Tuesday, July 11

Oregon's Dem-controlled legislature "decriminalizes" possession of small amounts of illegal drugs

A few days ago the Oregon legislature passed a bill to decriminalize possession of "small amounts" of six illegal drugs, including heroin, cocaine and meth.  Their reasoning seems to be that a) addiction is like a disease, and no one can resist taking these drugs; and b) "our prisons are overcrowded, and costing the good citizens of our state too much money to operate, so we don't want to send folks to prison for "small amounts" of stuff."

That got me to thinking:  since liberals in Seattle have already established taxpayer funded locations for junkies to shoot up, the next logical step is for libs to introduce another bill--strictly as a way to reduce crime, of course--that would specify that if cold weather kept junkies from breaking into as many cars as they needed to buy their fix, the state should sell 'em the drug.

But only in the approved, taxpayer-funded shooting galleries, obviously.  Where there are paid nurses standing by to administer antidotes if you OD.

Now, I know this sounds far-fetched but follow me here:  See, *pharmaceutical* heroin--widely and legally produced right here in the U.S. to alleviate pain--probably costs a couple of bucks per dose.  So by having the state sell it at cost--and only in the already-set-up safe shooting galleries, of course--we'd be preventing junkies from being *forced* to steal so much stuff to pay the much higher prices charged by street vendors. 

So this law and program would actually be a way to *reduce crime*!  How cool is that?

Of course Republican lawmakers would be horrified, countering that it would be outrageous for the state to be in the position of selling illegal drugs to its citizens!  After all, that's what the justly-feared drug cartels do, so Heaven knows we can't have that!  It would be a tacit endorsement by the state that the use of illegal, "recreational" drugs was a Good Thing.

Now something really strange would happen:  Democrat legislators would listen politely to these arguments, and would appear to see this logic.  And the'd reach across the aisle to reach a "compromise"--which dems love, in some very rare cases. 

And the so-called compromise would be:  "You're right, we can't have the state selling drugs.  So instead let's simply *give* our poor, poor fellow citizens--who after all are victims of peer pressure or bad parenting or a too-hard life or stress or whatever--the fix they need.  After all, does the state not give insulin to poor people with diabetes?  Of course it does.  So why should this be different?"

And the Repubs will congratulate the Dems for compromising.  

Coming to Washington state, Oregon and California within a year.

Oh, and for those of you who counter that a state can't legalize the possession of drugs that are illegal by federal law?  Too late:  The feds, under the emperor's inspired command, made an informal agreement with liberal states proposing to legalize pot that the feds would ignore the federal law when it came to that drug.  Now, making pot legal may be a great idea, but the point is that now that the precedent has been set, Oregon expects their law will get the same treatment.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home