Require people to take them in a government-run facility, under strict supervision. It can be in pleasant surroundings, but always within control of medical personnel and security personnel. It works. There’s a meth clinic across the street from my work. The addicts get government meth, cleaner than clean. They take it in a controlled environment, outpatient setting. Over time the goal is to slowly step them down to a lower dose, but that’s less important than the facts that they are
Getting a clean supply, which removes the poisoning risk of adulterated street meth
Not committing crimes to buy/make meth
Being monitored closely every day by medical staff for the usual health problems, and getting treatment for any that arise
People are going to take this stuff, and a minority will get addicted (this is true for most drugs). Criminalizing it just makes things more dangerous, for everyone on every level. Remember how Prohibition failed so hard? Same thing.
There are a lot of things about America today that the Founding Fathers wouldn’t be OK with, like permanent diplomatic alliances, or a standing army, or an industrial-based economy, or including letting women, coloreds, and poor people vote, or prohibiting slavery.
America was not born perfect in 1789. It is a work in progress.
Why on Earth would we subsidize and encourage addiction? If someone is independently wealthy and can afford it and handle it, they pretty much are already doing it. I’m not paying people to be addicts.
I would do DDT so hard if given the chance! :rolleyes:
I’m guessing it would take a Supreme Court action at this point to stop these sort of 4th amendment violations on a national level. Don’t most/all of these public servants swear to uphold the constitution when they are hired/elected? What happened?
And yet these guys are stealing shit when there aren’t any drugs involved. The problem is corrupt cops: if they couldn’t use drugs as an excuse, they’d still have the mafia, or terrorism, or simple tax evasion.
Call me jaded but I suspect the Republicans like it because it makes for a larger cut for their local constituents now that they don’t have to share with the Feds.
True. What I called before the “perverse incentive” would still be in effecy. If the product of civil forfeitures had to be put into the common state/federal General Fund pot (i.e. not even earmarked for the county or town in which it happens), the police may be somewhat less aggressive about it, and could even conceivably resent the Revenue Department wanting them to serve as shakedown agents if there’s nothing in it for them.
Also, the whole notion as seen in some of the case reports, that “normal people don’t carry around that much cash for legitimate purposes” tells you about the authorities’ presumptions (one does wonder: Has no legislator/judge EVER owned/managed/patronized a lawful business that generates a few thousand in cash sales in a day?). But one can see that it would fit into a greater policy approach of, since we can’t ban them, let’s make it too much risk/PITA to have *any *sort of large cash transaction at all.
The problem here is with a voting public that has been convinced that low taxes and spending cuts are the be-all and end-all of responsible government, thus forcing budget-starved police departments to rely on civil forfeiture to cover their operating expenses.
And for the record, I heartily agree that civil forfeiture has been grossly abused.
Back in '11, I had a very nice, custom-built Haro hard-tail mountain bike–fat all-terrain tires, seat perfectly fitted to my rear-end, disc brakes, the whole works–seized by the cops, despite the fact I presented my receipts and everything to show that, in fact, yes–I was the legit owner.
In their “minds”, a nice mountain bike under the ass of a young black man just had to be stolen/bought with drug money. :rolleyes:
Fort Worth may be Fort Worthless, but there are worse places in Tex-ass. I high-tailed it back to FW mere days after that happened.
