegrassBelle
quote:
Seems like they fell into the bureaucratic red tape when trying to distribute funds for treatment facilities and the like.
Unfortunate because the war on drugs is a complete failure and decriminalization coupled with easy access to treatment does seem to be the answer, they just failed at implementation.
Addicts need a way out (treatment) but then don't just dump them on the streets after 28 days. Reintegration into society and giving them a reason to wake up in the morning is key as well.
They also seem to overlook the criminality which comes with addiction and that was a huge mistake. If someone commits a crime definitely hold them accountable.
Posted on 4/5/24 at 9:47 am to kingbob
quote:
It is my opinion that the issue here wasn’t the lack of enforcement of drug prohibition but the lack of enforcing all of the other laws that vagrant druggies were committing like burglary, vandalism, trespassing, assault, battery, public urination, armed robbery, etc. If they actually enforced basic laws to keep violent vagrants off the streets, then the drug use wouldn’t be as big of an issue.
This is also an important part.
Protecting property rights (and maintaining public property in a similar fashion) is a hallmark of libertarianism.
This is why liberals are terrible at implementing these policies. They go too far and then chaos ensues, b/c they're bad at understanding humans will adapt to policy changes and they have no concept of how to go about preventing this.
Posted on 4/5/24 at 9:53 am to SlowFlowPro
Like every terrible idea these morons push, there will be many who say they "just didn't do it right".
I'm glad they did it but they're a bunch of pussies for not holding on more tightly to those virtues.
I'm glad they did it but they're a bunch of pussies for not holding on more tightly to those virtues.
Posted on 4/5/24 at 9:56 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
decriminalization coupled with easy access to treatment does seem to be the answer, they just failed at implementation.
As I was just saying. So you're saying that everyone should be allowed to do these things that we know are terrible for people, which are highly addictive and kill them, and create crime and chaos, but that will all be alleviated by offering "treatment"?
That makes no sense. There are no shortage of treatment options in places where these drugs have long been illegal and they're still a huge problem. People dying, crime, and all the other stuff that comes with it.
This post was edited on 4/5/24 at 9:57 am
Posted on 4/5/24 at 9:58 am to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
So you're saying that everyone should be allowed to do these things that we know are terrible for people, which are highly addictive and kill them, and create crime and chaos, but that will all be alleviated by offering "treatment"?
That requires forward thinking, something that they lack. They have the best of intentions but are unable to see the consequences.
Posted on 4/5/24 at 9:59 am to Chucktown_Badger
Without negative consequences for their behavior, why would they seek treatment in the first place?
Posted on 4/5/24 at 9:59 am to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
So you're saying that everyone should be allowed to do these things that we know are terrible for people, which are highly addictive and kill them, and create crime and chaos, but that will all be alleviated by offering "treatment"?
Well how do you propose creating a path for them to stop using other than treatment?
We know after 50+ years of the WOD that jail does not work for this goal.
Posted on 4/5/24 at 10:01 am to tsmi136
quote:
Oregon just re-criminalized drug possession and use
Posted on 4/5/24 at 10:03 am to tsmi136
Decriminalize; become more criminalized.
I guess someone discovered that when more junkies begin populating an area, the more crime seems to rise. Astonishing!!
I guess someone discovered that when more junkies begin populating an area, the more crime seems to rise. Astonishing!!
Posted on 4/5/24 at 10:03 am to kingbob
quote:
but the lack of enforcing all of the other laws that vagrant druggies were committing like burglary, vandalism, trespassing, assault, battery, public urination, armed robbery, etc. If they actually enforced basic laws to keep violent vagrants off the streets, then the drug use wouldn’t be as big of an issue.
This is the classic chicken or the egg argument.
If they weren’t on hard drugs, would some of the other crimes not be prevented also? They are committing crimes to buy more drugs?
Realistically a better enforcement of all of them would be preferred.
I’m not opposed to drugs at all, but the fact is a high percentage of hard drug users will turn into addicts and dregs on society. So if you allow them, it’s going to follow.
Posted on 4/5/24 at 10:05 am to OweO
quote:
Honestly, I think drugs like heroin, cocaine, and several others should be sold legally. Since people are going to do it no matter what, at least let sell them a product they know what they are getting.
In b4 "I can't believe company XYZ is profiting off of drug addiction!!!!!"
Posted on 4/5/24 at 10:11 am to baldona
quote:
If they weren’t on hard drugs, would some of the other crimes not be prevented also?
That's not what he's talking about.
If these areas remain lax on their vagrancy, trespassing, theft, etc. laws, they're going to have the same problem with the homeless hoarde swarming in and disrupting society daily (including crime), even if they re-criminalize drugs.
quote:
Realistically a better enforcement of all of them would be preferred.
Because we have learned that works so well? Especially if your goal is decreasing drug use.
quote:
but the fact is a high percentage of hard drug users will turn into addicts and dregs on society.
The question is how to decrease this population.
Drug addiction is almost always a function of variables having nothing to do with drugs, like trauma (typically from physical or sexual abuse history), economic factors, etc.
Posted on 4/5/24 at 10:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Well how do you propose creating a path for them to stop using other than treatment?
Why is that the responsibility of normal functioning americans?
Listen, i know we can't just turn a blind eye to the problem, but the problem (hard drug use) seems to grow when there is no deterrent (laws) and then who has to clean up the mess? The users typically can't afford it... so it's left to non-users who pay their taxes.
Posted on 4/5/24 at 10:17 am to baldona
A certain percentage of people will try drugs regardless of whether it’s legal or not.
A certain percentage of people will never try drugs regardless of whether it’s legal or not.
A certain percentage of people can do drugs and be functioning members of society.
A certain percentage of people will get addicted and do ANYTHING to maintain that addiction.
There have been many different attempts to police this issue, but none of them have really worked. Some have just worked worse than others.
A certain percentage of people will never try drugs regardless of whether it’s legal or not.
A certain percentage of people can do drugs and be functioning members of society.
A certain percentage of people will get addicted and do ANYTHING to maintain that addiction.
There have been many different attempts to police this issue, but none of them have really worked. Some have just worked worse than others.
Posted on 4/5/24 at 10:25 am to tsmi136
quote:
Ovalle said a growing public perception of disorder also contributed to drug decriminalization's failure.
"You get these depictions, particularly in right-wing media of liberal cities run amok with shoplifting and drug use," he said. "Whether it's fair or not, that's the depiction Portland fell into."
In other words, it wasn’t the fact that encouraging drug use elevated crime and homelessness, it was just the right wing’s perception that caused decriminalization to fail.
What a jackass. I hope he gets robbed and stabbed by a drug addict.
Posted on 4/5/24 at 10:25 am to SouthMSReb
quote:
Why is that the responsibility of normal functioning americans?
To decrease our pathological population? That's going to be good for all of us
quote:
The users typically can't afford it... so it's left to non-users who pay their taxes.
You're paying for jails, too, brother.
Posted on 4/5/24 at 10:27 am to baldona
Question, should those actions be criminalized regardless of intent or motivating impulse?
If a man (who doesn’t own said business or work there) breaks the window of a business, does it matter why?
If I get mugged because the mugger needed drug money, rent money, cash to pay for his child’s surgery, or he just wanted the new PS5 so he could play Stellar Blade, does it really matter which?
You could argue that less drug use would make for fewer desperate people, and you would be right about that, but it doesn’t change the need to enforce laws punishing criminal behavior that harms innocent people and property.
Regardless of the motivating impulse of the criminal act, the criminal act should be punished, and often is not in progressive cities.
If a man (who doesn’t own said business or work there) breaks the window of a business, does it matter why?
If I get mugged because the mugger needed drug money, rent money, cash to pay for his child’s surgery, or he just wanted the new PS5 so he could play Stellar Blade, does it really matter which?
You could argue that less drug use would make for fewer desperate people, and you would be right about that, but it doesn’t change the need to enforce laws punishing criminal behavior that harms innocent people and property.
Regardless of the motivating impulse of the criminal act, the criminal act should be punished, and often is not in progressive cities.
Posted on 4/5/24 at 10:29 am to bad93ex
quote:
They have the best of intentions but are unable to see the consequences
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News