4 ms·

I never said I had a solution, but clearly the direction we're going in is just dragging every city in California down. Before Prop 46 and 47, you didn't see ra

I never said I had a solution, but clearly the direction we're going in is just dragging every city in California down. Before Prop 46 and 47, you didn't see rampant drug use all over the Central Valley in public spaces and parks. You didn't see theft rings running through big box stores and filling duffel bags with basic goods and then reselling it on Amazon. Yes, there were still drug users and thieves, but Prop 46 and Prop 47 opened the flood gates. These laws disproportionately affect people in lower income communities. If you live in Palo Alto, you're just virtue signaling by voting for Prop 46/47 as it won't impact you and the brunt of the burden will be on the working class who rich folks don't associate with or really care about. It's all ideological--but in an insanely narrow minded way. It's the result of democrats moving further and further away from the New Deal and labor unions and being captured by neoliberal PMC types and elitists. They'd rather pass laws about transgender rights or some niche cause than raise wages or pass universal healthcare to lift the working class up. Combine all that with no-cash bail reform and Martin vs Boise, and now you're basically legalized crime and criminals can just loiter and sleep where ever they want and even when they are arrested, they're released almost immediately and back on the street with zero consequences. Schools now have homeless camps within shouting distance where kids can see people using meth, prostitutes, mentally ill people exposing themselves to children. None of this was a problem before these laws were passed. Sure, Fresno was never a "rich" town, but the level of wanton destruction that's been heaped on it and the rest of the Central Valley because of ridiculous and frankly ignorant laws like Prop 46/47 and court precedents like Martin vs Boise, are not helping the average person's quality of life. This is why the democrats continue to lose voters--even non-white voters are leaving the party. Look at how democrat mayors allow Asians to be targeted over and over and over again by thieves (just google Little Saigon in Oakland). Where does this all end? >than a correlation of drought and recessions impacting the agriculture industry No offense, but this is just a stupid question. None of the drug users and mentally ill people you see smoking meth or shooting fentanyl were working in agriculture. Do you actually think that or what this just a rhetorical question? It's actually pretty offensive if you think ag workers are equated with homeless drug users. It's very obviously a drug and mental illness problem--not an economic one.

_8j50 4y ago
> No offense, but this is just a stupid question. None of the drug users and mentally ill people you see smoking meth or shooting fentanyl were working in agriculture Of course but less money in the local economy means less jobs and opportunities right? What should the drug using thieves do instead? That's my question really. Are there good jobs they are turning down? Should they go to a different state and use drugs and steal there?
- diogenescynic 4y ago
  The drug using thieves are basically mentally ill and usually have felony records preventing most jobs from hiring them. Even in a tight labor market, a meth user with three dozen convictions isn’t going to get a job. Maybe we need a public works program to pay the to sweep the streets or pick up trash but that’s beside the point. They were never upstanding or employable member of society. The change is that previously they were kept to a bare minimum. Now laws have changed which permit and allow them to do as they please. I agree if your point is that they’re doing the best option they see for themselves—but I blame voters for radically changing the consequences and incentives to it all. If you’re addicted to fentanyl, yeah going around committing theft and shitting in public places probably seems like a great idea. It’s the responsibility of the rest of society to not allow that—but now we’ve backed ourselves into a corner. All this proves to me is that the road to hell is paved in good intentions.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    I agree with the need for consequences but what I don't agree with is filling up prisons. The US incarcerates its people more than any other country on the whole planet as it is. I mean, drug use always consistently goes up despite harsh penalties for it. I am all for a well thought out solution. For example you can decriminalize all drugs so long as you take the hard drugs under medical supervision. You can make dealing certain drugs outside of approved outlets a very hard crime (30+ years to life for things like heroine and fentanyl). Also your comment about having them only pick up trash or something menial is interesting because unless you are paying them a lot of moneu that won't happen. There is plenty of construction that should be happening in california where these people can help (after rehab of course), all this land being hit with drought can perhaps be converted to support manufacturing? Also, why is there no "outsourcing" tax? If apple is making all of its iphones overseas, tax the crap out of them to subsidize employers who are hiring undesirable workers at a livable wage (unless you support UBI). My solution is to force the coastal rich liberals to invest their money in the central valley or lose it anyways by way of taxation. Everyone is saying "rich liberals" but you just don't have millions of millionaires voting to make those props happen. It is usually people who make under 150k that get in line with this thinking. Prison is simply a waste of money and human potential. But for crimes with an actual victim like theft, I agree with you that there needs to be a consequence. Perhaps fines where if you can't pay with money you do forced labor? "Community service" is already there. From what I have seen many social issues like this can be fixed with housing as well. More housing means cheaper housing (that you have to oay for, not free). Give everyone involved an incentive to contribute to society and become a healthy human being basically. I have no idea why bakersfield and fresno are not filled with high rise condos and there isn't a fast rail/train to the coastal cities for the transplants that can't afford to live there (and solve those cities' homeless issues as well). The one consistent thing I am seeing in cali is there isn't enough innovation, building things, repurposing things. I blame a lot of this on california being such a nice place to live everyone resists change that might affect that (NIMBYism is one such resistance). Specifically central valley though: they're about as tolerant to outsiders as rural texas from what I've seen. Again, competition for resources makes people be hostile and disteustful of each other which contributes to resistance to solutions. I agree with you about good intentions but the same can be said about laziness and complaining. If Prop 46/47 suck, let's talk about a better way to do things without paying any attention to left/right wing party-line policies. Thanks for your insight, I feel like I have a better perspective on the complexity of the problems now.

_8j50 4y ago

> No offense, but this is just a stupid question. None of the drug users and mentally ill people you see smoking meth or shooting fentanyl were working in agriculture Of course but less money in the local economy means less jobs and opportunities right? What should the drug using thieves do instead? That's my question really. Are there good jobs they are turning down? Should they go to a different state and use drugs and steal there?

diogenescynic 4y ago
The drug using thieves are basically mentally ill and usually have felony records preventing most jobs from hiring them. Even in a tight labor market, a meth user with three dozen convictions isn’t going to get a job. Maybe we need a public works program to pay the to sweep the streets or pick up trash but that’s beside the point. They were never upstanding or employable member of society. The change is that previously they were kept to a bare minimum. Now laws have changed which permit and allow them to do as they please. I agree if your point is that they’re doing the best option they see for themselves—but I blame voters for radically changing the consequences and incentives to it all. If you’re addicted to fentanyl, yeah going around committing theft and shitting in public places probably seems like a great idea. It’s the responsibility of the rest of society to not allow that—but now we’ve backed ourselves into a corner. All this proves to me is that the road to hell is paved in good intentions.
- _8j50 4y ago
  I agree with the need for consequences but what I don't agree with is filling up prisons. The US incarcerates its people more than any other country on the whole planet as it is. I mean, drug use always consistently goes up despite harsh penalties for it. I am all for a well thought out solution. For example you can decriminalize all drugs so long as you take the hard drugs under medical supervision. You can make dealing certain drugs outside of approved outlets a very hard crime (30+ years to life for things like heroine and fentanyl). Also your comment about having them only pick up trash or something menial is interesting because unless you are paying them a lot of moneu that won't happen. There is plenty of construction that should be happening in california where these people can help (after rehab of course), all this land being hit with drought can perhaps be converted to support manufacturing? Also, why is there no "outsourcing" tax? If apple is making all of its iphones overseas, tax the crap out of them to subsidize employers who are hiring undesirable workers at a livable wage (unless you support UBI). My solution is to force the coastal rich liberals to invest their money in the central valley or lose it anyways by way of taxation. Everyone is saying "rich liberals" but you just don't have millions of millionaires voting to make those props happen. It is usually people who make under 150k that get in line with this thinking. Prison is simply a waste of money and human potential. But for crimes with an actual victim like theft, I agree with you that there needs to be a consequence. Perhaps fines where if you can't pay with money you do forced labor? "Community service" is already there. From what I have seen many social issues like this can be fixed with housing as well. More housing means cheaper housing (that you have to oay for, not free). Give everyone involved an incentive to contribute to society and become a healthy human being basically. I have no idea why bakersfield and fresno are not filled with high rise condos and there isn't a fast rail/train to the coastal cities for the transplants that can't afford to live there (and solve those cities' homeless issues as well). The one consistent thing I am seeing in cali is there isn't enough innovation, building things, repurposing things. I blame a lot of this on california being such a nice place to live everyone resists change that might affect that (NIMBYism is one such resistance). Specifically central valley though: they're about as tolerant to outsiders as rural texas from what I've seen. Again, competition for resources makes people be hostile and disteustful of each other which contributes to resistance to solutions. I agree with you about good intentions but the same can be said about laziness and complaining. If Prop 46/47 suck, let's talk about a better way to do things without paying any attention to left/right wing party-line policies. Thanks for your insight, I feel like I have a better perspective on the complexity of the problems now.