Christie Wants New Jersey to Be First to Require Drug Treatment Instead of Jail (Trenton: violent crime, live)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone mention this here, as it was pretty big news a few weeks ago. Maybe I missed it?
While some people may herald this as heroic if done by a democrat, I wouldn't be surprised if they find fault in it based on who is proposing it. I'm sure many republicans in Washington will find fault as well, based on their poor past record on this issue. Personally, I think it is great! The war on drugs is a failure, and an expensive one at that!
“…Christie called for a revolution in New Jersey’s approach to the drug war that would divert non-violent addicts from prison and put them in treatment programs instead. And he did it with characteristic Christie style, in big bold strokes.”
“I am not satisfied to have this merely as a pilot project," the governor said. "I am calling for a transformation of the way we deal with drug abuse and incarceration in every corner of New Jersey.”
Gov. Christie actually made a conservative case for the diversion program, arguing that, “[a]s long as they have not violently victimized society, everyone deserves a second chance, because no life is disposable.” His remarks earned him a standing ovation from those in attendance.
Here is another article.
Christie Wants New Jersey to Be First to Require Drug Treatment (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/03/01/bloomberg_articlesM07X6C6VDKIE01-M083C.DTL - broken link)
Quote:
Christie Wants New Jersey to Be First to Require Drug Treatment
"This is about re-claiming lives," Christie, 49, told reporters today at a rescue mission in Trenton. "We have to step up to the plate and admit that our efforts, from a law- enforcement perspective and societal perspective in dealing with this issue, have been a failure."
It's the only good policy decision he's made. It's humane and it's much more effective. Jail is super expensive as well. Of course, the prison guard union will not agree with me.
Also, at half the price of incarceration, isn't this at least a step in the right direction?
of course its not 100%, but really what % of drug treatment works? it has to be sub-10%.
anything that costs me less is a step in the right direction.
the only question i have is about the use of the term "non-violent addicts." i would still hope that non-violent crimes such as theft, DUI, destruction of property, etc. would be punished to the full extent of the law.
of course its not 100%, but really what % of drug treatment works? it has to be sub-10%.
anything that costs me less is a step in the right direction.
the only question i have is about the use of the term "non-violent addicts." i would still hope that non-violent crimes such as theft, DUI, destruction of property, etc. would be punished to the full extent of the law.
Why wouldn't they be? Those are still considered crimes. According to the many articles out there, this applies to peoples who's only offense is possession.
I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone mention this here, as it was pretty big news a few weeks ago. Maybe I missed it? While some people may herald this as heroic if done by a democrat, I wouldn't be surprised if they find fault in it based on who is proposing it. I'm sure many republicans in Washington will find fault as well, based on their poor past record on this issue. Personally, I think it is great! The war on drugs is a failure, and an expensive one at that!
Here is another article.
Christie Wants New Jersey to Be First to Require Drug Treatment (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/03/01/bloomberg_articlesM07X6C6VDKIE01-M083C.DTL - broken link)
conversely, if a dem proposed it, repubs would puke all over it. let's not pretend partisianism (is that word?) is a one way street.
Why wouldn't they be? Those are still considered crimes. According to the many articles out there, this applies to peoples who's only offense is possession.
i would expect them to, but then why point out that they are "non-violent addicts"? violence isnt the only crime someone can commit, they should just be plain addicts.
i would expect them to, but then why point out that they are "non-violent addicts"? violence isnt the only crime someone can commit, they should just be plain addicts.
I don't know? It sounds better?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
