I guess they just found out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/12/podca...drugs.html

Quote:State lawmakers are about to reverse course, making the possession of hard narcotics an offense again.

In 2020, motivated to try a different way to combat drug use, Oregon voted to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of hard drugs including fentanyl, heroin and methamphetamine.

Things didn’t turn out as planned.

Mike Baker, a national reporter for The Times, explains what went wrong.

Who could have foreseen this, really?

You cannot decriminalize drugs at the same time you defund police.

The value of decriminalization is that you can put drug users directly into rehab programs. The problem with the current system is that abusers cannot seek help without admitting criminal conduct. But you need adequate policing to identify abusers and get them into rehab just as you need it to arrest them.

(03-18-2024 11:56 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Who could have foreseen this, really?

I'm all for states experimenting. Stupid blue states can help inform us of bad ideas.
What we don't want is stupid politicians in DC prescribing things stupid blue states do on all of us.

It'll be vetoed. Their governor makes Newsom look conservative

They were decrminialized by popular vote so they'lll want a ballot measure to re-criminalize them.

Don't do it. It's literally Darwinism in action. Keep it all legal.

(03-18-2024 12:19 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Don't do it. It's literally Darwinism in action. Keep it all legal.

I hope it becomes a Mecca for drug addicts, prostitutes, thieves and other assorted classes of lowlife egg sucking dog criminals. You voted for it you dumb ass mo-effers, deal with it.

Here is a more apt use of a recently used analogy: He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas.

What did they think would happen???

(03-18-2024 11:51 AM)Curumim Wrote:  I guess they just found out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/12/podca...drugs.html

Quote:State lawmakers are about to reverse course, making the possession of hard narcotics an offense again.

In 2020, motivated to try a different way to combat drug use, Oregon voted to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of hard drugs including fentanyl, heroin and methamphetamine.

Things didn’t turn out as planned.

Mike Baker, a national reporter for The Times, explains what went wrong.

It's good and it's likely got a predictable downside.

Hard drugs should never have been legalized. But those in governance in Oregon are so lost, they are likely criminalizing the drugs so the dealers profit margins go up. Narcotics traffickers, like bootleggers in the 20's, only get to make more if it is illegal. They are the ones greasing the pockets of the corrupt politicians.

Hell, they likely even funded the de-criminalization of narcotics just to create more addicts and are now backing the criminalization of them to increase profits and bypass regulations. The same dippos that de-criminalized them will get a larger % of the traffic for criminalizing them again.

The end result of both moves will be more dead kids.

Democrats are always wondering why everything around them always turns to crap.

I guess stupid did hurt this time.

(03-19-2024 08:29 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  Democrats are always wondering why everything around them always turns to crap.

How can you fix a problem unless you don't create one to fix first?

(03-19-2024 08:52 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 08:29 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  Democrats are always wondering why everything around them always turns to crap.

How can you fix a problem unless you don't create one to fix first?

Like for profit prisons for weed offenses?

(03-19-2024 03:01 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 08:52 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 08:29 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  Democrats are always wondering why everything around them always turns to crap.

How can you fix a problem unless you don't create one to fix first?

Like for profit prisons for weed offenses?

Democrat logic:

If weed is against the law should I smoke some weed? YES !