this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
127 points (95.0% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2582 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS.
It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments.
Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Register To Vote
• Citizenship Resource Center
• Congressional Awards Program
• Federal Government Agencies
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• The White House
• U.S. House of Representatives
• U.S. Senate
Partnered Communities:
• News
• World News
• Business News
• Political Discussion
• Ask Politics
• Military News
• Global Politics
• Moderate Politics
• Progressive Politics
• UK Politics
• Canadian Politics
• Australian Politics
• New Zealand Politics
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The problem in Portland is that we decriminalized most drugs, so now potential third spaces are over-run with homeless tents and drug use.
From my house I have either a 1/4 mile uphill walk to a major busline, or a 3/4 mile downhill walk to one. Either way isn't particularly safe, and the bus lines themselves aren't particularly safe.
https://www.koin.com/news/passenger-violence-increasing-at-trimet-during-severe-staffing-shortage/
Crazy idea: if drugs are decriminalized, what if we had two versions of public spaces: one that disallows use of drugs, and one where drugs were allowed and handed out for free? Like if you were a drug addict, would you really want to go to that boring "sober" library where you might get hassled when you could get unlimited drugs at the library across the street?
Because people who are out of their minds on drugs typically aren't aware of any sorts of public restrictions. That's currently the problem in Portland:
https://apnews.com/article/portland-ada-lawsuit-homeless-tents-sidewalks-aee2d079440d5f9427a18d9e4771d92a
We can't get them to comply with relatively basic requests like "don't block sidewalks". You honestly think they'll stick to "keep your drugs in the beer garden"?
Why would they take the drugs and leave elsewhere, which takes time, when they could consume them right there on the comfy beer garden lounge chairs?
Unfortunately, meth use is not conducive to staying in one place. Frequent Portland problem:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/the-new-meth/620174/
Oh wow! Ok then, free heroin at the Beer-and-Heroin Garden, free meth at the center of the Great Nature (and Meth) Preserve - swim up a waterfall, wrestle a bear, whatever. Free (one-way) weed shuttle bus provided.
Drugs are fucking cheap if you control the means of production. For less than $10 a day you can keep homeless drug addicts off your buses, out of your train stations, out of your libraries and playgrounds and out of tent cities in middle of town, simply by luring them to a no-strings-attached watering hole out of your line of sight.
Cheaper than paying police and paying staff to clean up the buses and paying insurance and inconvenience for all the petty break-ins and smashed car windows.
We can’t get them to comply with relatively basic requests like “don’t block sidewalks”, what makes you think you'd be able to force them to do useful work? Overseers with whips cost money, how do you expect to do it cheaply enough to turn a profit and pay off damages?
And does this guy shoot them if they sit down and refuse to work?
Do you support murdering people you don't like in all contexts, or just if you can't extract labor from them at gunpoint?
I think it's a sincere question. Your comments so far have suggested that you support the idea that execution is an acceptable punishment for people who abuse drugs and then disobey orders from authority. I believe it's fair to question whether there are lower levels of nuisance that you also believe the death penalty should apply to.
As for the argument as a whole, taking into consideration the cost of training and wages for the prison guards/riflemen/executioners necessary to employ this scheme and the logistical cost of moving these incarcerated laborers to potential work sites, as well as the low quality of the labor they could provide while going through withdrawals, I still think the $10 per day would be cheaper.
Ah, I apologize, it seems I misinterpreted the top comment. I reread the thread, and now I see the link to an article about increased violence. I was looking at the thread by the context of the top comment's text alone, so I was interpreting your comments as being about homeless people and drug addicts in general. I still don't like the idea of prison labor as a solution, but your opinion makes a lot more sense when taken as a response to violent crime. I wonder if the other commenter in this chain made the same mistake.
Apologies again for the misunderstanding.
I'm asking about your barbaric suggestion for punishment for people unfortunate enough to be targeted by selective drug enforcement. Your suggestion is forced labor at gunpoint.
I asked questions about just how barbaric you were willing to take this. I got my answer.
You're willing to enslave and murder people for being addicted.
Not profitably.
Right, first pick a crime that is disproportionately enforced towards one minority, then make them do forced unpaid labor as a condition of their sentences.
The extra steps don't change what that sounds like.
We shouldn't be using slave labor just because you fantasize about it.
if all drugs get decriminalized, society will fall apart even more rapidly than it is now. better to exile all of the addicts to somewhere no one wants to go (wyoming) and fence them in - then let them inject/inhale to their hearts content.
Concentration camps, huh? When this doesn't solve the ills of society you claim it will, who's next on the "then they came for" list?
perhaps you should welcome the heroin zombies into your home, if you care for them so much?
Perhaps you shouldn't advocate for concentration camps.