3 ms·
Because the drug policy is one of San Francisco’s overarching social failures? The city hands hundreds of millions of dollars to outreach organizations that op
by freyir 8y ago
Because the drug policy is one of San Francisco’s overarching social failures?
The city hands hundreds of millions of dollars to outreach organizations that operate with little oversight and offer no results. We hand out 400,000 needles a month to IV drug users, and the dirty needles end up in the streets and sidewalks, putting everyone at risk. There is human feces everywhere. We allow open use in broad daylight. In some neighborhoods, we allow open dealing in parks and street corners. Police don’t bother to make arrests because the DA wouldn’t prosecute anyway. More and more homeless drug addicts move here to take advantage of the de-facto deregularization. The city reacts by throwing more money at the problem, without oversight or results, and the cycle continues.
The large number of homeless who are mentally ill or addicted to opiates are unaffected by the housing costs, because they couldn’t afford a house at any price.
- monetus 8y agoI think the message you are trying to impart is a bit lost in the vindictiveness you're implying. Imperfect rehabilitative justice might make society spiteful of inefficiency, but punitive justice doesn't have the best record there either.
- bigj0n 8y agoIts relative. Punitive justice isnt perfect, but the track record for for more punitive cities seems to be much better than the cities who arent punitive.
- freyir 8y agoI didn’t mention vindictiveness. I mentioned that dealers are allowed to break the law in the open without consequence. Vindictiveness is how you’ve chosen to interpret that.
- monetus 8y agoI don't want to argue over the word choice, I said you implied it. Regardless, what I was trying to imply in response was that it would be unfortunate if despairing over deregulation's current state led to the belief that "tough on crime" approaches are a better alternative.
- freyir 8y ago“Vindictive” means an strong or unreasonable desire for revenge. I didn’t imply that I want that. You’re creating a false dichotomy between not enforcing laws on one hand, and being vindictive on the other. If those are the only alternatives you can see, that’s on you.
- monetus 8y agoWhy are you trying to argue over the word? Are you purposely trying to distract from your point and start an argument? If you don't accept how I tried to refine your point, then okay, but don't obfuscate it further. "Police don’t bother to make arrests because the DA wouldn’t prosecute anyway. More and more homeless drug addicts move here to take advantage of the de-facto deregularization." This reads like bemoaning they aren't locking people up, and is the rhetoric of tough on crime libertarians in my area. "The city reacts by throwing more money at the problem, without oversight or results, and the cycle continues." This reads like a justification for criminalization. If you don't think the criminal system is vindictive, I don't know what to tell you. There are of course multiple options. That was what my initial post was trying to emphasize, not that you are some vengeful onlooker. Edit: maybe I should emphasize this part of your sentence, "without oversight or results, and the cycle continues." because refining that rather than our dumb argument makes more sense.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- scruple 8y agoVindictive is your word. I didn't read vindictiveness in anything that the GP wrote here.