即便是西雅圖和波特蘭的進步派也受夠了毒品合法化

在幾年前，受“黑命貴”運動的影響，俄勒岡州和華盛頓州進行了刑事司法改革將毒品合法化。這是一次徹底的失敗，其后果便是導(dǎo)致了數(shù)千人的死亡。如今，選民們表示已經(jīng)忍無可忍了，但情況真的會有所改變么？

在曾經(jīng)充滿活力的波特蘭和西雅圖，極左活動家和政客曾帶頭發(fā)起運動要求將警察和更高的刑事司法機構(gòu)從禁毒管理中移除。借著喬治·弗洛伊德事件引發(fā)的反警情緒的東風(fēng)，激進左派人士說服了美國西北部的民眾，為毒品合法化開了綠燈。

三年過去了，選民們正要求著恢復(fù)毒品管制。

據(jù)最近的愛默生學(xué)院民意調(diào)查顯示，在俄勒岡州有56%的民眾要求全面撤銷措施110。措施110使得在州境內(nèi)個人持有非法藥物的行為合法化。同樣的，根據(jù)西雅圖時報和薩?？舜髮W(xué)的民意調(diào)查，在經(jīng)歷了由于過量用藥而死亡的人數(shù)暴增后，60%的西雅圖民眾支持對公共吸毒的人進行逮捕，有64%的民眾支持對持有毒品的人進行刑事處罰。

民意的改變應(yīng)當是意料之中的。毒品合法化的擁護者曾承諾會為癮君子提供他們所迫切需要的幫助，避免“將成癮定為犯罪”。但他們并沒有堅持到底。

在波特蘭所在的摩特諾瑪縣，因過量服用芬太尼等合成阿片類藥物致死的人數(shù)在2018-2022年間增長了500%。這一情況也沒有緩和的趨勢。與去年相比，2023年5月到6月間該縣收到的有關(guān)吸毒過量的緊急電話翻了一番。根據(jù)西雅圖的數(shù)據(jù)，在毒品合法法案推出后，金縣每一年的吸毒過量致死人數(shù)都創(chuàng)下新高。2023年（目前是915人）有望超過2020年最高記錄的1000人。

但是，正如我在我即將出版的新書《什么正在殺死美國》（What’s Killing America）中所詳述的一樣，毒品合法化的擁護者們并沒有兌現(xiàn)他們會治療成癮的承諾。他們的失信是必然的：激進左翼人士從沒有打算優(yōu)先考慮毒癮治療。相反，他們采取了一種激進的措施來對付吸毒者，并且他們也已經(jīng)計劃在西北部地區(qū)以外進行。這種措施被稱為“減害”。

此種措施旨在減輕吸毒對健康造成的影響，無論是身體健康還是心理健康。比如說，共用針頭會傳播疾病，那么就由公共衛(wèi)生部門和非營利組織發(fā)放干凈的針頭。這能夠防止傳染艾滋病和其他由血液傳播的疾病。還有，與其讓吸毒者獨自注射海洛因或吸食芬太尼，不如為他們提供一個有專業(yè)醫(yī)療人員看守的“安全吸毒室”。這樣在護士的看管下就能夠防止他們過量吸毒。

但當更多具有進步思想的政客和活動家對當?shù)仨椖空茩?quán)后，他們則更變本加厲。首先，建立“安全吸毒室”的想法真是，坦白講，有大病。政府部門和非營利組織給吸毒者規(guī)定空間讓他們舒舒服服地吸毒，這怕不是來搞笑的。要是真這樣做的話，不如在他們糟踐自己身體的時候配上音樂，比如舒緩的瀑布流水和清脆的鳥叫蟬鳴，再在房間內(nèi)打上柔和的光，配倆按摩師給他們放松肩膀。

但當這些措施在加拿大不列顛哥倫比亞省的溫哥華施行后，左翼美國政客馬上緊跟潮流，四處探查哪座城市能夠成為美國第一個吸毒窩子。

紐約市衛(wèi)生部大力推崇這種減害措施，并在地鐵海報中宣傳道：“吸毒莫彷徨，安全有保障”。還有一些海報強調(diào)吸食前對毒品進行測試的重要性。比如“預(yù)防吸食毒品過量，芬太尼試紙來幫忙”就建議吸毒者測試毒品，與其他人一起輪流吸毒，以防止用藥過量。紐約市衛(wèi)生部甚至警告稱不吸毒也可以預(yù)防死亡，但這顯然是對吸毒群體的侮辱。

（譯者注：去查了一下，紐約市還真發(fā)布過類似的宣傳：https://www.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/basas/fentanyl-test-strips-brochure-sc.pdf。里面詳細介紹了如何檢測藥品里的芬太尼含量。他真的，我哭死。）

質(zhì)疑減害措施是對這些自由開放的城市的褻瀆。如果你膽敢說一句不好，極左人士就會把你打成想要迫害吸毒者的禽獸。這就是為什么那些高高在上的進步活動家和政客聲稱他們只想要拯救生命，然后把你罵成污蔑吸毒者的反派人物。

全國減害聯(lián)盟稱“社會上存在的這種對吸毒者的污蔑會使他們喪失自尊，認為自己不配被有尊嚴地對待，并使他們感到恐懼和孤獨?！边@些擁護者稱人們不應(yīng)該對吸毒者妄下判斷，因為這會使他們覺得自己“不受歡迎或者不受那些提供服務(wù)的人員待見”，進而對治療產(chǎn)生妨礙。我們應(yīng)當相信，阻止吸毒者進行治療的不是不計后果的吸毒，不是對成癮張開懷抱，而是人們對吸毒者抱有的成見。

這種做作的說辭是為了讓反對者閉嘴。進步人士的減害政策基本上沒有遭到反對。他們用這種言論責(zé)備公眾，使他們屈服，并要求進步社區(qū)去幫助那些需要幫助的吸毒者。

這種道德綁架在左翼城市中行得通，這些城市中的民眾都渴望成為解決社會弊病的革命先鋒。這些計謀使得極左公共衛(wèi)生官員和政客能夠把政策繼續(xù)向左推行。

盡管波特蘭和西雅圖的民眾表達了他們對極端藥物政策的不滿，但是他們在近期仍不會看到任何改變。極左活動家不會放棄。

盡管波特蘭的左翼市長泰德?惠勒曾要求廢止措施110，俄勒岡健康正義恢復(fù)聯(lián)盟則警告稱如果廢止措施110，該縣就會損失5800萬美元的藥物治療資金。當然，這項協(xié)議十分狡猾，因為藥物成癮者很難被治愈，所以資金就流向了減害設(shè)備，包括針頭和管子。甚至惠勒都在3月發(fā)言稱“兩年后的今天，我們已經(jīng)見證了毒品合法化，但是我們沒有見到任何治療成癮的手段?！痹诙酒泛戏ɑ瞥龅慕旰螅纱胧?/span>110資助的第一個排毒設(shè)施在經(jīng)歷推遲后將于本月開放。

在華盛頓州，民主黨州議員在毒品合法化兩年后做出了讓步，將持有毒品規(guī)定為嚴重輕罪。但西雅圖還沒有更新其市政法規(guī)來適應(yīng)這一變化。在現(xiàn)有的政策下，金縣檢察官辦公室將不會追查有關(guān)持有毒品的案件。

市議會的極端人士拒絕將這些案件移交給西雅圖市檢察官，一名共和黨議員稱她將在合適的時機進行指控。但是議會中大部分的極左人士希望采取更輕的懲罰措施。而西雅圖市長布魯斯·哈勒爾的辦公室甚至還沒有起草一份替代，折中的毒品方案，這份方案本應(yīng)當在上個月進行投票。

作為生活在西北部地區(qū)的人，我以前也見過這樣的事：民眾對激進的城市治理表示失望，但他們也沒有給政客們施壓，要求做出改變。通常情況下，他們還是會把票投給同樣激進的左翼政客。

毒品合法化問題會最終促使西雅圖的選民采取行動嗎？時間會給我們答案。

?

重點詞匯：

Spearhead：帶頭，領(lǐng)導(dǎo)

Buoyed by：受到支持或鼓舞

Eschew：避開，回避

follow through：堅持到底

by design：故意的，有意為之

push the envelope：挑戰(zhàn)極限（褒），試探底線（貶）

stigmatize：污蔑，污名化

sacrilege：褻瀆

perch：棲息，坐落于

get in the way of：妨礙

Original Article:

Even progressives in Seattle and Portland are fed up with making drugs legal

In the past few years, Oregon and Washington have effectively legalized drugs as part of the Black Lives Matter movement’s criminal justice reforms. It’s been an abject failure, taking thousands of lives. Now, voters say they’ve had enough. But will anything actually change?

In the once vibrant cities of Portland and Seattle, radical left activists and politicians spearheaded campaigns to remove police – and the greater criminal justice system – from drug enforcement. Buoyed by anti-police sentiment in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis, the Radical Left were able to convince voters in the Pacific Northwest to green light drug decriminalization.

Three years later, voters are demanding a return to drug enforcement.

A recent survey by Emerson College Polling found that 56% of Oregon voters want to completely repeal Measure 110, which legalized the personal possession of illicit substances statewide. Similarly, 60% of Seattle voters support arresting for public use, having experienced the brunt of the historic rise in fatal overdoses thanks to Democrats in the state legislature, while 64% support criminal penalties for drug possession, according to a Seattle Times/Suffolk University poll.

The changes in public sentiment should have been expected. Drug legalization advocates promised programs delivering to addicts the help they so desperately needed, eschewing any attempt to "criminalize addiction." They didn’t follow through.

Multnomah County, where Portland is located, saw fatal overdoses from synthetic opioids like fentanyl jump over 500% between 2018 and 2022. The crisis shows no sign of subsiding, with 911-related overdose calls in the county doubling from May to June 2023, compared to last year. In King County, with Seattle drives the stats, there have been historic fatal overdose highs each year during the legalization experiment, with 2023 (at 915) on pace to far exceed 2020’s record-high 1,000.

But as I detail in my forthcoming book "What’s Killing America," advocates failed to deliver on promises to treat addiction. Failure is by design: The Radical Left never intended to prioritize drug treatment. Instead, they adopt a radical approach to dealing with drug addicts and it’s already spread outside the Pacific Northwest. It’s called "harm reduction."

This approach aims to reduce the health consequences of drug use, be they physical or mental. For example, sharing needles spreads diseases, so public health officials and nonprofit groups hand out clean needles. This helps prevent the spread of HIV or other blood-borne diseases. Instead of allowing someone to shoot up heroin or smoke fentanyl alone, they’re offered a "safe consumption site" to use in front of a medical professional. This allows a nurse to intervene during an overdose.

But as more progressive-minded politicians and activists gained control over local programs, the envelope was pushed. At first, the idea of a heroin injection site was, frankly, insane. The idea that government agencies and nonprofits would set up space for addicts to comfortably shoot up seems almost like a parody. All that these sites are missing is a soothing soundtrack of waterfalls and chirping birds, mood lighting, and a shoulder massage while they inject themselves with a poison that is ruining their lives.

Yet after the model was adopted in Vancouver, British Columbia, left-wing American politicians quickly jumped on the bandwagon, rushing to see which city could establish the nation’s first heroin den.

The New York City Department of Health took harm reduction messaging to the extreme with a series of subway posters meant to empower addicts. "Don’t be ashamed you are using, be empowered that you are using safely," one poster read. Another explores the benefits of testing your drugs before smoking them. "Fentanyl test strips can save your life," the poster announces, instructing addicts to test their drugs and consume in groups, one at a time, to help intervene in case of a drug overdose. Warning people not to use drugs can also save lives, but is apparently too stigmatizing to message to the addict community.

To question harm reduction is sacrilege in liberal cities; if you offer even the slightest criticism, the Radical Left labels you a monster who wants to see addicts die. It’s why progressive activists and politicians respond, perched upon the highest of high horses, by claiming they just want to save lives while you want to stigmatize addicts.

The National Harm Reduction Coalition claims "stigma creates the social conditions that make people who use drugs believe they are not deserving of being treated with dignity and respect, perpetuating feelings of fear and isolation." You are, advocates insist, to cast no judgment on an addict because it gets in the way of treatment by making the addict feel "unwelcome or judged by program staff that offers services." We’re supposed to believe it’s not the consequence-free drug use and open embrace of addiction that’s stopping them from treatment. It’s the stigma.

This contrived argument is meant to shut down the opposition. Progressive activists pursuing harm reduction strategies rely on little opposition. They use arguments guilting the public into submission, insisting progressive neighbors that they should consider their privilege and embrace discomfort to help those in need.

The guilt works in cities with the most left-wing voters, all eager to be in the vanguard of a revolution in tackling societal ills. This tactic allows Radical Left public health officials and politicians to keep veering policy farther to the left.

While voters in Portland and Seattle voice their displeasure with radical drug policy, they shouldn’t expect any changes in the near future. Radical Left activists won’t give up.

While far-left Portland mayor Ted Wheeler called for Measure 110 to be repealed, the Oregon Health Justice Recovery Alliance is warning that the county would lose $58 million in drug treatment funds. Of course, the argument is disingenuous since addicts are hardly being treated and funds are being spent on harm reduction tools, including needles and pipes. Even Wheeler noted in March that "here we are two years later, and we’ve seen the decriminalization of hard drugs, but we’re not seeing the treatment." After delays, the first Measure 110 funded detox facility will open this month, nearly three years after passage.

In Washington, Democrat state lawmakers relented and reclassified drug possession a gross misdemeanor after two years of legalization. But Seattle hasn’t updated its municipal code to codify the change. Under the current policy, drug charges go to the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, which won’t pursue drug possession cases.

Radicals on the city council rejected a measure that would given those cases to the Seattle City Attorney, a Republican who says she’ll charge when appropriate. But the far-left majority on the council wanted less punitive measures taken, while Mayor Bruce Harrell’s office hasn’t even written a replacement, compromise drug policy that was supposed to get a vote last month.

As someone who lives in the Pacific Northwest, I’ve seen this story unfold before: voters claim they’re upset with progressive city governance, but do little to pressure politicians into actually changing course. Often, they vote into office the same kind of Radical Left politician.

Will drug legalization be the issue that finally pushes voters in the Rose City or Emerald City to act? Only time will tell.

?

原網(wǎng)址：

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/progressives-seattle-portland-fed-up-making-drug-legal