3 ms·

Somehow I thought there would be a middle setting, "we will not arrest you for possessing and using meth and opiates" in between "we will arrest you for possess

• jmugan 3y ago
  I wonder if achieving that balance is somehow surprisingly hard. I'm sure the police could do better, but prosecuting a crime is a big deal with lots of steps involved. Its seems not quite natural to apply that process to something like the crime of pooping on the sidewalk, but yet we don't want people doing that.
  • jmugan 3y ago
    You can't really fine people who are in that state. You can, but it won't be a deterrent. I don't know what the answer is.
    • philipkglass 3y ago
      Withdrawal from opioid dependency is a miserable experience but it's rarely dangerous, as I understand it [1]. When authorities catch a suspected-to-be opioid addict breaking into a car, shoplifting, or menacing pedestrians it should be a deterrent to lock them up for a short period (a couple of weeks) away from drug sources, because they're not going to want to repeat the withdrawal experience. Having effectively enforced modest penalties works better than having harsh penalties, because harsh but infrequent penalization leads many offenders to assume (rightly, unfortunately) that they're unlikely to face consequences of any sort. [1] For example, naloxone (Narcan) administration is basically an abrupt chemically induced withdrawal from opioids.
      • jmugan 3y ago
        That's a good point. If there is some mechanism to keep them for two weeks. I'm not sure how that works. Another advantage is that it gives them a chance to reevaluate things once sober.