Murphy Hokey Law

February 29, 2024

$1.5 Billion Is Demanded By Progressive Mayors For The Widespread Drug Crisis

$1.5 Billion Is Demanded By Progressive Mayors For The Widespread Drug Crisis

The mayors of the largest Democratic-controlled cities in America are among those eager to use tax cash to address the drug problem that they exacerbated. But a lot of these mayors went after extreme measures that did nothing but spread the disease.

Members of Congress are urged to approve President Biden’s supplemental budget proposal in a letter signed by 38 mayors, including those of Seattle, Portland, Philadelphia, and San Francisco.

$1.5 Billion Is Demanded By Progressive Mayors For The Widespread Drug Crisis

Their appeal, which is largely taken verbatim from White House press releases, contends that communities can effectively combat a drug crisis driven primarily by fentanyl flowing through the president’s porous southern border thanks to $1.5 billion in grant funding provided to them through the Department of Health and Human Services’ State Opioid Response.

The funding appears honourable on paper. Its purpose is to increase access to services for recovery support. However, a lot of the Left’s propaganda sounds better than it actually is.

Progressive ideas are frequently a front, as I show in my new book “What’s Killing America: Inside the Radical Left’s Tragic Destruction of Our Cities.” Understanding their buzzwords can help you counteract and neutralise their harmful policies.

The money is intended to support “harm reduction” tactics—which the radical left masquerades as “evidence-based.” Under the pretence of lessening harm, it frequently accomplishes little more than providing drug paraphernalia such as clean needles, fentanyl pipes, and “booty-bumping” kits to addicts.

At best, these measures’ effectiveness is questionable. Consider Seattle, where representatives make the unsupportable premise that providing smoking supplies could lead to treatment access. The Hepatitis Education Project has made an even more startling admission: the intention is to promote drug users’ autonomy in their use of drugs rather than to wean them off of them.

Portland and Seattle have demonstrated no interest in putting an end to addiction. Seattle passed legislation and withdrew funding for the police, preventing them from enforcing narcotics prohibitions. Along the way, the city experienced record-high fatal overdoses.

In the meantime, overdose rates skyrocketed after voters in Portland were duped by a deceptive advertisement and allowed drugs under the pretence of treatment. Due to nonprofits’ misappropriation of public funds, the Oregon Health Authority was forced to revoke grant funding and request its return.

Will these Democratic mayors truly make good use of federal funding? It is hardly encouraging to see them still supporting damage reduction programmes.

Take Jim Kenney, the mayor of Philadelphia. In 2018, he advocated for “safe consumption sites,” a misnomer for places where drug addicts get high under medical supervision. Although presented as a life-saving action, they are not. They spend little time in treatment because they are so focused on helping addicts. Addiction, meanwhile, skyrocketed, resulting in almost 1,400 overdose deaths in the city in 2022 alone.

How did San Francisco respond? Permit charitable organisations to give away drug-smoking kits with minimal encouragement to stop. What is the outcome of providing straws, pipes, tin foil, and other smoking implements for fentanyl? A record-high 33.9% office vacancy rate and a downtown ghost town are the results of a spiralling homelessness problem.

While the federal government should help communities dealing with drug overflow from our porous border, accountability and efficient use of monies are urgently needed. Funding harm reduction initiatives blindly is a money trap that, if left unchecked, will create a vicious cycle of reliance on government assistance without addressing the underlying problems.

Addiction will worsen, the cities will cry out for more funding, the Biden administration will suck it up, and the money will be wasted on harm reduction programmes. It will always go on.

Democratic-led communities are faced with a clear decision: stick with current ineffective harm reduction plans or adopt more effective ones, even if they go against their progressive ideology.

They’ve made an effort to reverse their defunding policies for the police, but they still won’t accept damage reduction. Before giving them endless do-overs, taxpayers ought to reconsider, considering their unyielding history.

Funds for treatment facilities and other tried-and-true strategies that carefully use the criminal justice system to address criminal addicts should be the main focus. Funding for cities that have already completed this should be given priority.

The era of constant harm mitigation tactics is coming to an end. It’s time for genuine reform, genuine responsibility, and genuine care.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *