“Lock ’em up for three or four weeks. They are no longer addicted. Some will stay that way.
I always get replies from naive stating how that doesn’t work.”

Who’s the naif? If you think a 21-day or 28-day jail detox breaks addiction, you are.
LOL! Thanks for confirmation.

It’s not money wasted. People who use street drugs are a generative public order problem and a headache for their families. Deterrence, punishment, and incapacitation are just. Put the convicted user in a tiny cell designed for one person and allow him out for just five or six hours a day. Leave him there for a year.

Who’s the naif? If you think a 21-day or 28-day jail detox breaks addiction, you are. They come out still addicted, and having spent the meantime talking with other addicts about how they are going to party the instant they’re released.

A 28-day treatment may help an addict who wants to get clean. But the desire to use will still be there for at least a year. That desire can overcome the best of intentions. And if the addict doesn’t want to get clean–many do not–then that money was wasted.

And state-funded treatment is a gift to clinic owners. It’s very useful for judges who want to get the annoying-as-hell addict out of their courtroom. For the addict it may be a 30-day vacation, expenses paid. If they have access to money, they have access to drugs in treatment.

I have listened to an addict announce she was heading in to her 25th round of taxpayer-funded treatment. Oh, but this time it’s going to work! because, Jesus! or whatever. I checked. There were records easily found for 10 of the committments.

30 days is just enough, if they stay clean in jail, for the head to clear enough to contemplate what needs to happen for the addict to stay clean. But it does not end the addiction.

From a NASA report.

I recognize from my leftist youth the impulse involved here. And I detect it in young radicals today. “This is intolerable, anything would be better.” But I don’t know how anyone can get past the age of thirty or so and still think it’s an approach that’s likely to do anything but make a mess, at least, and at most a disaster creating lots of misery. Nor do I find it easy to believe that all that many middle-aged and older radicals are really so nihilistic as not to care if their plans don’t actually work. Maybe “just stupid” is the answer.

That indicates a huge amount of frustration. Which in turn leads to the supposition that those prosecutors must have previously and repeatedly protested against Gascón’s policies in the strongest of terms. Those protests must have pointed out that Gascón’s policies were leading to increased rates of crime. Increased crime rates easily confirmed by Gascón.

The conclusion is inescapable that Gascón is knowingly and intentionally enabling violent crimes, which makes him an accomplice in those crimes.

So too with all these Soros prosecutors. Arguably, Soros is also a direct accomplice to the enabling of those crimes.

As are those voting a second time for these prosecutors.

Justice requires Gascón be held accountable. When a ‘justice’ system is so corrupted as to make justice through the legal system impossible, then no alternative to vigilante justice remains.

Impaneled within a jury seeking to prosecute said vigilantes, I would vote to acquit.

The consequential result of the law abiding refusing to “take the law into their own hands” is tyranny arising out of the resulting chaos, when good men have refused to do more than verbally complain. It may not be now but history demonstrates that a time can come, when only actions count.

I always get replies from naive stating how that doesn’t work.