> Voters don't understand how they can be asked to liberalize hard drug use (and even decriminalize dealing) on the one hand, and are asked for billions of dollars for drug addiction treatment on the other.
It's easy to communicate this: We spend billions to incarcerate people for drug crimes, and then send them out with a criminal record that pushes them right back toward drug use. OR we spend fewer billions on drug addiction treatment and housing. It's not confusing or contradictory at all.
People who end up in prison don't get help, and people who get help don't end up in prison.
"Voters" wouldn't be confused if certain interests didn't keep them confused. It's profitable to keep housing scarce and prisons full. Until we start prioritizing sick people over profiteers we won't fix this problem.
It's easy to communicate this: We spend billions to incarcerate people for drug crimes, and then send them out with a criminal record that pushes them right back toward drug use. OR we spend fewer billions on drug addiction treatment and housing. It's not confusing or contradictory at all.
People who end up in prison don't get help, and people who get help don't end up in prison.
"Voters" wouldn't be confused if certain interests didn't keep them confused. It's profitable to keep housing scarce and prisons full. Until we start prioritizing sick people over profiteers we won't fix this problem.