>The context of this discussion is deterrence of drug dealing in a city… No. It literally is not. This article is about: “CA Appeals Court Rules San Francisco

>The context of this discussion is deterrence of drug dealing in a city… No. It literally is not. This article is about: “CA Appeals Court Rules San Francisco Cannot Ban Tenderloin Drug Dealers” Subject: California Appeals Court Verb: rules (against) Object: San Francisco(/SFPD) What has happened in this news article was an accounting of how multiple courts in California have ruled that this injunction violated people’s rights. The SFPD suffered an embarrassing loss because they tried some absolutely bonkers loophole-building as part of a petulant tantrum, and multiple courts struck it down for good reason. That’s what the article is literally about. You would like drug dealing to be the topic, or overreach by prosecutors (but not police), or a weird bad-faith equivocation with protections for abused spouses, or some abstract concept of what’s mathematically optimal or acceptable for jail populations. However, the article about how multiple courts have ruled that the silly baby attempt at Judge Dredd was unconstitutional is about… how multiple courts have ruled that the silly baby attempt at Judge Dredd was unconstitutional. Anyway, you can buy fentanyl in prison! Or order it off the dark web and get it sent to your mailbox. I am assuming you know this, which means your request for a wild expansion of police powers, despite courts ruling that is terrible for human rights, is something that you would advocate for anyway.