Re:In effect, Seattle is decriminalizing the use of hard drugs
by timdev2 on Friday August 23, 2019 @02:22PM
(#20780761)
You replied to a post complaining that the policy also seemed to be giving violent individuals a pass, and accused them of "think[ing] that non-violent addicts should be put into prison". Which was neither said nor (as you claim) implied. The comment was explicitly bemoaning a perceived plague of "repeat violent drug addicts"
Re:In effect, Seattle is decriminalizing the use of hard drugs
by vkou on Friday August 23, 2019 @02:29PM
(#20780872)
The policy being shilled by the article in question is about non-violent addicts.
Whatever problems the commenter in question has with violent criminals has absolutely nothing to do with it - but they chose to attack the non-violent policy (And then get defensive about how their points are being misconstrued. What are those points, then? Violent crime is bad, and should be dealt with? I don't think anyone disagrees with that one. What does it have to do with a diversion of non-violent addicts?)
It's like complaining that standards on organically-grown produce aren't preventing contaminated meat from ending up at your grocery store. Whatever problems you have with contaminated meat have nothing to do with the produce policy.
No, it's not.
What you said, in response to the article was:
> I am just astounded that this is being spun in such a positive light.
The implication here is that redirecting non-violent addicts off the addiction --> prison pipeline was a policy mistake.
I ask why you think that non-violent addicts should be put into prison. You tell me I'm grossly misrepresenting your point of view.
Which point of view do you actually hold? Do you think that non-violent addicts should be provided with help, or prison? Pick one, and own it.
I don't care one whit about your opinions on violent people in public spaces. I doubt they differ from mine, and it's not an interesting conversation.