Two competing approaches to drugs as shown in bills: one increases penalties on dealers, the other opens state-run drug dens. The cancelers come for Roald Dahl (a favorite of mine).
Comparing two bills below. A markedly different approach to how to handle our drug problem.
I posted earlier on the bill (see the link below the open email) that would add penalties to someone who dealt a drug which subsequently was a factor in a user's death.
I was hoping to testify on this one, but it conflicts with my schedule, so I'm sending in an email.
If you're interested in following suit and what I wrote is helpful, please feel free to use any or all.
The bill is up for committee on 3/6 so there is still some time.
An open letter to the sponsors of SB23-109 and the Senate Judiciary Committee ahead of their 3/6 meeting.
Hello to all,
My name is Cory Gaines and I am a resident of Logan County.
I had hoped to be able to testify remotely in support of SB23-109, but I am unable. If anyone would like to read from this email during the hearing, please feel free.
I am not sure where you all land on the issue, but I am personally doubtful about the ability of prison to reform an addict. At best I could see it as a temporary reprieve from getting their drugs. In terms of deterrence to using drugs, I am even more doubtful of prison. If you've seen or heard some of the things they'll do to get their fix, I'm not too convinced prison's going to be that big a disincentive.
People that commit crimes (possibly in addition to drug use) are a different matter. I say this especially for those that deal in these poisons. They would respond to such incentives and there needs to be a strong disincentive to dealers selling drugs. There needs to be a strong disincentive too for those that deal drugs with as high a potential for lethality as fentanyl has. We should criminalize the hell out of its sale.
I am in support of this bill because I believe it addresses one aspect of the fentanyl crisis that we have some control over: the people that knowingly and cynically push these poisons. Let us as a state make it quite clear that we will not tolerate this sort of behavior.
I urge you to vote yes on this bill so it can get to the committee of the whole for debate. Thank you for your time.
C
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb23-109
And now the other …
This time a bill I most definitely DO NOT support.
"Overdose Prevention Center" is such a delightful euphemism for (in my view at least) our government enabling drug addicts and supporting their poor life choices.
Safely past the election, Democrats are reviving an idea that failed previously: safe injection sites.
I cannot disagree strongly enough. I do not, in any way, want my tax dollars going to fund injection sites. I don't want to be in any way connected to the business of someone destroying their health and life.
I also think they are of dubious benefit in terms of the overall health of people who are addicts.
I put in a Colorado Sun article below (ahead of the bill's page which is linked second) so you could get some counterpoint to my own thoughts on the matter. Worth reading even if you, as I did, had to do it through clenched teeth.
If you'd like to advocate on this bill, as of writing this it had no committee date, but keep watching the bill page for updates. It will appear in the House Public & Behavioral Health & Human Services Committee.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/02/15/safe-use-sites-colorado-legislature/
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb23-1202
For God's sake, is nothing sacred?
I try to stick mainly to local stuff, Colorado news, but this came across my desk earlier in the week and I can't not say something.
As a fan of Roald Dahl AND someone who recognizes that he said some awful things, I take great exception to his works being toyed with in the UK (so far I've not heard of an American publisher doing this).
As Salman Rushdie (author and himself a victim of attempted censorship and actual physics threats/violence) said on Twitter: this is absurd censorship. See the screenshot from the article below.
At what point do we say enough? At what point do we say that we leave the words as is and use them (good, bad, indifferent) for discussion instead of hiding them because someone might be hurt?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roald-dahls-changes-childrens-books-rushdie-telegraph/