In the ground war against the heroin epidemic, Kentucky goes on offense. Note the lopsided vote:
Anyone convicted of selling any amount of heroin for the first time would be a felon in Kentucky under a bill that has cleared the state Senate.
The Senate voted 31-6 to approve the bill on Wednesday. Kentucky lowered penalties for some heroin dealers in 2011. Since then, heroin use has increased significantly and overdose deaths have soared.
State Sen. John Schickel of Union said he voted to lower the penalties in 2011 and has regretted it ever since. Some Democrats opposed the bill, arguing it would put low-level addicts behind bars without treating their underlying substance abuse problem.
Could someone remind me which state Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell represents?
Any projections on what this could cost KY taxpayers? Why not just have KY police/prosecutors urge the Feds to prosecute all heroin cases in the state? Isn't all heroin dealing already a federal felony?
"Any projections on what this could cost KY taxpayers?"
Not that I know about. Do you know of any way to put a dollar estimate on the value of the lives lost to heroin overdoses? Has anyone favoring drug legalization ever even bothered to ask?
"Why not just have KY police/prosecutors urge the Feds to prosecute all heroin cases in the state?"
For several reasons. First, because the object is not to "urge" anything. The object is to get moving now, with a sense of urgency, to end the heroin epidemic.
Second, because the Feds, under this Administration, are not to be trusted. This is the same DOJ that grudgingly admitted it gave misleading information to Congress about Fast and Furious.
Third, because even if they could be trusted, they can't possibly "prosecute all heroin cases in the state," as you suggest. For one out of many things, we've got federal tax dollars diverted from enforcement to trying to compel Ferguson, Mo. to write fewer traffic tickets. This is what it's come to.
I should add that I'd hope your curiosity about costs extends to the costs, in terms of earlier recidivism, of the SRCA. I posed that question explicitly here:
http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2016/02/buy-this-house-but-dont-ask-ab.html
Perhaps if Obama were doing his job, this wouldn't be necessary. Heroin is flooding in from our southern border.You want to talk about freedom Doug, how free are parents who have that daily nagging worry about heroin in their kids' schools?
I trust you know, Bill, that I care a lot about costs and that is why I bring this up. And your response highlights the challenges in measuring all the costs, not just in terms of lives lost, but also the costs to the rule of law and to freedom. If I had any confidence that this move by Kentucky would help "end the heroin epidemic," I would think the economic cost would be worthwhile. But I remain not-so-confident that ramping up the punitiveness and costs of the police powers in KY will in fact help much on this front.
If the true goal is the end the heroin epidemic, I wonder if KY could just prohibit any and all doctor in the state from every prescribing any opiods in any out-patient settings (and subject them to a loss of license if they violate this prohibition). Opiods could still be used when medically necessary in hospitals, but in this way I think the state might dramatically help on the demand/front end.
Finally, federalists, parents are free to drug test their kids and can/should take kids out of any environment that they think is unsafe for their kids. That is the very essence of freedom (and one of many reasons I strongly favor the right of parents to home school in the name of parental freedom). But once a kid (or an adult) is put in prison for being involved with drugs, the state essential takes over as parent and that actually does impact parental freedom dramatically.
Moreover, as any good parent surely knows, there is no freedom from "daily nagging worry" about kids. But that is what it means to be a parent, and I do not trust or want a big-govt nanny state to control my kids lives poorly as part of a misguided effort to reduce my worries.
All of these posts make my blood pressure go up. I really respect the opinions of many. But I feel that the criminal justice system in the US hurts addicts and uses such that all of the rights you are speaking are almost for discussion only.
In the US, freedom is not just bought by hiring an attorney who allegedly may do a better job representing someone than an indigent lawyer.
A huge problem for those in treatment and recovery is that there is a massive disparity in the criminal justice system regarding how we treat people who suffer from addiction. I watch the people who have funds obtain very different sentences if they are facing criminal prosecution than those who are indigent, and often homeless and broke.
Sometimes an arrest, or even a subsequent arrest can be rock-bottom and a chance to help them start to realize there is a problem, and make this the start of a new beginning.
I am a criminal lawyer and my hands are so often tied. If I have a client who has good insurance and s/he is arrested, that is often enough incentive for them to let me check them into an expensive and supportive rehabilitation center. I realize it isn’t for everyone, but in the criminal justice system this changes things. By the time my clients are facing sentencing, they have had months of inpatient treatment, outpatient treatment and groups. At sentencing I have a huge number of letters from psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, etc.
I am often able to resolve these cases very favorably. I can argue they are in recovery, have evaluations showing they are not likely to re-offend and even witnesses from their treatment centers.
However if I have a client who is indigent, the only “treatment” our state health care is normally a 3-day program. My clients get out, they relapse, and by the time we get to sentencing they are going away for years.
A very different outcome based not on the cost of an attorney, but the cost of proper treatment. My clients with good insurance or funds allow me to get them a better result.
The poorest of my clients get their treatment in prison. There is none. It breaks my heart and I do what I can. Change starts with single people sharing with one another and working towards change.
I am a little off-base here. I just couldn't move on this day without posting. My career is so often left to pondering as opposed to when I can create real changes. http://www.paulmattern.com/paul-mattern--attorney--addiction-is-not-a-crime.html
Costs of treating children in AZ keeps most kids from getting proper treatment until they have been in the system multiple times. By then, what are their chances?