Gov't sponsored drug dens, like the Terminator, keep coming back. Will CT learn from CO's lesson? We didn't from CA's. Gonna commit a crime? Careful with your ears.
Gov't sponsored drug dens, like the Terminator, keep coming back. Will CT learn from CO's lesson? We didn't from CA's. Gonna commit a crime? Careful with your ears.
The hyper progressive wing of the Democrats failed last session in getting "overdose prevention sites" (places where the good folks of the city could come and use illicit drugs legally) past the more moderate folks, but, like the Terminator, they're back.
And, just like the Terminator, I have the sense that they'll keep coming.
At the Aug 30th meeting of the Opioid and Other Substance Use Disorders Study Committee, the majority Democrats voted to send another bill for drafting to revisit allowing places where people could legally come in and shoot up (or, presumably, pipe up) with whatever poison suits their fancy.
The bill has yet to be written, but my guess is that it will likely look similar to the last Assembly's failed effort; the same people are sponsoring it and they are saying roughly the same things (see the first article linked below).
As has happened more than once in lawmaking, the same ultra progressive lawmakers are going to keep hammering away at this until the mix of progressive to regular Democrats changes in the Assembly and they succeed or enough are voted out to not even consider something like this.
Interestingly, one of the "mainstream" Democrats whose vote helped kill the effort the last time was a yes vote now. To quote the article,
"It [last session's bill] passed the House of Representatives and then died in its Senate committee, where [Senator Kyle ] Mullica voted with Republicans to kill it. 'I still struggle today. I’ll be honest and transparent — I’m not convinced that this policy is the most effective one for us to do. But I do believe it’s a conversation we should be having and it’s a conversation this committee should be having,' Mullica said. He said there is a 'strong chance' he won’t support the bill when the committee votes on whether to push it through."
Know what I think? I think Sen Mullica has been taking lessons from Polis here and he is standing strong ... astride the fence. If I lived in his district, I'd send him an email telling him in no uncertain terms what a bad idea I think this is. Our government shouldn't be in the business of aiding and abetting people taking drugs. There are other, less morally questionable ways to do this.
One last other niblet. This one is for the unfortunate people "represented" by Senator Priola, the folks in whose district he was appointed after redistricting.
He is again in support of this and will likely again sponsor this turd. I'd say send him an email but I know from personal experience that he is stuck on this idea. And I know from reading that he is not at all listening to the majority of voters in his district. He wasn't voted in after all.
https://coloradonewsline.com/briefs/overdose-prevention-center-bill-could-return-to-colorado-capitol-next-year/
.
.https://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00327/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20230830/-1/14872
Would that we had this kind of thinking among the Democrat politicians in this state ...
Looks like Connecticut is considering adopting CA's EV standards and Republican (CT) state senator Fazio delivers a full-throated attack on the proposed adoption.
I wish the Dems running this state had been as thoughtful in their decision as this gentleman proposes Connecticut should be. Unfortunately, Hickenlooper (now a federal senator for us) started the ball rolling and got us tied in, and our current governor has taken the ball and run it further downfield, doing so through his appointed boards so that his skirts stay clean though.
Our grid in Colorado is not up to the task of rapid adoption of electrification. It can be made so, but we would be wise to let this process happen on a longer timescale if this is indeed the direction we plan to go in.
Otherwise we risk adopting something else from CA: rolling blackouts.
Your "earprint" is unique?
Last post of the day, and you know what that means: something for fun and not related to politics.
I'm not sure if you were aware (I wasn't until encountering it in an audiobook recently), but earprints are unique and can be used in forensics.
That is, the shape of the outer part of your ear, which you might leave on a surface by pressing your ear to it (say, if you were going to burgle and wanted to listen at the window to make sure everyone was asleep so you press your ear up to the glass), is a handy way to identify and/or rule out suspects in an investigation.
Not being a lawyer, I can't say whether or where earprints are accepted as valid evidence in a courtroom, but sometimes all that's needed is a way to narrow down a list of suspects so you can save time or effort or know what other pieces of evidence to look for in a crime.
More in the link below should you be curious to ... hear ... more.
In the meantime, I'm assembling a list of no-no's should I ever think about committing some crime and wearing a hat that goes down over my ears is now on it.
Have a good Friday!
https://forensicfield.blog/ear-print/?expand_article=1