The Truth About Ron DeSantis' Fentanyl Horror Story
The culprit is prohibition, not lax border policing.

The second Republican debate of the 2024 presidential campaign cycle took place at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library on Wednesday, and at various points throughout the night the topic turned to drug policy.
The candidates argued over the proliferation of fentanyl—the synthetic opioid significantly more potent than morphine or heroin that is often found mixed with other narcotics purchased on the black market. Specifically, the candidates squabbled over who would most aggressively weaponize the military and federal power in an attempt to prevent illicit fentanyl from reaching American shores.
Some of the candidates deployed anecdotes gleaned from the campaign trail of people whose loved ones died of fentanyl overdoses in order to justify increasingly oppressive drug policy. But Gov. Ron DeSantis's example is much more complicated than he let on.
"In Florida, we had an infant, 18 months [old]," DeSantis said. "Parents rented an Airbnb, and apparently the people that had rented it before were using drugs. The infant was crawling, the toddler was crawling on the carpet and ingested fentanyl residue and died. Are we just going to sit here and let this happen, this carnage happen in our country? I am not going to do that." As he has in the past, DeSantis used the story to illustrate the need for tougher drug and immigration policy, up to and including shooting people as they cross the border with Mexico.
A campaign official confirmed to Reason that DeSantis was referring to Enora Lavenir,* the 19-month-old daughter of a French couple vacationing in Wellington, a small Florida town near West Palm Beach. The Lavenirs rented a four-bedroom house through Airbnb, where on August 7, 2021, Enora's mother Lydie Lavenir found her unconscious and foaming at the mouth. Paramedics rushed the girl to the hospital, where she was pronounced dead.
Last year, the Lavenirs filed a wrongful death suit against Airbnb, the property's owners, and the most recent previous renter. The lawsuit has since been amended to add additional defendants including HomeAway, the parent company of Vrbo, another home-rental service through which the prior tenant rented the house. According to the lawsuit, "the medical examiner detected a lethal level of Fentanyl in Enora's blood and determined that her cause of death was acute Fentanyl toxicity. Toxicology readings indicated a quick death, ruling out the possibility that Enora came into contact with Fentanyl anywhere else but in the Airbnb rental."
Contrary to DeSantis's statement at the debate, the lawsuit does not claim that Enora was "crawling on the carpet and ingested fentanyl residue." In fact, the suit does not speculate exactly how Enora came into contact with the drug; it merely alleges that Airbnb and Vrbo have "known for years that drug use is prevalent in [their] properties" and "that drugs, paraphernalia, and residue are frequently left behind in rentals, that there is a substantial risk of them being left behind, and that when they are left behind they pose a fatal risk to future guests, including children and infants."
As to the owners, the suit alleges that the property "had a history of being used as a party house" and that days before the Lavenirs checked in, the previous tenant and/or his guests brought "illicit drugs to the subject premises," which the Lavenirs believe "included, but were not limited to, powder cocaine, powder cocaine laced with Fentanyl, Fentanyl, and/or marijuana."
But according to police reports from the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, "it was unknown how the decedent ingested the fentanyl and the source of the fentanyl" as "there were no signs of any illegal narcotics at the crime scene," either on the premises or in the Lavenirs' toxicology. When interviewed, the previous tenant admitted throwing a party that included the use of marijuana and powder cocaine, but according to the investigator's report, he "does not recall seeing any signs of any material which he would consider to be fentanyl" and had "no explanation as to how fentanyl would have got into the residence."
The medical examiner concluded that Enora ingested the substance that killed her; contrary to sometimes-hysterical press coverage, it is not possible to absorb fentanyl through the skin. And since investigators could find no source for the drugs, it's not accurate for DeSantis to state definitively that she "ingested fentanyl residue" from the carpet.
More to the point, it's entirely inappropriate for DeSantis to use Enora Lavenir's death as a justification for a more aggressive drug policy. After all, prohibition is the reason that fentanyl gets mixed into illicit drugs in the first place. Drug users are not asking for an extremely potent opioid to be mixed into the narcotics they buy; drug traffickers, in the face of severe penalties, shifted to a cheaper alternative of higher potency to cut into the drugs that people do want.
The way to stop the next Enora Lavenir from dying of accidental fentanyl exposure is not by doubling down on prohibition, but by admitting that it's been a failure.
*UPDATE: A campaign official emailed after press time to confirm that DeSantis was referring to the Lavenirs.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
prohibition is the reason that fentanyl gets mixed into illicit drugs in the first place.
You're delusional, Joe. We are under attack by hostile foreign powers using chemical weapons.
That is hyperbole. And it is wrong.
The fentanyl problem largely goes away just as soon as the government stops its persecution of doctors who prescribe opioids.
The hockeystick of overdoses in this country started right as the Obama administration started its national tracking of doctors prescribing opioids, and the subsequent crackdown. Prior to that, I know several people who would get a prescription every month from their doctor. After that, they were hitting me up asking if I had any extra pills after surgery.
Reason is correct: this is a problem created and sustained by our own country. The fact that Foreign Powers are able to exploit it with their fentanyl is solely our own fault.
“The fentanyl problem largely goes away just as soon as the government stops its persecution of doctors who prescribe opioids.”
No. You too are delusional. Because there are plenty of opioid users who physicians want NO part of.
Medicalization is not remotely a “solution” to recreational or any other manner of self use.
You are so wrong as to be laughable.
Never mind that, so long as any sort of government imposed restrictions exist there will inevitably be a black market of one sort or another.
Because, unless I am mistaken, people still manage to produce and sell untaxed ethanol products. To name but one example.
You seem to be missing his point. The fact is that when opioids were more freely prescribed, there wasn't a big fentanyl problem. The supply went away and the market provided a substitute. That's what happened. Good or bad, there were enough doctors writing enough prescriptions that people didn't turn to sketchy, illicit substitutes. Maybe you don't think we should go back to that. There were certainly some doctors who were unethical in their practices. But Overt's point isn't that that was all OK, but rather that it is quite clear that the crackdown lead directly to the present situation with fentanyl.
Doctors prescribe opioids liberally for acute pain and surgery all the time with no problems. What doctors get in trouble for is prescribing opioids for chronic pain because they are actually not very good for that purpose and such prescriptions are often simply for addicts.
Thank you for confirming what I was saying.
Look, the FDA and medical associations determine what drugs and treatments are legal and available based on expert opinion and scientific evidence. Do they get things wrong? All the time. Would this be better left to the free market? Yes. But that's the system we have.
If you don't like that system, lobby for abolishing those institutions. But stop special pleading for your cause-du-jour (abortion, drugs, sex change). Furthermore, if you abolish those institutions, you need to abolish socialized medicine along with it. Simply legalizing drugs while keeping socialized medicine in place is not a libertarian or free market solution.
I know people who are highly successful and are only able to function because they are on long term high doses of opioids for chronic pain. Maybe that's not what works best for everyone, I don't know. But it's NOYB and something people should figure out with their doctors.
So? The crackdown on opioid prescriptions doesn't prohibit the use of opioids for long term pain management. It cracks down on the irresponsible use of opioids in ways that provides no useful pain relief yet causes serious addiction problems.
Frankly, I would prefer if patients could simply sue doctors for damages: each patient who became addicted to opioids and had their lives destroyed should be able to recover $5-10 million from doctors. You can bet that doctors would think twice about prescribing opioids unnecessarily. That's the libertarian solution.
In a libertarian society, one wouldn’t need a prescription to obtain drugs. Prescriptions would be advisory.
Unless the physician decieved the patient about the addictive properties of the drugs, no award of damages is justified. Those patients knew the addictive nature of narcotics. Many regarded “addiction” as better than chronic pain. Are diabetics “addicted” to insulin, or they just need it to deal with symptoms of diabetes? Same with “addiction” to pain meds to treat actual pain. No one was forced to use opioids. People know the addictive qualities.
That is correct. And if a doctor advises you to take opioids and you become addicted, they would be guilty of medical malpractice.
That is incorrect. Patients have no idea what the risks or consequences of taking opioids are; they rely on the expert judgment of medical professionals. Informed consent does not absolve doctors from liability.
Many end up with addiction AND chronic pain AND the side effects of large doses of opioids.
Insulin is non-addictive. Type 1 diabetics are insulin-dependent. In Type-2 diabetics, long-term insulin administration is arguably medical malpractice, and I expect it will be treated that way long term.
As you yourself demonstrate, "people" are thoroughly ignorant of the addictive qualities.
There is no fentanyl problem. If you abuse drugs and overdose and die it does not harm me in any way. If their baby had fallen off a chair in the rental and died, would the Lavenirs be suing everyone in sight for maintaining an unsafe condition in the rental? I'm sorry they lost their baby, but it's just as likely that a doctor in France prescribed fentanyl for one or both of them and that their baby ingested one of their own prescription pills as it is that a previous occupant of the place left behind an expensive illegal pill. If this had been an ordinary hotel or motel room, would the operators be sued for a previous occupant's misdeeds? This whole thing stinks to high heaven!
The primary use for fentanyl is during emergency medicine and surgery. It is rarely prescribed in the US and almost never in Europe, and only to severely ill patients who are unlikely to go on vacations with their new baby. It is not prescribed "in pill form". So, you scenario is not "just as likely", it is actually highly unlikely.
I would be interested in seeing the statistics source you based your opinion on. What little data I was able to find online suggested that at least a million Fentanyl pills are being prescribed per year and that took some digging, buried in the mass of "overdose" propaganda blanketing the web currently.
https://clincalc.com/DrugStats/Top300Drugs.aspx
Patches are, of course, much safer but in any event my comment was intended to compare likelihoods, not accuse anyone of anything! Unlike the Lavenirs who seem to want to accuse everyone else instead of admitting that they failed to supervise their baby well enough to avoid a disastrous accident (if it was an accident.)
AFAIK, no fentanyl "pills" are being prescribed because fentanyl isn't sold in pill form. It is sold in various oral formulations, but they are not "pills".
I'm simply saying, the way fentanyl is prescribed, the diseases it is used for, the nature of the vacation, and the fact that these people came from France makes your scenario very, very unlikely.
Sorry overt. There are actual drug users who seek out fentanyl due to its strength and lower cost. The problem won’t actually go away. Drug users will often trade safety for cost. Even if it was legalized.
It is just an insane assertion. Even in states that are largely legalized we see people seeking out harder drugs. AND even with legal drugs and supplements we see vendors output product not up to what they state.
No state has largely legalized any opioids. The supply is still in the hands of criminals. It's not like junkies have a choice of heroin or oxycodone or fentanyl and choose fentanyl. Yeah, it's cheaper, but it's also way shorter acting and less euphoric.
They do have a choice. Many choose the cheapest and most powerful version they have. Why you are seeing the uptick in even Zombie drugs.
Users are not rational actors for the most part.
Really? A Joe Lancaster story that headlines with "the truth about - - - - - "?
Can you explicitly state what your issue is with the blog post?
It is largely an opinion piece. Therefore not a discussion of truth but hypothetical.
So the truth is - it happened pretty much like DeSantis said….
You and DeSantis have no idea what happened, and neither do the police, the coroner or the parents (unless they did it intentionally) and the point of the article was that, however it happened, it does not justify DeSantis escalating the massively failed war on drugs.
The only thing that has "failed" about the war on drugs is that we aren't enforcing laws against drug users. You could clear 95% of the homeless of US cities if you enforced drug laws as written.
Correct! And you never will be able to "enforce" those laws, and trying harder will only make you fail more massively while doing even greater harm in the attempt. You drug warriors make me tired. I wish you would all wander off into the woods somewhere and get lost playing war games with each other and leave the rest of us alone.
Why not? Remove illegal tents, search them as part of the removal, and if there are any drugs or drug paraphernalia, charge the occupant with drug crimes as well.
I'm not, in fact, a "drug warrior". I frankly couldn't care less whether you pump yourself full of drugs and ruin your life.
What I do care about is that:
(1) Drug users have taken over major US cities. Now, I'm happy with throwing them all into jails for their violations of regular laws. I just think giving them treatment instead is better than jail.
(2) Doctors have been hurting patients by overprescribing opioids. That must stop. That has nothing to do with "the war on drugs"; it is medical malpractice.
But you’ll be happy to know that I have moved to the country. I think people like you deserve to live in the shitholes of your own creation. And I am grateful that you create a place where drug addicts and criminals are attracted to, so that we don’t have to deal with them (or you) where I live.
Not unless there is specific probable cause of some specific offense. So what if they camp on the street and use drugs? It doesn't affect me. Why should I care? People should be happy they have a place and not envy those who do not. No one created the earth. The "homeless" have as much moral right to put their tents on a patch of land somewhere as the single-family homeowner has to put his single-family home on a quarter acre lot. Plus, the homeless tent-dweller takes up less space and crowds out less people than the single-family homeowner taking up a quarter acre. No one created the earth. No one has any greater right to it. Furthermore, it's not the homeless tent-dweller who is bidding up real estate prices and rents. It's the middle class homeowners who are doing that - bidding up home prices, thereby indirectly rents - and expecting top dollar for their homes.
It's not the tent-dwellers blocking multifamily higher density housing. It's the middle-class single-family homeowners associations who do that by lodging protests with local planning commisions and zoning boards against construction of anything but single-family homes on quarter-acre lots. By constricting the supply of housing, the single-family homeowners and their organizations make life more difficult than do the homeless tent-dwellers. If I had to choose one or the other, I'd choose the tent-dwellers. At least they won't be constricting the supply of housing and competing in the housing markets driving up home prices and rents. If they make the neighborhood undesireable, good. It'll drive out the yuppies, and the landlords won't be able to demand as high rents and home sellers won't be able to demand as high prices.
Well, it does affect me.
But my tax dollars paid for that infrastructure.
That's the way it works in liberal democracies and in libertarian societies. It's obvious you have more socialist and authoritarian leanings, but you'll just have to cope.
Why not? Remove illegal tents … I think people like you deserve to live in the shitholes of your own creation.
I do not live anywhere where illegal tent encampments are tolerated. I live somewhere where homeless encampments are not now and will never be tolerated. Again, I could not care less whether the people who do live in those places continue to tolerate them or take action to end them. The vast majority of those places are deep blue high population density urban jurisdictions that have been deteriorating – for various reasons – for a very long time. Homelessness among severely psychiatric and drug addicted people there is a symptom of urban decay, not a cause. I am not willing to let people like you impose a drug war on everyone just because the big cities have a problem.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
It's getting to the point where it's like trying to see how close Lorem Ipsum can be constructed to look like meaningful communication.
Ron DeSantis: The baby ate the fentanyl residue and died.
Joe Lancaster: Nuh uh! The baby ate the cocaine that was laced with residual fentanyl because of prohibition and died.
No wonder the media continues to be despised and distrusted more than even politicians.
They will never even acknowledge a large underground market for weed exists despite it being largely legalized.
If it was legalized how would the market be "underground?" You mean some people buy weed from their neighbor instead of the dispensary?
You drug warriors and prohibitionistas are fools.
Too dumb to understand a topic youre seemingly passionate about. See California.
Because like most people, those who smoke weed prefer not to pay more so that the government gets its taxes.
Johnluke44 must be high on drugs not to realize in states that have legalized marijuana there IS an underground black market that can easily undercut legal marijuana prices. California still has a problem with organized marijuana operations in the forests of California. Colorado also.
And why is that? Over regulation and over taxation which makes it cheaper to grow for and buy from the untaxed unregulated black market rather than the legal market, not because of legalization. Even so, the underground black market is small compared to the legal market. Reduce taxation and regulation to that of any other legal industry and the underground black market will disappear. Alcohol is heavily regulated and there is still a small black market for "moonshine" in the South that evades alcohol taxes and regulation. Reduce regulation and taxation and the problem is solved.
Toxicology didn't report cocaine in the baby's body; we're so luck to have your vivid imagination to fill in the gaps in the factual narrative.
Bullshit...Bullshit...Bullshit...
While I can appreciate your laconic 3 word summary, here is a ~2000 word well referenced article refuting the first and last of your words.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395917301548
The article refutes nothing. Like the Reason article above, it merely speculates about certain relationships. Actually proving the causal relationships it speculates on can't be done given the data we have. That is why the statements above are "bullshit".
OK, fine. This evidence doesn't meet your burden of proof.
I want drug use to be illegal so that drug users can be removed from public streets and forced into treatment; that’s both because they are a nuisance on public streets and because they need to get back to work.
The burden of proof is on you that infringing these liberties will both do what you say and improve the greater good of the state: Go.
I'm not concerned with "improving the greater good of the state". Not at all.
I simply don't want people sleeping in the street or living on government handouts. That applies uniformly to everybody. No liberties are being violated by enforcing such laws.
OK, agreed, but you skipped the crux of the argument, where you said: I want drug use to be illegal...
Saying "I want drug use to be illegal" is not an argument, it is expressing a preference.
STRIKE TWO!
You punctiliously avoid the point again on a painstaking detail like a deep state agent testifying before congress. I'm impressed. Are you a lawyer?
What "point" do you think I am avoiding?
I stated that I want drug use to be illegal so that drug users can be removed from public streets and forced into treatment; that’s both because they are a nuisance on public streets and because they need to get back to work.
Which part of that isn't clear to you? Which part do you have trouble with?
STRIKE THREE!
Quicktown Brix returns to the bench dazzled by the obfuscation of NYOB2. Well done. I give up.
Quicktown Brix is evidently incapable of stating clearly what his position is.
"I want drug use to be illegal so that drug users can be removed from public streets and forced into treatment; that’s both because they are a nuisance on public streets and because they need to get back to work."
You are completely irrational. There is a 115 year historical record to show that throwing people in jail for drugs does not end drug use or keep the users off the streets. If you want to keep people from sleeping in the streets, jail them for sleeping in the streets! But you don't want to do that, you want to jail people for drugs - under laws that apply just as much to those whose drug use is as under control as the person who has a couple of drinks on Saturday.
So it's purely coincidence that fentanyl started to appear all over the illicit market only after the crackdown on prescription pills started?
Fentanyl is a cheap substitute that is easily smuggled. That's why it has replaced other opioids and started to appear in other drugs (weirdly including stimulants). Dope head junkiess would generally prefer heroin (which is bad enough).
Doctors should have 100% discrepancy over what they prescribe. I have zero problems with a doctor prescribing a pill for "addict #7," and neither should you.
At the root of the issue is that irresponsible prescription of opioids has turned millions of Americans into drug addicts. This was a dysfunction of the medical system; the government would have cracked down on those prescriptions even if opioids were otherwise legal.
Of course, as a libertarian, I would have preferred if patients who became addicted to opioids could simply have sued their doctors for millions in damages each; that would also have put an end to this practice.
Either way, cracking down on medical malpractice is not an element of "prohibition" or "the war on drugs".
Also, fixating on fentanyl is missing the point; we would have the same opioid crisis if people took some other opioid instead.
The culprit is lax no-border policing, not insisting on excuses as to why a nation should have a border.
So are we to infer from this that you care so much about drug abusers that you're willing to impose a police state on all of us in order to protect them from themselves? It's very impressive to me that you are so caring and concerned about thousands of random strangers in America!
(1) You obviously have no idea what a “police state” actually looks like.
(2) I want drug use to be illegal so that drug users can be removed from public streets and forced into treatment; that’s both because they are a nuisance on public streets and because they need to get back to work.
I'm just for increasing penalties for crimes in the presence of drugs personally.
How about we start with simply enforcing the laws as they exist now against violent and property crimes?
That would be a good step.
But I also think influencing factors such as addiction to drive crime needs to be addressed.
Same with guns, right? Some objects/substances are just evil to be around.
Well at least it should not be used for mitigating sentencing as it has often been.
Make people be responsible for their own shitty choices. I like to think that would solve a lot of problems. We should at least try it first before piling on more WOD shit.
Personal responsibility...where have I heard this phrase before?
Guns already have increased charges. “With a deadly weapon” is often appended to charges.
Not sure you thought your point through here.
Or even aggravated charges for utilizing a weapon.
https://www.belenlawfirm.com/blog/theft-crimes/what-is-aggravated-robbery/#:~:text=For%20armed%20robbery%20charges%2C%20the,can%20cause%20serious%20bodily%20injury.
Not sure you thought your point through here.
I think my point zipped right over your head.
No. Your attempted point is pretty clear. You may have attempted to say something else but you didn't.
The drug users have as much right to be on public streets as you do. You and society have no right to force anyone into treatment. It’s NOYB – none of your business. You should try to better live up to your moniker, NOYB2. They pay sales taxes on stuff that they buy, like alcohol and cigarettes. That makes them taxpayers whose taxes help pay for the streets. So they have as much right to be and camp on those streets as you or anyone has to put down a single-family home on a quarter acre lot. No one created the earth, they have as much right to it as you do.
Plus, by them being on the streets, they are not bidding up the price of housing for everyone else like you or I are. If anything, their presence on the streets depresses local property values and rents, thereby making housing easier to afford for everyone else.
They have as much right to be on the streets as you have a right to your home. If they create a nuisance by blocking the public right-of-way, then the only thing justified is to move them out of the way or cite them for obstruction of the public right of way. But, you do NOT have the moral right to use force against them except the minimum required to address any specific nuisance that constitutes an infringement of individual rights, like blocking one’s right of passage. Beyond situations like that, you and the government have no moral right to try to improve them against their will.
Well, as a matter of law, that is incorrect: clearly we can and we have criminalized both vagrancy and drug use.
Furthermore, things would be no different in a libertarian society: in a libertarian society, roads would be private, and the road owners would also prohibit vagrancy and drug use on their property.
Well, I believe I do have the moral right to do so. As do the majority of US tax payers and voters.
Just because something is criminalized doesn't necessarily make it morally wrong. The laws of nature, and laws of morality derived from the laws of nature, morally supercede the laws of man. Just because the majority believes itself to be right does not make it right. There are plenty of unjust laws which the majority believes are right - guncontrol laws, tax laws, etc.
How about people who use drugs in their own homes or not on the public streets? You want to prosecute them? Your feelings i.e. your desire not to see any perceived niusance, does not justify the infringement of individual rights. It's None Of Your Business, Too, NOYB2. Try living up to your moniker. Stop obsessing over homeless drug users and learn to respect individual rights.
No, I don't: if you want to destroy your life in your own home, be my guest. However, I believe they should be excluded from disability, Medicare/Medicaid, and social security payments, since those should not pay for self-inflicted harm.
My rights are being infringed to the tune of paying 50% of what I earn to the government. You don't have a moral leg to stand on.
I think the point here is that they are "homeless" because they are hopelessly addicted to drugs that impair their function or severely dysfunctional because of psychiatric illness. They can no longer afford to rent or own a home and can't stay in a shelter for more than a day before being kicked out. They congregate in big cities because they are tolerated there; because catch and release when they violate reasonable laws puts them right back on the streets despite multiple violations - none of which has to do with violating drug laws.
All of these are due to choices they have made and continue to make.
That is, in fact, how most of them became addicted and/or mentally ill.
Furthermore, by charging them with drug violations, we can force them into treatment, rather than just throwing them in jail and letting them rot there.
In any case, how does any of that justify forcing me at gunpoint to give up my property to support their lifestyle?
Here, these addicts you care so much about are at fault because of their 'choices' to flaunt the law. But above you claim the doctors are to blame:
"Frankly, I would prefer if patients could simply sue doctors for damages: each patient who became addicted to opioids and had their lives destroyed should be able to recover $5-10 million from doctors. You can bet that doctors would think twice about prescribing opioids unnecessarily."
Which is it? Addicts are victims, or criminals? They ended up addicts because they chose to break the law, or rather, by going to their malicious doctors legally and in good faith, they were 'turned into' addicts? Make up your mind!
Well, at least you don't have to worry about overprescribing and 'iatrogenic addiction' anymore, since doctors are so afraid to prescribe opioids - even when clearly warranted - that undertreatment and needless suffering are now the status quo.
Moving on, you say you don't want to pay for someone else's 'choices' but you also want to force them into 'treatment.' Let's ignore for now the absolutely abysmal 'success' rates of farcical, unconstitutional forced 'treatments' like 'drug courts' and the like! Who pays for that? Hey, maybe you could force the victims/criminals into forcible treatment and then force the doctors to pay for it all? Drug War Victory all around!
You want the best of all worlds, it seems. To be left alone and not pay...but then again, you're happy to pay just so long as you get to insinuate yourself into others' lives and exert a little 'totally selfless, benevolent coercion' for THEIR betterment and 'the greater good.' After all, it is your duty to live others' lives for them, impart your superior wisdom and generally remake them in your glorious image. You owe it to them!
Like most statists and drug warriors, force and coercion seem to be your drugs of choice. Maybe a little forcible treatment is in order, considering the chaos your type have wrought? They say the best and most lasting improvement begins within!
I don't mean to pick at you too harshly, but for some time now I've read your comments here. You're all over the place, talking in circles and egregiously contradicting yourself. The one recurrent thread in your commentary is your desire to employ state force for your conception of the 'greater good,' regardless of any clear violation of the NAP that might warrant such action. You try to talk a good game and for those with microscopic attention spans, it might work. For those of us with functioning memories, you are a zealous drug warrior and an authoritarian collectivist posing as a libertarian, on your best day. A conflicted leftist at heart, judging by your own words.
How about motorcyclists? How about cigarette smokers and alcohol drinkers? If they were forced to pay into it, they have as much right to it as anyone. If the government had asked them about their drug use at the time of making contributions into the system and refused contributions from drug users, then they could be rightly disqualified. But, if the government forced them to contribute into the system regardless, then they have as much right to the money as anyone.
Then your rightful complaint is against the government, not against drug users and the homeless.
The point was: Enforcing a national border (immigration law) shouldn't need an excuse like drugs.
Enforcing national borders has nothing whatever to do with homelessness or drug addiction. If you allowed free importation of fentanyl from, say, Mexico and put bales of the stuff on every street corner in every Democrat controlled city in America and let the drug addicts overdose and die at will, it would be better then the failed war on drugs and the failed big, beautiful wall bullshit.
That would be true only if easier, legal, quality-controlled availability of drugs didn't cause more drug use.
@MWAocdoc
It's always either
A) False altruism, as you eloquently stated or
B) "Work sets you free" (Nazism). "Why aren't junkies working! Make them work!"
They are either full of shit or nazis.
Wait, so Joe's rebuttal Ron DeSantis' not really implausible, but speculative confabulation is an even larger and more implausible speculative confabulation?
Joe, literally, everyone who read and especially believed your story is now literally dumber for having done so.
Childlike reasoning.
Fools. It's not "childlike reasoning" to desire a free country. "Daddy government" is not longer a meme.
https://twitter.com/ramzpaul/status/1707737388959625641?t=4fZEiHw07rmQOhdDON0y4g&s=19
You can't replace Americans with savages and expect to have a First World country.
[Link]
Boy, you people need a lesson learned! DeSantis is the best chance this country has of holding together and you nit pik him to death! Stuff your opinion where the sun doesn't shine!
On the other hand, I prefer he remain in Florida and continue to protect us from federal infringements of our freedoms.
Finish out the term as governor, then back to the house (or senate) to fight for truth, justice, and the American way.
I would have investigated those parents as suspects in the murder of their infant and thrown out the lawsuit.
Bullshit. If you legalized drugs today the drugs would still keep coming. Typical lefty pretending to be a Libertarian. We need to control our border, all countries need to control their borders and most of them do control their border and we would too if the left would stop helping any and all invaders.
Drug legalization has been a long term effort.
The only certain thing is if all drugs are legalized, we would have no people in prison for drug use
It's rare these days for people to go to prison for nothing more than drug use.
Some 10,000 people were fatally poisoned before America gave up this grand experiment in suppressing vice.
Overdose Deaths Are the Product of Drug Prohibition
Drug legalization will save lives.
STEVE CHAPMAN | 4.12.2018 12:01 AM
Prohibition ran from 1920 to 1933. That's about 700 people per year = about 2000 today.
Population in 1933: 126M; in 2023, 334M.
It is estimated that more than 140,000 people (approximately 97,000 men and 43,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the fourth-leading preventable cause of death in the United States behind tobacco, poor diet and physical inactivity, and illegal drugs.
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov › alcohol-facts-and-statistics
One conclusion: 2000 a year from hootch; 140,000 a year from legal alcohol.
Legalization just opened the the barn door.
2000 poisoning deaths a year ignores the other continuing alcohol related deaths during prohibition. These deaths, while reduced during prohibition, continued and were steadily increasing toward pre-prohition levels throughout the noble experiment. It also ignores the skyrocketing crime and murder rate during prohibition.
Making Cash more than $15k to $18k consistently just by doing basic online work. I have gotten $18376 a month ago just by working on the web. Its a simple and basic occupation to do from home and its profit are greatly improved than customary office work. Each individual can join this activity now just by pursue this link…
I highly recommend everyone to apply.. ..bitecoinsalary.COM