Jump to content

VOTERS’ REMORSE: Blue state survey shows majority want to re-criminalize drugs: 'We made an enormous mistake'


LumRaiderFan

Recommended Posts

This is the hidden content, please

Yeah, let's make drugs legal, that removes the criminal element and all will be great.

That what we always hear.

From the article:

"Oregon has turned into an international spectacle and I think we looked at each other and realize that we made an enormous mistake," Portland-based trial attorney Kristin Olson told Fox News.

Oregon is the only state in the nation where possession of personal use amounts of hard drugs including heroin, meth and fentanyl is decriminalized, after 58% of voters passed Measure 110 in 2020.

Olson voted for Measure 110 thinking it would mirror Portugal's decriminalization effort, which changed the law so that drug users are sent to counseling or mandatory treatment. But Oregon's law made possession a Class E violation, punishable by a maximum $100 fine. Treatment is optional.

"If we take away all the incentives, they're not going into treatment," Olson said.

More than 60% of voters DHM surveyed said drug decriminalization has made addiction, homelessness and crime worse.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

This is the hidden content, please

Yeah, let's make drugs legal, that removes the criminal element and all will be great.

That what we always hear.

From the article:

"Oregon has turned into an international spectacle and I think we looked at each other and realize that we made an enormous mistake," Portland-based trial attorney Kristin Olson told Fox News.

Oregon is the only state in the nation where possession of personal use amounts of hard drugs including heroin, meth and fentanyl is decriminalized, after 58% of voters passed Measure 110 in 2020.

Olson voted for Measure 110 thinking it would mirror Portugal's decriminalization effort, which changed the law so that drug users are sent to counseling or mandatory treatment. But Oregon's law made possession a Class E violation, punishable by a maximum $100 fine. Treatment is optional.

"If we take away all the incentives, they're not going into treatment," Olson said.

More than 60% of voters DHM surveyed said drug decriminalization has made addiction, homelessness and crime worse.

 

No, no, no!

Getting rid of the police and makings drugs legal fixes most problems. Everyone knows it is the cop’s fault that drug users steal, kill and trash neighborhoods. Leave the drug addicts to themselves and not all but most problems will go away. The situation certainly will never get worse.

Portland, San Francisco and coming soon to a neighborhood nearby….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

No, no, no!

Getting rid of the police and makings drugs legal fixes most problems. Everyone knows it is the cop’s fault that drug users steal, kill and trash neighborhoods. Leave the drug addicts to themselves and not all but most problems will go away. The situation certainly will never get worse.

Portland, San Francisco and coming soon to a neighborhood nearby….

This is what really gets me about liberals. People really thought this would work? This is what happens when people are allowed the freedoms to do whatever they want with no accountability for their actions. Even freedom has limitations. Liberals….. What a joke. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, baddog said:

This is what really gets me about liberals. People really thought this would work? This is what happens when people are allowed the freedoms to do whatever they want with no accountability for their actions. Even freedom has limitations. Liberals….. What a joke. 

These are the same idiots that think defunding the cops was a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...