2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Sanders speech on the 1994 crime bill "Incarcerating a Country"
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Whether it was this issue or waging war in Iraq just to mention another.
Peace to you, libtodeath.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)punishing blacks, one has to ask how much political gain was that for him in Vermont, a predominately white state?
smiley
(1,432 posts)Thank you for that.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Peace to you.
smiley
(1,432 posts)I always enjoy your posts!
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)I feel the same way.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)supported the bill? I guess not.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Thanks to californiabernin
PRESS RELEASE
Sanders Voted for 1994 Crime Bill to Support Assault Weapons Ban, Violence Against Women Provisions
FEBRUARY 25, 2016
FLINT, Mich. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders campaign manager on Thursday reiterated the senators reasoning for voting in favor of the Clinton administrations 1994 Crime Bill despite serious reservations. The House version of the bill included a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. Sanders had supported the ban since 1988. The conference committee version included not only the assault weapons ban but also the Violence Against Women Act provisions. Sanders supported these efforts to protect women.
In Sanders statement at the time, he criticized the mass incarceration and death penalty provisions in the bill, saying:
it is also my view that through the neglect of our Government and through a grossly irrational set of priorities, we are dooming tens of millions of young people to a future of bitterness, misery, hopelessness, drugs, crime, and violence.
And Mr. Speaker, all the jails in the world, and we already imprison more people per capita than any other country, and all of the executions in the world, will not make that situation right. We can either educate or electrocute. We can create meaningful jobs, rebuilding our society, or we can build more jails.
Mr. Speaker, let us create a society of hope and compassion, not one of hate and vengeance.
During consideration of the bill, Sanders voted six times to weaken or eliminate the death penalty provisions and voted separately against creating new mandatory minimums. Then-First Lady Hillary Clinton spoke strongly in favor of increased incarceration, labeling at risk youth as super-predators who had to be brought to heel.
When this so-called crime bill was being considered, Bernie Sanders criticized its harsh incarceration and death penalty provisions, said Jeff Weaver, Sanders campaign manager. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, resorted to dog whistle politics and dehumanizing language. Bernie was right then and hes right now. We need to invest in those communities that have been neglected in this country. Poor communities more often than not, communities of color deserve the same opportunities and education that other communities have. Bernie Sanders has always known jails and incarceration are not the answer. Nor is heated rhetoric against young people of any race. You cant throw vulnerable people under the bus just because its politically expedient.
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-voted-for-1994-crime-bill-to-support-assault-weapons-ban-violence-against-women-provisions/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511339700
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)Says one thing and does another.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)voted for it reluctantly because it had a couple of needed provisions as I just posted up-thread above your post.
Bernie's long distinguished history in the Congress has been consistent as in the 1991 speech which I also posted on this thread, but he was only one Congressperson in a house of 435.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,771 posts)pragmatism only plays with Hillary supporters when it boosts her.
TM99
(8,352 posts)to support and vote for an omnibus bill with good and horrid provisions in it if it wasn't for the triangulation of the New Dems trying to appeal to the right with their racism, love of punishment, and fear of drugs and the left with cursory support for women through the VAWA.
dsc
(52,163 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 26, 2016, 11:12 PM - Edit history (1)
No actual arguments or justifications of the fact that one was the fucking President of the god damn United States and the other was a fucking Rep from a small New England state.
Yeah, I didn't think so. Next.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)Yes, he held unimaginable power in 1994. I am surprised more did not worship St. Bernard then as they do now.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)isn't a Saint, but he is enlightened.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)it that different then how she discusses it? And if so why?
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)Your posts are amazing.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)but it's easy when you have a candidate like Bernie to support.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)PRESS RELEASE
Sanders Voted for 1994 Crime Bill to Support Assault Weapons Ban, Violence Against Women Provisions
FEBRUARY 25, 2016
FLINT, Mich. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders campaign manager on Thursday reiterated the senators reasoning for voting in favor of the Clinton administrations 1994 Crime Bill despite serious reservations. The House version of the bill included a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. Sanders had supported the ban since 1988. The conference committee version included not only the assault weapons ban but also the Violence Against Women Act provisions. Sanders supported these efforts to protect women.
In Sanders statement at the time, he criticized the mass incarceration and death penalty provisions in the bill, saying:
it is also my view that through the neglect of our Government and through a grossly irrational set of priorities, we are dooming tens of millions of young people to a future of bitterness, misery, hopelessness, drugs, crime, and violence.
And Mr. Speaker, all the jails in the world, and we already imprison more people per capita than any other country, and all of the executions in the world, will not make that situation right. We can either educate or electrocute. We can create meaningful jobs, rebuilding our society, or we can build more jails.
Mr. Speaker, let us create a society of hope and compassion, not one of hate and vengeance.
During consideration of the bill, Sanders voted six times to weaken or eliminate the death penalty provisions and voted separately against creating new mandatory minimums. Then-First Lady Hillary Clinton spoke strongly in favor of increased incarceration, labeling at risk youth as super-predators who had to be brought to heel.
When this so-called crime bill was being considered, Bernie Sanders criticized its harsh incarceration and death penalty provisions, said Jeff Weaver, Sanders campaign manager. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, resorted to dog whistle politics and dehumanizing language. Bernie was right then and hes right now. We need to invest in those communities that have been neglected in this country. Poor communities more often than not, communities of color deserve the same opportunities and education that other communities have. Bernie Sanders has always known jails and incarceration are not the answer. Nor is heated rhetoric against young people of any race. You cant throw vulnerable people under the bus just because its politically expedient.
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-voted-for-1994-crime-bill-to-support-assault-weapons-ban-violence-against-women-provisions/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511339700
There is a major difference in motivation and promotion.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I don't fault him for it, but it happened.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)dog whistle language in promoting it?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)answering my question "do you fault Hillary for using racist dog whistle language?"
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I do think both of them should not have supported the bill, they both did.
It is what it is.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Bernie (coming from white state Vermont) was citing the dangers of this race based incarceration mindset even in 1991 and Hillary in her promotion of the 1994 crime bill validated Bernie's message as to what we should be against.
That is what it is.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)So cool speech, but apparently it didn't matter.
Both our candidates could have done better here, they didn't.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Hillary promoted racist dog whistle language, that's a major difference whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Again both... Could have done better.
They didn't.
That's the end of it.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)by not playing on the most base and ignorant fears of the people subliminally promoting racism.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Bernie... And Hillary could have done much better.
I can do this all day... There is no "good" stand here. 1 vote matters, even out of 435.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)for not protecting women or not banning assault weapons.
Bernie unlike Hillary never played on racist fears, he cited the primary causes for and the best solution to crime, poverty, lack of education and opportunity, neglect of our government, despair, Bernie was promoting with his words that our nation should focus more on addressing those critical issues and others rather than building more prisons, that's light years away from Hillary's message.
I honestly have to wonder if you listened to the video in the OP?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Video or not, the vote matters.
Again, they both could have done better.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)a yea vote for a bill is NOT support for the FULL bill, to believe otherwise shows a lack of understanding on how our legislative process works.
I know, you're smarter than that.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)And a "yea" vote is a vote for the full bill.
There is no way around it... You vote "yea" you voted that way for the whole bill.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)This is what you posted.
A "yea" vote is support for a bill, the FULL bill.
That's simply not the case, throughout our history Congresspeople have voted for bills wherein they didn't entirely support every bit of it or the FULL bill and you know that.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)And yes throughout our history people have not supported all parts of a bill, but the minute they vote "yea" on the bill they are singing off on the full bill.
The whole thing.
The entire bill.
All of it.
That's it, it's that simple.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)A "yea" vote is support for a bill, the FULL bill.
Post #37
And a "yea" vote is a vote for the full bill.
Voting for or signing off on a bill is NOT the same as supporting every aspect of the bill which very likely will have parts the Congressperson agrees with and parts they don't.
It's not a De Facto statement in totality of what that Congressperson believes, as I stated above the House has 435 members and compromise on one aspect or another is a given fact of life in our legislative process.
It's that simple.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Bernie voted "yea".
That's the end of it.
Yes that vote was 1/435, but the vote mattered.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)for a bill.
The former means you agree with everything in it, the latter means you voted for it because the good may outweigh the bad but it wasn't your ideal bill.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)didn't use racist dog whistle language in promoting the bill and his long track record which I have posted some of on this thread is testimony to what he believed, that we needed to chart an entirely different course than the message Hillary; was proclaiming, "super predators," "bring them to heel," "more prisons" etc. etc.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)fault Hillary for using racist dog whistle language?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Yes Hillary could have done better...
Again THEY BOTH could have.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)dog whistle message and proposals.
It seems that now you do disagree with Hillary's racist dog whistle message.
How could Bernie have done better?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)But he wasn't able to, so then he voted "yea" for it.
Got it.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Women Act provisions?
Bernie supported these efforts to protect women.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)He didn't, as far as I know.
And if he did, he was unable to get any traction on them.
So he threw in the towel and voted "yea" on the bill, the whole thing.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)in the bill..
Sanders Campaign Says He Voted For Crime Bill Due To Weapons Ban That Wasnt There
The Sanders campaign says he voted for the 1994 crime bill because it contained a ban on assault weapons but that ban wasnt in the version of the bill he initially supported.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/sanders-campaign-says-he-voted-for-crime-bill-due-to-weapons?utm_term=.htmkGbO5m#.cn82mO1jY
Just posting new info.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Efforts to create restrictions on assault weapons at the federal government level intensified in 1989 after 34 children and a teacher were shot and five children killed in Stockton, Calif. using a semi-automatic copy of an AK-47 assault rifle.[1][2][3] The July 1993 101 California Street shooting also contributed to passage of the ban. The shooter killed eight people and wounded six. Two of the three firearms he used were TEC-9 semi-automatic handguns with Hellfire triggers.[4] The ban tried to address public concerns about mass shootings by restricting firearms that met the criteria for what it defined as a "semiautomatic assault weapon," as well as magazines that met the criteria for what it defined as a "large capacity ammunition feeding device."[5]:12
In November 1993, the proposed legislation passed the U.S. Senate. The bill's author, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and other advocates said that it was a weakened version of the original proposal.[6] In May 1994, former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives in support of banning "semi-automatic assault guns." They cited a 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that found 77 percent of Americans supported a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of such weapons.[7]
Rep. Jack Brooks (D-TX), then chair of the House Judiciary Committee, tried unsuccessfully to remove the assault weapons ban section from the crime bill.[8] The National Rifle Association (NRA) opposed the ban. In November 1993, NRA spokesman Bill McIntyre said that assault weapons "are used in only 1 percent of all crimes".[9] The low usage statistic was supported in a 1999 Department of Justice brief.[5]
The legislation passed in September 1994 with the assault weapon ban section expiring in 2004 due to its sunset provision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
one_voice
(20,043 posts)The ban was after he voted:
I only saw this today. It popped up on social media. I don't think it is or will be a big deal.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/sanders-campaign-says-he-voted-for-crime-bill-due-to-weapons?utm_term=.htmkGbO5m#.cn82mO1jY
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Peace to you, one_voice.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Beowulf
(761 posts)a rejection of the weapons ban and laws addressing violence against women?
At the time of his vote, he explained his views on the individual portions of the bill. He was clear he was troubled by the mass incarceration and death penalty provision but to vote no risked losing two things he cared deeply about, so he voted yes and then worked to weaken and eliminate the the troubling provisions. Hillary supported the entire bill and as far as I can tell still does. For Bernie this was a morally complex matter, for Hillary, not at all. To conflate their situations is wrong. Bernie was put in a situation by Democratic leadership. The Clintons made the choice to create that situation. Bernie showed he has a conscience, the Clintons, not so much.
Thoughtfulness v. cynicism.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)That "yea" vote was on the whole bill.
Bernie is/was an independent how did the "democratic leadership" put him into a situation...
So let me get this straight, Bernie pushes for something, doesn't get it, then Bernie voted for it anyway. All because he was pressured by the democrats, as an independent... And we expect him to lead when he caved to pressure from a party he wasn't even part of? Is that what we are going with?
Both our candidates are bad on this issue, Hillary should have never supported the bill, Bernie should have never voted for it.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Bernie most assuredly supported this.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Bernie voted "yea"...
In other words regardless of his speech he supported the bill.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)and Bernie reluctantly VOTED for it because of the good aspects; Violence Against Women Act and banning of assault weapons but he didn't SUPPORT the entire bill?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)As was Bernie's "yea" vote.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)"You agree that Hillary used racist dog whistle language and that she SUPPORTED the ENTIRE bill, and Bernie reluctantly VOTED for it because of the good aspects; Violence Against Women Act and banning of assault weapons but he didn't SUPPORT the entire bill?"
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Do you agree that Hillary used racist dog whistle language and that she SUPPORTED the ENTIRE bill, and Bernie reluctantly VOTED for it because of the good aspects; Violence Against Women Act and banning of assault weapons but he didn't SUPPORT the entire bill?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)For a bill he knew was flawed, he even gave a speech on how flawed it was.
...
"Yea"
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)You agree that Hillary used racist dog whistle language and that she SUPPORTED the ENTIRE bill,
and Bernie reluctantly VOTED for it because of the good aspects; Violence Against Women Act and banning of assault weapons but he didn't SUPPORT the entire bill?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)The whole bill.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)You agree that Hillary used racist dog whistle language and that she SUPPORTED the ENTIRE bill,
and Bernie reluctantly VOTED for it because of the good aspects; Violence Against Women Act and banning of assault weapons but he didn't SUPPORT the entire bill?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)It's right here in this subthread.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Do you agree that Hillary used racist dog whistle language and that she SUPPORTED the ENTIRE bill, and Bernie reluctantly VOTED for it because of the good aspects; Violence Against Women Act and banning of assault weapons but he didn't SUPPORT the entire bill?
A simple yes or no will do.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Do you agree that Bernie should have stood up, fought for a clean bill, rather than just voting "yea" on a bill he denounced.
All talk... No real action.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Seems we are at an impasse.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)I just offered a Quid pro quo.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Beowulf
(761 posts)Goodbye!
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)What else is new.
I guess a "yea" vote means "nah not really"...
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)In a bill he knew was bad.
Really a principled stand... Both our candidates failed us here.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)"Bernie Sanders voted AGAINST a 1991 Crime Bill that was mostly focused on mass incarceration and get tough policies.
He repeatedly spoke about the danger of focusing on get tough policy aimed at African Americans, and appealed over and over that government focus on rebuilding urban communities.
In 1994, the bill he voted against came back up for a vote, THIS TIME bundled with the Assault Weapons Ban and the Violence Against Women Act. Essentially a poison pill and Bernie swallowed with reservations. You can criticize him for that, and I think that's fair.
What he DIDNT do, is uncritically stump for the same bill, using language that would have made Nixon blush."
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)That's what I've been saying this whole time...
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)It's a recorded congressional vote, and a recorded speech in favor of a flawed bill.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)And her speech was also bull.
So again, both our candidates aren't leaders on this issue.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)He voted for the bill because of the good things that were in it and in spite of the bad things that were in it. So the difference between him and Clinton on that issue is huge.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)think
(11,641 posts)H2O Man
(73,559 posts)Thank you!
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Peace to you.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)trillion
(1,859 posts)There's a lot written on how the laws were changed to help the for profit prisions and continue to be.
I will never believe it's an accident that Bill put in this law and Hillary spoke for it in the face of all kinds of criticism, and then she had for profit prisons in her super pac - the lobbyist for the biggest ones. She's continued to speak for laws helping mass incarcerations up until she started campaigning and she didn't drop the GEO group(big prision lobbyists) until she had to after the Huffington post exposed her in October 2015.
You hit the nail on the head
autonomous
(45 posts)prescience in this political climate!
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Can you believe both our candidates made this bill happen.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)That doesn't sound like trying to improve it.
He denounced it, and then voted "yea".
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)PRESS RELEASE
Sanders Voted for 1994 Crime Bill to Support Assault Weapons Ban, Violence Against Women Provisions
FEBRUARY 25, 2016
FLINT, Mich. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders campaign manager on Thursday reiterated the senators reasoning for voting in favor of the Clinton administrations 1994 Crime Bill despite serious reservations. The House version of the bill included a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. Sanders had supported the ban since 1988. The conference committee version included not only the assault weapons ban but also the Violence Against Women Act provisions. Sanders supported these efforts to protect women.
In Sanders statement at the time, he criticized the mass incarceration and death penalty provisions in the bill, saying:
it is also my view that through the neglect of our Government and through a grossly irrational set of priorities, we are dooming tens of millions of young people to a future of bitterness, misery, hopelessness, drugs, crime, and violence.
And Mr. Speaker, all the jails in the world, and we already imprison more people per capita than any other country, and all of the executions in the world, will not make that situation right. We can either educate or electrocute. We can create meaningful jobs, rebuilding our society, or we can build more jails.
Mr. Speaker, let us create a society of hope and compassion, not one of hate and vengeance.
During consideration of the bill, Sanders voted six times to weaken or eliminate the death penalty provisions and voted separately against creating new mandatory minimums. Then-First Lady Hillary Clinton spoke strongly in favor of increased incarceration, labeling at risk youth as super-predators who had to be brought to heel.
When this so-called crime bill was being considered, Bernie Sanders criticized its harsh incarceration and death penalty provisions, said Jeff Weaver, Sanders campaign manager. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, resorted to dog whistle politics and dehumanizing language. Bernie was right then and hes right now. We need to invest in those communities that have been neglected in this country. Poor communities more often than not, communities of color deserve the same opportunities and education that other communities have. Bernie Sanders has always known jails and incarceration are not the answer. Nor is heated rhetoric against young people of any race. You cant throw vulnerable people under the bus just because its politically expedient.
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-voted-for-1994-crime-bill-to-support-assault-weapons-ban-violence-against-women-provisions/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511339700
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)He was unable to improve it... Not sure that bodes well for how he will be able to improve all the things he wants...
Who knows, hard to predict.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Sorry I realize you don't want to admit it but his DECADES of speaking out against the criminal justice system do MATTER.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Got it.
Both our candidates have flawed positions on this bill. It is what it is.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The other fought, tried to change and then only voted for it to save lives.
BIG difference.
Sort of like how Hillary supported, promoted and sold welfare reform, the Defense of Marriage Act and the Iraq war.
Face it, she's consistently been on the wrong side of history time and time again.
And she's still on the wrong side when to comes to the "war" on drugs and death penalty.
I support the progressive.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Denounced it, fought the flawed sections... But then voted for the whole thing anyway.
Both are flawed.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Which one is MORE flawed for supporting all of those?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)It's fine.
I'm going to bed.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)One candidate is a progressive and the other is a moderate at best.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Where we agree on nothing, and then go away angry, and still supporting the same candidates.
...
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Like I said, it's easier to run away than face the fact that Bernie was right about this bill and the other issues I mentioned.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Oh the new DU.
Such a lovely place.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And this has always been DU, we do nuance here and we back up our opinions - that is if they're worth backing up.
autonomous
(45 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Read the subthread I've mentioned several times the bill is/was flawed. And both our candidates were flawed for their respective level of support.
So... There is that.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)power and sway than being 1 out of 435 members of the House of Representatives.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)And right now the most influential politician running is Trump. Huge rallies, big endorsement, turning out republicans right and left, brining in new young voters to the Republican Party.
That should be scaring the shit out of us right now.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)that's just another reason to support Bernie, because he stands the best chance of defeating Trump in the G.E.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I'm down, people are unnecessarily dying everyday because of opiates.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)- not exactly a non-issue, given the numbers of states that have or are likely to legalize- she clumsily "pivots" to heroin addiction, pretty deliberately conflating the two;
let's unpack this thing for a minute. Part and parcel of this expanded "war on opiates" is increased pressure on prescribers NOT to prescribe pain medication; you know, telling the person screaming in pain from bone cancer to try yoga or meditation (cheaper, too!), that sort of thing...
it's taken as a given that making pain meds harder to obtain is a good idea, even though doctors already live in fear of the DEA and as such under-prescribe in many cases. But what all this ignores is that fact- statistically documented- that part of what drives the increase in street opiate use, like heroin, is when prescription pain meds are made more, not less, difficult to obtain.
So you have pain patients- and abusers, to be sure- turning to unregulated street drugs when they can't get prescription meds.
I don't know exactly what the answer is, but I do know that if the choice is between someone somewhere catching an unauthorized buzz or people with legitimate pain needs being forced to suffer "because addicts", I'll side with the pain patients, myself.
I think the answer to addiction and overdoses are treatment on demand through a harm reduction model, preferably, as opposed to the current punitive law enforcement regime we have now.
I recognize that Hillary's plan includes money for treatment, and that's a good thing, although I think it would be better if we focused public moneys more on scientific or secular treatment modalities, as opposed to the faith-based 12 step stuff which overwhelmingly dominates the treatment landscape today.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)Bernie has. Go Bernie!
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Peace to you, Jenny.
Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)My heart swells.
dchill
(38,505 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Peace to you.
dchill
(38,505 posts)LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)never in my lifetime have we had a person of his caliber in government office. The man knows of what he speaks. I like that about him. No one tells Bernie what to say or do
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)been speaking truth to power.
Peace to you, madokie.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Show the guy telling the truth and people disregard what their own ears and eyes tell them.
Thank you for the excellent OP and thread, Uncle Joe!
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Peace to you.