Progressive Ideology

[jhu72]

Was that supposed to have a relationship with my post RRR, or were you just gonna rant, 'cause ranters gonna rant?

... I am not sure what it was, a Boston newspaper in his reference referring to it as the New York Times and I saw no relationship to your post.

[jhu72]

Using the term "working to dismantle the department" shows how clueless and egregiously partisan this newspaper writer is. OF COURSE language like that is going to inflame passions about the entire subject...in a negative and very harmful way.

From the beginning, the whole "defund the police" issue has been mis-used and ABUSED by authoritarian whackjob types who would much rather just fill up the private prison system with people they are afraid of.

At the risk of over-simplifying it, for the more nuance-challenged among us, think of it this way...sending a gun-toting uniformed policeman into EVERY situation that demands an immediate response, understanding that there is a lot of uncertainty in just what may be happening, MAY NOT BE THE BEST APPROACH in every case. Some would say, "just get AUTHORITY in there to put down the threat, whatever it is!"

Moving funding around to focus on different approaches to community policing/threat assessment/domestic disturbance/social services is not a bad idea, in this progressive's mind.

Watching "conservatives" mangle the issue for partisan reasons is troubling, but not at all surprising...

..

That said, the "mistake" in all this is that may require more funding at first to achieve the better outcomes, but pay off with less incarceration, less hostility between community and police.

However, I continue to think that there won't be a huge breakthrough until drug usage is decriminalized, treated vigorously as a public health issue, and the value of a street corner goes to near nothing as a result. Huge payoff in less incarceration and less violence on the streets for both residents and police.

Can you define more clearly what you mean by de criminalize? Is that just for possession or does that include making it legal for corner street dealers? You can treat it as a health crisis all day long but you are only fooling yourself. I don't know if you have ever witnessed someone you love that has the monkey on their back. They will tell you with a sincere and strait face they want to quit. Before my best friends heart exploded from his cocaine addiction years ago, I use to believe him. When you have gone through more than a dozen drug rehabs chances are you are a dead man walking. These people will lie to your face. The only thing they want is to get high. Who ever goes down with them is immaterial to them getting high. One time my friend had gotten out of rehab with big plans to see his kids on Christmas Eve and bring them presents. His ex wife called me that evening wanting to know if I had seen him. His son and daughter were outside on the front porch crying their eyes out waiting for him to show up. Yeah you just treat it real vigorously as a medical problem. I went with my buddy a couple of times to the meetings they had at Park Ridge Chemical Dendancy. One thing the lady said that night while talking to these people. She told them flat out that out of a hundred of them only one would still be drug free in five years. She was more than right in my friends case. He was dead before that 5 year mark ever arrived. Drug addicts wear tear your heart to pieces because you really want to believe they want to quit. Outside of a miracle and some sort of divine intervention, they never quit.

... decriminalize generally means (when applied to drug policy), making them legal for sale / distribution under sensible regulation, taking the money, high markups out of drugs. In all cases it means users are not made criminals. Sensible regulation means making some legal and taxing them, some remain illegal to sell or distribute. Generally the most dangerous will remain illegal for sale and distribution.

It also generally means getting politicians out of the loop. These decisions should be made, by sorry to tell you, domain level experts. People who depend on scientific facts to make decisions on how to regulate on a drug by drug basis.

[cradleandshoot]

Using the term "working to dismantle the department" shows how clueless and egregiously partisan this newspaper writer is. OF COURSE language like that is going to inflame passions about the entire subject...in a negative and very harmful way.

From the beginning, the whole "defund the police" issue has been mis-used and ABUSED by authoritarian whackjob types who would much rather just fill up the private prison system with people they are afraid of.

At the risk of over-simplifying it, for the more nuance-challenged among us, think of it this way...sending a gun-toting uniformed policeman into EVERY situation that demands an immediate response, understanding that there is a lot of uncertainty in just what may be happening, MAY NOT BE THE BEST APPROACH in every case. Some would say, "just get AUTHORITY in there to put down the threat, whatever it is!"

Moving funding around to focus on different approaches to community policing/threat assessment/domestic disturbance/social services is not a bad idea, in this progressive's mind.

Watching "conservatives" mangle the issue for partisan reasons is troubling, but not at all surprising...

..

That said, the "mistake" in all this is that may require more funding at first to achieve the better outcomes, but pay off with less incarceration, less hostility between community and police.

However, I continue to think that there won't be a huge breakthrough until drug usage is decriminalized, treated vigorously as a public health issue, and the value of a street corner goes to near nothing as a result. Huge payoff in less incarceration and less violence on the streets for both residents and police.

Can you define more clearly what you mean by de criminalize? Is that just for possession or does that include making it legal for corner street dealers? You can treat it as a health crisis all day long but you are only fooling yourself. I don't know if you have ever witnessed someone you love that has the monkey on their back. They will tell you with a sincere and strait face they want to quit. Before my best friends heart exploded from his cocaine addiction years ago, I use to believe him. When you have gone through more than a dozen drug rehabs chances are you are a dead man walking. These people will lie to your face. The only thing they want is to get high. Who ever goes down with them is immaterial to them getting high. One time my friend had gotten out of rehab with big plans to see his kids on Christmas Eve and bring them presents. His ex wife called me that evening wanting to know if I had seen him. His son and daughter were outside on the front porch crying their eyes out waiting for him to show up. Yeah you just treat it real vigorously as a medical problem. I went with my buddy a couple of times to the meetings they had at Park Ridge Chemical Dendancy. One thing the lady said that night while talking to these people. She told them flat out that out of a hundred of them only one would still be drug free in five years. She was more than right in my friends case. He was dead before that 5 year mark ever arrived. Drug addicts wear tear your heart to pieces because you really want to believe they want to quit. Outside of a miracle and some sort of divine intervention, they never quit.

... decriminalize generally means (when applied to drug policy), making them legal for sale / distribution under sensible regulation, taking the money, high markups out of drugs. In all cases it means users are not made criminals. Sensible regulation means making some legal and taxing them, some remain illegal to sell or distribute. Generally the most dangerous will remain illegal for sale and distribution.

It also generally means getting politicians out of the loop. These decisions should be made, by sorry to tell you, domain level experts. People who depend on scientific facts to make decisions on how to regulate on a drug by drug basis.

So the folks that are addicted to crack cocaine, meth and PCB will still have to go to the corner dealer.

[MDlaxfan76]

Using the term "working to dismantle the department" shows how clueless and egregiously partisan this newspaper writer is. OF COURSE language like that is going to inflame passions about the entire subject...in a negative and very harmful way.

From the beginning, the whole "defund the police" issue has been mis-used and ABUSED by authoritarian whackjob types who would much rather just fill up the private prison system with people they are afraid of.

At the risk of over-simplifying it, for the more nuance-challenged among us, think of it this way...sending a gun-toting uniformed policeman into EVERY situation that demands an immediate response, understanding that there is a lot of uncertainty in just what may be happening, MAY NOT BE THE BEST APPROACH in every case. Some would say, "just get AUTHORITY in there to put down the threat, whatever it is!"

Moving funding around to focus on different approaches to community policing/threat assessment/domestic disturbance/social services is not a bad idea, in this progressive's mind.

Watching "conservatives" mangle the issue for partisan reasons is troubling, but not at all surprising...

..

That said, the "mistake" in all this is that may require more funding at first to achieve the better outcomes, but pay off with less incarceration, less hostility between community and police.

However, I continue to think that there won't be a huge breakthrough until drug usage is decriminalized, treated vigorously as a public health issue, and the value of a street corner goes to near nothing as a result. Huge payoff in less incarceration and less violence on the streets for both residents and police.

Can you define more clearly what you mean by de criminalize? Is that just for possession or does that include making it legal for corner street dealers? You can treat it as a health crisis all day long but you are only fooling yourself. I don't know if you have ever witnessed someone you love that has the monkey on their back. They will tell you with a sincere and strait face they want to quit. Before my best friends heart exploded from his cocaine addiction years ago, I use to believe him. When you have gone through more than a dozen drug rehabs chances are you are a dead man walking. These people will lie to your face. The only thing they want is to get high. Who ever goes down with them is immaterial to them getting high. One time my friend had gotten out of rehab with big plans to see his kids on Christmas Eve and bring them presents. His ex wife called me that evening wanting to know if I had seen him. His son and daughter were outside on the front porch crying their eyes out waiting for him to show up. Yeah you just treat it real vigorously as a medical problem. I went with my buddy a couple of times to the meetings they had at Park Ridge Chemical Dendancy. One thing the lady said that night while talking to these people. She told them flat out that out of a hundred of them only one would still be drug free in five years. She was more than right in my friends case. He was dead before that 5 year mark ever arrived. Drug addicts wear tear your heart to pieces because you really want to believe they want to quit. Outside of a miracle and some sort of divine intervention, they never quit.

... decriminalize generally means (when applied to drug policy), making them legal for sale / distribution under sensible regulation, taking the money, high markups out of drugs. In all cases it means users are not made criminals. Sensible regulation means making some legal and taxing them, some remain illegal to sell or distribute. Generally the most dangerous will remain illegal for sale and distribution.

It also generally means getting politicians out of the loop. These decisions should be made, by sorry to tell you, domain level experts. People who depend on scientific facts to make decisions on how to regulate on a drug by drug basis.

So the folks that are addicted to crack cocaine, meth and PCB will still have to go to the corner dealer.

I think what was described is the expected approach, but I think all usage needs to be legal and even the nastiest products need to be accessible legally, though under medical care. Get'em off the worst stuff under care, ease off all addiction under care.

Unlicensed selling would remain illegal. Tough sentences.

[cradleandshoot]

Using the term "working to dismantle the department" shows how clueless and egregiously partisan this newspaper writer is. OF COURSE language like that is going to inflame passions about the entire subject...in a negative and very harmful way.

From the beginning, the whole "defund the police" issue has been mis-used and ABUSED by authoritarian whackjob types who would much rather just fill up the private prison system with people they are afraid of.

At the risk of over-simplifying it, for the more nuance-challenged among us, think of it this way...sending a gun-toting uniformed policeman into EVERY situation that demands an immediate response, understanding that there is a lot of uncertainty in just what may be happening, MAY NOT BE THE BEST APPROACH in every case. Some would say, "just get AUTHORITY in there to put down the threat, whatever it is!"

Moving funding around to focus on different approaches to community policing/threat assessment/domestic disturbance/social services is not a bad idea, in this progressive's mind.

Watching "conservatives" mangle the issue for partisan reasons is troubling, but not at all surprising...

..

That said, the "mistake" in all this is that may require more funding at first to achieve the better outcomes, but pay off with less incarceration, less hostility between community and police.

However, I continue to think that there won't be a huge breakthrough until drug usage is decriminalized, treated vigorously as a public health issue, and the value of a street corner goes to near nothing as a result. Huge payoff in less incarceration and less violence on the streets for both residents and police.

Can you define more clearly what you mean by de criminalize? Is that just for possession or does that include making it legal for corner street dealers? You can treat it as a health crisis all day long but you are only fooling yourself. I don't know if you have ever witnessed someone you love that has the monkey on their back. They will tell you with a sincere and strait face they want to quit. Before my best friends heart exploded from his cocaine addiction years ago, I use to believe him. When you have gone through more than a dozen drug rehabs chances are you are a dead man walking. These people will lie to your face. The only thing they want is to get high. Who ever goes down with them is immaterial to them getting high. One time my friend had gotten out of rehab with big plans to see his kids on Christmas Eve and bring them presents. His ex wife called me that evening wanting to know if I had seen him. His son and daughter were outside on the front porch crying their eyes out waiting for him to show up. Yeah you just treat it real vigorously as a medical problem. I went with my buddy a couple of times to the meetings they had at Park Ridge Chemical Dendancy. One thing the lady said that night while talking to these people. She told them flat out that out of a hundred of them only one would still be drug free in five years. She was more than right in my friends case. He was dead before that 5 year mark ever arrived. Drug addicts wear tear your heart to pieces because you really want to believe they want to quit. Outside of a miracle and some sort of divine intervention, they never quit.

... decriminalize generally means (when applied to drug policy), making them legal for sale / distribution under sensible regulation, taking the money, high markups out of drugs. In all cases it means users are not made criminals. Sensible regulation means making some legal and taxing them, some remain illegal to sell or distribute. Generally the most dangerous will remain illegal for sale and distribution.

It also generally means getting politicians out of the loop. These decisions should be made, by sorry to tell you, domain level experts. People who depend on scientific facts to make decisions on how to regulate on a drug by drug basis.

So the folks that are addicted to crack cocaine, meth and PCB will still have to go to the corner dealer.

I think what was described is the expected approach, but I think all usage needs to be legal and even the nastiest products need to be accessible legally, though under medical care. Get'em off the worst stuff under care, ease off all addiction under care.

Unlicensed selling would remain illegal. Tough sentences.

Trying to get people help is better than throwing them in jail. Getting them unhooked is one very tall order.

[MDlaxfan76]

Using the term "working to dismantle the department" shows how clueless and egregiously partisan this newspaper writer is. OF COURSE language like that is going to inflame passions about the entire subject...in a negative and very harmful way.

From the beginning, the whole "defund the police" issue has been mis-used and ABUSED by authoritarian whackjob types who would much rather just fill up the private prison system with people they are afraid of.

At the risk of over-simplifying it, for the more nuance-challenged among us, think of it this way...sending a gun-toting uniformed policeman into EVERY situation that demands an immediate response, understanding that there is a lot of uncertainty in just what may be happening, MAY NOT BE THE BEST APPROACH in every case. Some would say, "just get AUTHORITY in there to put down the threat, whatever it is!"

Moving funding around to focus on different approaches to community policing/threat assessment/domestic disturbance/social services is not a bad idea, in this progressive's mind.

Watching "conservatives" mangle the issue for partisan reasons is troubling, but not at all surprising...

..

That said, the "mistake" in all this is that may require more funding at first to achieve the better outcomes, but pay off with less incarceration, less hostility between community and police.

However, I continue to think that there won't be a huge breakthrough until drug usage is decriminalized, treated vigorously as a public health issue, and the value of a street corner goes to near nothing as a result. Huge payoff in less incarceration and less violence on the streets for both residents and police.

Can you define more clearly what you mean by de criminalize? Is that just for possession or does that include making it legal for corner street dealers? You can treat it as a health crisis all day long but you are only fooling yourself. I don't know if you have ever witnessed someone you love that has the monkey on their back. They will tell you with a sincere and strait face they want to quit. Before my best friends heart exploded from his cocaine addiction years ago, I use to believe him. When you have gone through more than a dozen drug rehabs chances are you are a dead man walking. These people will lie to your face. The only thing they want is to get high. Who ever goes down with them is immaterial to them getting high. One time my friend had gotten out of rehab with big plans to see his kids on Christmas Eve and bring them presents. His ex wife called me that evening wanting to know if I had seen him. His son and daughter were outside on the front porch crying their eyes out waiting for him to show up. Yeah you just treat it real vigorously as a medical problem. I went with my buddy a couple of times to the meetings they had at Park Ridge Chemical Dendancy. One thing the lady said that night while talking to these people. She told them flat out that out of a hundred of them only one would still be drug free in five years. She was more than right in my friends case. He was dead before that 5 year mark ever arrived. Drug addicts wear tear your heart to pieces because you really want to believe they want to quit. Outside of a miracle and some sort of divine intervention, they never quit.

... decriminalize generally means (when applied to drug policy), making them legal for sale / distribution under sensible regulation, taking the money, high markups out of drugs. In all cases it means users are not made criminals. Sensible regulation means making some legal and taxing them, some remain illegal to sell or distribute. Generally the most dangerous will remain illegal for sale and distribution.

It also generally means getting politicians out of the loop. These decisions should be made, by sorry to tell you, domain level experts. People who depend on scientific facts to make decisions on how to regulate on a drug by drug basis.

So the folks that are addicted to crack cocaine, meth and PCB will still have to go to the corner dealer.

I think what was described is the expected approach, but I think all usage needs to be legal and even the nastiest products need to be accessible legally, though under medical care. Get'em off the worst stuff under care, ease off all addiction under care.

Unlicensed selling would remain illegal. Tough sentences.

Trying to get people help is better than throwing them in jail. Getting them unhooked is one very tall order.

Definitely a tall order, but the only reasonable path...heck of a lot less costly than incarceration, not to mention the policing costs due to the drug gang violence. Also can reduce costs of petty theft, burglary, etc if drug addicts aren't desperate for a few dimes.

[6x6]

Using the term "working to dismantle the department" shows how clueless and egregiously partisan this newspaper writer is. OF COURSE language like that is going to inflame passions about the entire subject...in a negative and very harmful way.

From the beginning, the whole "defund the police" issue has been mis-used and ABUSED by authoritarian whackjob types who would much rather just fill up the private prison system with people they are afraid of.

At the risk of over-simplifying it, for the more nuance-challenged among us, think of it this way...sending a gun-toting uniformed policeman into EVERY situation that demands an immediate response, understanding that there is a lot of uncertainty in just what may be happening, MAY NOT BE THE BEST APPROACH in every case. Some would say, "just get AUTHORITY in there to put down the threat, whatever it is!"

Moving funding around to focus on different approaches to community policing/threat assessment/domestic disturbance/social services is not a bad idea, in this progressive's mind.

Watching "conservatives" mangle the issue for partisan reasons is troubling, but not at all surprising...

..

That said, the "mistake" in all this is that may require more funding at first to achieve the better outcomes, but pay off with less incarceration, less hostility between community and police.

However, I continue to think that there won't be a huge breakthrough until drug usage is decriminalized, treated vigorously as a public health issue, and the value of a street corner goes to near nothing as a result. Huge payoff in less incarceration and less violence on the streets for both residents and police.

Can you define more clearly what you mean by de criminalize? Is that just for possession or does that include making it legal for corner street dealers? You can treat it as a health crisis all day long but you are only fooling yourself. I don't know if you have ever witnessed someone you love that has the monkey on their back. They will tell you with a sincere and strait face they want to quit. Before my best friends heart exploded from his cocaine addiction years ago, I use to believe him. When you have gone through more than a dozen drug rehabs chances are you are a dead man walking. These people will lie to your face. The only thing they want is to get high. Who ever goes down with them is immaterial to them getting high. One time my friend had gotten out of rehab with big plans to see his kids on Christmas Eve and bring them presents. His ex wife called me that evening wanting to know if I had seen him. His son and daughter were outside on the front porch crying their eyes out waiting for him to show up. Yeah you just treat it real vigorously as a medical problem. I went with my buddy a couple of times to the meetings they had at Park Ridge Chemical Dendancy. One thing the lady said that night while talking to these people. She told them flat out that out of a hundred of them only one would still be drug free in five years. She was more than right in my friends case. He was dead before that 5 year mark ever arrived. Drug addicts wear tear your heart to pieces because you really want to believe they want to quit. Outside of a miracle and some sort of divine intervention, they never quit.

... decriminalize generally means (when applied to drug policy), making them legal for sale / distribution under sensible regulation, taking the money, high markups out of drugs. In all cases it means users are not made criminals. Sensible regulation means making some legal and taxing them, some remain illegal to sell or distribute. Generally the most dangerous will remain illegal for sale and distribution.

It also generally means getting politicians out of the loop. These decisions should be made, by sorry to tell you, domain level experts. People who depend on scientific facts to make decisions on how to regulate on a drug by drug basis.

So the folks that are addicted to crack cocaine, meth and PCB will still have to go to the corner dealer.

I think what was described is the expected approach, but I think all usage needs to be legal and even the nastiest products need to be accessible legally, though under medical care. Get'em off the worst stuff under care, ease off all addiction under care.

Unlicensed selling would remain illegal. Tough sentences.

Trying to get people help is better than throwing them in jail. Getting them unhooked is one very tall order.

Definitely a tall order, but the only reasonable path...heck of a lot less costly than incarceration, not to mention the policing costs due to the drug gang violence. Also can reduce costs of petty theft, burglary, etc if drug addicts aren't desperate for a few dimes.

As any reasonable person would be, I am all for getting people off drugs and keeping them out of prison. I totally agree it is a huge task and as such, I’m not sure about your claim that endeavor would be “a heck of a lot less costly....” Incarceration costs about 80 billion for the 2.3 million prisoners in the U.S. About 20 percent of those are in for various drug crimes. So, certainly legalizing marijuana use/possession would reduce that number and the related cost.

Yet, there are about 2 million heroine and cocaine users alone in the U.S. I wonder what the comparative costs would be due to the huge expansion of Methadone clinics, treatment facilities, medical personnel in the various related fields and so on, in order to comprehensively address the “medical care” issue you suggest. Rather than incarceration, I would fully support my tax dollars being used to help people overcome addictions and drug use, I’m just not sure the cost saving benefit is a valid argument.

To your final point, there should be some reduced costs from theft, bmv’s, and robberies, which I guess you’d identify as an etc. However, as C&S pointed out, addictions are hard to kick and there will still be addicts that want the high heroin gives them that Methadone doesn’t. DWI is illegal yet how many still get drunk and drive.

Not sure if this has been mentioned previously but Oregon is moving in that direction by decriminalizing hard drugs. Much like Colorado with marijuana, others will certainly be watching how this develops.

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/ ... 194b2cd0ff

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm including cocaine and heroin users...all drug usage decriminalized.

Incarceration + policing costs > than health care for addiction.

Plus greatly reduced violence.

This is far from my field of expertise, but here's one analysis:

https://drugpolicy.org/sites/default/fi ... y_2017.pdf

Here's a bit about incarceration costs...the $80 billion is just the government portion.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019 ... arceration

and

https://nicic.gov/economic-burden-incarceration-us-2016

[6x6]

Yes I understood. As I stated I’m not arguing the benefits but can you provide cost projections to prove your point or is that a guess?

[MDlaxfan76]

Yes I understood. As I stated I’m not arguing the benefits but can you provide cost projections to prove your point or is that a guess?

I believe those studies I linked address your question far better than I could.

I haven't detailed all the other benefits, but looks to me like on an economic rationale alone, we'd be better off with decriminalization.

I'm a lifelong Republican, moderate conservative, and I find the economic rationale to be quite compelling...I like when we can actually see a potential ROI on choices like this, beyond simply the 'soft' sorts of 'wouldn't it be nicer, or fairer" sorts of logic...though I also think it's far more humane as well!

Addiction should not be a crime, it's a health problem.

[6x6]

Sorry, somehow I missed those.

[kramerica.inc]

Andy Cuomo back in the crosshairs. Not for covering up nursing home deaths and threatening lawmakers this time. But for sexual assault:

https://www.aol.com/news/former-cuomo-a ... 03732.html

A former aide to Gov. Cuomo detailed a pattern of sexual harassment in an essay Wednesday, alleging the governor would “go out of his way” to touch her and once kissed her during a one-on-one meeting.

Lindsey Boylan, the former deputy secretary for economic development and special adviser to the governor, outlines a beyond toxic work environment in which top female aides “normalized” their boss’ behavior and she was told by staffers that Cuomo had a “crush” on her.

Boylan backs up her claims against the governor with screenshots of emails and texts.

...

Boylan says she first began to “truly fear” Cuomo in 2016 when she was invited to his office in Albany during a holiday celebration. She says she called her husband and texted her mother as she was summoned to the executive chamber after successfully avoiding the governor at a gathering.

The pair were alone as Cuomo gave Boylan a tour of the office.

“As he showed me around, I tried to maintain my distance,” she writes. “He paused at one point and smirked as he showed off a cigar box. He told me that President Clinton had given it to him while he served as the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

...

“The two-decade-old reference to President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky was not lost on me,” she adds.
“Governor Andrew Cuomo has created a culture within his administration where sexual harassment and bullying is so pervasive that it is not only condoned but expected,” Boylan wrote. “His inappropriate behavior toward women was an affirmation that he liked you, that you must be doing something right.

“He used intimidation to silence his critics. And if you dared to speak up, you would face consequences,” she added.

[jhu72]

Using the term "working to dismantle the department" shows how clueless and egregiously partisan this newspaper writer is. OF COURSE language like that is going to inflame passions about the entire subject...in a negative and very harmful way.

From the beginning, the whole "defund the police" issue has been mis-used and ABUSED by authoritarian whackjob types who would much rather just fill up the private prison system with people they are afraid of.

At the risk of over-simplifying it, for the more nuance-challenged among us, think of it this way...sending a gun-toting uniformed policeman into EVERY situation that demands an immediate response, understanding that there is a lot of uncertainty in just what may be happening, MAY NOT BE THE BEST APPROACH in every case. Some would say, "just get AUTHORITY in there to put down the threat, whatever it is!"

Moving funding around to focus on different approaches to community policing/threat assessment/domestic disturbance/social services is not a bad idea, in this progressive's mind.

Watching "conservatives" mangle the issue for partisan reasons is troubling, but not at all surprising...

..

That said, the "mistake" in all this is that may require more funding at first to achieve the better outcomes, but pay off with less incarceration, less hostility between community and police.

However, I continue to think that there won't be a huge breakthrough until drug usage is decriminalized, treated vigorously as a public health issue, and the value of a street corner goes to near nothing as a result. Huge payoff in less incarceration and less violence on the streets for both residents and police.

Can you define more clearly what you mean by de criminalize? Is that just for possession or does that include making it legal for corner street dealers? You can treat it as a health crisis all day long but you are only fooling yourself. I don't know if you have ever witnessed someone you love that has the monkey on their back. They will tell you with a sincere and strait face they want to quit. Before my best friends heart exploded from his cocaine addiction years ago, I use to believe him. When you have gone through more than a dozen drug rehabs chances are you are a dead man walking. These people will lie to your face. The only thing they want is to get high. Who ever goes down with them is immaterial to them getting high. One time my friend had gotten out of rehab with big plans to see his kids on Christmas Eve and bring them presents. His ex wife called me that evening wanting to know if I had seen him. His son and daughter were outside on the front porch crying their eyes out waiting for him to show up. Yeah you just treat it real vigorously as a medical problem. I went with my buddy a couple of times to the meetings they had at Park Ridge Chemical Dendancy. One thing the lady said that night while talking to these people. She told them flat out that out of a hundred of them only one would still be drug free in five years. She was more than right in my friends case. He was dead before that 5 year mark ever arrived. Drug addicts wear tear your heart to pieces because you really want to believe they want to quit. Outside of a miracle and some sort of divine intervention, they never quit.

... decriminalize generally means (when applied to drug policy), making them legal for sale / distribution under sensible regulation, taking the money, high markups out of drugs. In all cases it means users are not made criminals. Sensible regulation means making some legal and taxing them, some remain illegal to sell or distribute. Generally the most dangerous will remain illegal for sale and distribution.

It also generally means getting politicians out of the loop. These decisions should be made, by sorry to tell you, domain level experts. People who depend on scientific facts to make decisions on how to regulate on a drug by drug basis.

So the folks that are addicted to crack cocaine, meth and PCB will still have to go to the corner dealer.

I think what was described is the expected approach, but I think all usage needs to be legal and even the nastiest products need to be accessible legally, though under medical care. Get'em off the worst stuff under care, ease off all addiction under care.

Unlicensed selling would remain illegal. Tough sentences.

.. yes I stated the expected end state. Selling without at license is illegal and some drugs it will not be possible to get a license, effectively keeping the drug illegal. I would expect most common drugs would be available via licensed seller. License could mean either public commercial license or a government run licensed facility, or a non-profit medical treatment facility.

[jhu72]

Andy Cuomo back in the crosshairs. Not for covering up nursing home deaths and threatening lawmakers this time. But for sexual assault:

https://www.aol.com/news/former-cuomo-a ... 03732.html

A former aide to Gov. Cuomo detailed a pattern of sexual harassment in an essay Wednesday, alleging the governor would “go out of his way” to touch her and once kissed her during a one-on-one meeting.

Lindsey Boylan, the former deputy secretary for economic development and special adviser to the governor, outlines a beyond toxic work environment in which top female aides “normalized” their boss’ behavior and she was told by staffers that Cuomo had a “crush” on her.

Boylan backs up her claims against the governor with screenshots of emails and texts.

...

Boylan says she first began to “truly fear” Cuomo in 2016 when she was invited to his office in Albany during a holiday celebration. She says she called her husband and texted her mother as she was summoned to the executive chamber after successfully avoiding the governor at a gathering.

The pair were alone as Cuomo gave Boylan a tour of the office.

“As he showed me around, I tried to maintain my distance,” she writes. “He paused at one point and smirked as he showed off a cigar box. He told me that President Clinton had given it to him while he served as the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

...

“The two-decade-old reference to President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky was not lost on me,” she adds.
“Governor Andrew Cuomo has created a culture within his administration where sexual harassment and bullying is so pervasive that it is not only condoned but expected,” Boylan wrote. “His inappropriate behavior toward women was an affirmation that he liked you, that you must be doing something right.

“He used intimidation to silence his critics. And if you dared to speak up, you would face consequences,” she added.

.. even with denial from aids, I suspect more evidence will come out. The accuser seems credible at first blush. Democrats are not going to save him. He doesn't have that many friends among the Ds.

[youthathletics]

Maybe he can take a lie detector test, just like he wantEd kavanaugh to do....only this time there is plenty of time to do so.

[PizzaSnake]

Using the term "working to dismantle the department" shows how clueless and egregiously partisan this newspaper writer is. OF COURSE language like that is going to inflame passions about the entire subject...in a negative and very harmful way.

From the beginning, the whole "defund the police" issue has been mis-used and ABUSED by authoritarian whackjob types who would much rather just fill up the private prison system with people they are afraid of.

At the risk of over-simplifying it, for the more nuance-challenged among us, think of it this way...sending a gun-toting uniformed policeman into EVERY situation that demands an immediate response, understanding that there is a lot of uncertainty in just what may be happening, MAY NOT BE THE BEST APPROACH in every case. Some would say, "just get AUTHORITY in there to put down the threat, whatever it is!"

Moving funding around to focus on different approaches to community policing/threat assessment/domestic disturbance/social services is not a bad idea, in this progressive's mind.

Watching "conservatives" mangle the issue for partisan reasons is troubling, but not at all surprising...

..

That said, the "mistake" in all this is that may require more funding at first to achieve the better outcomes, but pay off with less incarceration, less hostility between community and police.

However, I continue to think that there won't be a huge breakthrough until drug usage is decriminalized, treated vigorously as a public health issue, and the value of a street corner goes to near nothing as a result. Huge payoff in less incarceration and less violence on the streets for both residents and police.

Can you define more clearly what you mean by de criminalize? Is that just for possession or does that include making it legal for corner street dealers? You can treat it as a health crisis all day long but you are only fooling yourself. I don't know if you have ever witnessed someone you love that has the monkey on their back. They will tell you with a sincere and strait face they want to quit. Before my best friends heart exploded from his cocaine addiction years ago, I use to believe him. When you have gone through more than a dozen drug rehabs chances are you are a dead man walking. These people will lie to your face. The only thing they want is to get high. Who ever goes down with them is immaterial to them getting high. One time my friend had gotten out of rehab with big plans to see his kids on Christmas Eve and bring them presents. His ex wife called me that evening wanting to know if I had seen him. His son and daughter were outside on the front porch crying their eyes out waiting for him to show up. Yeah you just treat it real vigorously as a medical problem. I went with my buddy a couple of times to the meetings they had at Park Ridge Chemical Dendancy. One thing the lady said that night while talking to these people. She told them flat out that out of a hundred of them only one would still be drug free in five years. She was more than right in my friends case. He was dead before that 5 year mark ever arrived. Drug addicts wear tear your heart to pieces because you really want to believe they want to quit. Outside of a miracle and some sort of divine intervention, they never quit.

... decriminalize generally means (when applied to drug policy), making them legal for sale / distribution under sensible regulation, taking the money, high markups out of drugs. In all cases it means users are not made criminals. Sensible regulation means making some legal and taxing them, some remain illegal to sell or distribute. Generally the most dangerous will remain illegal for sale and distribution.

It also generally means getting politicians out of the loop. These decisions should be made, by sorry to tell you, domain level experts. People who depend on scientific facts to make decisions on how to regulate on a drug by drug basis.

So the folks that are addicted to crack cocaine, meth and PCB will still have to go to the corner dealer.

There is some percentage of people who will become addicted to various substances, for a variety of reasons.

However, what we should have learned from Prohibition is that declaring things illegal and even “evil” ( thanks Nancy), doesn’t do much besides create a new class of criminals. In fact, by the admission of certain right-wing figures, the targeting of marijuana users was a tool for political oppression of minorities and left-leaning citizens.

So spare me the crocodile tears for the addicted on the corner. Bad health policy drives them to the corner.

[cradleandshoot]

Using the term "working to dismantle the department" shows how clueless and egregiously partisan this newspaper writer is. OF COURSE language like that is going to inflame passions about the entire subject...in a negative and very harmful way.

From the beginning, the whole "defund the police" issue has been mis-used and ABUSED by authoritarian whackjob types who would much rather just fill up the private prison system with people they are afraid of.

At the risk of over-simplifying it, for the more nuance-challenged among us, think of it this way...sending a gun-toting uniformed policeman into EVERY situation that demands an immediate response, understanding that there is a lot of uncertainty in just what may be happening, MAY NOT BE THE BEST APPROACH in every case. Some would say, "just get AUTHORITY in there to put down the threat, whatever it is!"

Moving funding around to focus on different approaches to community policing/threat assessment/domestic disturbance/social services is not a bad idea, in this progressive's mind.

Watching "conservatives" mangle the issue for partisan reasons is troubling, but not at all surprising...

..

That said, the "mistake" in all this is that may require more funding at first to achieve the better outcomes, but pay off with less incarceration, less hostility between community and police.

However, I continue to think that there won't be a huge breakthrough until drug usage is decriminalized, treated vigorously as a public health issue, and the value of a street corner goes to near nothing as a result. Huge payoff in less incarceration and less violence on the streets for both residents and police.

Can you define more clearly what you mean by de criminalize? Is that just for possession or does that include making it legal for corner street dealers? You can treat it as a health crisis all day long but you are only fooling yourself. I don't know if you have ever witnessed someone you love that has the monkey on their back. They will tell you with a sincere and strait face they want to quit. Before my best friends heart exploded from his cocaine addiction years ago, I use to believe him. When you have gone through more than a dozen drug rehabs chances are you are a dead man walking. These people will lie to your face. The only thing they want is to get high. Who ever goes down with them is immaterial to them getting high. One time my friend had gotten out of rehab with big plans to see his kids on Christmas Eve and bring them presents. His ex wife called me that evening wanting to know if I had seen him. His son and daughter were outside on the front porch crying their eyes out waiting for him to show up. Yeah you just treat it real vigorously as a medical problem. I went with my buddy a couple of times to the meetings they had at Park Ridge Chemical Dendancy. One thing the lady said that night while talking to these people. She told them flat out that out of a hundred of them only one would still be drug free in five years. She was more than right in my friends case. He was dead before that 5 year mark ever arrived. Drug addicts wear tear your heart to pieces because you really want to believe they want to quit. Outside of a miracle and some sort of divine intervention, they never quit.

... decriminalize generally means (when applied to drug policy), making them legal for sale / distribution under sensible regulation, taking the money, high markups out of drugs. In all cases it means users are not made criminals. Sensible regulation means making some legal and taxing them, some remain illegal to sell or distribute. Generally the most dangerous will remain illegal for sale and distribution.

It also generally means getting politicians out of the loop. These decisions should be made, by sorry to tell you, domain level experts. People who depend on scientific facts to make decisions on how to regulate on a drug by drug basis.

So the folks that are addicted to crack cocaine, meth and PCB will still have to go to the corner dealer.

There is some percentage of people who will become addicted to various substances, for a variety of reasons.

However, what we should have learned from Prohibition is that declaring things illegal and even “evil” ( thanks Nancy), doesn’t do much besides create a new class of criminals. In fact, by the admission of certain right-wing figures, the targeting of marijuana users was a tool for political oppression of minorities and left-leaning citizens.

So spare me the crocodile tears for the addicted on the corner. Bad health policy drives them to the corner.

I disagree, the desperate need to get high drives people to the corner street dealers. I don't care about folks smoking weed. The folks snorting coke and smoking rock should not expect to have a very long life. I have no sympathy for them at all. I hope they get their monkey off their back. The odds are not good for them.

[MDlaxfan76]

Andy Cuomo back in the crosshairs. Not for covering up nursing home deaths and threatening lawmakers this time. But for sexual assault:

https://www.aol.com/news/former-cuomo-a ... 03732.html

A former aide to Gov. Cuomo detailed a pattern of sexual harassment in an essay Wednesday, alleging the governor would “go out of his way” to touch her and once kissed her during a one-on-one meeting.

Lindsey Boylan, the former deputy secretary for economic development and special adviser to the governor, outlines a beyond toxic work environment in which top female aides “normalized” their boss’ behavior and she was told by staffers that Cuomo had a “crush” on her.

Boylan backs up her claims against the governor with screenshots of emails and texts.

...

Boylan says she first began to “truly fear” Cuomo in 2016 when she was invited to his office in Albany during a holiday celebration. She says she called her husband and texted her mother as she was summoned to the executive chamber after successfully avoiding the governor at a gathering.

The pair were alone as Cuomo gave Boylan a tour of the office.

“As he showed me around, I tried to maintain my distance,” she writes. “He paused at one point and smirked as he showed off a cigar box. He told me that President Clinton had given it to him while he served as the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

...

“The two-decade-old reference to President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky was not lost on me,” she adds.
“Governor Andrew Cuomo has created a culture within his administration where sexual harassment and bullying is so pervasive that it is not only condoned but expected,” Boylan wrote. “His inappropriate behavior toward women was an affirmation that he liked you, that you must be doing something right.

“He used intimidation to silence his critics. And if you dared to speak up, you would face consequences,” she added.

.. even with denial from aids, I suspect more evidence will come out. The accuser seems credible at first blush. Democrats are not going to save him. He doesn't have that many friends among the Ds.

If there is indeed this pervasive pattern of behavior, there will be more women coming forward. I agree there won't be much support from the Dems.

The intimidation stuff alone is survivable IMO, the harassment of women likely not. Not just some inappropriate comments of "appreciation", but actual harassment...

[MDlaxfan76]

Using the term "working to dismantle the department" shows how clueless and egregiously partisan this newspaper writer is. OF COURSE language like that is going to inflame passions about the entire subject...in a negative and very harmful way.

From the beginning, the whole "defund the police" issue has been mis-used and ABUSED by authoritarian whackjob types who would much rather just fill up the private prison system with people they are afraid of.

At the risk of over-simplifying it, for the more nuance-challenged among us, think of it this way...sending a gun-toting uniformed policeman into EVERY situation that demands an immediate response, understanding that there is a lot of uncertainty in just what may be happening, MAY NOT BE THE BEST APPROACH in every case. Some would say, "just get AUTHORITY in there to put down the threat, whatever it is!"

Moving funding around to focus on different approaches to community policing/threat assessment/domestic disturbance/social services is not a bad idea, in this progressive's mind.

Watching "conservatives" mangle the issue for partisan reasons is troubling, but not at all surprising...

..

That said, the "mistake" in all this is that may require more funding at first to achieve the better outcomes, but pay off with less incarceration, less hostility between community and police.

However, I continue to think that there won't be a huge breakthrough until drug usage is decriminalized, treated vigorously as a public health issue, and the value of a street corner goes to near nothing as a result. Huge payoff in less incarceration and less violence on the streets for both residents and police.

Can you define more clearly what you mean by de criminalize? Is that just for possession or does that include making it legal for corner street dealers? You can treat it as a health crisis all day long but you are only fooling yourself. I don't know if you have ever witnessed someone you love that has the monkey on their back. They will tell you with a sincere and strait face they want to quit. Before my best friends heart exploded from his cocaine addiction years ago, I use to believe him. When you have gone through more than a dozen drug rehabs chances are you are a dead man walking. These people will lie to your face. The only thing they want is to get high. Who ever goes down with them is immaterial to them getting high. One time my friend had gotten out of rehab with big plans to see his kids on Christmas Eve and bring them presents. His ex wife called me that evening wanting to know if I had seen him. His son and daughter were outside on the front porch crying their eyes out waiting for him to show up. Yeah you just treat it real vigorously as a medical problem. I went with my buddy a couple of times to the meetings they had at Park Ridge Chemical Dendancy. One thing the lady said that night while talking to these people. She told them flat out that out of a hundred of them only one would still be drug free in five years. She was more than right in my friends case. He was dead before that 5 year mark ever arrived. Drug addicts wear tear your heart to pieces because you really want to believe they want to quit. Outside of a miracle and some sort of divine intervention, they never quit.

... decriminalize generally means (when applied to drug policy), making them legal for sale / distribution under sensible regulation, taking the money, high markups out of drugs. In all cases it means users are not made criminals. Sensible regulation means making some legal and taxing them, some remain illegal to sell or distribute. Generally the most dangerous will remain illegal for sale and distribution.

It also generally means getting politicians out of the loop. These decisions should be made, by sorry to tell you, domain level experts. People who depend on scientific facts to make decisions on how to regulate on a drug by drug basis.

So the folks that are addicted to crack cocaine, meth and PCB will still have to go to the corner dealer.

I think what was described is the expected approach, but I think all usage needs to be legal and even the nastiest products need to be accessible legally, though under medical care. Get'em off the worst stuff under care, ease off all addiction under care.

Unlicensed selling would remain illegal. Tough sentences.

.. yes I stated the expected end state. Selling without at license is illegal and some drugs it will not be possible to get a license, effectively keeping the drug illegal. I would expect most common drugs would be available via licensed seller. License could mean either public commercial license or a government run licensed facility, or a non-profit medical treatment facility.

By "illegal", there should be viable substitutes for the 'high' achieved by the worst of these drugs, and addressing the chemical/biological dependency that exists. I want the 'street corner' to be really unnecessary, and unprofitable.

I'm actually not in favor of the "legalized" path being taken with marijuana, though I think there's at least a decent argument with that one. Beyond marijuana (and I'd rather it was included), I'd distribute solely through medical supervision and by that I mean addiction specialist supervision. It should be easy and swift to get access and care, but I'd want folks to be offered addiction recovery support at each turn (not necessary for medical treatment for end of life, etc). I'd also spend significantly on public service announcements about the costs of addiction to family and society and the availability of recovery services (including alcohol). We should continue to make it clear that addiction is very destructive and usage is dangerous.

[6x6]

This could go a couple places but thought I’d post it here as the bottom of the article mentions the mayor’s thoughts on treatment for heroin users.

https://www.syracuse.com/crime/2021/02/ ... tment.html