Progressives, part 3...

posted by QuakerOats

You don’t need BIG government; simple laws are good enough.  This is not brain surgery.

Wait, who do you think enacts and enforces laws?

I would imagine, then, that you'd be all for a single-payer healthcare system.  After all, that would only require simple laws.
 

posted by QuakerOats

The costs to society will dramatically increase once leverage is taken from the enforcement/judicial system.  It is no secret why left-wing radicals will never reveal the true cost of what they propose.

Who decides what that "cost to society" will be?  When did you become Nostradamus?  And to what model are you appealing to indicate any precedent for believing decriminalizing the guy smoking crack next door justifies a Chicken Little response?
 

posted by QuakerOats

Lastly, our constitution should never be tinkered with by outsiders, especially for an appropriation measure, which should only be handled by the legislature.

It appears as though it's being voted on, so I'm not sure to what outsiders you're referring.

In any case, the bottom line is that this is a proposal to get governance out of the lives of "we the people" a little more.  I find it strange that you so adamantly oppose that.

posted by QuakerOats

“Issue 1 would mandate that the possession of powdered fentanyl in amounts less than 20 grams as a misdemeanor, and it would forbid judges from imposing jail time. Since the lethal dose of fentanyl is just 2 milligrams (one-thousandth of a gram), 19 grams of fentanyl could kill approximately 10,000 people. This offender, charged with possession of 19 grams of fentanyl, would automatically only get probation. It would be constitutionally dictated that any drug possession conviction that is now a Felony 4 or Felony 5 must be reduced to a misdemeanor. And, the judge MUST then sentence the offender to probation for these offenses under Issue 1.

This is unconscionable.”

 

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/2018/09/06/ohio-issue-1-lives-lost-if-proposal-passes/1158238002/

 

From another source:

There is reason to be skeptical of some of the claims. Ohio’s criminal code includes provisions under which those in possession of a “bulk amount” of illicit drugs are charged with higher level felonies, and sent to prison, even if there’s not enough evidence to charge them with trafficking. Those laws would not change under Issue 1.

The criminal code lumps fentanyl in with all over federally classified Schedule II drugs. The bulk amount for that category is defined as equal to 20 grams or five times the maximum daily dose as “specified in a standard pharmaceutical reference manual.”

In the case of fentanyl, five times the maximum daily dose is far less than 20 grams. Fentanyl dosing is complicated because it comes in different forms, but it’s always expressed in micrograms, not grams. When converted to grams, the bulk amount based on the largest maximum daily dose listed in the Prescribers’ Digital Reference equals about .048 grams. 

https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/cutting-through-the-hype-what-issue-would-mean-ohio/jZR5dUEUspQuUDWlYLMctN/

If anyone still wants to go by polls, it's looking like the blue wave might turn out to be a trickle.

Of course, this could be an upset again and the polls are worthless, who knows?

posted by justincredible

From another source:

There is reason to be skeptical of some of the claims. Ohio’s criminal code includes provisions under which those in possession of a “bulk amount” of illicit drugs are charged with higher level felonies, and sent to prison, even if there’s not enough evidence to charge them with trafficking. Those laws would not change under Issue 1.

The criminal code lumps fentanyl in with all over federally classified Schedule II drugs. The bulk amount for that category is defined as equal to 20 grams or five times the maximum daily dose as “specified in a standard pharmaceutical reference manual.”

In the case of fentanyl, five times the maximum daily dose is far less than 20 grams. Fentanyl dosing is complicated because it comes in different forms, but it’s always expressed in micrograms, not grams. When converted to grams, the bulk amount based on the largest maximum daily dose listed in the Prescribers’ Digital Reference equals about .048 grams. 

https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/cutting-through-the-hype-what-issue-would-mean-ohio/jZR5dUEUspQuUDWlYLMctN/

Take the micrograms, then take the fraction of one microgram that kills, then proceed from there.

posted by CenterBHSFan

If anyone still wants to go by polls, it's looking like the blue wave might turn out to be a trickle.

Of course, this could be an upset again and the polls are worthless, who knows?

I have come across quite a number of people who are generally down the middle or lean democrat, who are now voting straight republican, largely due to the recent behavior of the left with respect to Kavanaugh, sanctuary cities, and ICE.

However, with respect to the House, the repubs are behind the 8-ball due to the high number of retirements on their side, leaving so many open races.  If they lose the house, that will be the biggest reason why.

posted by QuakerOats

Take the micrograms, then take the fraction of one microgram that kills, then proceed from there.

What are you trying to say here?

posted by O-Trap

Wait, who do you think enacts and enforces laws?

I would imagine, then, that you'd be all for a single-payer healthcare system.  After all, that would only require simple laws.
 

posted by QuakerOats

The costs to society will dramatically increase once leverage is taken from the enforcement/judicial system.  It is no secret why left-wing radicals will never reveal the true cost of what they propose.

 

Who decides what that "cost to society" will be?  When did you become Nostradamus?  And to what model are you appealing to indicate any precedent for believing decriminalizing the guy smoking crack next door justifies a Chicken Little response?
 

posted by QuakerOats

Lastly, our constitution should never be tinkered with by outsiders, especially for an appropriation measure, which should only be handled by the legislature.

It appears as though it's being voted on, so I'm not sure to what outsiders you're referring.

In any case, the bottom line is that this is a proposal to get governance out of the lives of "we the people" a little more.  I find it strange that you so adamantly oppose that.

 

You don’t need to be Nostradamus to figure out that costs on the other side of the ledger are going to dramatically increase.  Obviously the backers of this constitutional assault are not going to divulge those sad facts.

As for your newly-found desire to limit government, I assume your first assignment will be to tackle obamaKare, the largest overreach in BIG government history …looking forward to your efforts in that regard.

posted by QuakerOats

As for your newly-found desire to limit government, I assume your first assignment will be to tackle obamaKare, the largest overreach in BIG government history …looking forward to your efforts in that regard.

O-Trap has been a consistent libertarian for a long time. This isn't a newly-found desire just because he called you out.

”Amending the Ohio Constitution is not the method to address this subject. As a proponent of treatment for addiction, and recognizing it as a health issue which has been handled in the criminal justice system for way too long, it is most certainly time for major reform. But Issue 1 is not the way to do it.”

Clinton County Municipal Court Judge Mike Daugherty, when contacted by the News Journal, shared a post he recently made on Facebook which clearly states his opinions on Issue 1.

“Vote ‘no’ on Issue 1. One out of every nine overdose deaths in America happens in Ohio. That’s an awful thing. Everyone agrees that we need to stop it. People have lots of ideas about how to do that.

“Your fall ballot will include Issue 1, which is called the ‘Ohio Neighborhood Safety, Drug Treatment, and Rehabilitation Amendment’. It sounds hopeful. It is not,” said Daugherty.

“Issue 1 will make felony possession of serious, poisonous drugs into misdemeanors. In fact, it will make possession of deadly amounts of fentanyl and methamphetamine less serious than driving with a suspended license. Currently, you can go to prison for possessing just a few milligrams of fentanyl. Under Issue 1, people who have as much as 19 grams—enough to kill 10,000 people, can only get probation. They won’t even be allowed to spend the night in jail. That’s a bad law.

“Supporters say that this law will save money on prisons. It might. It will also make Ohio the home of the most lenient drug laws in America,” said Daugherty. “Ohio will be the best place to transport serious quantities of narcotics. The price will drop here, and these poisons will be more readily available for your children.

“This is not a marijuana legalization law. This Constitutional Amendment will decriminalize the worst, most deadly, and most addictive substances in human history,” said Daugherty.

The News Journal also reached out to Clinton County Sheriff Ralph Fizer Jr. and Col. Brian Prickett for their thoughts.

“Both the sheriff and I oppose Issue 1 as well,” said Prickett. “Releasing 10,000 offenders early from prison, into communities already struggling from limited resources for ‘treatment’, is not the answer and will create safety issues for the general public. It is important to allow the judges to maintain the judicial authority given to them by the community that voted them into office.

“Our major concern has to do with the possession of deadly drugs, including heroin and fentanyl,” Prickett continued. “Issue 1 would make possession of these drugs a misdemeanor and forbid jail sentencing for the first two offenses of less than 20 grams. To put that in perspective, 20 grams of fentanyl is potent enough to kill thousands of people; 20 grams is equal to about 1 ½ tablespoons, not a large quantity considering its ability to kill that many people.

“The ability to possess these dangerous drugs with no fear of substantial consequence will only make the opioid/drug epidemic worse and further threaten the public and first responders safety.”

Wilmington Police Chief Duane Weyand recently voiced his opposition to on Issue 1 to the Wilmington Rotary Club.

He discussed how it would make most drug possession crimes a misdemeanor, restrict courts’ local ability to exercise any discretion, and ultimately push all the cost of housing offenders back on the community.

He said this proposed amendment would make it possible to possess 19 grams of fentanyl — enough to kill 10,000 people — and have absolutely no chance of jail. Reducing the charges reduces the resources that police and the court system have to help the offenders.

Weyand expressed his opposition for the passing of this amendment, citing public safety and cost to the community.

posted by QuakerOats

You don’t need to be Nostradamus to figure out that costs on the other side of the ledger are going to dramatically increase.  Obviously the backers of this constitutional assault are not going to divulge those sad facts.

Wait, are you referring to a proposition that would reduce governmental involvement into "we the people's" private lives a constitutional assault?

Sounds like someone's already on drugs.

And yes, for you to be able to state with certainty the result of something, you do need to at least have a fact-based framework to back your predictive model.  Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke out your ass.
 

posted by QuakerOats

As for your newly-found desire to limit government, I assume your first assignment will be to tackle obamaKare, the largest overreach in BIG government history …looking forward to your efforts in that regard.

Newly-found?  I fucking hated the (ironically-named) Affordable Care Act.  Not just because it drove my rates up (both when I was self-employed and when I was part of an organization's group plan), but because I resented the government telling me I either had to buy healthcare or pay a tax penalty around the cost of some of the plans out there.

I'm about a feather's breadth from anarchocapitalism, for fuck's sake.  Where on earth did you get the idea that my desire to limit (or, in my case, eliminate as much as possible) government was newly-found?

If you don't believe me, feel free to go back and find any post of mine in any topic regarding Obamacare, firearms, gay marriage, drugs, wars on foreign soil, or taxes.  You'll find me wanting government out of my life and the lives of everyone else as much as humanly possible.

Every. Fucking. Time.

posted by justincredible

O-Trap has been a consistent libertarian for a long time. This isn't a newly-found desire just because he called you out.

Good for him.  Perhaps he can share some of his work with respect to repealing obamaKare, and abolishing the myriad agencies that effectively subject The People to BIG government slavery.  Or is he only a libertarian when is comes to dope, like so many others.

I've recently come to the conclusion that - do whatever drug you want, however much you want, on two conditions:

1.) You must carry life insurance (or a pre-paid funeral plan)

2.) One dose of Narcan only (perhaps not even that)

The reason for life insurance is so that you won't be a financial burden on your family or society if you kill yourself.

posted by QuakerOats

Good for him.  Perhaps he can share some of his work with respect to repealing obamaKare, and abolishing the myriad agencies that effectively subject The People to BIG government slavery.  Or is he only a libertarian when is comes to dope, like so many others.

The work?  I've likely done every bit as much as you have.

And if you think any significant portion of people who call themselves libertarian only do so with regard to drugs, you're REALLY not paying attention.  Sure, there are people who spend more time on that than other subjects, but the majority spend more time focusing on taxes than anything else.

There's a reason phrases like "End the Fed" and "Taxation is theft" are far more common and tied to libertarianism than anything having to do with drugs.  If you de-fund government, a lot of the rest of the problems go away by default, because they can no longer be funded.

As for what I've done, I've donated to campaigns, volunteered, and voted.

posted by QuakerOats

Good for him.  Perhaps he can share some of his work with respect to repealing obamaKare, and abolishing the myriad agencies that effectively subject The People to BIG government slavery.  Or is he only a libertarian when is comes to dope, like so many others.

Lol, okay.

posted by justincredible

O-Trap has been a consistent libertarian for a long time. This isn't a newly-found desire just because he called you out.

"... for a long time" actually becomes sixteen years next month.

posted by QuakerOats

 

 

Good for him.  Perhaps he can share some of his work with respect to repealing obamaKare, and abolishing the myriad agencies that effectively subject The People to BIG government slavery.  Or is he only a libertarian when is comes to dope, like so many others.

"No one's listening to me on this, so I'm gonna deflect to ObamaKare!!!!!!"

posted by QuakerOats

 

 

Ergo, drug use has had an unbelievably positive impact on our society.

 

 

 

Christ Almighty.

Not an either / or proposition.  But just because drug use is harmful to some doesn't mean it justifies the money and consequences of law enforcement trying (forever in vain) to eradicate it.  

And yes, Christ was an impressive guy.  

Libertarian on the ACA: "Leave people alone, and let each person decide what is best for them."
Neoconservatives: "That's right!"

Libertarians on drug policy: "Leave people alone, and let each person decide what is best for them."
Neoconservatives: "What are you, some kind of left-wing, socialist hippie?"

posted by O-Trap

Libertarian on the ACA: "Leave people alone, and let each person decide what is best for them."
Neoconservatives: "That's right!"

Libertarians on drug policy: "Leave people alone, and let each person decide what is best for them."
Neoconservatives: "What are you, some kind of left-wing, socialist hippie?"

That's what you get when dealing with fake conservatives who are less concerned with limited government and/or spending and far, far more concerned with being the party in control of the purse strings so it's ALL their projects getting funded, instead of the other side's.

posted by O-Trap

"... for a long time" actually becomes sixteen years next month.

Nice. I don't remember the exact month, but it's been about a decade for me.