re: 16 Senate Dem’s vote no to pass the NO FENTANYL ACT

quote:

---

P.S. Georgia, you can do better.

---

If only the crybaby Georgians in 2020 had voted in the Senate runoff in 2020, Warnock would not be a senator. But they somehow thought Loeffler was to blame for the steal. She's now Trump's choice for Director of the Small Business Administration (taking over student loan duties from the DOed.

Then reps had another chance to get rid of him in 2022 but Trump got involved and so Herschel Walker got the nomination, and did well enough to force it to a runoff, but lost the runoff. A better candidate would have won.

frick all 16 of them, communist, frickers

??

I haven't read the bill, but what I would like to see is exceptionally stiff penalties for adding Fentanyl to any other drug or selling as anything other than Fentanyl.
The biggest problem is people who wouldn't take Fentanyl ODing because they thought they were taking a safer drug.
Adding Fent to other drugs or misrepresenting Fent should be treated as harshly as murder (up to and including the death penalty)

Lots of pharma money in those names

Why exactly I am not sure

And when I ask Grok3 to debunk Booker’s reasons, I get this:

Let’s break down and address Cory Booker’s concerns about the HALT Fentanyl Act one by one, offering counterpoints rooted in the bill’s intent and practical implications.

1. **"Fails to address root causes of the opioid crisis"**
Booker argues the bill focuses on criminalization rather than root causes like addiction or socioeconomic drivers. However, the HALT Fentanyl Act targets the immediate supply-side threat: illicit fentanyl flooding the market, often via cartels. By permanently classifying fentanyl-related substances (FRS) as Schedule I, it aims to disrupt trafficking networks responsible for over 70,000 overdose deaths in 2023 alone, per CDC data. While it doesn’t directly fund treatment, it complements demand-side efforts by choking off the deadliest contributor. Critics could argue that without supply, demand persists—but the counter is that reducing availability saves lives now, buying time for longer-term solutions.

2. **"Hindering research into fentanyl analogues"**
Booker worries that Schedule I status stifles research into potentially beneficial analogues, like overdose reversal drugs. This overstates the barrier. Schedule I doesn’t ban research; it requires DEA approval and strict protocols—already standard for controlled substances. Fentanyl itself, a Schedule II drug, is heavily researched for medical use (e.g., anesthesia). The National Institute on Drug Abuse notes that Schedule I substances like LSD have active research programs. The bill’s focus is on illicit analogues, not vetted compounds, and exceptions can be made via the FDA’s regulatory process if a specific analogue shows promise. The risk of delaying research is outweighed by the immediate threat of untested, lethal variants.

3. **"Disproportionate harm from mandatory minimums"**
Booker’s concern about mandatory minimums disproportionately impacting marginalized communities assumes the bill broadly targets low-level offenders. In reality, it emphasizes traffickers and distributors—those moving large quantities across borders or into communities. The DOJ has increasingly prioritized high-level prosecutions under similar laws, with 2023 data showing 60% of fentanyl cases involved over 400 grams, far beyond personal use. Mandatory minimums deter organized crime, not just punish users, and the bill includes provisions for judicial discretion in sentencing. Historical data from the 1980s crackdown on cocaine trafficking suggests supply-focused enforcement can reduce street-level harm when paired with treatment funding—which Congress has separately boosted via the SUPPORT Act.

4. **"False hope" vs. effective action**
Booker calls the bill “false hope” for affected families, favoring treatment and prevention. Yet, families of overdose victims often demand tougher action against traffickers—see advocacy from groups like Families Against Fentanyl. The bill’s permanence replaces a temporary scheduling order (in place since 2018), which reduced fentanyl seizures by 25% per CBP stats, suggesting real impact. Treatment is critical, but it’s not an either/or choice—stopping the flow of poison amplifies recovery efforts by reducing exposure risk.

In short, Booker’s objections lean on valid principles—treatment over punishment, equity in justice—but misjudge the bill’s scope and urgency. The HALT Fentanyl Act isn’t a cure-all, but it’s a pragmatic tool to stem a crisis killing thousands monthly, not a blunt instrument against the vulnerable.

quote:

---

What does the bill say?
As we've all learned, the title of a bill, referendum, NGO, etc., can be misleading

---

One of your esteemed senators voted for this, why don't you ask him.

Sanders, Warren, Murphy and Schiff

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

quote:

---

16 Senate Dem’s vote no to pass the NO FENTANYL ACT

---

I hate headlines like this. What's in the act? I'm not saying they're right but a headline is not the whole bill. Dems have tried this numerous times.

quote:

---

One of your esteemed senators voted for this, why don't you ask him.

---

I haven't lived in Georgia for a long time. But I'd never waste my time asking a politician for information. They lie for a living and most have a nominal understanding of the issues on which they vote.