I’m not going to say the majority is always right. There is sufficient evidence to show that is incorrect.
Still, elected officials are put in office to represent the wishes of the majority of those who elected them, with some limited exceptions — such as wanting measures that violate the Constitution.
That is not the case with so-called “safe injection” sites, which are not safe (which is why the geniuses pushing them now call them “harm reduction” centers.)
In a poll conducted by the Lenfast Institute for Journalism, my main takeaway is that only 27% of those surveyed approve of “safe injection” sites. The other 73% are not heartless, but they smell a rat.
In its headline, the Philadelphia Inquirer chose to say Philadelphians “reject using war-on-drugs era policies.”
The Inquirer did not say what policies were “war on drugs,” but it’s a safe bet that would mean law enforcement.
Or, more accurately, no law enforcement.
But the polling reveals the opposite.
When it comes to drug dealers, a solid majority of 59% say they should be arrested.
Only 22% believe drug users should be arrested, preferring to send them to treatment.
The thorn in the treatment bouquet is this: What if the addicts don’t want to go to treatment to get clean?
In the poll, a huge majority of 68% want more free mental health services, closely followed by 63% wanting more drug treatment and recovery services.
Wishing is nice but it won’t pay the bills. Where to get the money from? Here: Confiscation of drugs sellers’ property — cash, weapons, cars, homes. This can be controversial, but it can be successfully done. It may not pay for everything, but it is a start, as would be long prison sentences for dealing, because dealing destroys lives and causes deaths. Note to D.A. Larry Krasner: Drug dealing is not a victimless crime.
The city tried to sneak a “safe injection” site into South Philly in 2020, but it was repulsed by neighbors.
Rumor has it the happy band of Mayor Jim Kenney’s progressive rat pack is plotting another attack and neighbors smell that rat pack. There was a meeting last Tuesday at the U.S. Attorney’s office, to which some community representatives were invited, but elected officials were barred, according to District 6 Councilman Mike Driscoll, who would have liked to attend.
A source at the U.S. Attorney’s office confirmed the meeting, which was described as a “listening session” to community members, and about a dozen attended.
Here’s the key: The previous U.S. Attorney, Bill McSwain, sued Safehouse, which promulgates the “safe injection” sites. McSwain believed the operation violated federal law and was, in effect, a drug house. The new U.S. Attorney, Jacqueline Romero, was appointed by President Joe Biden last June and neighbors suspect her outlook is different.
Community leaders requested a meeting to make sure their concerns would be heard by Romero, who is seeking a settlement with Safehouse.
1st Dictrict Councilman Mark Squilla, who was barred from the meeting, said neighbors told him they smelled a rat. Squilla told me Kenney’s wet dream is to have several “safe injection” outlets in several neighborhoods. To share the pain, I guess. In any event, Sequilla said he was told the decision about dropping the law suit would be made by the Department of Justice in Washington, where the rats would be insulated from their decision.
To answer my question about how to get the addicts to treatment: Using illegal drugs is a criminal offense. Give them a choice between jail (where they can get clean going cold turkey) or a rehab hospital, where they can be weaned off drugs slowly.
Each case is designed to end addiction.
“Safe injection” sites are designed to prolong addiction.
Do you want to end addiction or continue it? 73% say end it.
Will the city and DOJ listen or will this — with the help of Joe Biden’s appointee — be Kenney’s final, destructive legacy?
Stu, you’re sounding like you want another “war on drugs”. We tried that. Drugs won. Why do you think the outcome will be different this time?
I am proposing enforcing existing law on drug dealers, and offering treatment to addicts. In a previous column I proposed education to steer people away from drugs which NOW are MORE DEADLY than in the past.
Do you have a solution?
The solution is legalization. By definition, crime drops because sale and possession are no longer crimes.
Overdoses fall because users know what they’re using and (mostly) don’t use too much accidentally.
Your proposal, while having good points, would do nothing about the criminal nature of the problem thus perpetuating the mess we have now with violent drug gangs selling product of questionable strength and purity.
What’s you solution for that?
Legalization is one solution, but then — for safety — I would want all drugs tested, which would put the government into the drug distribution business, which would spread drug use, and that is not a country I would want to live it.
Stu,
The government doesn’t have to be the testing entity. My toaster was tested by Underwriters Laboratories. Private testers can do the job if that’s your objection.
Even if it were, it’s not like government has never been in the business of selling drugs (see the PA LCB).
Do you consider the “war on drugs” strategy to have been at all successful? Absent legalization, the war continues.
The war on drugs has not succeeded because of poor tactics.
If we saw an anti-deug campaign, as we saw anti smoking, it might work.
The key is to suppress the demand.
The “war on drugs” has been a failure and all it has done is produce a huge and ineffective bureaucracy. Injection sites are enabling centers. Treatment works but only if the addict puts in the effort and even treatment is fraught with political issues (medical v 12 step) and even effective treatment is hard to come by and expensive. It’s a real problem in which actual solutions won’t be enacted because short term solutions like Narcan for overdoses or keeping them addicted is so much cheaper and doesn’t upset the “war on drugs” industry.
Please propose a solution.
I think I already said it. Treatment. Treatment for the psychiatric conditions and for the addictions (often they are intertwined). Do you remember people flopping all over the streets or begging for money when you were a kid? Not me. Because we had state hospitals where people were voluntarily and involuntarily committed for treatment. They weren’t wonderful, but they did provide what treatment was available and they kept people safe. When I was in training way before I got my doctorate, I trained and worked in two of these. Trenton State and Marlboro State. They were fine for what they did and people who could not take care of themselves got their shelter and food — sometimes for the rest of their lives, but the alternative is what you see now. That was before the do-gooders decided to get rid of that model and give people who can’t care for themselves “rights.” The right to wander the streets battling with their demons. Community based care never materialized, because it is more expensive than the hospitalization model. Of course bringing back the state systems will never happen in my lifetime. Nor will community based care.
Not to be argumentative (so unlike me) my column called for rehab, voluntary or mandatory.
I realize you are talking mostly about mental health, which is often allied. Of course, I am for that.
Yeah, you are right. You did. But most of these addicts are dual diagnosis patients. Mental illness plus addiction. Treating addiction without treating the psychiatric condition is doomed to failure.
You are correct, as usual, Wanda. I wish there was an easy solution to this, but there simply isn’t.
The City has myriad ‘safe drinking sites’ (read: saloons). How’s that working out for alcoholics…and the neighborhoods?
How do you seperate the two? Drug addicts from mental health problems? If they walk out of treatment do they become criminals? (Drug Addicts) Where do we put them? Does it become a civil rights issue? Do they go back to Kensington Ave? For the mental health. Do we force treatment? Do we build State Hospitals again? Does IT become a civil rights issue? Seems like they,being the government have painted themselves into a corner.
Stu, illegal drugs damage not only the users and America in general, they also corrupt/destroy the nation’s where drugs are produced and transshipped. So, what IS the answer? How do you stop the scourge of drugs? Other than decriminalization or legalization I don’t see how you can keep using law enforcement to solve the problem. Maybe, Nancy Reagan was right–Just effing say “No” to drugs. And as long as people crave drugs, the criminals who corrupt the system won’t go away.
I earlier suggested education, along lines of Nancy Reagan’s “Just say no,” who was ridiculed by the Left, like Ronnie’s Star Wars, which is now reality.
As to the Central American drug cartels, Colombia beat them with our help. It is not impossible.
One more thought; if Central America wasn’t overrun by criminal drug organizations, there would be less illegal immigration!