Legaliizng Hard Drugs was a dumb move 1364 died last year (Portland: crimes, live)

[FordBronco1967]

Originally Posted by WestGuest

Back in the 1980s I was an elected DA in Texas and publicly stopped prosecuting marijuana cases. I have no regrets and have over the years published editorials in favor of full legalization of pot.

Hard drugs are a totally different matter. My wife is a nurse and meth users are dangerous and obnoxious Heroin and Cocaine addicts are no bargain either. They have helped destroy Portland's reputation as one of the nation's nicest cities. Now its held up as an example of liberalism gone out of control.

Make no mistake, as an educated person, I am still a Democrat- I am thriving in this economy where there are 1.9 jobs for each applicant however. Dems and LIberals are not right about Everything. Addicts are still criminals and need to be off the street. Yes it takes money to incarcerate them, but at least they arent committing more crimes while in jail. The Oregon - Portland economy has suffered worse than the incarceration costs. -

These drugs are not marijuana. Marijuana can be beneficial and does not lead to other crimes. Someone sampling Meth or Smack - knows absolutely that these are dangerous drugs -- Lock em UP!

You should have regrets. That's downright shameful! And, the specific law in question is meaningless. You should have been removed from your position for dereliction of duty.

As an elected official, you are supposed follow the laws on the books, not only the one's you agree with. Can you imagine what would happen if a DA refused to charge someone with murder, despite the evidence showing that person being guilty of committing murder, simply because they disagreed with murder being illegal?

If you disagree with something, then work to get the law changed (which it seems you made an effort), not simply ignore the law. That's too dangerous a precedent to set!

[Silverfall]

Originally Posted by FordBronco1967

You should have regrets. That's downright shameful! And, the specific law in question is meaningless. You should have been removed from your position for dereliction of duty.

As an elected official, you are supposed follow the laws on the books, not only the one's you agree with. Can you imagine what would happen if a DA refused to charge someone with murder, despite the evidence showing that person being guilty of committing murder, simply because they disagreed with murder being illegal?

If you disagree with something, then work to get the law changed (which it seems you made an effort), not simply ignore the law. That's too dangerous a precedent to set!

You do realize that DAs can't charge everyone with every crime right? There aren't enough hours and time for that. They all make decisions about which cases to go after. Most DAs prioritize cases where other people are harmed, like murder, rape, assault, etc and let go of the marijuana possession cases. Personally, I think that is the right decision as someone smoking a joint in a parking lot isn't the same thing as rape or murder in my book.

Do you see those as the same thing?

[Floorist]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

The problem with decriminalizing it is that it was done without changes to laws for mandatory treatment and then of course, actually funding enough long-term treatment centers. At least with the criminal justice system, people could choose to go into treatment over jail so it helped some people. The death outcome is inevitable and will continue to be this way.

I read a study a couple years ago about Portugal. They legalized all drugs and all money that had been used to prosecute and imprison for drugs had to go to help addicts. If an addict cleaned up and stayed that way for a certain length of time, they were given money to start a business. After 5 years, the number of addicts had dropped 50%. Probably would not work here.

[Metlakatla]

Idk what the answer is, but I recently bought a house in Thurston to get away from the coast, and although I'm very happy with my immediate neighborhood, Portland-style open air fentanyl markets have started springing up in Eugene.

[redguard57]

Unfortunately, I voted for Measure 110. I rarely regret my votes, but that one I very much do. I would vote to repeal it in a heartbeat.

[karlsch]

Originally Posted by Floorist

I read a study a couple years ago about Portugal. They legalized all drugs and all money that had been used to prosecute and imprison for drugs had to go to help addicts. If an addict cleaned up and stayed that way for a certain length of time, they were given money to start a business. After 5 years, the number of addicts had dropped 50%. Probably would not work here.

Some in Portugal are having second thoughts.

The writers, Anthony Faiola and Catarina Fernandes Martins, open the story on the streets of Porto, a (really pretty) city of 232,000 in Northwest Portugal. There are 1.7 million people in the Porto metropolitan area (compared with 2.5 million in Portland), making it Portugal’s second-largest city after Lisbon.

“Addiction haunts the recesses of this ancient port city, as people with gaunt, clumsy hands lift crack pipes to lips, syringes to veins,” they write. “Authorities are sealing off warren-like alleyways with iron bars and fencing in parks to halt the spread of encampments. A siege mentality is taking root in nearby enclaves of pricey condos and multimillion-euro homes.”

https://www.wweek.com/news/2023/07/0...iminalization/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...-heroin-crack/

[FordBronco1967]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

You do realize that DAs can't charge everyone with every crime right? There aren't enough hours and time for that. They all make decisions about which cases to go after. Most DAs prioritize cases where other people are harmed, like murder, rape, assault, etc and let go of the marijuana possession cases. Personally, I think that is the right decision as someone smoking a joint in a parking lot isn't the same thing as rape or murder in my book.

Do you see those as the same thing?

Yes, from the position that they are both criminal laws. All laws should be treated equally. Their subject matter is of no concern.

It's one thing to not charge someone for having a small amount of marijuana in their possession. It's another thing to make a blanket statement that no one will be charged for having marijuana in their possession because you disagree with the law. That's dereliction of duty, because DA's take an oath to uphold all laws, not just the one's they agree with.

If one DA can decide that possessing marijuana isn't a crime, why can't another decide that committing murder and rape isn't a crime? It's a dangerous precedent to set!

Lastly, laws are objective, not subjective. If laws are subjective, then there's no reason to have a legal system. You'd just end up with anarchy.

[leastprime]

Originally Posted by redguard57

Unfortunately, I voted for Measure 110. I rarely regret my votes, but that one I very much do. I would vote to repeal it in a heartbeat.

either way, it costs money.

KingCo Washington, voted for "Proposition 1, Veterans, Seniors, and Human Services Levy". The Levy, although not 100% dedicated to homeless will be used for homeless, Levy passed Aug 1, 2023, 2:1. Expected to raise additional $564 million over next 6 years.

[Silverfall]

Originally Posted by FordBronco1967

Yes, from the position that they are both criminal laws. All laws should be treated equally. Their subject matter is of no concern.

It's one thing to not charge someone for having a small amount of marijuana in their possession. It's another thing to make a blanket statement that no one will be charged for having marijuana in their possession because you disagree with the law. That's dereliction of duty, because DA's take an oath to uphold all laws, not just the one's they agree with.

If one DA can decide that possessing marijuana isn't a crime, why can't another decide that committing murder and rape isn't a crime? It's a dangerous precedent to set!

Lastly, laws are objective, not subjective. If laws are subjective, then there's no reason to have a legal system. You'd just end up with anarchy.

This isn't close to reality. There is ideal and then there is reality. There are not enough judges, attorneys, or jail space to prosecute every single crime or are you saying that you would gladly have your taxes increased so that we can have a larger judicial system to handle all of these cases?

Personally, I'm not willing to pay for government resources to prosecute someone for smoking pot, just like I think it is a waste of government funds to ticket people for jaywalking. It is fine if you disagree with that, but then you need to be willing to pay the massive costs associated with holding every single person who commits a crime, large or small, accountable. Otherwise, we need to assume DAs are generally intelligent people that have basic judgment skills. When DAs don't prosecute serious cases, there is intense public pressure. A DA that thinks that rape and murder aren't worth prosecuting won't be in office long. It would be a self-correcting problem long before anarchy took hold.

Do I like it when those in the judicial system like DAs and police publicly talk about not enforcing laws? No. I don't think they should. Do I think that pushes us closer to anarchy? Not even close.

Government passes laws all the time that they don't have the resources to enforce. They rely on people generally following the rule of law and self-regulating. I have never met someone that has ever followed every single law. Speeding alone rules out most people. Do you actually know people that have never broken a law?

[Igor Blevin]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

Idk what the answer is, but I recently bought a house in Thurston to get away from the coast, and although I'm very happy with my immediate neighborhood, Portland-style open air fentanyl markets have started springing up in Eugene.

I too, don't know what the answer is except to note that Singapore has absoltuley NO problem with drug addiction. They execute drug dealers and they don't wait 20 years to do so, either. Users go to prison for years.

They don't tolerate drug sales or use, and they get a society that is too fearful to break the law over it.

It seems to work exceedingly well.


Singapore executes third prisoner in 2 weeks for drug trafficking


Singapore’s laws mandate the death penalty for anyone convicted of trafficking more than 500 grams (17.6 ounces) of cannabis and 15 grams (0.5 ounces) of heroin.


https://abcnews.go.com/International...%20of%20heroin.