Only if you keep the market alive. Arrest the dealers and administer the drug to addicts for free at clinics? I think that would be an interesting approach. I

Only if you keep the market alive. Arrest the dealers and administer the drug to addicts for free at clinics? I think that would be an interesting approach. I'm not a policy expert. I used to agree with you, but I think part of the issue is trivial access to drugs (see the tenderloin). It's harder for addicts to quit when it's very easy to get the drug (whether that's via dealers or legalization) and the city helps to enable you (hotel shelters, etc.) I understand the good intent and compassion, but a lot of bad policy on the left starts with good intent and ends with unanticipated bad consequences. Cities with arguably crueler enforcement don't have these issues (San Mateo). SF attracts addicts because they know it's lax and drug access is easy. Pair that with NIMBY housing policy and it's very hard to get housed and off of drugs. I'd argue the SF approach to this has been a failure, London Breed's recent speech on the topic is something I agree with. The equilibrium we're trapped in is bad. We need to force a choice and that choice is likely either treatment or prison.