Said Manhattan district attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr., quoted in "Supervised Injection Sites for Drug Users to Open in New York City/The Manhattan facilities will provide clean needles, administer medication to reverse overdoses and provide users with options for addiction treatment" (NYT).
November 30, 2021
"We have always been trying to strike the right balance between enforcement, rehabilitation and prevention."
"I would rather have people who are going to shoot up do it in a safe and secure venue as opposed to a McDonald’s bathroom, an alleyway or a subway staircase."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
60 comments:
Harvey Weinstein will testify to that.
Opium dens.
Why is it that EVERY TIME, the "progressive" response is to go back to the 19th century or before?
Another reason to NEVER visit NYC again. Progressives are regressive. They can have their shithole.
A belated but completely rational and humane approach to deal with a persistent problem, an approach that may actually help reduce the problem to some degree, rather than compound it by creating ancillary problems, (largely stemming from incarceration).
Of course, most of the regulars here will condemn it as another sign of the coming of the Progressive Apocalypse.
Yes, nothing says 'progress' like following San Francisco's plans for an improving society.
Cy Vance is a moron who, without his last name would be tilting at windmills, much as I am here.
I’m looking forward to the updated Panic In Needle Park.
These operations are just giant slush funds for progressive drug dealers.
They need junkies. They need drug dealers. They need cops to look the other way. They need tax money from productive people.
There is no world where letting a junky shoot up whenever they want with no treatment or repercussions is good for the junky.
The people pushing this do not have good intentions. They are drug dealers who collect addicted people and feed off of them.
They make a lot more money than your average drug dealer though because they are using tax money to support their drug dealing.
Let me guess: rehabilitation isn't exactly the plan where Donald Trump is concerned.
That somebody named Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. can still get elected in America after the Vietnam War and the Iran crisis will surely warm the hearts of the Bushes and Bidens, Clintons and Carters who will be governing us into the next century.
Another utopia springing from liberal permissiveness. No doubt this will attract those businesses and industries that long to be seen as progressive.
Come to the Cabaret!
The fatal flaw in that argument is that it is not balanced. Enabling addiction isn't compassion it is perpetuation of a tragedy.
Related: David Crosby is still here to be obnoxious because of an 'unbalanced' policy towards addiction.
I was in South Boston yesterday, and seeing the sights there, I can say that anybody who thinks that we are doing drug addicts a favor by enabling them is deluded.
They call it Hampsterdam.
So the addicts are invited in to inject themselves with whatever drugs they bought on the street?
Beside zoning and neighborhood complaints, you'd think that'd lead to premises liability issues.
The next step will be providing the heroin- pure, pharmaceutical grade stuff to eliminate the problems associated with impurities and dose variability.
Then they will wonder why the number of addicts has increased, why the amount budgeted is not adequate, why the neighborhood surrounding the shooting gallery has gone from bad to worse.
Why, oh why?
What's wrong with alleyways?
Arrest them when they show up at the injection site and put them in forced rehab for a couple of weeks. We spend money like water on everything else, why not that?
These are people who are unable to take care of themselves...they are already wards of the state. I'm sure you could find a judge to make it legal.
cyrus is determined to be more of a failure then his father, who ran the vietnam war as secretary of the army, and flounced on iran one,
This is not compassion. This is simply enabling suicidal behavior. Nearly all of these people will die from overdoses eventually. But in the meanwhile they will be miserable and they will be a blight on the community. True compassion would be mandatory drug treatment. But that would require someone to show leadership. Our “leaders” have no idea how to do that.
They're going to learn the meaning of a moral hazard very quickly.
I thought they had been doing this forever anyway.
Robert Cook said...
A belated but completely rational and humane approach to deal with a persistent problem, an approach that may actually help reduce the problem to some degree, rather than compound it by creating ancillary problems, (largely stemming from incarceration).
Of course, most of the regulars here will condemn it as another sign of the coming of the Progressive Apocalypse.
Robert Cook doesn't give a shit about the addicted drug users.
He is himself addicted to feeling morally superior to other people though.
Seattle/King County has a homeless czar to direct spending to various organizations of the Homeless Industrial Complex. None of those organizations actually do anything to reduce the number of the homeless vagrants. If they did that, the money would stop flowing.
What we need is an involuntary commitment law to get these vagrants into treatment. It is inhumane to let them fester in their tents and cardboard boxes. They are located everywhere, in the vegetation at the I-90/I-5 interchange, underneath the bridges around T-Mobile Field, just outside a school near Bitter Lake and in the park area of the Woodland Park and Zoo, to name just a few.
Downtown Seattle is a ghost town because of all the filth and shoplifting from these vagrants. They need long term treatment for drug addiction and mental health issues. But, Seattle would rather ignore enforcement of its laws against the vagrants and instead vigorously enforce them against home owners for the slightest violation.
How much will the people running these establishments be fined if they fail to verify the vaccination status of the junkies? Because, omicron variant!
Will they require photo ID? Because that's racist.
Can Yale Law School open one and call it a traphouse? (Sorry to say "junkies", before. That's insensitive. I meant "Opium Derivative Fanciers").
A belated but completely rational and humane approach to deal with a persistent problem
Perhaps. Or perhaps this is an example of "for every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, obvious, and wrong." California has tried something similarly "rational and humane" by providing lots of services to homeless people. But by making homelessness easier and more socially acceptable, they have created a lot more of it.
Vance should watch Escape From New York. Use one or more of the islands on the river and just house all of the junkies there along with providing them all of the drugs they want and food and shelter. All those junkies can't support their addictions with work so the amount of crime they each have to commit this proposal would save a lot of money. Or consider them as disposable people and call the proposal a form of abortion.
An opium den. What could possibly go wrong?
let the users have as much heroin as they want, just not leave with any. It will sort the customer base rapidly
Nobody makes locks for barn doors anymore. Those who already have locks sometimes use them & this raises questions regarding equity for the Equine American community.
We must do more for EAs who, through no fault of their own, have gone astray. Governments should enact my plan:
1) Erect HOOF XING signs on roads near EA populations.
2) Provide open pastures where EAs can feel safe together. (Ovine American community leaders raise objections to this.)
3) Require proof of Ivermectin therapy.
Robert Cook: "A belated but completely rational and humane approach to deal with a persistent problem, an approach that may actually help reduce the problem to some degree, rather than compound it by creating ancillary problems, (largely stemming from incarceration).
Of course, most of the regulars here will condemn it as another sign of the coming of the Progressive Apocalypse."
Of course, most of the regular leftists who post here will praise this as another sign of how rational and humane this approach is in dealing with a persistent problem......while refusing to address how this approach has already been tried, multiple times, in multtiple places and failed miserably every single time.
But then again, you wouldn't be a lefty in good standing if you didn't believe that if only the "right people" were running this sort of program this time, then it will work for sure!!
Wasn't that the basis of season 3 of The Wire? Hamsterdam?
Wasn't that the basis of season 3 of The Wire? Hamsterdam?
So, anyone want to bet that the number of drug addicts, the number if lives destroyed by drugs, and the number of drug ODs in NYC will all increase over the next 4 years?
I'll take teh "Yes, they will" side, if there's anyone dumb enough to take teh "no, they won't" side
When Cy opens the entire living areas of all his residences to weakers, injection fiends, and meth snorters I will again listen to him.
I dont read the NYT bc of their paywall so will ask these questions to the commenters here:Will these centers supply the dope too? Two of ones I know of in Europe do (Sweden Switzerland). They might as well if the goal here is sicial damage mitigation. This cuts out the dealers & traffickers and insures purity & dosage.
I work in a city (Vancouver, Canada) that has had this policy for about 15 years. They say predictions are hard, especially about the future, but this one is easy. Here you go:
1. Things are going to get worse.
2. There will be more addicts doing more drugs.
3. The other parts of the "balanced program" will never be implemented.
4. Fentanyl and methamphetamine will be the drugs of choice.
5. The "urban homeless" will all be chronic drug users, 100%. Don't believe it? You'll see.(Yes, mental illness is a real issue, but these aren't exclusive categories.)
6. No matter how bad the street scene gets, city politicians and officials will never acknowledge any mistakes, and they will absolutely refuse to consider returning to drug enforcement.
Enjoy.
You're welcome.
The proponents of safe injection sites only talk about the benefits—the addicts who won’t OD because some doctor or physicians assistant was available to inject Narcan or some such. They never talk about the cost —the people who will become drug users because it’s now “safe”.
Seems like the govt should provide the drugs too. Go one way or the other.
And you people wonder why many libtards get Shadenboners over the red state epidemic of Percocet and metabolic disorder.
Disposables. Recyclables. Lowered expectations. Everything old is new again. Roe, Roe ...
For the love of god, just leave them alone. Please, let these weakling losers purge themselves from society.
My guess is none of these modern day, government funded opium dens will be in neighborhoods where people Cy hangs with live. Nope, they'll be in the poor white and black neighborhoods, where they can add to the destructive pathologies that create such places. The left never wants to live with the consequences of their policies.
The next iteration of the Progressive "safe, legal, and rare" mantra.
Also the new nexus of libertarians and Progressives working together to make life worse for many.
By the author of San Fransicko, best explanation of the why…
San Francisco Homeless Insider Tells All
Would you want your son or daughter or anyone you love to have a good place to shoot up or would you prefer that they be arrested and forced into treatment if they shoot up in public places. I would prefer the latter. People who can support their addictions should be left alone.
Ann, not the government, the doctors. And the pharmaceutical companies. And they already do. Prescribing billions of opioid pills. West Tx, you asked why -- there's why.
So we let off the Sacklers easy, and now people want to send the junkies to jail (sorry, "forced rehab"), I guess.
Sort of feels like most people in these comments slept through the last 40 years of the war on drugs. JUST SAY NO! amiright?
I'll never forget when the idiot lefties of Minneapolis pushed through a needle exchange program. In the first 2 days only a few reporters showed up, no-one else. Turns out anyone can cheaply buy needles in Minnesota without a prescription. They set it up because it was being done in other states. Thinking for yourself is not a Democrat strong point.
Addiction is a disease. Instead of prison they should be sent to hospitals and forced to stay until clean.
Why not murder rooms, too? I mean, if people are going to do it anyway, why not at least create a comfortable space for everyone involved.
How about just enforcing the law? You aren't so good at the other two things.
Howard said...
And you people wonder why many libtards get Shadenboners over the red state epidemic of Percocet and metabolic disorder.
Well, that was certainly retarded, Howard.
We're saying "don't do this, it's a bad idea that will cause serious problems."
Which is pretty much diametrically opposite from celebrating death and distraction, like the libtards do
'Seems like the govt should provide the drugs too. Go one way or the other.'
Then provide food, a car, a house, clothes, furniture, cable TV...
Keep feeding the bears in the park, nothing bad will happen.
Keep feeding the bears in the park, nothing bad will happen.
I'm kinda with Robert Cook on this one. People do drugs. They get addicted. They cause problems. They commit crimes. But they are still people. People who are usually unpleasant to be around, but still people. Often, people who are capable of good or even great things.
Electrical transformer yards, wastewater processing sites, and transfer stations are unpleasant as well. We manage to coexist with them.
Questions include:
1) How to manage legal adults who are incapable or unable to shoulder the burden of acting like an adult?
2) To what is a person entitled to simply by their existence? As an example, we are to feed the poor, but how well? Community Gruel pots (as Kurt Schlichter once proposed)? Vitasoy? What base level of subsitance are they entitled to? The global poverty rate, ~$2 per day?
3) To what extent should one shield addicts from the results of their addiction? We could refuse to provide anti-overdose medicines for free. On the other hand, we could take the addicts and drop them on a drug-free island in the remote Pacific, justifying their isolation from society with our imperative to keep them drug-free.
4) To what extent could we use their addiction to manipulate addicts? We could have a work for drugs program. Work long enough, hard enough, at some useful purpose, to justify basic sustenance and a ration of drugs.
5) To what extent can we isolate addicts from non-addicted society? Public spaces in New York are some pretty valuable real estate, paid for by the taxes of less problematic citizens. Forcible relocation to a low-value site near New York? Or to that Pacific Island?
6) To what extent do we owe addicts a pathway back into a more normal society? Rehab is expensive, and unreliable, yet produces occasional results. How is this affected by wealth of individual addict, or family
7) What about families of addicts -- both family that cares for them and children unfortunate to be born to addicts.
Ding, ding, ding! Two in one day! Howard posted yet another insulting "you people" comment. I won't repeat my prior advice but, yeah, it applies.
--gpm
450,000 people are currently incarcerated for non violent drug offenses.
100,000+ people died of drug overdoses last year (and 75,000 the prior year, before the pandemic).
So I think we've tried lock em up or let em die already.
"So I think we've tried lock em up or let em die already."
While the lock em up thing has a very long history of complete failure, that doesn't mean we should be helping them shoot up. The current proposal sounds like a way to just get them out of the way, so the tourists don't see them. It doesn't solve anything, it just hides the issue.
Daniel12 said...
450,000 people are currently incarcerated for non violent drug offenses.
Of which probably 90%+ plead down from a much bigger offense.
OTOH, having had my car windows smashed multiple times by drug addicted losers looking for $10, I'm totally happy with locking them all up.
On the gripping hand, I just don't go into big cities any more. They can enjoy their defunded police + increased murders + increased carjackings without me.
100,000+ people died of drug overdoses last year (and 75,000 the prior year, before the pandemic).
So I think we've tried lock em up or let em die already.
There were lots of murders last year. The Left says the proper response to that is to just not arrest the killers, especially if they're black males who resist arrest.
But the Left are morons when they're not evil.
Heck, the garbage truck comes by each week to pick up the garbage, but there's always more there next week.
I guess that means we shouldn't send out garbage trucks, right?
Injection sites, ultimately, won't work. Only a low percentage of addicts'll want to shoot-up with a bunch of geeks and do-gooders hovering over them. Bums the high. Street people like the streets. They like their friends. That's why, every night, the safe-sleep shelters in SF are not full and never have been. Who wants to go there? People just want to get high, or drunk, and hang with their buds. Of course, I'm speaking from California where rain is as nasty as the weather gets.
The complete dishonesty and irrationality that surrounds this issue continually astonishes me.
The reason for laws about drug use is simple: some people are bothered when some people use drugs. The goal of the laws is to make the people who are bothered feel better about the situation.
Alas, it turns the only way to make the bothered feel better is to get the users to stop using, to live without drug use. But the users don't want to stop using; they keep using. And no technology exists to force people to change their behavior.
So there is no solution to the "drug" problem, which is actually a feelings problem. People are going to keep using drugs for the foreseeable future. Nothing we can do will make them stop using and live differently, and nothing we can do will make those bothered by drug use stop being bothered.
End of story, until someone invents mind-control technology.
Post a Comment