Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by martyb on Tuesday February 02 2021, @10:21AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the what-could-possibly-go-wrong? dept.

Oregon law to decriminalize all drugs goes into effect, offering addicts rehab instead of prison:

"I lived in the bottom for years," says [Janie] Gullickson, 52. "For me and people like me, I laid there and wallowed in it for a long time."

But if she has to pick the lowest point – one that lasted years, not days, she says – it came shortly after she hit 30 in 1998. At that time, Gullickson had five kids, ages 5 to 11, by four different men. She came home from work one day as a locksmith to find that her ex-husband had taken her two youngest and left the state. Horrified, devastated and convinced that this was the beginning of the end, her life spiraled: She dropped her other son off with his dad, left her two daughters with her mom and soon became an IV meth user.

In prison six years later, Gullickson was contemplating joining an intensive recovery program when a "striking, magnetic gorgeous Black woman walked in the room, held up a mug shot and started talking about being in the very chairs where we were sitting," Gullickson remembers. There was life on the other side of addiction and prison, the woman said. But you have to fight for it. Gullickson believed her.

"I remember thinking, I may not be able to do all that, be what she was, but maybe I could do something different than this," Gullickson says. "That day, I felt the door open to change and healing."

Now Gullickson, executive director of the Mental Health & Addiction Association of Oregon, is determined to give other addicts the same opportunity. That's why she pushed for the passage of Measure 110, first-of-its-kind legislation that decriminalizes the possession of all illegal drugs in Oregon, including heroin, cocaine, meth and oxycodone. Instead of a criminal-justice-based approach, the state will pivot to a health-care-based approach, offering addicts treatment instead of prison time. Those in possession will be fined $100, a citation that will be dropped if they agree to a health assessment.

The law goes into effect Monday and will be implemented over the next decade by the state officials at the Oregon Health Authority.

[...] "I hope that we all become more enlightened across this country that substance abuse is not something that necessitates incarceration, but speaks to other social ills – lack of health care, lack of treatment, things of that nature," says Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., an outspoken critic of the War on Drugs.

[...] Watson Coleman also points out that it's far more expensive to pay to incarcerate someone than get them treatment. Rehab programs not only empower people, she says, but they also save communities money.

Also at: CNN.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 02 2021, @10:44AM (51 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday February 02 2021, @10:44AM (#1107898) Homepage
    Well, for a start, you'd spend less on those private prisons, which would crush Core Civic, GEO, etc. - sell $CORE and $GEO now, Qtard Army, before it's too late!

    /s

    (Last I knew, Oregon doesn't use private prisons)
    --
    I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Tuesday February 02 2021, @11:37AM (50 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 02 2021, @11:37AM (#1107906) Journal

      High risk they'll become a Latino country, like Portugal [transformdrugs.org]. (grin)

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 02 2021, @12:32PM (45 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @12:32PM (#1107909) Journal

        And then they'll outbreeeed ussssss! Or so Runaway tells us. And wasn't there some self-hating Latino politician back in 2016 who said if Clinton won there'd be "taco trucks on every corner?" I will not lie, as a native of NYC that got my attention :9 Yummm, tacos.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 02 2021, @02:55PM (44 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 02 2021, @02:55PM (#1107940) Homepage Journal

          Not only do they outbreed us, but we have young women killing their babies to get rid of them. Today's liberal society is sick, sick, sick.

          --
          alles in Ordnung
          • (Score: 5, Informative) by DannyB on Tuesday February 02 2021, @04:59PM (4 children)

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 02 2021, @04:59PM (#1107981) Journal

            Not all young women getting abortions are liberal. Some are conservative and must hide what they did.

            I know this sounds like a crazy liberal idea, but what if poor women could obtain birth control? That's not even crazy expensive compared to the costs society pays for welfare of children that can't be supported. And a really radical idea: what if single moms could earn a living wage? Yes, crazy talk, I know.

            --
            Biden needs to mandate an official static TCP port for running 'finger' with TLS 1.3.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @05:02PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @05:02PM (#1107983)

              SOOOOOOICIALIMS!!!!!!!!!!!!

              • (Score: 5, Touché) by DannyB on Tuesday February 02 2021, @05:43PM

                by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 02 2021, @05:43PM (#1108010) Journal

                I neither condone nor condom your point of view.

                --
                Biden needs to mandate an official static TCP port for running 'finger' with TLS 1.3.
            • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2021, @09:38PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2021, @09:38PM (#1108655)

              Ahaha fuck off. Last I checked single moms drew off welfare like fucking mad and got free college. Living wage my fucking ass.

          • (Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday February 02 2021, @05:03PM (33 children)

            by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 02 2021, @05:03PM (#1107984)

            I kind of expect stuff like this from you, but someone modding this Funny is simply disturbing.

            Takes a sick person to recognize another I guess. It's no wonder why society in general is fucked in the head.

            --
            Dealing out the agony within
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @05:27PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @05:27PM (#1108002)

              Dude - he's being Funny. A wonderful satire of a right wing Fox News parroting jerk! Love your work, Runway.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @06:09PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @06:09PM (#1108032)

                Ah yes Runway, the Navy man who got his name from giving a strip to all those D-130s!

            • (Score: 2, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 02 2021, @06:11PM (30 children)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 02 2021, @06:11PM (#1108034) Homepage Journal

              but someone modding this Funny is simply disturbing.

              Actually, I agree with you. Putting a baby into a juice blender isn't funny at all. How many million Americans have been pureed by Margaret Sanger's 'Planned Parenthood' now?

              --
              alles in Ordnung
              • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @08:00PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @08:00PM (#1108095)

                Were you born this stupid? Or did your parents have to work at it?

              • (Score: 4, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday February 02 2021, @09:57PM (20 children)

                by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 02 2021, @09:57PM (#1108139)

                To be perfectly honest: I wish for the day when abortions are no longer done, because they have been made unnecessary. Until then, they are unfortunately a necessity.

                I find it hilarious that the most staunch anti-abortionists are also pro-gun, pro death penalty, and against anything that might help with a newborn child. Human life is most certainly not sacred to these people.

                --
                Dealing out the agony within
                • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday February 02 2021, @11:35PM

                  by PartTimeZombie (4827) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 02 2021, @11:35PM (#1108172)

                  The most staunch anti-abortionists are useful idiots.

                  They've been kept in line by the Evangelical wing of the Republican party. Weirdly, the republicans like to pretend they're the party of individual responsibility, but have no problem telling other people what they are allowed to do with their own bodies.

                  No surprises Runaway is falling into line, his worst fear seems to be of being called a RINO.

                • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 03 2021, @12:37AM (18 children)

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 03 2021, @12:37AM (#1108190) Homepage Journal

                  Anti abortionists hate to see innocent lives taken. None are as innocent as the unborn, and infants.

                  Pro-gun and pro death penalty positions distinguish between innocents and those deserving of death. But, you find that hilarious. Imagine that.

                  Against anything that might help with a newborn child? Do you have citations for that, or is that just some nonsense spat out at anyone who is non-progressive/liberal/dem? Maybe you're incapable of distinguishing between social programs that reward the lazy and the useless, and social programs designed to help the innocent and helpless. I resent every welfare dollar spent on feeding and clothing and housing able bodied men who should be working. On the other hand, if you want to triple or quadruple the money spent on natal care, infants, and children, I'll go along with that. That is money well spent.

                  Your view of me seems to be quite warped. I have never resented money and resources spent on innocent children.

                  --
                  alles in Ordnung
                  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Mykl on Wednesday February 03 2021, @01:24AM (3 children)

                    by Mykl (1112) on Wednesday February 03 2021, @01:24AM (#1108217)

                    Pro Death Penalty people are not Christian.

                    One of the key tenets of the Christian faith is redemption. It's why people (particularly Catholics) go to church every Sunday - to be cleansed of their sins. For all of their weirdness, I have to give credit to the Mormons for their dedication to this principle (random doorknocks for their entire lives are worth it if they convert just one person). If you kill someone, they lose the opportunity to be redeemed (regardless of the likelihood of success in any given case). Anyone who supports removing the possibility of redemption from someone and damning them to an eternity in Hell cannot also be Christian.

                    If you are non-Christian and support the Death Penalty then go ahead and fill your boots.

                    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:25AM (2 children)

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:25AM (#1108255) Journal

                      Did you know most early (as in, pre-Nicene) Christian church fathers were Universalist? They didn't believe no one went to Hell so much as that no one stayed there for eternity. It's very interesting to notice that the idea of eternal torture grew in popularity only with linguistic, geographic, and (with the exception of Tertullian), chronological distance from the start of the religion, isn't it? :)

                      --
                      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:39AM (1 child)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:39AM (#1108274)

                        Eternal punishment is much more effective as a means of control.

                        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 04 2021, @12:33AM

                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday February 04 2021, @12:33AM (#1108722) Journal

                          Oh, definitely. But I can't help but notice virtually no Christian, ever, anywhere, cares enough about their religion or their God or the history of their beliefs to actually research it.

                          I actually think the Bible teaches (eventual) Annihilationism rather than Universalism, i.e., people go to Hell but are eventually completely annihilated, but the ante-Nicene patristics weren't idiots and it's possible I misunderstood some of their arguments. In either case, though, Annihilationism kept me a Christian much longer than I would have remained one otherwise.

                          --
                          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:29AM (3 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:29AM (#1108261)

                    Pro-gun [...] positions distinguish between innocents and those deserving of death

                    Yeah, my ironsight flips up a little "innocent!" flag and engages the safety when I point at someone not deserving of death.

                    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 03 2021, @03:14AM (2 children)

                      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 03 2021, @03:14AM (#1108305) Homepage Journal

                      Hey, stupid - that flag should be implanted into your mind and your soul, not your iron sights.

                      --
                      alles in Ordnung
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2021, @05:35AM (1 child)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2021, @05:35AM (#1108811)

                        Poor cop, I wish the insurrectionists had better morality in their minds and souls. Thankfully your wisdom has fixed humanity, no longer will we need laws or police officers, we can just give out guns to those with strong moral fiber! It is so simple, I wonder why no one came up with that solution before.

                        • (Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 04 2021, @02:43PM

                          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 04 2021, @02:43PM (#1108904) Homepage Journal

                          Poor cop - defund the police - poor cop - defund the police - poor cop - defund the police -

                          Help me here, the mob chant just isn't sounding quite right.

                          --
                          alles in Ordnung
                  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday February 03 2021, @06:55PM (9 children)

                    by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 03 2021, @06:55PM (#1108586)

                    Anytime I see anything involving cutting social services it's always some conservative behind it with the excuse of getting rid of "freeloaders". FSM forbid that someone poor gets something they didn't earn; that's the wealthy's job!

                    And when it's about women's health services being cut it is ALWAYS from an anti-abortion conservative.

                    I understand your resentment towards welfare for the able-bodied; I feel the same. Go look up about corporate welfare to find where my resentment is.

                    I would rather have 100 freeloaders in the system than see one truly needy person go without. Nevermind that there are many really needy people (who generally would rather not have to use welfare) for every freeloader on the books.

                    --
                    Dealing out the agony within
                    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 04 2021, @02:44PM (8 children)

                      Anytime I see anything involving cutting social services it's always some conservative behind it with the excuse of getting rid of "freeloaders".

                      Of course it is. Because Democrats looooooove freeloaders. Their entire economic policy is based on buying every possible vote from them. With money taken from people who worked for it.

                      --
                      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                      • (Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Thursday February 04 2021, @06:14PM (7 children)

                        by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 04 2021, @06:14PM (#1108987)

                        As if the GOP is any better on the subject of buying votes with their constant drumbeat of "lower taxes". They love spending money even more than the Democrats, but don't want to pay when the bill comes due.

                        The GOP also enable the biggest freeloaders in existence: corporations and the wealthy.

                        --
                        Dealing out the agony within
                        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 05 2021, @02:04PM (6 children)

                          Dude, really? You're really going to say a bully taking less of your lunch money in exchange for your homecoming king vote is giving you something? That is some truly fucked up mental gymnastics. Taking less of what is yours to begin with is not a gift.

                          Yup to corporations and the wealthy. But until you support a same percentage for everyone, no loopholes, no exceptions tax system, we have nothing to talk about.

                          --
                          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                          • (Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Friday February 05 2021, @04:24PM (5 children)

                            by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 05 2021, @04:24PM (#1109336)

                            You're one for mental gymnastics. You're blaming the Democrats for something ("buying votes") that the GOP are happy to do as much of if not more. Now if you had said "politicians" instead of "Democrats" I'd agree with you wholeheartedly.

                            A no loopholes, no exceptions system is fine by me, but a same percentage for all system would be a larger burden on the poor, so I can't support that at face value. A tax rate of, say, 20% would hurt a guy making $10000 ($2000 in tax) far more than a guy making $1,000,000 (200,000 in tax). Some kind of progressive cost of living adjustment would need to be put in to make me go for that.

                            Either way the tax code is in dire need of simplification for certain, so I'm with you there.

                            --
                            Dealing out the agony within
                            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 05 2021, @08:34PM (4 children)

                              Nope. Not taking the people's money in the first place is not the same as taking it and then giving some back to whoever you bribed into voting for you.

                              --
                              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                              • (Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Friday February 05 2021, @09:05PM (3 children)

                                by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 05 2021, @09:05PM (#1109418)

                                So what you're actually griping about is taxes, and not the buying of votes. The GOP promising to "take less money" is all about buying votes too.

                                --
                                Dealing out the agony within
                                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday February 06 2021, @02:31PM (2 children)

                                  Nope, not at the moment. Maybe later but right now I'm telling you your comparison is false both logically and morally because taking less in the first place is not in any way the same as taking and then giving back selectively.

                                  --
                                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                                  • (Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Monday February 08 2021, @03:36PM (1 child)

                                    by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 08 2021, @03:36PM (#1110261)

                                    I say it is no different; it is still a financial incentive to buy votes. Tax and spend isn't the greatest, but borrow and spend spend spend is worse, and costs you more in the long run.

                                    Morality, bah. We're talking about politicians here.

                                    --
                                    Dealing out the agony within
                                    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 08 2021, @06:44PM

                                      The difference is saying they'll do what they should have been doing in the first place is not in any way bribery. And since bribery is what you're claiming and it's a morality-based issue, morality does enter into the argument.

                                      --
                                      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:23AM (7 children)

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:23AM (#1108253) Journal

                Not even your mother is fat enough to have a vagina that could accomotate an Osterizer. And I have it on good authority that Margaret Sanger prefers the Hamilton Beach brand, as they're much cheaper and still almost as good.

                More realistically: do you understand nearly all abortions are performed in the first trimester? Do you know ANYTHING about how pregnancy works?

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 03 2021, @03:31AM (6 children)

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 03 2021, @03:31AM (#1108313) Homepage Journal
                  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 04 2021, @12:31AM (5 children)

                    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday February 04 2021, @12:31AM (#1108719) Journal

                    Post-birth abortions are commonly referred to as "the death penalty." Which I'm sure you're all about.

                    This may surprise you but I'm actually against abortion after the age of viability, and after the first trimester in general. That said, since I'm never going to *be* pregnant short of rape (and if THAT happens the first thing I'd do is get a dose of Plan B!), my opinion doesn't hold the same amount of weight a straight or bisexual woman's would.

                    Now, question: *what are you doing to reduce the rate of abortion?* If you want to lower abortion, repeatable, empirical evidence shows that you have to make comprehensive sex education and contraception available to everyone and raise peoples' standard of living. And all those babies that would be born instead of aborted, what are you doing to help care for them?

                    Hint: if you are *truly* pro-life as opposed to simply anti-choice (your anxiety about "Hispanics outbreeding 'us'" has been noted!), you will be all for Nordic-style social programs, contraception, sex education, etc. If you are not, then your supposed concern for "muh innocent baybeez!" is a reeking pile of self-serving horseshit.

                    --
                    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                    • (Score: 2, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 04 2021, @03:24AM (4 children)

                      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 04 2021, @03:24AM (#1108796) Homepage Journal

                      This may surprise you but I'm actually against . . .

                      You've already started down that slippery slope by approving of abortion. Little else matters, you approve of destroying innocent life.

                      --
                      alles in Ordnung
                      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 04 2021, @01:05PM (3 children)

                        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday February 04 2021, @01:05PM (#1108877) Journal

                        You don't read what people write, do you? Shoulda known I was wasting my breath...you don't give a damn for "innocent lives," you just don't like the idea of being "outbred."

                        Answer me this though: why, WHY, are the most staunchly anti-abortion people always the best arguments for abortion in, just to pick a random example, the 197th trimester?

                        --
                        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                        • (Score: 2, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 04 2021, @02:34PM (2 children)

                          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 04 2021, @02:34PM (#1108899) Homepage Journal

                          You don't read what people write, do you?

                          Projecting again, I see.

                          --
                          alles in Ordnung
                          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 05 2021, @01:38AM (1 child)

                            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday February 05 2021, @01:38AM (#1109151) Journal

                            Then engage honestly with what people write to you! Answer the fucking questions: what are YOU doing, in your personal life and in your politics, to change circumstances for people such that they are less likely to think they need to have an abortion? I gave you a comprehensive list of things that have been shown, time and time again, in the real world, to lower the abortion rate.

                            --
                            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                            • (Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 05 2021, @02:07PM

                              The irony there is breathtaking. When's the last time you engaged with anyone who disagreed with you honestly? When's the last time you asserted a position and defended it? Mostly you just throw a fit, hurl insults, and fail at attacking their position. It's to the point that it can't be for any reason other than because you know yours cannot be defended.

                              --
                              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday February 03 2021, @01:20AM

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday February 03 2021, @01:20AM (#1108213) Journal

            You do my work for me :D Exhibit A, ladies and gentlemen, straight from the jackass's mouth!

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 2) by julian on Wednesday February 03 2021, @06:39PM (3 children)

            by julian (6003) on Wednesday February 03 2021, @06:39PM (#1108581)

            Infanticide is illegal. If you're talking about the liberating and beneficial technology of medical abortion then you seem to be suffering a category error in your thinking. Wrestling control over our own bodies away from the animal cycle of reproduction is one of the most celebrated and important human innovations. I'm also not sure about your language referencing "them" and "us". These are fellow human beings, there's no us/them distinction.

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 03 2021, @07:12PM (2 children)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 03 2021, @07:12PM (#1108595) Homepage Journal

              https://cnsnews.com/news/article/emily-ward/virginia-governor-describes-how-post-birth-abortion-would-proceed [cnsnews.com]

              Yes, infanticide is illegal, except when it isn't. We've already started down that slippery slope with abortion.

              --
              alles in Ordnung
              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2021, @05:44AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2021, @05:44AM (#1108812)

                If only you hypocrites could at least support your own ideology, that would be something. Sadly anti-abortion is as pro-life as you assholes come, then afterwards you're happy to let children starve and suffer lack of medical care.

                Pro-life, ha! Death cultists with a relatively unimportant pet issue to rally around so you can deny being a death cultist. Get fucked ignorant prick.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 02 2021, @12:55PM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday February 02 2021, @12:55PM (#1107918) Homepage
        An you know who else speaks porchugeeze, nope, not you-know-whom sitting on his porch, but Bolsanaro - who is literally Himler!
        --
        I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday February 02 2021, @10:27PM (2 children)

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 02 2021, @10:27PM (#1108153)

        High risk they'll become a Latino country, like Portugal.../quote.
        Great! The food will improve.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 02 2021, @11:18PM (1 child)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 02 2021, @11:18PM (#1108162) Journal

          Everything is better with Peri-Peri (grin)

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Tuesday February 02 2021, @12:42PM (91 children)

    by looorg (578) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @12:42PM (#1107913)

    Is this just not going to be a transfer from the prison-industrial-complex to the rehab-industrial-complex? Or if you like "nicer prison".

    Those in possession will be fined $100, a citation that will be dropped if they agree to a health assessment.

    That doesn't sound like decriminalization to me. If you get a fine but they are willing to drop that in exchange for you agreeing to an assessment or treatment. That is like going to traffic school and they drop the ticket for your traffic incident if you agree.

    Also they might have removed prison for holding the drugs. But drugs are still expensive, a lot of people that need the drugs commit other crimes to get the money for said drugs and that is not really going to stop here is it? So they are still going to prison for their robberies, burglaries and whatnot. Are they not? Unless they believe that only people that are already rich do drugs the poor people that do drugs still need to pay for their drugs. Unless they somehow believe that rehab is some kind of magical cure.

    Watson Coleman also points out that it's far more expensive to pay to incarcerate someone than get them treatment. Rehab programs not only empower people, she says, but they also save communities money.

    Having someone in prison is fairly expensive but having someone in rehab isn't free. The comparison is not entirely valid. If you exchange prison for rehab the system can push a lot of the costs of rehab back on the user -- as in perhaps they don't have to be locked up, if not locked up they can also feed themselves and pay their own bills etc. So those become no cost for the program. But for the prison population those things are included in the stay. Then if not in prison but in rehab perhaps the people need other forms of social welfare or unemployment benefits. Something that prisoners doesn't get while locked up. So the comparison between the two on a cost level might be somewhat odd. Still even with that included it might still be cheaper with some rehab.

    Then there is the question of recidivism. Does rehab work or does the "cure" have to be repeated? Some of those in the program might also still commit more crimes while outside, something someone locked up might have less opportunities for. We know the rate in general for prison is fairly abysmal so it might not take much for this to be better.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 02 2021, @12:47PM (15 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @12:47PM (#1107915)

      a transfer from the prison-industrial-complex to the rehab-industrial-complex? Or if you like "nicer prison".

      The statistics say: cheaper more effective nicer prison.

      Rehab programs are often community release situations rather than 24-7 incarceration. Costs per "inmate" are dramatically (like 90%) lower. Recidivism rates are also dramatically (like 65%) lower, so you are actually rehabilitating about 3x as effectively.

      Overall, it's a big blow to the taxpayer funded prison system - lots of guards and facilities support people are going to be out of work, and they're pretty much the opposite of the types that make effective rehab counselors - who might suddenly be in short supply.

      --
      My karma ran over your dogma.
      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Socrastotle on Tuesday February 02 2021, @02:03PM (6 children)

        by Socrastotle (13446) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @02:03PM (#1107930) Journal

        Don't be that guy. That's too many magical numbers without some sausage to go with 'em. Research [sci-hub.se] on this topic paints a rather different picture from what you're saying. Quoting that paper:

        As hypothesized, probationers who completed the full course of
        drug treatment were the least likely to recidivate; yet, probationers who completed
        treatment were no more successful than individuals without a history of substance
        use. Even more, probationers who failed to complete treatment were more likely to
        fail than individuals who needed treatment but did not receive it.

        In other words successful completion of addiction treatment reduced the recidivism rate from 48% (drug abuse offender rate) to 44% (no drug abuse offender rate). That is bordering on noise. And that achievement was only for the sample of the group that managed to complete the treatment program. Those who did not complete the program had an even higher recidivism rate than normal drug abuse offenders. So the bias there is juking the numbers a bit in the direction of exaggerating success.

        You have to be careful of the sources you read on topics like this because, as the old say goes: there's lies, damned lies, and statistics. This is an issue that is vaguely topical so it's going to bring out the liars, thieves, and charlatans. And you can juke these numbers really hard in a lot of ways, generally by intentionally biasing your sample, or by changing the sample population altogether (US criminal population has different characteristics, on average, than e.g. Norwegian criminal population). Look for the boring reports, not the shocking headlines.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @04:22PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @04:22PM (#1107965)

          Wait -- so are you saying incarceration is *working*?? Thank Jeebus for writing into the Constutution the laboratories of democracy. Kentucky can keep lowing taxes below zero and Oregon can try solving a problem. And you my friend can sit on your couch inhaling Fox News talking points.to your heart's content. How bout dem riots, eh? Anti false flag AR-15 carrying freedom lovers one and all.

        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 02 2021, @07:47PM (3 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @07:47PM (#1108089)

          probationers who completed
          treatment were no more successful than individuals without a history of substance
          use.

          WTF kind of logic is that? Individuals without a history of substance abuse are less likely to abuse in the future than individuals with a history of abuse and conviction? Give this man a CAPTAIN OBVIOUS award, right away.

          probationers who failed to complete treatment were more likely to
          fail than individuals who needed treatment but did not receive it.

          And there's your indicator for stronger action. Front line: give offenders the opportunity of rehab, if they fail that I'm in favor of prison as a second response. Not sure what Oregon is doing, but I do know some counties in Florida send 90% straight to prison with no first shot at rehab - even though rehab is both cheaper and more effective. It's political: punishment gets more votes than helping people.

          My primary source is, admittedly, very biased: the chief rehab psychologist who gets the 10% who aren't shipped straight to prison. I'm sure she's mostly there as an escape hatch for the politically connected who somehow can't avoid being arrested and charged with substance abuse, it also doesn't hurt that the county gets federal funds that more than cover her program's expenses in exchange for her running the program, but your statistics are not disagreeing with hers.

          --
          My karma ran over your dogma.
          • (Score: 3, Informative) by Socrastotle on Tuesday February 02 2021, @08:23PM (2 children)

            by Socrastotle (13446) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @08:23PM (#1108108) Journal

            "Success" was talking about avoiding crime, not substance abuse.

            The ideal is that since addiction often drives crime, if you treat the addiction then you reduce the criminality to something more approach the rate for normal society. The recidivism rate, of any crime, for convicted addicts was 48%. For convicted non-addicts it was 44%. They found that treating the addiction the addicts recidivism rate also became 44%. So the overall results were a decrease, but a negligible one that was not even below that of the general convict recidivism rate.

            • (Score: 5, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 02 2021, @09:01PM (1 child)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @09:01PM (#1108119)

              So, we don't care about substance abuse then?

              I don't give a flip about the legality of "substances" - whether you have an alcohol, fentanyl, oxy, cocaine, tobacco or gambling problem - society as a whole will benefit if you are able to get yourself out of a self-harming addiction. By the way, if it's not bothering you or anybody else, by definition it is not a problem and treatment should not even be discussed, much less suggested or mandated.

              As for statistics, I find them mostly to exist under layers of lies and damn lies making flimsy attempts at supporting pre-conceived positions.

              If the discussion is about out-patient rehab vs incarceration, let us not lose sight of the massive cost difference. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/12/17/the-hidden-cost-of-incarceration#:~:text=The%20Bureau%20of%20Justice%20Statistics,2.3%20million%20people%20behind%20bars. [themarshallproject.org] https://www.vera.org/publications/price-of-prisons-2015-state-spending-trends/price-of-prisons-2015-state-spending-trends/price-of-prisons-2015-state-spending-trends-prison-spending [vera.org] https://nicic.gov/economic-burden-incarceration-us-2016 [nicic.gov]

              The $80 billion spent annually on corrections is frequently cited as the cost of incarceration, but this figure considerably underestimates the true cost of incarceration by ignoring important social costs. These include costs to incarcerated persons, families, children, and communities. This study draws on a burgeoning area of scholarship to assign monetary values to twenty-three different costs, which yield an aggregate burden of one trillion dollars. This approaches 6% of gross domestic product and dwarfs the amount spent on corrections. For every dollar in corrections costs, incarceration generates an additional ten dollars in social costs. More than half of the costs are borne by families, children, and community members who have committed no crime. Even if one were to exclude the cost of jail, the aggregate burden of incarceration would still exceed $500 billion annually."

              --
              My karma ran over your dogma.
              • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @10:19PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @10:19PM (#1108147)

                So, we don't care about substance abuse then?

                from one goal post mover to another

                the true cost of incarceration [ignores] important social costs...this approaches 6% of gross domestic product and dwarfs the amount spent on corrections...the aggregate burden of incarceration would still exceed $500 billion annually.

                By logical extension, we should not incarcerate anyone.

                A better idea... trials should be transformed from determining guilt and punishment on infractions of the law to weighing how much GDP is lost due to the actions of the accused vs. their "incarceration cost". We could have some actuaries whip up some tables and justice could be dispensed at the point of infraction Judge Dredd style.

        • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday February 02 2021, @10:34PM

          by PartTimeZombie (4827) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 02 2021, @10:34PM (#1108155)

          Research?

          the project sample includes all probationers discharged from supervision
          in the State of Illinois from October 30 through November 30, 2000. In total, the
          final data set includes 3,017 individuals.
            Data for the study were collected through
          a questionnaire designed by the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority and
          administered by probation officers in each county

          Kind of, but not very good data.

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by RS3 on Tuesday February 02 2021, @02:45PM (7 children)

        by RS3 (6367) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @02:45PM (#1107934)

        Maybe they can keep the real criminals in prison now (instead of letting many out due to prison overcrowding).

        Added bonus: people with drug problems won't have to learn prison survival thuggery.

        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday February 02 2021, @06:13PM (6 children)

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @06:13PM (#1108035) Journal

          ...won't have to learn prison survival thuggery.

          But that's a requirement if they want to enter politics

          --
          Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
          • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday February 02 2021, @11:09PM (5 children)

            by RS3 (6367) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @11:09PM (#1108159)

            But that's a requirement if they want to enter politics

            Sadly true, but it's because of the culture that politics has devolved into.

            • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday February 02 2021, @11:28PM (4 children)

              by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @11:28PM (#1108169) Journal

              It is a cultivated culture that wins the vote

              --
              Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
              • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday February 02 2021, @11:58PM (3 children)

                by RS3 (6367) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @11:58PM (#1108180)

                Clever words, but I've never been good with riddles. Do you mean people are told what to think? :)

                • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday February 03 2021, @12:56AM (2 children)

                  by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday February 03 2021, @12:56AM (#1108197) Journal

                  What riddles? Devolved politics wins the vote. The behavior is cultivated, through media and social peer pressure, by the interested parties. We can expect more devolution into the future.

                  --
                  Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                  • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday February 03 2021, @01:14AM (1 child)

                    by RS3 (6367) on Wednesday February 03 2021, @01:14AM (#1108209)

                    "Cultivate culture" is unclear to me. I think human nature includes herding / herd mentality, so the tendency is already there.

                    Personally I'm a bit of an independent / free thinker, which does not garner brownie points with anyone, but I'll always wish people would be less inclined toward any particular herd. If people were more open-minded, less herding, we'd have more than 2 parties. But I'm not sure if that would help either. My hope for the future is more interaction and communication between govt. (Congress) and the people.

                    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:42AM

                      by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:42AM (#1108279) Journal

                      "Cultivate culture" is unclear to me. I think human nature includes herding / herd mentality, so the tendency is already there.

                      Yes, existing cultural biases are cultivated, fortified, rewarded with positive feedback for a specific purpose

                      --
                      Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 02 2021, @01:00PM (24 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday February 02 2021, @01:00PM (#1107920) Homepage
      Technically, I agree. However, is there some kind of humpty-dumptying going on? Is there a federal law that needs to be overridden in order for this weaker regime to prevail, and if so, could that overriding be considered the "decriminalising"? Yes, that's horrible wiggling, and I'd avoid it myself, but politicians have to politish, that's what they're paid for.
      --
      I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by RS3 on Tuesday February 02 2021, @02:48PM (10 children)

        by RS3 (6367) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @02:48PM (#1107935)

        I think it was the show "60 Minutes", or maybe "20/20" that did a report a few years ago about that. California had decriminalized pot, but the feds had not, so there were cases where pot smokers thought they were okay, not breaking the law, and got hauled into federal prison with multi-year sentences, and lost everything they owned to "civil forfeiture" (which is a crime in itself, IMHO).

        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 02 2021, @03:07PM (9 children)

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday February 02 2021, @03:07PM (#1107946) Homepage
          There's a chance that story filtered into my brain somehow, thanks for confirming the possibility of my deliberately perverted interpretation being a vaguely plausible one.
          --
          I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
          • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday February 02 2021, @05:38PM (8 children)

            by RS3 (6367) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @05:38PM (#1108008)

            You're welcome. I did a brief web search and I can't find reference to the story, but I remember it vividly. I did find references to law firms that help with the problem, and that the feds were using tax evasion, "dispensing medication without license", and pretty much anything they could use to prosecute people. This one is specific to Oregon, but shows the tangled and depressing web our legal system is: https://www.kahntaxlaw.com/how-the-feds-are-going-after-cannabis-businesses-now-that-the-cole-memo-has-been-revoked/ [kahntaxlaw.com]

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 02 2021, @07:51PM (6 children)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @07:51PM (#1108091)

              My tinfoil hat is recording more and more politically charged stories that no longer appear in Google searches. One personal favorite was the Miami cops who landed their helicopter at Dunkin Donuts to pick up a couple of boxes on the way back to base - at a taxpayer expense of some hundreds of dollars additional operational cost on the bird. That one was all over papers, local and national news, and searchable in Google for 10+ years. Gone now, as far as I can see - similar story out of Phoenix later, because: cops, predictable, and mostly untrainable it would seem.

              --
              My karma ran over your dogma.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @08:16PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @08:16PM (#1108104)

                invaluable training value, practiced one extra landing/takeoff cycle, trial transport of precious cargo (ala organs). example found with a searchnow is from Albuquerque, so i guess they only need one precautionary tale floating around at a time.

              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by RS3 on Tuesday February 02 2021, @09:04PM (4 children)

                by RS3 (6367) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @09:04PM (#1108120)

                I wish you had not posted that. I used several search engines, came up with many stories about CA, pot, etc., but not the one I'm looking for. I vividly remember the story. It could even still be on a VHS tape in a box of tapes I have. I got a bit worried that things are being "disappeared", and now I'm unreasonably sure. Now what do we do. AOC talked about forming a "truth in media" committee or something.

                • (Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 02 2021, @09:25PM (3 children)

                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @09:25PM (#1108128)

                  It's a hell of a sticky problem. How long do you want "stop the steal PROOF" to last in the archives? Whoever does the archiving also becomes a sort of arbiter of truth.

                  There is the Wayback Machine [archive.org], but it is far from complete and I have seen things disappear off of there too.

                  You can run your own personal archives, and maybe should for things you find important to you - if you ever archive anything important to somebody else to disappear you'll probably experience first hand how it happens, I suspect bribery is the usual route for larger publishers - probably threat of libel litigation for individuals. In 2013 I worked in a building where an entire 20,000 sf floor was devoted to an "Internet Reputation Company," they had lots of employees and seemed to use multiple methods including burying or erasing information for their clients, who were mostly individuals there. I can easily imagine organizations like police departments spending a lot of taxpayer dollars on "community relations" to tailor their public image with such services.

                  --
                  My karma ran over your dogma.
                  • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday February 02 2021, @11:28PM (1 child)

                    by RS3 (6367) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @11:28PM (#1108170)

                    Wow, okay, your karma just clobbered my dogma! That's downright scary.

                    You make a good point about personal archive, but it's nearly impossible to know what will become important someday in the future.

                    I naively thought book-burning was a thing of the past- irrelevant in the age of computers and Internet. That the Internet was too big and broad for anyone to truly censor things and steer public opinion. And maybe that's partially true, but we've also seen how major media, Facebook, Twitter, can have huge influence on public perception of "facts"- at least, significant bias can be induced by the major media companies. It's deeply in discussion in Congress and other govt. agencies, recent article about Tim Cook's views https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=21/02/01/1725247, [soylentnews.org] calls for breaking up Facebook, AOC looking into some kind of truth in media commission (good luck with that!). Even if it's all true, there's slant and spin and placement and it's been getting too difficult to know what's real.

                    So yeah, buy hard disks and backup systems and archive everything.

                    And to your point about police- I'm always seeing, esp. recently, articles about how police departments are doing this and that good community thing. They still rescue cats stuck in trees. And that's all good, but shouldn't whitewash the wrongs. I'm more interested to know why the wrongs have been glossed over for so long... Trying to not believe in conspiracy theories, or govt. pressure on media to hide things like police killing innocent, or relatively innocent people, or pepper-spraying 12 year olds, or whatever they're doing today.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:37AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:37AM (#1108272)

                      about police

                      Yeah - exactly - I frame it through a parallel: when a father beats his daughter, but takes her for ice cream the next day, the ice cream doesn't make it all OK.

                      When cops save a kitten it absolves them of no wrongs.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2021, @07:23AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2021, @07:23AM (#1111076)

                    Internet Archive respects the *LATEST* cookies file in what it displays from its web cache. What has not been made clear is if they keep the archives or delete them when the cookie settings change. One of the damaging things about this is that if a website changes owners, say when a previous owner dies or lapses their ownership, the new owner or domain squatting firm can in fact block the content via the robots.txt file and Internet Archive will block or remove all previous archived content from availability, rather than caching the robots.txt file from every period it cached a page and using the OLD copy for checking if old cached data should be displayable.

                    I think this was due to requests/lawsuits over people accidentally leaving stuff viewable through robots.txt that wasn't supposed to be archived, but in all honesty that should not be allowed in the first place since it makes too much he said/she said of easily modifiable/ephemeral data.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:35AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:35AM (#1108267)

              At Burning Man there were arrests of folks carrying Nevada permits for weed. It was feds who took them. It was a big deal and literature for the next year made it VERY clear that Nevada permitted puffers couldn't expect to be unmolested.

              I never met those people myself but the reporting channels were the official BM ones, and they're the ones who have to deal with law enforcement and political pressure, and who would've had to go back to those persons' camps to inform their campmates that there'd been an arrest, not a missing person. BM Org is pretty good about not bullshitting anything that can be sourced, like arrest records.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @04:33PM (10 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @04:33PM (#1107967)

        Let's look at the details [apnews.com] to listen in on the rational debate about this issue.

        Democratic-controlled House on Friday approved a bill to decriminalize and tax marijuana at the federal level...

        Opponents, mostly Republicans, called the bill a hollow political gesture...

        The bill now goes to the Republican-controlled Senate, where it is unlikely to advance.

        Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell mocked the bill, saying in a floor speech that “the House of Representatives is spending this week on pressing issues like marijuana. You know, serious and important legislation befitting this national crisis.″

        Well at least it's only a hollow political gesture these days rather than protecting our precious white women from rape. Progress.

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by fustakrakich on Tuesday February 02 2021, @06:20PM (9 children)

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @06:20PM (#1108042) Journal

          The republicans no longer control the senate. Any failure now is purely on the democrats, just like 12 years ago.

          --
          Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
          • (Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 02 2021, @06:55PM (7 children)

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @06:55PM (#1108063) Journal

            Democrat senators vow to legalise cannabis this year [independent.co.uk]

            Supposedly they'll release the plan in spring/summer.

            Any failure now is purely on the democrats, just like 12 years ago.

            Weed became legal in my state during those 12 years so for a lot of people those years were a success.

            • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday February 02 2021, @07:37PM (6 children)

              by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @07:37PM (#1108084) Journal

              Supposedly they'll release the plan in spring/summer.

              Uh huh... Think they'll get a covid relief bill out by then too? What's the holdup? Why is McConnell's name still in the news?

              --
              Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
              • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 02 2021, @09:00PM

                by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @09:00PM (#1108118) Journal

                They're voting on the relief bill today.

              • (Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 02 2021, @09:19PM (4 children)

                by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @09:19PM (#1108124) Journal

                Covid bill just passed. Was that quick enough for you?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2021, @01:41AM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2021, @01:41AM (#1108235)

                  Meanwhile SCANDAL!!! "Kamala Harris criticized for wearing controversial label Dolce & Gabbana"

                  Hell, I take that instead of seeing news that Jared "motherfucking" Kushner is being put in charge of *anything*. *Ever*.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:43AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:43AM (#1108280)

                    The outrage they peddle when a democrat isn't doing anything worth criticizing is very revealing and extremely pathetic.

                • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday February 03 2021, @03:21AM

                  by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday February 03 2021, @03:21AM (#1108308) Journal

                  Yeah great! Now do universal health care...

                  --
                  Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday February 03 2021, @08:28AM

                  by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday February 03 2021, @08:28AM (#1108372) Journal

                  Correction... It did not pass... They only agreed to move it to the next step within the senate. It's not going to the president's desk yet. And now they have their "villain" [thehill.com] to keep the game going

                  --
                  Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
          • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:55AM

            by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:55AM (#1108292)

            >The republicans no longer control the senate.

            Define "control". The Republicans are no longer in charge, but so long as the filibuster remains an option the Republican's have an enormous amount of obstructive power. And personally I think the filibuster has proven itself a valuable tool over the decades, so I'm not in favor of eliminating it.

            What remains to be seen is if the Democrats have the will to just recognize that the Republicans are going to be unwavering obstructionists, just as they were 12 years ago, and just ram through what needs to be done, rather than trying to give a seat at the table to those who clearly don't want it.

            Of course, my money has always been on everyone from both sides being mostly so deep in the same pockets that the same cross-party trend will continue. The rich and powerful will get more perks and breaks, while the rest of us get screwed to pay for them.

      • (Score: 4, Touché) by ikanreed on Tuesday February 02 2021, @04:34PM (1 child)

        by ikanreed (3164) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @04:34PM (#1107968) Journal

        You don't need to make a federal case out of it.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @05:04PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @05:04PM (#1107985)

          Yeah, but you do...

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Tuesday February 02 2021, @01:53PM (28 children)

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @01:53PM (#1107928)

      > But drugs are still expensive, a lot of people that need the drugs commit other crimes to get the money for said drugs

      Typically this is managed by giving addicts free or cheap drugs. For example heroine is dirt cheap to manufacture, the cost arises due to risks associated with criminalisation - e.g. risk of being arrested by the police, shot by other dealers, infrastructure to manage smuggling, etc.

      So the deal is something like 'If you are addicted we will give you free or cheap drugs so long as you go through our rehab programme'. Turns out most people don't want a crappy life being a drug addict and that approach works pretty well. It also de-incentivises the addiction cycle in the first place - i.e. the bottom falls out of the "drug pushing" market.

      There is an additional risk, that one should not ignore, that the drugs become cheaper, and so more widely available, and this leads to increased uptake. There is something of a tightrope to walk, but managing through civil law and medical care is probably a better approach than management via criminal law and the prison service.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Socrastotle on Tuesday February 02 2021, @02:55PM (27 children)

        by Socrastotle (13446) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @02:55PM (#1107939) Journal

        I think you have an over idealized view of society. What people want to achieve and what people actually achieve tend to be radically different, even when the means to get from A to B are trivial. For instance, who wants to obese? The answer is nobody. Yet the US obesity rate is upwards of 42% (!!!!!) and continuing to rapidly increase. And losing weight requires less than nothing. Eat less, drink less, and your weight will go down - period. Yet people no longer have the self discipline for even such trivial tasks.

        I tend to be in favor of complete drug legalization from an ideological point of view (in that it's absurd for a government to regulate what people put into their body) but I have no delusions of this being a socially positive idea. It will result in a sharp increase of horrible outcomes. I just value personal liberty above trying to engineer a less free but more optimal society. If somebody wants to dope their life away, who am I or anybody else to tell them they cannot?

        By decriminalizing drugs and then giving free drugs to addicts, you will get the worst of both worlds. You don't have the freedom that legalization entails, yet you have an even more exaggerated version of its negative effects.

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @03:16PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @03:16PM (#1107948)

          The whole world was mostly decriminalized until recently, opium has been documented as a mainstay for thousands of years. Addiction wasn't really any worse of a problem back then.

        • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @03:29PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @03:29PM (#1107951)

          I know what your conventional thinking decrees, but:

          I am personally acquainted with a person (no PII) who gained weight while on a medically-supervised starvation diet. Last I heard, this person was being moved to a medically-supervised liquids-only diet.

          Oh, and this person is practically a gym inhabitant. Phenomenal cardio. Still gained weight, eating about 800 calories daily.

          I recall there was a prison study that effectively proved the same sub-population existed, but mechanisms were never demonstrated.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Tuesday February 02 2021, @03:46PM (2 children)

          by PiMuNu (3823) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @03:46PM (#1107956)

          I don't completely disagree with your statement. As I said there is a tightrope, and where one views the balance is a judgement call. Maybe I am an optimist!

          Something you didn't address was the economic argument, i.e. "we give drug addicts access to clean, cheap/free drugs so that the economics of the illegal drug trade are no longer viable". This has direct benefits - it is harder to get access to addictive drugs for new starters - and indirect benefits - the crime mentioned by GGP is no longer necessary.

          In the UK, cigarettes have become slowly more strictly controlled and there has been a concomitant reduction in take-up of smoking among young people - UK government stats (sorry for the unwieldy URLs).

          Number of younger smokers longitudinal study:

          https://digital.nhs.uk/binaries/content/documents/corporate-website/publication-system/statistical/statistics-on-smoking/statistics-on-smoking-england-2019/part-4-smoking-patterns-in-children-copy/part-4-smoking-patterns-in-children-copy/publicationsystem%3AbodySections%5B3%5D/publicationsystem%3Aimage [digital.nhs.uk]

          Affordability (some menage of cost and income) longitudinal study:

          https://digital.nhs.uk/binaries/content/documents/corporate-website/publication-system/statistical/statistics-on-smoking/statistics-on-smoking-england-2019/part-5-availability-and-affordability-of-tobacco-copy/part-5-availability-and-affordability-of-tobacco-copy/publicationsystem%3AbodySections%5B10%5D/publicationsystem%3Aimage [digital.nhs.uk]

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Tuesday February 02 2021, @04:02PM (1 child)

            by looorg (578) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @04:02PM (#1107959)

            The thing is that legalization isn't some magic bullet. If we look at say the states that legalized weed they still have a rampant illegal market to. For various reasons. Some people just like it being "dangerous", some doesn't want to use legal means in case they somehow get registered and what that will do to them. Legal might mean more expensive -- after all having a nice storefront, paying taxes and such is more expensive then having someone standing around some dark alley. A cost that gets pushed to the customers.

            If the legal drug market grows and the illegal shrinks then the dealers and their organizations won't magically go away. If anything things might actually become more violent as they keep fighting for a smaller and smaller market share. That said the market doesn't appear to be shrinking at he moment. Legal just seems to be a compliment to the market.

            Then there is the issue of the mindset of it being legal then it must be safe or less dangerous. Which might might more people try it. But it's probably very hard to judge and create a proper study of this. It's not like you can just go around asking people if they wanna snort/shot/smoke heroin/coke/meth just cause it's "legal".

            https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-07-23/illegal-pot-still-plagues-states-where-weed-is-legal [usnews.com]
            https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/21/legal-marijuana-black-market-227414 [politico.com]
            https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-14/californias-biggest-legal-marijuana-market [latimes.com]

            • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday February 04 2021, @08:07PM

              by sjames (2882) on Thursday February 04 2021, @08:07PM (#1109026) Journal

              Or at least it isn't an instant magic bullet and it is possible to screw the process up. Storefronts do cost money. On the other hand, it's a lot cheaper to hire people to man them than it is to hire someone for the street corner when the latter are subject to arrest and imprisonment and the former are not.

              It is also possible to set taxes and regulatory burden so high that street drugs remain cheaper. There's an easy solution to that one. It also takes time to establish a full legal supply chain from crop to storefront. It takes even longer since the feds aren't playing ball, keeping that entire industry from using conventional banking. Time can solve that one.

              The whole thing about fear of registration boils down to distrusting that legal means legal. Various levels of government have spent decades earning the distrust of pot smokers, it's going to take time to earn it back.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @04:44PM (15 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @04:44PM (#1107970)

          OK so why doesn't everyone smoke cigarettes? Or drink until they fall down every day and night? Addiction is a symptom, not the underlying problem.

          The underlying problem that affects *waves hands* 20% of people is psychological trauma - their drug of choice best alleviates their mental torment. Read the book "In the realm of hungry ghosts" on eBay - I got a copy for $3 - or check out some quotes [goodreads.com] by the author.

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @05:24PM (14 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @05:24PM (#1108000)

            "Psychological trauma"? Only for some. For many, there was absolutely nothing wrong with their life, they tried a drug, and their body reacted to it VERY POSITIVELY, and they kept taking it and were hooked.

            Don't fall 100% for psychobabble justifications for everything. There is a physiological component that is critical. It's in our genes. You can easily see this in cases of alcoholism that runs in families. You can see it in your friend who took his first drink and his face lit up with joy on the first sip, and does so every other time he takes his first sip of the day.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @05:37PM (13 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @05:37PM (#1108006)

              BZZZZT bullshit.

              You think your parents' traumas don't pass onto you? And their parents' to them? The physical addiction to, say, booze is minimal I've drunk heavily basically since the age of 15. I can stop for days or a week - there are zero physical symptoms. Also smoked cigarettes socially for 10 years, 3-4 a day. Then stopped when I moved and didn't have the same social circle.

              Caffeine is tougher - if I stop for a few days (and I can), I get headaches for about 2 days. Then it's over, addiction finished.

              So for me - and probably 80% - we can dip in and out of addictive substances and move on with our lives. The physical addiction is *minor*.

              • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @05:57PM (12 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @05:57PM (#1108022)

                You didn't take the harder drugs. Please, try some heroin, some meth, some fentanyl and back to us. Caffeine? What a joke!

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 02 2021, @06:46PM (2 children)

                  Says you. I quit amphetamines cold turkey and only had a couple days where I felt fine but was really tired. Caffeine? I'd rather give up smoking. Repeatedly. The headaches were worse than having a tooth pulled.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Tuesday February 02 2021, @09:21PM (1 child)

                    by Oakenshield (4900) on Tuesday February 02 2021, @09:21PM (#1108126)

                    I have a buddy that reacts the same way as you. He tried to convince me that quitting caffeine would do the same to me as it did to him. Terrible headaches. I tried to tell him it made no difference to me. Every year, I spent a week with my boys at Scout camp with nothing but water and it never caused me any discomfort or headaches. (I don't drink coffee) So, I switched completely to non-caffeine drinks for a month just to show him.

                    I could guzzle two liters of Coke right before bed and sleep like a rock. ...Until I wake up at 4AM with a painfully full bladder.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:40AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:40AM (#1108275)

                      sleep like a rock. ...Until I wake up at 4AM with a painfully full bladder.

                      Water from a stone!

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2021, @01:51AM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2021, @01:51AM (#1108238)

                  Well I can't, can I?

                  I've taken oxys and they're OK. Same as hydrocodone. Nice, especially with caffeine!

                  I took them for 2 weeks after a wisdom tooth extraction. Then stopped. They also made me constipated. Amazingly I did not become a zombie sex slave, just went about my life. I still like them and would do again - but constipation is something I wouldn't care for very often. ====== See example of a grown up making a decision

                  And YET I did not steal my mom's supply for her hip operation.

                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 04 2021, @01:12PM (6 children)

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday February 04 2021, @01:12PM (#1108879) Journal

                  Caffeine is no joke. I have one vice, and *only* one, and caffeine is it. I need almost the recommended upper limit of 400mg a night to function properly. Am looking into possibly being hypothyroid and eating more iodine to see if that lessens the need, but it looks like I'm going to be a caffeine hound till the grave.

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 04 2021, @02:52PM (4 children)

                    400mg? Noob. My standard ration is 1200mg every morning. I won't even drop it down below 300 per AM if I've been an overachiever lately and my kidneys need a break.

                    --
                    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 05 2021, @01:35AM (3 children)

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday February 05 2021, @01:35AM (#1109150) Journal

                      You also have ADHD and antisocial personality disorder, one diagnostic hallmark of the latter being chronic understimulation of the autonomic and near-autonomic nervous system. You need barely sublethal doses of it just to keep functioning. For my part, the 350-400mg a day are causing some rather unpleasant side effects and I really wish I didn't need so much. Hopefully adding some iodine and some zinc will help with this, though I hear zinc helps men more than women.

                      --
                      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                      • (Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 05 2021, @02:16PM (2 children)

                        Nope, I'm very social. Fuck, I've put shitloads of hours in to the thing you're insulting me on specifically so I have another good venue for being even social. What have you done?

                        It's a tolerance thing. You know, that word you and your friends like using as its own antonym. I didn't start out on a couple grams a day but I can manage it once in a while easily enough. I generally get by on 900-1200mg a day. Also, yeah, that's what the FDA says is likely to cause problems but they qualify it with the word "rapid" rather than "daily".

                        --
                        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 06 2021, @01:43AM (1 child)

                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday February 06 2021, @01:43AM (#1109477) Journal

                          You don't seem to understand what words mean. Antisocial personality disorder doesn't mean you dislike socializing, it means you're a socio*path.* I wish the institution were a bit less euphemistic and would outright call it sociopathy still, but what the hell. A turd by any other name...

                          --
                          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday February 06 2021, @02:37PM

                            You know, from someone who actually lacks anything approaching a properly functioning sense of empathy, that's pretty hilarious. You're one of the worst I've ever seen at identifying emotion and how it factors in to motivation, which is what empathy is. Is that pathological or is it intentional lies you tell yourself to keep from having to acknowledge that you are the bad guy?

                            --
                            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @11:40PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @11:40PM (#1110431)

                    Equal amounts of caffeine and ibuprofen will get you through the day, or night. Just don't use an NSAID daily.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday February 03 2021, @12:40AM (5 children)

          by sjames (2882) on Wednesday February 03 2021, @12:40AM (#1108191) Journal

          And losing weight requires less than nothing. Eat less, drink less, and your weight will go down - period. Yet people no longer have the self discipline for even such trivial tasks.

          Yep, all you have to do is fight a biological drive second only to breathing for the rest of your life. But you can't totally fight it or you'll die, so you have to fight it just enough.

          Imagine people trying to quit smoking if they HAD to light up 2 or 3 times a day to avoid death. Easy Peasy, right?

          Thought experiment: Measure your rate of breathing and average volume. Now, maintain 75% of that for as long as you can...ENJOY!

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2021, @01:52AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2021, @01:52AM (#1108241)

            See also ABSTINENCE. Suppress that sex drive, kids.

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 04 2021, @02:53PM (2 children)

            Your stomach and hunger levels will adjust to most anything if you keep the calorie count stable.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday February 04 2021, @09:40PM (1 child)

              by sjames (2882) on Thursday February 04 2021, @09:40PM (#1109066) Journal

              To an extent. Actual hunger pangs go away after about 24 hours of fasting and will likewise adjust down if a person starts eating less at a time, but that is only a small part of the biological drive to eat.

              Anorexics often manage to defeat all of the various drives to eat, but I don't think anyone who isn't anorexic would argue that they are in any way physically or psychologically healthy.

              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 05 2021, @02:18PM

                Yeah, see, the trick is to park it in the healthy range instead of at either extreme. Your body will adjust after a while. If you weigh 300lbs or if you weigh 65, you are not healthy. You are in fact decidedly fucked up, health-wise.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by pdfernhout on Friday February 05 2021, @02:02AM

            by pdfernhout (5984) on Friday February 05 2021, @02:02AM (#1109154) Homepage

            https://web.archive.org/web/20150430050047/ttp://drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx [archive.org]
            "An abundance of food, by itself, is not a cause of health problems. But modern technology has done more than to simply make food perpetually abundant. Food also has been made artificially tastier. Food is often more stimulating than ever before—as the particular chemicals in foods that cause pleasure reactions have been isolated—and artificially concentrated. These chemicals include fats (including oils), refined carbohydrates (such as refined sugar and flour), and salt. Meats were once consumed mostly in the form of wild game—typically about 15% fat. Today’s meat is a much different product. Chemically and hormonally engineered, it can be as high as 50% fat or more. Ice cream is an extraordinary invention for intensifying taste pleasure—an artificial concoction of pure fat and refined sugar. Once an expensive delicacy, it is now a daily ritual for many people. French fries and potato chips, laden with artificially-concentrated fats, are currently the most commonly consumed “vegetable” in our society. As Dr. Fuhrman reports in his excellent volume Eat to Live, these artificial products, and others like them, comprise a whopping 93% American diet. Our teenage population, for example, consumes up to 25% of their calories in the form of soda pop!
                    Most of our citizenry can’t imagine how it could be any other way. To remove (or dramatically reduce) such products from America’s daily diet seems intolerable—even absurd. Most people believe that if they were to do so, they would enjoy their food—and their lives—much less. Indeed, most people believe that they would literally suffer if they consumed a health-promoting diet devoid of such indulgences. But, it is here that their perception is greatly in error. The reality is that humans are well designed to fully enjoy the subtler tastes of whole natural foods, but are poorly equipped to realize this fact. And like a frog sitting in dangerously hot water, most people are being slowly destroyed by the limitations of their awareness. ...
                    Once in awhile, a person may actually become aware of important dietary knowledge. Despite the ingenious misinformation campaigns waged by the dairy, cattle, and processed food industries, sometimes a person actually comes to understand the truth about diet. At such times, determined individuals might attempt to change their diet toward whole natural foods—in spite of dire and unfounded warnings from their families, friends, and doctors.
                    But along the way, they are likely to be met with a formidable obstacle—their own taste neuroadaptation to artificially-intense foods. This challenge is depicted as Phases IV and V, wherein a change to less stimulating foods typically will result in a reduced pleasure experience. In the early stages, this process is dramatic because natural foods often are not nearly as stimulating.
                    Scientific evidence suggests that the re-sensitization of taste nerves takes between 30 and 90 days of consistent exposure to less stimulating foods. This means that for several weeks, most people attempting this change will experience a reduction in eating pleasure. This is why modern foods present such a devastating trap—as most of our citizens are, in effect, “addicted” to artificially high levels of food stimulation! The 30-to-90-day process of taste re-calibration requires more motivation—and more self-discipline—than most people are ever willing to muster.
                    Tragically, most people are totally unaware that they are only a few weeks of discipline away from being able to comfortably maintain healthful dietary habits—and to keep away from the products that can result in the destruction of their health. Instead, most people think that if they were to eat more healthfully, they would be condemned to a life of greatly reduced gustatory pleasure—thinking that the process of Phase IV will last forever. In our new book, The Pleasure Trap, we explain this extraordinarily deceptive and problematic situation – and how to master this hidden force that undermines health and happiness. ..."

            --
            The biggest challenge of the 21st century: the irony of technologies of abundance used by scarcity-minded people.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 02 2021, @02:53PM (15 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 02 2021, @02:53PM (#1107938) Homepage Journal

      Is this just not going to be a transfer from the prison-industrial-complex to the rehab-industrial-complex? Or if you like "nicer prison".

      Maybe. But, if it is more humane, that is reason enough to do it. On the plus side, a person can escape this new prison system, easily enough. All he need do is to learn the lessons offered, follow the steps, and beat his addiction. Amsterdam has set the example for 25 years or more.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands [wikipedia.org]

      When you get down to brass tacks, it is cheaper in terms of money, misery, and human life to decriminalize drugs, and to treat addicts like humans with value. What has our "War on Drugs" cost us? We have a huge police force chasing people down alleys, oftentimes shooting them in the back, to enforce unenforceable law. We have armies of men and women in prisons, lives wasted.

      Stack up all the costs for each course of action, and weigh them.

      --
      alles in Ordnung
      • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @04:48PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @04:48PM (#1107972)

        For the person living out on the street, doing tricks and injecting junk in the veins with a rusty needle... you think *more* punishment is going to solve their problems?

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 02 2021, @06:15PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 02 2021, @06:15PM (#1108037) Homepage Journal

          Where, and how, did you get the impression that I want to punish anyone? I've stated pretty clearly that police shouldn't be chasing such a person down. Just leave him alone. If he wants help, he can ask. If he's caught committing a crime to support his habit, well, he can be punished for that. Maybe he'll ask for help, maybe he won't, but I don't want to see him punished further for simply possessing an old blunt needle.

          --
          alles in Ordnung
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday February 03 2021, @12:37AM (12 children)

        by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday February 03 2021, @12:37AM (#1108189)

        This presumes, of course, that the purpose of the "War on Drugs" was to prevent drugs, when there's plenty of evidence that it was and has always been a tool for oppressing people the government didn't like.

        --
        The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 03 2021, @12:48AM (3 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 03 2021, @12:48AM (#1108195) Homepage Journal

          So, you think that those people who fear the "super predators" might not also fear drugged up peasants? Fearful people tend to fear a multitude of things. The stated purpose of the war on drugs seemed perfectly valid to all of those cretins in congress who voted for 100,000 more cops on the streets.

          --
          alles in Ordnung
          • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday February 03 2021, @01:11AM (2 children)

            by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday February 03 2021, @01:11AM (#1108206)

            The initial efforts to make opium illegal in the US were explicitly sold as an anti-Chinese-immigrant measure. The efforts to make coca-based drugs illegal were explicitly sold as an anti-Latino measure. The efforts to make cannabis-based drugs illegal were explicitly sold as an anti-black measure. (By "explicitly sold", I mean that you can read quotes given by members of Congress and testimony to Congress along these lines. Members of the Nixon administration reported, years later, that they had wanted to make it illegal to be black or a hippie but couldn't, so they turned those laws into the War on Drugs (tm) because that was how they could lock people up they didn't like. The crackdown on crack in the 1980's was notable because crack (favored by poor black people) was super-illegal and targeted heavily by cops, while powder cocaine (favored by Wall Street types) went basically untouched.

            I'm not saying there aren't drugs that are friggin' dangerous, but I am saying that there's approximately zero correlation between how drug laws exist and are enforced and how dangerous the drugs are, and a very strong correlation between how drug laws are enforced and who the government would really like to just lock up as "undesirable".

            --
            The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
            • (Score: 2, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 03 2021, @01:25AM (1 child)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 03 2021, @01:25AM (#1108219) Homepage Journal

              Can't argue any of that - but the super predators and 100,000 extra cops were Clinton era. Democrats. The same bunch of hypocrites who have been pushing identity politics ever since.

              --
              alles in Ordnung
              • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:04PM

                by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:04PM (#1108437)

                Yeah, and it's one of the big reasons I'm not a fan of the Clintons and those that exemplify their brand of politics. Heck, Joe Biden was also involved in that travesty: The only advantages he had over his opponent in the last election was that (a) he by all appearances does not want to overthrow American democracy, and (b) he's experienced enough in politics to know what he's doing.

                --
                The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
        • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:32AM

          by Reziac (2489) on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:32AM (#1108264) Homepage

          Reportedly the two main factions lobbying for tougher drug laws are the for-profit prisons, and the Mexican drug lords.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 04 2021, @02:55PM (6 children)

          I think you and I have very different standards of what constitutes evidence. The war on drugs was very plainly Prohibition 2.0, for the exact same reasons.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday February 04 2021, @06:10PM (5 children)

            by Thexalon (636) on Thursday February 04 2021, @06:10PM (#1108983)

            The kind of evidence I'm referring to:

            You want to know what this was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.

            - Nixon domestic policy advisor John Ehrlichman

            More recently, cops have gone on record complaining about legalizing pot because they used to be able to search any vehicle they wanted to by claiming to smell pot whether or not they did.

            It was not just "Drugs are bad, m'kay" or "Just Say No", it was often intentional excuses to arrest people the government didn't like for reasons that had nothing to do with whether they used drugs.

            --
            The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 05 2021, @02:24PM (4 children)

              Man, I think you need to get off the drugs your own self. Nixon was the last president to give the slightest of fucks about the race of citizens. Well, except Obama.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday February 05 2021, @05:35PM (3 children)

                by Thexalon (636) on Friday February 05 2021, @05:35PM (#1109358)

                Nixon was the last president to give the slightest of fucks about the race of citizens.

                Oh yes he did: Richard Nixon, on the White House tapes, discussing ideas of racial superiority with regards to intelligence [youtube.com] (specifically, the guy he's talking about would go on to co-author "The Bell Curve" based on the same idea that while there are some exceptions, on average white people are smarter than black people.)

                And that's hardly the only evidence of his racism, and not just against black people.

                --
                The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by EvilSS on Tuesday February 02 2021, @02:58PM

      by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 02 2021, @02:58PM (#1107942)

      That doesn't sound like decriminalization to me.

      Decriminalization isn't the same as legalization, it means things like possession are not treated as crimes but civil infractions, similar to how we treat things like traffic infractions today. The whole point of it is to step down how it is treated as an offense, and to keep people out of the criminal justice system where possible. Once you put people into the criminal justice system, it tends to start a downward spiral. They can't work while incarcerated and the convictions will keep them from jobs and other opportunities when they are out, so they struggle for legitimate income, etc. Even if you turn your life around those convictions can keep you from holding certain jobs later in life, keep you from getting student loans for school, limit choices for housing, etc.

      Now will it help keep all of them out of prison? No. People are people and some will go on to commit more crimes. But it should help reduce the number who go down that path and give those that want help a chance to get it and come out with a clean record so they can more easily move their lives forward.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @03:46PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @03:46PM (#1107957)

      I know it's not sensitive, but I don't care if they smoke/inject themselves into their own little Nirvana. I also can't scrape together much sympathy when they do OD. I do feel sorry for their families, but not for them. When you play Russian roulette every day for that thrill, you can't expect compassion when you finally find the round.

      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @04:53PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @04:53PM (#1107974)

        Yep those junkies are having a blast. Spend few minutes watching interviews with addicts [google.ci]. At the least, it's compelling viewing.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @08:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @08:01PM (#1108096)

      i think decriminalization as it's used means reduced criminality not legality. I agree though that drugs are not a crime. it's none of the parasites' business what "drugs" i choose to use or sell. If the junkies commit actual crimes (a crime is when someone else's rights are *directly* violated by someone else.) arrest them then and force them into rehab. why are voters so gullible?

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday February 03 2021, @12:19AM

      by sjames (2882) on Wednesday February 03 2021, @12:19AM (#1108186) Journal

      Even if 100% of the people in rehab need full support from social programs, it's still cheaper than providing full support PLUS security in prison.

      After prison, the lack of a felony record makes for a better chance of eventually becoming (or perhaps remaining) a productive member of society. It may be that the nicer environment of rehab might leave the person better able to fit in to society after.

(1) 2