Yes, we can all agree that drug addiction is bad for society, but this place isn’t fighting drug addiction it’s just managing it.

As I said before, the goal should be to reduce the total number of persons addicted to drugs. This program doesn’t do that, not in any meaningful way. If Insite were part of a mandatory treatment protocol, where members had to progress along a structured program designed to get them off of drugs completely, then that would be one thing, but it’s not. This program is no more effective than putting an AA pamphlet at the end of a bar and hoping for the best.

And there are better programs (that would actually produce results) that society could focus on. Things like: Law enforcement initiatives that offer amnesty for drug turn-ins (something I’ve been wanting here in the US for years), adult education programs on dealing with family and friends who are suffering from addiction, or even- and I fucking hate admitting this, faith based programs that have had decent results in fighting addiction using the church community as a support structure.

There are plenty of ways to get people assistance and help fight drug addiction, without the Government helping them shoot up.

Well, first of all, there is a big difference between killing someone and not preventing them from killing themselves, but that's neither here nor there.

Second, are you honestly making the argument that nearly 3.5 million people going to this place to shoot up over the last 12 years is a good thing? Even if only half of them were there to get high, that's still over 1.2 million people with a Government needle in their arm, and we're only talking about one location, in one city. That's not fighting opioid abuse, that's facilitating it.

And as for the "research suggested those who visited the clinic were more likely to pursue detox programs" bit, that's great. How many actually did? Hmm? How many of the Insite members actually went to detox or rehab? How many have actually stayed off drugs? "More likely" is great but "more likely" is a fairly deceptive term, I hear it all the time in economic circles from people who are usually selling something. Tell me how many people have actually gotten off drugs by going to this place because I gotta tell ya, 3.5 million people over 12 years and an ever worsening opioid crisis doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that this place is helping at all.

If you ever want to know what "fake news" looks like, this is it.

First and foremost, this article starts off with a bold-faced lie:

Georgia judge overrules jury to incarcerate Ramad Chatman in unusual legal case...

The judge absolutely did NOT "overrule the jury"- the judge can't overrule the jury in this case. Judges can overturn convictions as a matter of law, but they cannot overturn a jury's acquittal. Period. Ramad Chatman was found "Not Guilty" by the jury and that acquittal still stands. But there were two separate issues here: A) Did he rob the convenience store, and B) Did he violate the terms of his probation:

A) As I just said, he was acquitted by the jury, so "A" is a dead issue.

B) His probation violation hearing occurred before the criminal trial, not after. The way the article is written it makes it seem like the judge was upset that he wasn't convicted and so he decided to lock him up anyway, which is not at all what happened. Second, he was a convicted felon on probation for robbery and he was charged with another robbery, there's not a jurisdiction in this country where someone doesn't get violated for that, I don't care if they're white, black, green, or purple. Which leads to my next point.

For the Independent to argue that race played a role in this case (which they do), and that the defendant was treated unfairly because he's black (which they also do), they would have to first show that his treatment was unfair, which they don't do. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this defendants treatment had anything at all to do with his race, and nothing to suggest that defendants of other races are treated differently in similar circumstance, other than the bias of the person who wrote the article. They could've used this case to highlight the need for sentencing reform or to shine a light on the failures of the probation system in this country- a system in which people are set up for failure from the start- by practice even if not by design. They could've raised real, substantive issues worthy of debate. Instead we get this trash which is nothing more than emotionally manipulative race-baiting.