The drug crisis plan proposed by Bob Ferguson has left many people puzzled. It is perplexing to see that he was one of the advocates for drug decriminalization, a move that contributed to the opioid crisis in Washington and the fentanyl epidemic in Seattle. And now, he claims to want to address the very issue he helped create?
Ferguson emphasizes that his crisis response plan aims to tackle drug trafficking and enhance treatment options for individuals. He plans to finance this initiative through a settlement with drug companies, specifically related to the opioid crisis. Additionally, he intends to allocate more funds towards multijurisdictional drug task forces. However, it is worth noting that he had previously attempted to reduce funding for these task forces.
The campaign for governor led by Bob Ferguson describes his plan as “bold,” although it would be disingenuous to label it as such. In reality, it lacks specificity and seems to be derived from existing plans. Furthermore, given the inconsistency with his own track record, it is difficult to place trust in his proposed solutions. It begs the question, why would we rely on an arsonist to extinguish the fire he ignited?
Isn’t the Bob Ferguson drug crisis plan addressing the crisis he helped start?
The Bob Ferguson drug plan recognizes the devastating impact of fentanyl on our communities. This powerful drug is claiming more lives than ever before, especially among the homeless population. However, it seems that Bob Ferguson is unwilling to take responsibility for his role in the alarming increase of fatal overdoses.
After the Washington State Supreme Court, known for its far-left leanings, ruled the state’s felony drug possession law unconstitutional, Attorney General Bob Ferguson wasted no time in urging Democrats to view this as a golden opportunity to decriminalize drugs.
“I hope that Washington will change its course and shift away from the failed war on drugs,” he expressed. “It’s time to try a new approach by eliminating the criminal penalties for possessing a non-commercial quantity of drugs. I remain optimistic that the state legislature will have the courage to take this necessary and bold step.”
In his prediction, Ferguson anticipated that if Democrats embraced his proposal, it would yield nothing but positive outcomes. He further added, “But I have a feeling that within the next five, ten, or fifteen years, officials from other states will also show support for what I believe will transpire here in Washington.” It didn’t take long for us to witness the unfolding of events throughout the state of Washington.
Seattle’s decision to address the drug crisis it created will result in the wastage of federal funds, warns Jason Rantz.
What happened when Washington adopted Bob Ferguson’s drug decriminalization idea?
Following Ferguson’s advice, Democrats made the bold move of decriminalizing drugs. The outcome of this decision was nothing short of astonishing.
King County, the epicenter of the state, experienced a staggering number of fatal overdoses, making history in the process. Seattle, in particular, contributed to this record-breaking figure, accounting for 1,337 tragic deaths caused by drug overdoses. In response, local leaders have allocated substantial funding to tackle the repercussions of this crisis. However, rather than focusing on treatment, the state has predominantly invested in “harm reduction” approaches endorsed by Ferguson. The objective of harm reduction is to minimize the adverse effects associated with illicit drug abuse.
In reality, the approach involves distributing drug paraphernalia such as clean needles, fentanyl pipes, and “booty bumping kits.” Interestingly, one effective harm reduction tool is electronic cigarettes. However, Ferguson deemed smoking vapor to be more hazardous than smoking fentanyl, meth, and heroin.
The attorney general played a silent role throughout the drug crisis that he had a hand in starting, without acknowledging its impact on homelessness. The situation deteriorated to such an extent that Democrats had no choice but to completely retract the Bob Ferguson drug decriminalization plan and reinstate the illegality of illicit substance use (although with reduced severity). During the discussions on how to reverse his own plan, Ferguson distanced himself from the matter. He didn’t want the public to remember that he was one of the leading advocates of the plan that resulted in the deaths of thousands. It was only after it became evident that the public supported rescinding the drug decriminalization plan that Ferguson’s office (not Ferguson himself) issued a statement in support.
According to a spokesperson, Attorney General Ferguson is in favor of the Legislature working together to develop a bipartisan solution. This solution would aim to hold individuals accountable for selling drugs, engaging in public drug use, and refusing court-ordered treatment. At the same time, it would also focus on significantly expanding our public health response to help those who are struggling with substance use disorder.
Jason Rantz’s content highlights a critical misstep made by the Bob Ferguson campaign when it comes to crime.
Bob Ferguson says he supports funding, so why did he reportedly aim to partially defund drug task forces?
Ferguson’s office played a crucial role in suing opioid manufacturers, which ultimately led to funds being recovered for the state of Washington as part of a settlement. However, the Bob Ferguson campaign is now seeking credit for this accomplishment, despite the fact that he has not been held accountable for his own involvement in the crisis. It seems that he is relying on the voters not delving too deeply into his past.
While the funding has already been allocated, it enables him to convey to voters that he continues to prioritize treatment over imprisonment, a stance that is widely supported by residents. Despite pledging to “boost funding for multijurisdictional drug task forces,” KING 5 revealed that Ferguson actually attempted to reduce funding.
The Washington State Department of Commerce distributes federal funding obtained from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant. As reported by KING 5, Attorney General Bob Ferguson is advocating for a portion of this grant money to be utilized for enhancing the security of election workers. By highlighting the perceived threats posed by “MAGA supporters,” Ferguson and other Democrats are shifting the focus away from the crises they have caused and redirecting attention towards Donald Trump, who continues to elicit strong reactions from progressive voters in Washington. The current funding, which amounts to nearly $3 million, is primarily used to support the operational expenses of 16 active task forces.
Tobin Meyer, chief criminal deputy with the Skagit County Sheriff’s Office, expressed his frustration with the devastating impact of Fentanyl on communities. As the drug task force commander, he found it counterintuitive to have to advocate for funding amidst the destruction caused by this dangerous substance. He couldn’t help but be astounded by the situation.
Jason Rantz shares his insights on Bob Ferguson’s continuous failures in his political crusade against cops.
Isn’t the flip-flopping mind boggling?
Ferguson has always harbored a strong ambition to become governor. He strategically utilized the Washington State Office of the Attorney General as a tool to advance his political campaign, advocating for positions that he could later use as talking points once Gov. Jay Inslee decided to step down. However, he never anticipated that the public’s opinion would shift so rapidly.
Ferguson’s credibility in his statements remains a topic of debate, as he often changes his stance abruptly. However, he probably didn’t anticipate another significant change happening so quickly after the initial one. Despite his silence on the matter of violence, Ferguson, along with many other white Democrats, embraced the Black Lives Matter movement. This move allowed them to gain social recognition as they positioned themselves as advocates for racial justice. During that period, the public sentiment was in favor of defunding the police and advocating for the decriminalization of drugs.
In just three years, the public’s perception of Ferguson has drastically changed. He is no longer seen as a principled figure, but rather as a power-hungry opportunist who is willing to do or say anything to advance his own ambitions. This transformation is concerning because he is already abusing his authority in the attorney general’s office. The idea of him becoming governor is truly alarming, as it poses a direct threat to the integrity of our state’s governance.
