#Crime Reduction

[inkskinned]

as we enter the start of a semester and the dreaded Hour of Making Friends us upon us... if ur ever at a loss for what to say in one of those weird social situations where you only vaguely-know people, one of my favorite questions to ask is "what is your favorite food crime." a food crime is like the food combination that you love that other people find revolting. press them to take it further than pineapple on pizza, that's rote. food crimes is a good topic that has many benefits as it turns out all people are degenerates and also it will give you some cool ideas to try out later in the privacy of your own degenerate kitchen

the other good thing to ask is "okay but has anyone here ever been someplace haunted" bc it turns out if you ask most people directly they don't believe in ghosts, but many people are like "oh yeah i lived in a haunted house. ghosts aren't real tho"

[allthecanadianpolitics]

The federal government has denied Toronto's request to decriminalize simple possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use, saying it "does not adequately protect public health and maintain public safety."

"This includes concerns with feasibility and ability for law enforcement to implement the proposed model, protection of youth, and lack of support from key players including the Province of Ontario," Minister of Mental Health and Addictions Ya'ara Saks said in a statement released Friday afternoon.

Ottawa's decision came a day after the Ontario government urged the city to drop the request, which it called "misguided" and "disastrous." [...]

Toronto's drug decriminalization request returned to the spotlight after British Columbia's request to recriminalize the use of select drugs in many public spaces following problems which arose from an exemption order previously granted to the province.

Dr. de Villa, in a statement Friday evening, said now that decriminalization, which she called as just one "evidence-informed policy tool", was no longer an option, "the need to invest in other available evidence-based interventions is all the more critical." [...]

Continue Reading.

Tagging: @newsfromstolenland, @vague-humanoid

[lesbiankermitposting]

an idea is forming where. in the alternate reality where jason doesn't die from the joker, instead of still becoming the Red Hood or some sort of other killer, he swings so wildly in the opposite direction that he still ends up morally opposed to batman, but this time in the Leslie Thompkins realm of radical anarcho-pacifist. jason still blames batman for what happens, but instead of trying to kill the joker he berates him for not SAVING the joker, and therefore not saving him. if batman hadn't become a vigilante maybe there would have been no joker etc etc. maybe if there had been more options for jason's father he would not have worked for two-face. Leslie has always been opposed to Batman because of her pacifism, and because she doesn't believe his methods actually work. that's why she helps everyone regardless of the crimes they've committed. something something jason realizes he was stuck in a cycle of violence -- from his father working for two-face to batman using force as part of his crime prevention -- and decides to remove himself completely.

[hussyknee]

You know what the worst fucking thing about liberal rhetoric is? Using "harm reduction", a term that refers to health policies offering safe options and alternatives for drug users instead of punitive control, to rationalize re-endorsing back into power a regime that is still overseeing one of the worst human atrocities of the 21st century.

[jamesgierach]

DEA 2024 NATIONAL DRUG THREAT ASSESSMENT MISSES THE BOAT

by James E. Gierach

The recently released National Drug Threat Assessment misses the boat. The report says:

“DEA’s top priority is reducing the supply of deadly drugs in our country and defeating the two cartels responsible for the vast majority of drug trafficking in the United States. The drug poisoning crisis remains a public safety, public health, and national security issue, which requires a new approach.

“The shift from plant-based drugs, like heroin and cocaine, to synthetic, chemical-based drugs, like fentanyl and methamphetamine, has resulted in the most dangerous and deadly drug crisis the United States has ever faced,” said DEA Administrator Anne Milgram. “At the heart of the synthetic drug crisis are the Sinaloa and Jalisco cartels and their associates, who DEA is tracking world-wide. The suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and money launderers all play a role in the web of deliberate and calculated treachery orchestrated by these cartels. DEA will continue to use all available resources to target these networks and save American lives.”

DEA “TOP PRIORITY”: Reduce drug supply?

Has the DEA and its leadership learned nothing over the 63 years of America’s War on Drugs? Has it not learned that whatever the drug (cannabis, heroin, crack cocaine, LSD, PCP, ecstasy, meth or fentanyl) DRUG PROHIBITION IS A BOON TO DRUG PRODUCTION, INVENTION, TRAFFICKING, ADDICTION, OVERDOSE, DEATH, ORGANIZED CRIME and VIOLENCE.

The supply-side tactics of interdiction, surveillance, crop-spraying, border-policing, undercover detective work and confidential-informant buying DO NOT REDUCE SUPPLY.

Drug prohibition is like Rumpelstiltskin Magic that guarantees more drugs, uncontrolled and unregulated, everywhere. See “The Silver Bullet Solution: Is it time to end the War on Drugs?” (Guadium, 2023) by James E. Gierach.

The DEA is right about one thing: more drugs (more drugs appearing based upon its insistence on the prohibition of drugs) increases the risk to “public safety, public health, and national security.”

Unfortunately, and equally obviously, the DEA does not know what to do about it. Drug poisoning from drug prohibition requires a “new approach.” How about legalized drugs, regulated markets, government inspection, dealer licensing, fixed places of business, regulated hours and health warnings. Recall how poisoning and crime from unregulated alcohol was stopped with legalized alcohol markets, not more unwanted, unworkable Prohibition.

Today, a century later: Same societal prohibition sickness; same societal fix. LEGALIZE DRUGS.

Second “DEA OVERSIGHT”: More of the same (continued prohibition) from the DEA will not help.

The DEA thrives on its drug-prohibition mandate. It plays Drug War, Monopoly Money and Cops and Robbers with the Sinaloa and Jalisco drug cartels. The result is more new synthetic drugs that DEA agents ever dreamed when plant-drugs were the prohibited enemy.

The 2018 Shadow Report (Marie Nougier, “A Taking Stock: a Decade of Drug Policy, a Civil Society Shadow Report,” International Drug Policy Consortium, 2018, p. 27, http://fileserver.idpc.net/library/Shadow_Report_FINAL_ENGLISH.pdf) is a study basically asking, “What has the World War on Drugs done for us lately?” The report was prepared by the well-respected International Drug Policy Consortium using United Nations drug use and drug-invention statistics.

The Shadow Report noted that during the preceding ten-year period analyzed, drug cartels had invented 803 new synthetic drugs. It’s fair to say, drug prohibition policy never before ever produced more new mind-altering, synthetic drugs in any previous ten-year historical period of human life. Again, “The Silver Bullet Solution:…”supra, explains how and why drug prohibition, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller’s mandatory-minimum, drug-sentencing laws and constitutional ex post facto laws converged to create an unexpected and unintended deluge of new synthetic drugs.

It’s 2024. Time to end the lost War on Drugs. Half-measures (legalized beer, legalized marijuana, or Oregon-styled drug decriminalization) will only further delay what society needs: full-dose, LEGALIZED, REGULATED and CONTROLLED DRUGS.

Let the DEA pack up and go home. Let DEA agents, and other federal and state law enforcement agents and officers, keep their drug-war winnings and drug-policing pensions, a significant part of America’s trillion-dollar drug-war spending. But let society out from under the worst public in the history of mankind—DRUG PROHIBITION, common denominator to a dozen crises and problems: “Violence, Gangs, Guns, Drugs, Policing, Mass Incarceration, Racism, Immigration, Human Rights, Healthcare, AIDS, and Corruption.” (“The Silver Bullet Solution:…,” supra.)

Palos Park, Illinois

May 9, 2024

[bitter-sweet-coffee]

putting wavouge on the same list as espilver, aka “i don’t trust the fandom to do this properly so if you make any content of it whatsoever i am fagblasting away from you so hard”

[conspiciouslytransgender]

On the Nature of Society and Crime

The nature of civilization and society is the belief that there are extenuating circumstances and that one commits crimes not because they want to hurt others, but rather because they want to help themselves. The mandate of societies everywhere since the dawn of humanity is to address systemic societal problems and meet the needs of its citizens. People need more mental healthcare, they need better wages, they need equal distribution of wealth. There needs to be harm reduction, we need to quit throwing addicts in jails and put them in psychiatric care. We need to decriminalize drugs immediately. We need to decriminalize prostitution. We need to get rid of mandatory minimums. We need to address that while white people commit crimes at the same rate as black people, blacks are disproportionately more likely to be arrested for crimes. We need to stop throwing petty thieves into jail and start asking ourselves why they stole in the first place. As long as there are millionaires and billionaires in the US, people to gain by keeping the lower class in jail and submissive to the economic and bureaucratic gears of this country, there will be needy, have-nots people, and there will be crimes. The insane wealth inequality, the harsh sentencing laws, and the criminalization of certain actions or substances, all of it contributes massively towards crimes of wants and needs. Labor is entitled to all it creates. By distributing the spoils equally, we all have the world to gain and nothing to lose.

[dangerliesbeforeyou]

dont mind me, complaining again lol

but i find it really frustrating that when a celeb is revealed to be abusive or just generally a gross person, there's always a group of people who are like 'oh i aLWAYS thought they were weird' or 'oh i NEVER liked them!' and it's just.... so unhelpful lol?

for me it just perpetuates the idea that abusers/groomers/etc are 'easy to spot' or that there are always signs, and especially for the victims, i feel like it's rubbing it in their face that they didn't spot those signs! the fact is, a lot of people that commit heinous acts /aren't/ easy to spot, which is why they can often get away with it for so long! (also, literally EVERYONE is capable of committing heinous acts!! abusers, murderers, rapists, etc aren't some special breed of person)

like it's true that there are sometimes warning signs, but rather than being like 'oh of COURSE that person is bad' i'd prefer if people said 'these are things i noticed in their past behaviour that made me dislike them' or something similar where it can actually be part of a more useful conversation!

basically i just want people to stop acting holier-than-thou about stuff please lol

[coochiequeens]

Not only are Leicestershire police focusing on this when that area is dealing with actual hate crimes but they are using photos of a model in the advertising might not be getting paid.

Leicestershire Police are under fire for a Twitter post in which they appear to suggest that using an incorrect name for a trans-identified individual could be reported as a “hate crime.”

On October 8, Leicestershire Police’s Stay Safe Twitter account launched a social media campaign advertising Stamp It Out, an anti-hate resource website which provides information on the laws surrounding hate crimes in the area.

Stay Safe, a combined account for the force’s Crime Reduction Officers and Hate Crime Officer, was encouraging social media users to utilize Stamp It Out’s online reporting system in the event they experienced a hate crime.

The campaign’s Twitter posts, of which there were 7 in total, all include a black-and-white graphic with a photo of a person, and a quote in which they described an experience being targeted on the basis of their identity or appearance.

But one of the posts in particular has gone viral for appearing to suggest that calling a transgender person by a non-preferred name would be considered a reportable hate crime.

The graphic featured a photo of a man with long, blond hair, and a quote which read: “I get called by my previous male name on purpose, but that’s not who I am. it can be really hurtful, especially when it’s just seen as a joke.” The quote and photo were attributed to “Jane, 57” of Hinckley. 

Despite purporting to depict a real member of the community, “Jane” is in fact a stock image model who has appeared in dozens of licensable photos across popular stock image websites.

The model was also featured in a “body positive” lingerie campaign in 2015 for Lane Bryant, an American women’s apparel and intimates specialty retailer focusing on plus-size clothing. 

The photos used by Leicestershire Police were taken from a series shot by Arizona-based photographer Anna Griessel. It is unlikely that the model was aware of their likeness being utilized by Leicestershire Police for the campaign, as the rights to stock photos are usually purchased through third-parties.

As of this article’s writing, Leicestershire Police’s post featuring “Jane” has wracked up over 3,000 overwhelmingly negative replies, compared to just 267 ‘likes,’ many of which were ironic. 

Many users in the United Kingdom pointed out that Leicester has seen a massive surge in crime recently, and that the force’s campaign appears to demonstrate misplaced priorities. 

“Leicester has just seen unprecedented unrest and violence, including rioting and looting, on its streets, and there have been numerous reports of sexual assault in the county this year. Fortunately, the police are on the case,” popular UK-based information service @ripx4nutmeg wrote sarcastically.

“You will not compel my speech. Do your real job. 3 women a week in the UK are murdered by men not to mention countless rapes and attacks. Where’s your publicity campaign for them and their children?” User@joolzdenby wrote, referencing femicide statistics which show one woman dies by domestic violence every three days in the United Kingdom.

Responding directly to Leicestershire Police, police watchdog We Are Fair Cop asked: “where is the hate crime here, please?”

Speaking to Reduxx, Dr. Kate Coleman of Keep Prisons Single Sex pointed out that what Leicestershire Police were suggesting was a criminal offense — “deadnaming” a transgender person — was in fact not a legal matter at all.

“A hate crime is a normal crime plus an aggregator. In this case, it would be hostility on the basis of transgender identity,” Dr. Coleman said. “But where is the crime in the example Leicestershire gives There is no crime. So this cannot be a hate crime.”

Coleman is the director of Keep Prisons Single Sex(KPSS), a campaign group focused on advocating for prisons to be segregated by sex, not self-declared gender identity. KPSS is vocal about the rights of women in the UK legal system, and has recently launched a crowdfunder to assist with their activism efforts.

Coleman slammed Leicestershire Police for their apparent lack of insight into the laws they were purporting to enforce, noting that it was a widespread issue in the United Kingdom. She speculated the cause may be that the police have become “institutionally captured” by gender ideology or its proponents.

“Police forces appear to be consistently unaware that in order for a hate crime to be reported, an actual crime must have been committed,” she said. “Hurting someone’s feelings, offending them, upsetting them or making them cry are not crimes. Yet the police are stating that they appear to be willing to act as if they are.”

Despite “misgendering” and “deadnaming” not being crimes in the United Kingdom, multiple women have been arrested or threatened with arrest on those grounds.

In 2019, a mother in Hertfordshire was arrested in front of her children and held for over 7 hours after being reported for “misgendering” a man who identified as a woman on Twitter. Kate Scottow’s conviction was ultimately overturned on appeal the next year, but was just one of many similar cases that would emerge. 

Coleman expresses cautious optimism for the state of free speech rights in the United Kingdom, but stresses that many women are still concerned about being arrested and possibly charged for expressing factually accurate statements related to biology or gender ideology.

“I firmly believe that our determination to fight on will continue. Each day more people, men as well as women, realize the extent of this threat to freedom of speech. I am optimistic, but it would not surprise me if police forces double-down before things improve.”

The backlash against Leicestershire Police comes just weeks after a similar incident in Sussex. 

The Sussex Police force came under fire after a series of posts cautioning Twitter users who were “misgendering” a serial pedophile named in one of their case updates. Taken by many to be a thinly-veiled threat of criminalization, some users asked if they could be charged if they continued to refer to the predator as a “man.” Sussex Police replied to those users with a link to their website outlining the nature of a hate crime, and encouraging people to ensure their “gender critical views” were “not targeted at an individual.”

Sussex Police ultimately retracted the tweets and apologized after widespread outrage.

By Anna Slatz Anna is the Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief at Reduxx, with a journalistic focus on covering crime, child predators, and women's rights. She lives in Canada, enjoys Opera, and kvetches in her spare time.

This what the cops should be focusing on

[benbamboozled]

I just…HOW can you say that someone is more cop THAN THE GUY WHO WAS LITERALLY IN-CANON an ACTUAL COP???

[practicalsolutions]

Bones are so weird. I keep discovering new ones all the time and it's always a surprise to me. Like, wow. Wtf is this? Where did this come from? Well, I guess it's mine now.

[highdensityrabbitsituation]

Imagine your roommate and friend of twenty years takes you out to dinner and tells you that when you purchased a video game it was a hate crime against them and they'll be moving out in September. And then somehow you have to live with this person for seven more months

[faytelumos]

A Month of Kisses, #9

"Damn it!" he yelled, throwing the file down hard on his desk. He whipped around, jabbing a finger at her. "Why! Why is it always you!" She snorted a laugh, putting a hand to her chest.

"I was just doing my job, hon'," she snapped.

"No," he growled, marching closer, "no, you're doing my job. Again!"

"Maybe if you weren't off in left field chasing leads," she said with obnoxious air quotes, "I wouldn't have to step in all the time!"

"You don't have to step in at all!" he yelled. "I have my cases perfectly conrtolled!"

"You're an idiot!" she cried. "God, the number of times I have had to cover for your ass!"

"I don't need you to cover for me!" he said slowly, enunciating each word, leaning in.

"You were nearly fired this morning!" she snapped.

"I have everything under control!"

"You don't have control of a damned thing!" she snapped, stomping her foot. "This place needs you, hon'—"

"Don't call me that!"

"—you need to take better care of yourself!"

"Stop!" he snapped, standing back, holding up his hands. He was grinning bitterly, taking a step back. "I can take care of myself perfectly well."

"When was the last time you slept?" she demanded, then quickly added: "For more than four hours?"

"Who even has that kind of time?"

"When was the last time you ate a full meal that wasn't handed to you through a window?"

"Do not tell me about the food triangle — I'm so sick of the food triangle!"

"How long has it been since you had more than one day at home doing something you enjoy?"

"I enjoy work!" he barked, every bit of him snapping back into alignment on her. "And fuck anyone who tells me that's not good enough!"

"Honey, you need a break!" she shouted, stepping closer. "You need to step back and rest!"

"No!" he cried, his eyes wild. "You just want my job!"

"Holy shit!" she screamed, wearing a humorless smile. "I am not after your fucking job!"

"That's all anyone ever wants!" he cried, backing away. "I worked too long to get here! I have clawed my way here for almost fifteen years!"

"You're invaluable!" she bellowed. "They're not just gonna throw you away!"

"Yes they will!" He turned away, trying to hide the desperate tears gathering. "They think I'm losing it! They just tried to fire me!" he hollered, looking back to her. "Make up your mind!"

She stood still, rubbing her thumbs hard against her fingertips. He was panting, his eyes were red, his fingers trembled.

"You're the best person here at what you do," she said slowly, moving closer. "I'm just trying to keep you here." He pursed his lips, anger swelling again in his chest.

"Stop. Helping me," he snarled. "Because you keep fucking me up." She growled, pressed her hands to her face, and let out a bitter chuckle.

"You're a moron," she whispered. He gritted his teeth and drew in a breath to argue, but she gripped his jacket and lunged forward, bending him backwards slightly with a kiss.

His brain stopped working for a moment. Was this real? Yes, yes, she was really kissing him. The gears started turning again, and suddenly everything she was saying made a lot more sense.

She pulled away, looking at him nervously. He registered the face he was making — complete and utter surprise — probably wasn't helping her. He looked away, and she let go of his jacket so he could smooth it out.

"Uh," he muttered, looking down at a coworker's desk, "you're not trying to…." He bit back on that question; he suddenly didn't want to fight anymore.

"I'm sorry," she rushed, backing away. "I'm sorry, that probably wasn't okay." She grabbed her keys and his head snapped up.

"Wait! Wait." She watched him, hope and worry mingling on her face. He looked down again; he had no idea what was going on right now, but it was pulling something in his chest. "Maybe… uh, maybe we can look over this case. Together." He looked up at her, but the hope and eagerness on her face made him look away instantly. "I'll try not to rip your throat out."

"Okay," she huffed. He glanced over again to see her smiling. "Okay. Yeah. I'll-I'll text you my address, uh, bring the file over; I can make us something to eat, we can go over the details." He balked; they'd just been screaming at each other five seconds ago and she actually felt comfortable inviting him to her house? Did she really even have his number?

She ran out of the office then without so much as a "bye" and left him standing at someone else's desk, still shocked. God, what was happening? Was he having a stroke?

He made his way slowly back to his desk and gathered up the papers that had slid out of the file jacket. It was fine. If she was willing to do what he asked instead of getting in his way, he'd be able to help more people.

Hopefully.

[gwemmieee]

Hey, have you ever examined the deep fear, paranoia, and shame you feel whenever you try to examine or voice something you feel deep down that you're worried someone else might take issue with? Don't you feel bad about all the subtle ways it renders you less able to know yourself, love yourself, express yourself, and advocate for yourself? If you're thinking about all that social anxiety horror that Super Eye Patch Wolf just talked about, and if you're so utterly afraid of standing out or going against the crowd--this is related to that.

It's probably because you think it's good to call someone out before it's proven that they are knowingly and willfully causing harm. It's probably because you think people should be punished if they harm someone period, even if it was by accident or without knowing. Even if it might have just been a misunderstanding and no real harm done was anyone's fault. And it's only fair that the same standard applies to you as well, isn't it?

It's probably because you've internalized that your value as a human being deserving of love and community can be reduced or eliminated if you say something wrong enough loudly enough. It's probably because, even if you do not ascribe to thought crime, and you agree that we should not demonize ourselves or each other for our own thoughts and feelings as long as we put in the work to be good with our actions, you tripped at the finish line when you forgot about the basic fact of human psychology that we can't translate negative thoughts into positive action without being able to speak about it openly in a space where others will truly understand how we feel, and not just skip straight to the part where feeling that way is already cringe before you've actually fully internalized your own growth past it.

It's probably because you have privilege as someone who has ever had access to real friends/family who stand by you no matter what heinous shit you say or do, and that privilege has enabled you to learn a lot very quickly about how to appear as a good person in society, because those friends/family allowed you to actually feel supported as a human being with feelings before you knew better, which is a hard prerequisite to ever knowing better, and you have not examined that privilege.

It's probably because you think you can sniff out who's good or bad just on vibes and act as judge, jury, and executioner, instead of focusing on harm reduction for anyone who you know was hurt and learning some hard realities about human interaction. For example, being ignorant is not the same as acting on that ignorance. Voicing ignorance without aggression and then being willing to learn something is actually a good thing for others to view in public, because it teaches valuable lessons to everyone paying attention, and anyone who feels validated and empowered to be shitty from such an exchange was just looking for an excuse.

I think this knowledge is something that we feminists should stand for. Anti-militancy. I know it's hard to tell here on this gremlin-ass modern internet for many of us due to circumstances beyond our control, but when you actually go outside and have friends IRL, you'll notice that feminine people out there already understand most of this.

Remember when we used to talk about being tolerant of everything except intolerance? Well, this is part of that. You're not supposed to dehumanize someone and ignore their feelings just for sounding racist one time. You're supposed to try to educate them or, failing that, practice harm reduction (which can escalate into a callout if they're truly a bad actor). Punching nazis is for when you literally fucking know that someone is willfully being harmful (perhaps because they're platforming hate). Most of them don't just cosplay as nazis in easy ways to pick out. That's why fascists are so insidious and good at infiltrating spaces. Each of us has a desperate hope that I am the one, it's me, I can be able to know at a glance who is good or bad, without taking the time and effort to get to know them first. And they prey on that. They use that to make us fight each other instead of them.

"Oh, but Gwemmie, does this mean you're defending X or Y person?" I dunno, how does their situation compare to what I just said? This post was inspired by the many times I have been dogpiled and ostracized for openly using language in autistic ways that have been confused for bigotries or insensitivities that just weren't in my speech or my thoughts (usually because those doing the dogpiling put words in my mouth, didn't parse a sentence correctly, or just decided to be ableist and go off vibes instead of what I very openly say). If you come in here thinking I'm making this post to subtweet about anyone else, you're part of the problem.

[jamesgierach]

GIERACH DRUG POLICY DECLARATION

“Recreational drug prohibition is an economic policy choice made to fight drug use & addiction, but ironically & counterintuitively, drug prohibition is the most effective means to incentivize drug production, invention & trafficking. The immutable economic rules regarding price, supply and demand cause the drug-prohibition-policy choice to increase drug availability, potency, variety, use, overdose & dependency. Recreational drug prohibition serves as the common denominator to a dozen crises, globally. That United Nations public policy choice, ratified by 186 nations, is the foundation of the World War on Drugs, doing more harm to public safety, health, sobriety, freedom, democracy and human rights than an preceding public policy in the history of mankind. Nothing short of drug legalization & regulation of all commonly used recreational drugs can set civilization’s train back on the tracks.”

Read “The Silver Bullet Solution: Is it time to end the War on Drugs?” by James E. Gierach.

September 19, 2024

Palos Park, Illinois

USA