Moderator removed post
32 minutes ago, in a thread in another Sub where you posted this same "question," that "I'm a libertarian."
So this is the kind of thing you should totally be okay with. Unless "Libertarian" means "Everyone gets to do what I want, subject to it not annoying me."
CA leads the nation in both policies and problems. The drug crisis is everywhere in America but the stories about CA get better views than the ones about Baltimore or other large cities.
Is he "l"ibertarian or "L"ibertarian? I registered as a "L"ibertarian for a while, before I learned they're basically polar opposites.
I can’t be bothered by this? I mean seriously. When I spend 3 times as much as the average American on living expenses, I am just suppose to be okay with some guy shooting up meth and shitting outside my door? I am suppose to be okay with my car getting broken into and no one does anything about it? Criminals are having the easy way out, and it’s because of progressive laws that have failed us.
You can feel however you want about anything. Since you're a libertarian, I'm interested in your feelings about it costing tax payers $132k per prisoner per year in California's prisons:
https://calmatters.org/justice/2024/01/california-prison-cost-per-inmate/
What percentage of the population of people who bother you do you want to lock up to the tune of $132k per year? Is there anything else we could be doing with that money?
Moderator removed comment
4mo
Moderator removed comment
4mo
It appears your submission was reported to moderators and removed by moderators for violating rule 5 of the Community Standards.
Specific — Name the specific individual or the specific group who said, or did, the thing. No lay speculation about groups of people such as "people on the right/the left/republicans/democrats/the media". If something is being talked about a lot, it should be easy to find articles talking about it.
If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.
It appears your submission was reported to moderators and removed by moderators for violating rule 5 of the Community Standards.
Specific — Name the specific individual or the specific group who said, or did, the thing. No lay speculation about groups of people such as "people on the right/the left/republicans/democrats/the media". If something is being talked about a lot, it should be easy to find articles talking about it.
If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.
With that statistic, that means that the average Californian is paying almost $300/year. I don’t mind paying a little more if it means that it will get the people who are shitting outside my door, breaking into our cars and shooting up will be off our street, in jail (like they should be for breaking the law) and into a rehab program that doesn’t last a week or two, but months. I mean that number is so minuscule that you don’t even notice it. That’s $25/monty.
What if we used less than that money to provide social services and free housing? It would get them off the street and cost less than putting them in jail.
What if we used less than that money to provide social services and free housing? It would get them off the street and cost less than putting them in jail.
And you think that taxpayers should pay $25 a month for how many years to incarcerate one person who broke into a car?
Actually. Nevermind. I'm just going to say that I'm not interested in paying it.
Our failure to provide education, healthcare, economic opportunities, and affordable housing caused the problem, on generational timescales. Solutions not based on fixing at least those problems are band-aids.
My previous point being: Those solutions require better political philosophies than "libertarianism."
I don’t understand why everyone blames the left and the right for this sort of thing. the cia literally fucked black communities by allowing crack into their cities. It completely destroyed them and it’s unfair to them. It is systemic racism I’m some way and contributes to the reason why they have lower standards of education.
But when you try to gentrify those cities, many don’t want that because people like to be surrounded by people of similar race. I don’t care personally, but why do we have black communities, Hispanic communities and white communities?
Moderator removed comment
4mo
I disagree. In rough times, people congregate to people who are similar to them. People also are just “more comfortable” being around people who look like themselves.
You can disagree all you want but it doesn't make it so. You're ignoring historical reasons such as redlining, which was already mentioned.
The banks didn’t judge loans on race, rather that what area the loan was based on. Redlining was about certain areas that were lower economical value. If you had customers of different races applying for loans in the same area…both would be restricted by redlining.
You have got to be kidding me. You can't really be this oblivious.
What do you think they used as a basis to draw the lines?
It's amazing how someone can have heard of red lining but have absolutely no clue how it worked.
What’s inaccurate? If someone of color moved to an area outside of the redline area…would they still be denied the loan solely based on their race?
This has the same energy as “the civil war was about state’s rights, brother”
in what way is it inaccurate? Did the bank’s redline areas of lower economic value also be predominantly people of color?…yes. Does explicitly mean redlining was a racial policy. It also wasn’t pushed by “rightwingers”. Banks of all political stripes practiced redlining.
It appears your submission was reported to moderators and removed by moderators for violating rule 3 of the Community Standards.
Sourced — Statements of fact should be clearly associated with a supporting source. Stating it is your opinion that something is true does not absolve the necessity of sourcing that claim. If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up by linking to a supporting, qualified source and quoting the relevant section. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.
Please edit your comment and provide sources for factual claims or remove the unsupported claims from the comment. Moderators will review your submission for approval after it has been edited.
If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.
Try not paying “annoying” taxes and see what the IRS think about that.
Just a small government guy who wants to spend six figures a year to lock somebody up for using drugs
Not even in a way that necessarily harms anyone else! Just because it upsets you to look upon them
We should’ve invested more into rehab programs
Agreed.
as well as fund our police and build bigger jails.
The police are already the largest line item in most local budgets. The United States already incarcerates more people per capita than any other nation on Earth. You want MORE of that? Besides, arrests and incarcerations do absolutely nothing to address the root cause of the problem.
Am I wrong for viewing it this way?
Yes, in my opinion you are.
People in California seem to be very sensitive to this and see it as “aggressive.”
Enforcement of bad laws through state-sanctioned violence and threat of incarceration is objectively aggressive. It's also unnecessarily cruel and has been shown to be ineffective.
When will enough be enough?
When the economy starts to work for everyone instead of only for the filthy rich.
When we are paying 3 times more than the average American in living expenses, why do we have to deal with people shooting up and shitting right in front of us?
California is expensive because it's desirable. You can go buy land in the Midwest for pennies on the dollar, or you can move to Alaska or Oklahoma and be paid to live there... but you're still here, aren't you?
Isn’t it worse to just leave these people in the streets where they are literally killing themselves, instead of forcing them into rehab or actually arresting them?
You seem pretty fixated on using force to solve this problem. Here's some food for thought: if healthcare was accessible and affordable, and not tied to employment, people who are disabled or sick could get help. Addicts could go to rehab without there having to be police involved.
If wages kept up with cost of living, people could afford housing and wouldn't be forced to live on the streets.
And if the police and "justice" system were not as aggressive with rounding people up and slapping criminal records on them for just existing outside, then people wouldn't have as many barriers to employment.
Great comment. Also, I will add, because nobody seems to know this but proposition 47 was directly enacted because California was ordered to reduce prison populations by the United States Supreme Court in 2011. https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-160551360299
So just throwing people in jail is what we used to do, We overfilled the prisons, and were forced to change the laws. So we're not going to go back to that again easily.
Good added context, that’s lost every time someone comes here complaining about prop 47.
Fantastic comment.
The problem is that 99% of addicts don’t want help! Seriously, they do not want to go to rehab and give up what little they have.
California is desirable for sure. I am only 20 years old, so I don’t have much experience. I actually understand your point on jailing not working, but I still think we should be forcing these people into rehab facilities for months on end.
I also agree that a lot of this has to do with the economy. Whoever actually runs our country (cia) they want us to suffer and not prosper. They want us to keep fighting each other because if we don’t, then we will come after them. It’s a way that they can hold us in check and keep all the power to themselves.
I just genuinely feel tired of seeing people shitting in the streets, doing hard drugs in front of children. It’s awful, and I wish there is more that we can do. I guess that’s why I see enforcing the law as a solution. Maybe it is just a part time solution that doesn’t solve the whole issue. Like you said, the economy is the leading factor. But it still doesn’t mean that we don’t have flaws in our laws that enable criminals to do these sort of things. They are being released from jail way to early.
I encourage you to watch a video about “Jack the bipper,” by channel 5 news on YouTube. He has been arrested like over 50 times for breaking into peoples cars and stealing stuff. Yet, a piece of shit like that is able to walk the streets and continue to do what he does.
If he was in a southern state, he would face up to 25 years in prisons for his crimes, so in an sense, yes I believe that enforcing the law would help. Because if you had people like that get locked up for that long, I bet a lot of people would stop doing it.
The problem is that 99% of addicts don’t want help!
Where are you getting this number? Can you support this claim with a factual, unbiased source?
Seriously, they do not want to go to rehab and give up what little they have.
That's right, the human beings that have no choice but to live on the streets in absolute squalor are reluctant to give up their loved ones, pets, and whatever meager possessions they might have to comply with the unnecessarily draconian rules that a lot of homeless shelters and rehab programs impose. I find this very relatable.
California is desirable for sure.
I love it here. I moved here from the Midwest and there is nothing that could convince me to go back.
I am only 20 years old, so I don’t have much experience.
Good on you for acknowledging this, having an open mind, and seeking to expand your knowledge.
I actually understand your point on jailing not working, but I still think we should be forcing these people into rehab facilities for months on end.
You're starting with force and then trying to decide how best to apply it. What if there was no need for force? Addiction is, in many cases, a reaction to desperation: people turn to drugs because their lives are miserable, and then they get addicted. What if we removed the desperation? That's the root cause I was referring to before.
I also agree that a lot of this has to do with the economy. Whoever actually runs our country (cia) they want us to suffer and not prosper. They want us to keep fighting each other because if we don’t, then we will come after them. It’s a way that they can hold us in check and keep all the power to themselves.
Replace CIA with the 1% and you're not too far off.
I just genuinely feel tired of seeing people shitting in the streets, doing hard drugs in front of children. It’s awful, and I wish there is more that we can do. I guess that’s why I see enforcing the law as a solution. Maybe it is just a part time solution that doesn’t solve the whole issue. Like you said, the economy is the leading factor. But it still doesn’t mean that we don’t have flaws in our laws that enable criminals to do these sort of things. They are being released from jail way to early.
Again, more incarceration is not the solution. Do some reading about the history of the drug war in the 1980s and 1990s. That was the origin of the exact approach you're calling for. Did it work? What were the outcomes from that policy?
While you're at it, do some reading about the Housing First approach to the homelessness crisis. Learn about universal basic income and the results of experiments with it right here in California but also around the world. Read about single-payer healthcare and compare systems in other countries with the American system. Which do you think is better, and why?
I encourage you to watch a video about “Jack the bipper,” by channel 5 news on YouTube. He has been arrested like over 50 times for breaking into peoples cars and stealing stuff. Yet, a piece of shit like that is able to walk the streets and continue to do what he does.
Again, this is a symptom of a larger problem: desperation. Being mad at this guy is like being mad that a broken leg won't stop hurting.
If he was in a southern state, he would face up to 25 years in prisons for his crimes, so in an sense, yes I believe that enforcing the law would help. Because if you had people like that get locked up for that long, I bet a lot of people would stop doing it.
Do you think it's just to lock someone up for a significant portion of their lives for the crime of being homeless? Again, I recommend you learn about the history of the drug war in the late 20th century and understand the havoc wreaked by the incarceration-first approach. We are talking about human beings, and it is alarmingly devoid of compassion that you think people should be locked up for decades because you think homeless encampments are gross.
I agree with what you are saying. I don’t think it’s just to lock them up for being homeless. I should honestly reiterate what I’m saying.
Pieces of shit like Jack The Bipper should be locked up for years of repeating offenses. He continues to do what he does because he faces no repercussions and that is a direct result of the laws we have in place.
You changed my mind on the drug issue. Thank you. I realized more of what I’m saying is that people who are breaking into our cars. Think San Fransisco.
I understand that people use hard drugs to cope and it is unfair to just lock them up. We should put them in rehab facilities, I think we should even try to force them to. They can bring their pets too. We need more investment towards that.
But POS like Jack the Bipper, who take advantage of these laws need to be locked up.
Thank you.
Pieces of shit like Jack The Bipper
I googled this name and literally zero credible sources came up. I don't know wtf "channel 5" is but it's not a network news station. Looks a lot like YouTube propaganda to me. I'd love to learn more about Jack if you can produce a source that is fact-based and verifiable.
You changed my mind on the drug issue. Thank you.
That's great news! You're most welcome. I hope you don't stop here and will continue to learn about the history of drug policy in California and the USA, as well as the causes and effects of the different things that were tried over the decades. Perhaps that will lead to learning about the history of the police in America, and its connection to capitalism/the wealthy (including slavery). Spoiler alert: the police exist to protect the capital of the wealthy, and always have.
I realized more of what I’m saying is that people who are breaking into our cars. Think San Fransisco.
I love SF, it's one of my favorite cities on Earth. I've been going there for years and have never seen human feces on the street, nor had my car broken into.
Here's a story about SF: my wife and I live in Sacramento and were in SF for a date. We drove in on the 80/Bay Bridge and took an exit downtown. I drive a nice car, and we were dressed in nice clothes for our date. The stoplight at the end of the freeway bridge was red, so we stopped for a minute. While we were there, we saw a homeless lady, double amputee below the knees, basically crab walking over some road construction barriers trying to get around. In my 37 years (at the time) I had never experienced a more stark dichotomy between myself and another person. We were maybe ten feet apart, and yet that poor woman and I were barely on the same plane of existence. That doesn't happen overnight, and there is no amount of cops or jail cells that can solve her problems. Think about how much society had to fail that person for her to end up there, vaulting herself over concrete walls on the side of the freeway. Fix that, and all the stuff you talked about in your OP will be gone as well.
As for safety, SF is a big city, so if you employ big city best practices (like not leaving valuables in your car, parking in a garage if possible, not walking down dark alleys alone, etc.) you will be safe. I know because I've done it many times, at all different times of day, all different parts of the city, on foot, on public transit, and so forth.
I'll leave you with this, because I have a work thing I have to go do: please, please, please consider the sources you're getting your information from. The propaganda is very effective, and it's everywhere. You have to be skeptical of anything and everything you read/watch online.
Here is an article about him
He has been arrested 44 times. He mentions it in the video. https://youtu.be/lLGRGZTk51w?si=wWraRHy72IbNfcGd
It is an independent “news” channel who goes around and interviews people. Watch the video, Jack the Bipper said himself that he’s been arrested over 50 times and that he is cool with the feds. People like him need to face repercussions for abusing the system we have in place.
I completely understand your view point and we need to do a better job of investing in rehab and programs that will help these people get off the streets.
Thank you for sharing your experience and good luck on your work thing!
Watch the video, Jack the Bipper said himself that he’s been arrested over 50 times and that he is cool with the feds.
I call bull on this.
It was 44 times. Not 50. Sorry.
Also looks like he was arrested and is now in prison for 4 years. So I guess justice has been served.
I encourage you to watch the video.
I still think we should be forcing these people into rehab facilities for months on end.
Gavin Newsom signed a bill late last year that gives addicted drug offenders a choice between prison or 'secured residential addiction treatment': https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7bpw4/california-drug-rehab-newsom
Whether forced addiction treatment is effective is disputed, as you'll read in the above article. But as you can see, the state is pursuing your stated goal.
I didn’t know that. I actually haven’t even seen that being enforced but good on him for that.
I didn’t know that.
I find this hard to believe. I assumed you were an expert on what you are talking about.
No, I’m only 20 and I said I’m still learning. I am just observing and making up ideas as I see them. I believe that homeless people who have drug problems need to be helped with better rehab facilities. However, for people who actively take advantage of the laws we have in place, they should be arrested and out in jail for not facing any consequences.
I was being sarcastic. You do not, in any way, appear to know what you're talking about.
I don’t. I’m only 20 and I’m curious. Sorry for being curious and trying to create a solution?
I admitted that my idea of criminalizing homeless people who do drugs is wrong.
We should be criminalizing the criminals who take advantage of the relaxed laws we have in place, such as property theft and such.
There is nothing more 20 year old Redditor than suggesting that someone get locked up for 25 years for non violent crime. That costs 3.2 million kid.
Jesus Christ you left wingers are insanely lenient on crime.
Seems you're actually coming here in bad faith. You're 20 and already spouting this crap?
And you right wingers are insanely bloodthirsty and seem obsessed with hurting people.
Lmao I’m not a right winger.
Why the "you left wingers" line then?
Because I see that people on the left which I assume you are are way more relaxed on laws involving prosecution of criminals which I think is insane. I agree we should be rehabilitating people, however I think that not doing anything at all is worse than doing something. Progressive laws have ruined cities like Seattle where they literally banned the police… I wonder how that is working for them. I am definitely more to the moderate/libertarian side.
"Libertarian". Now it makes more sense why you're spouting this and even more BS with the "banning police" and "progressive bad" nonsense.
You’re certainly parroting their talking points with perfect accuracy.
Are you serious? He has been arrested over 50 times for the same offense! You don’t think he should face any consequences? At least 5 years in jail, I agree 25 is a little much, I was just making a point.
But you don’t think that he should face at least some type of consequence? Why do you think he still does that? Because he doesn’t face any repercussions and he gets away with it.
Of course he should face consequences, but I don’t want to shell out 3 million plus to lock someone up and then just kick him back out on the street 25 years later to do the same thing all over again. Grow up kid.
I’m sure if he was actually put in jail and actually faces consequences for his actions, he would get the help he needs and change his life.
Ok now I know this a joke. Because jails are wonderful places to get help.
Holy shit, you are delusional. I understand not all people will actually get better, but letting a man like him just walk the street with no punishment is absurd to be, hence the reason why you liberals are way too lenient on punishment. Do you think we should do the same for killers?
This is just classic flailing by a kid who has literally zero life experience and is angry about it. Educate yourself, diversify your new sources, get out of your bubble.
you liberals are way too lenient on punishment
More bad faith from you. We get it. Liberals and progressives are bad and the 20 year old "libertarian" knows better.
The police is overfunded for what little they do.
These are laws that enable criminals.
Nope. It turned a felony into a misdemeanor, which is still a crime last I looked. Do you know why it's a misdemeanor? Overcrowded prisons.
Lmao, but it doesn’t do anything. The police aren’t going to arrest you for committing a misdemeanor.
Why not? Too good for them? Not warrior cop enough?
Because, what will it actually do? They will get a fine, not pay it and never see that officer again. Come on, man.
Yup. You're making a good case for why we need to address the conditions of poverty and addiction to actually do anything about this issue. Locking them up ain't it.
Agree.
They're at least trying something with this. I'm not sure how it will work, but at least it's something other than straight to jail for those on the streets unable to care for themselves and self medicating...
That’s honestly good and it’s a step in the right direction.
Well they risk their life everyday. 118 officers died in the line of duty in 2022. Probably more than your job
Law enforcement isn't in the top 10 or 20 most deadly jobs.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/03/02/most-dangerous-jobs-america-database/11264064002/
Truckers, loggers, commercial pilots, roofers, miners and others are far more dangerous.
For some perspective, 934 truckers died at work in the US during 2022.
I’m guessing there are 3x as many truckers in the uS
Are you serious? They literally cannot do anything because progressive laws have pretty much made it legal to do crime 😂
You're 20 and have no clue how things work. It shows by your statements like "made it legal to do crime".
It's still a crime, silly. It's a misdemeanor. Now what about those cops who are supposed to uphold the law? Where are they?
If it's legal, it's by definition not a crime.
The mistake was that we didn't anticipate that the police would stop enforcing the law because it was no longer a felony.
Exactly. People are saying that “it’s still against the law.” Which is true, it’s just a less severe crime. Which is why the police aren’t doing anything about it. They will issue a fine, they won’t pay it, and then will continue on. Excellent point.
So locking up poor people only to then put them back on the streets like the next day was not working either. so its not like prop 47 wasnt worth trying.
I think though that the hard $ value line was probably a mistake, and its been amplified by 1 city councils blocking police from doing things that would otherwise enforce the law (oakland PD is prohibited from pursuing suspects unless the police see that the suspect is armed, which leads to situations where police sometimes just let the suspects drive off), to the police more or less protesting not being allowed to do things the good ol ways so they just slow roll calls or dont do their job. it leaves a weird situation where both the activists and the police unions have, I think rather unintentionally, conspired to give us a situation where the police cant be counted on in some ways to make us safe.
and granted, for some parts of the population the police rarely made things safe. but to have them fail all demographics at once is a new development
It’s because of the defund the police movement. It created a negative stigma around ALL police officers when 99% of them are actually good people who want to protect the citizens of their community/city. They are being treated as criminals, while the real criminals get away with crime, leaving citizens like us at a greater risk than before. As you said, Oakland PD can’t go after someone unless they have a gun. Why? That is fundamentally flawed, I’m someone broke the law, stole something, knocked someone out and ran away or drove off in a car, the police should absolutely be able to do something about it and arrest that person if they are caught.
How the hell am I getting downvoted for this? Seriously? Okay if someone broke into your car and stole your purse, would you just let them take it? Tell me you wound t want the police to go catch that person and retrieve your stolen item. Sure.
You are getting downvoted because you are making principles-based arguments and, while they have some merit, you're using them to advocate for policies that also are hugely problematic in their own right, suggesting that righting the principle is the priority, not actually reducing harm or improving outcomes overall, or in multiple dimensions. This comes off as overly self-righteous.
In this world, sometimes being right has its limits. Yes I totally want drug-free streets and not to fear my car getting broken into whoever I drive into the city. But not at the expense of essentially imprisoning people for simply being poor and having society's economic systems fail them, which is really not their fault most of the time.
Yes, assholes who repeatedly vandalize cars should be imprisoned and held accountable. But that is a small minority of the people you're actually talking about who are homeless, deal with substance abuse, etc. Don't punish all of them for the crimes of a few.
I completely agree and if you read my post I actually edited it because someone changed my mind.
We shouldn’t persecute people for being poor and being drug addicts.
But we should persecute criminals who break the law and actively take advantage of our broken system.
We need more funding for rehab programs.
Prop 13 is actually the mistake.
User deleted comment
4mo
Yea, 40 years of a terrible policy.
User deleted comment
4mo
Fy I’m a homeowner who benefits from this policy. We heavily subsidizes homeowners ship via mortgage internet rate deduction and artificially keeping property taxes low. What we supple do is use that money to subsidize renters who are falling into homelessness. It’s crazy how much we subsidize homeownership relative to renters.
Prop 13 also causes new buyers to pay a lot higher rates to make up for the lower rates from long term owners. This policy also makes people not want to move which diminishes supply side of housing as most people won’t wanna sell even if the house is way to big and they might otherwise downsize.
User deleted comment
4mo
Social security applies uniformly. Prop 13 only helps homeowners not renters. So it’s not analogous to social security, which I do support.
User deleted comment
4mo
The 70 year old has hundreds of the thousands of dollars in equity. Yes, they can cash out and buy something smaller with lower property value with taxes they can afford. That’s how it works in other states.
I like how no one feels sorry for elderly tenants when they get priced out. If they would we would support stronger rent control for tenants. Prop 13 is essentially rent control for homeownership. By artificially keeping value of the home frozen in time.
Would you support a rent control policy that keeps rents affordable for tenants, i.e. tied to CPI?
User deleted comment
4mo
At this point the three strikes law is seeming less draconian. That being said, if your third strike was something minor that should not be allowed. It got pretty ridiculous which I’m guessing is why it became a problem. If they were three striking some of these fools killing people left and right. they are letting off in guessing everyone would be relived.
Is this your experience or just what you see on the news?
I live in San Diego. This is my experience. I also just took a trip up to Eugene and passed through SF.
What are you asking for? Felony convictions, or death squads? I prefer ending the conditions that create poverty and drug addiction, but that's apparently too much to ask.
You can’t end drug addiction when laws are enabling it.
We were in a war against drugs, and guess what? Drugs won.
It was completely outlawed for decades and that didn’t end drug addiction at all.
They don't understand that to make the changes they want to see they'll have to address the conditions that creates poverty. You can't lock everyone up.
There aren't laws enabling it.
well death squads is a rather insane escalation.
but I do think you also have a fundamentally flawed assumption, that drug addition doesnt happen in a world where we've fixed poverty etc. the reason drug addition is so strong is that for many it outright makes everything better while high, such that the rest of their conditions dont matter.
regardless, prop 47 doesnt address the conditions that create poverty and drug addiction so much as it was an attempt to from the top down reduce the oversized compared to other nations prison population. It does nothing to affect the culture, and it may have backfired in some ways
Before this law, I was an EMT who had seen first hand how crowded those prisons were. It's a good law, yet nowhere does it say that drug use isn't a crime. Instead of a felony, it's a misdemeanor.
I’m just asking that we change the laws of open drug use and criminalize them again. Make it a felony to shoot up meth in the street. Why is that so hard? Put them in jail, force them into rehab so they can be better, and our streets will be safer and cleaner.
That's not how it works. You should take an into to criminology. It'll blow your mind.
You passed through a town? Wow. That is real knowledge of how things are going right there! Even in San Diego it isn't what you're stating.
You must live in a nice area then. La Jolla? I live in East Village.
Where I live is none of your business nor relevant to your incorrect statement.
I don’t know if it is prop 47 that is the main thing that is contributing to people shooting up in broad daylight light. But I do think it can be cleaned up. The whole drug thing became a problem when the homeless population has exploded in recent years where there are hundreds of tent cities in all cities up and down the coast. If you let people do that shit they feel they can do whatever they want fuck they want. Blame activist judges for that. Not prop 47
Costs are higher in California due to high taxes and regulations. Those costs and fees are passed directly on to consumers. just in real estate alone: "The NAHB report states that the increase in costs of regulation for a new single-family home has gone from $65,224 in 2011 to $93,870 in 2021. That is a 44% increase in 10 years. "
And its higher even now.
You should absolutely be not ok with this OP. California is losing its luster, because of acceptance policies that allows a small percentage of behavior ruin what once was a marvelous state.
Source: Native Californian for an insane amount of decades .
2 missing replies
Just a reminder that the monthly General Chat announcements at the top of the page is the best place for general information and miscellaneous comments and questions. Please use that discussion thread is for conversations that do not merit their own submission.
Editorial content and submission are very welcome, however, the bar for quality is higher than in some other subreddits. When evaluating editorial content here is what I am looking for.
I hope this information is helpful so that you develop a submission and tweak it to meet our guidelines. Be sure to check the Community Guidelines regarding submissions.
If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.