From crack pipe to crackpot

Elections matter.

Faced with howls of protest led by conservatives, the Biden Administration policy that was described as crack pipes for addicts was quickly reversed, to assure citizens their tax money would not be going to providing nice, clean pipes to crack addicts.

The pipes-to-addicts line was not a fully accurate description of the program, one of those “harm reduction” deals, but it was close enough to send the lame idea back into the woodwork.

Left-wing Newsweek tried to give it a positive spin to no avail. 

At approximately the same time that was happening, the Democrat-headed Department

of Justice said it was considering a change in its previous position, and might allow so-called “safe injection” sites, that are not safe and have been ruled illegal by a court under the “crack house statute,” but that doesn’t seem to impress Attorney General Merrick Garland, a Social Justice Warrior in thin disguise. Like so many Democrats, when law is inconvenient, it is to be ignored. Illegal immigrants, Sanctuary Cities, and lack of criminal prosecution are other examples. 

No Republican attorney general would do this, and that’s why elections matter.

The strange thing is the deafness of the Justice Department. Free crack pipe kits just got smothered, but it plows ahead with ideas to increase opioid addiction.

We’ve suffered 100,000 deaths, yet the geniuses behind this program claim it will reduce deaths, citing thin, and challenged, research from Canada. 

The idea is to reduce harm, but it is laughable. They can’t even name what they want to do without running into trouble.

It is not an “overdose prevention program,” because it doesn’t prevent overdoses, it merely brings a quick Narcan remedy.

It is not “safe” because even a high-ranking Democrat, Attorney General Josh Shapiro, says no dose, no matter how small, is “safe.”

So they finally retreat to “harm reduction.”

The greatest reduction comes when the addict quits — and I know I am not supposed to use “addict” when the woke prefer a circumlocution such as “people living with additions.”

Well, I live with my dog, and I am a dog owner. People “living” with an addiction are addicts, and the ones I know — such as columnist Solomon Jones and former columnist Elmer Smith say the word should be used. It is accurate and appropriate. (Each is no longer addicted.)

Some questions for you: 

Being as we can’t know what it is in them, can illegal drugs ever be “safe”?

Is drug use positive or negative for society?

Do we want to encourage illegal drug use?

If a non drug user asked your help to shoot up for the very first time, would you help?

Then why would you help for the 50th time?

So what’s my solution?

Illegal drug use is, like, you know, illegal, so arrest the sellers and the users.

The sellers go to jail.

The users go to rehab. 

That is “harm reduction,” and stands a chance of returning a drug zombie to a productive life.