I'm a bit confused what point your are trying to make. You don't ever define open drug scenes and the you link to an abstract for a paywalled article is similar

I'm a bit confused what point your are trying to make. You don't ever define open drug scenes and the you link to an abstract for a paywalled article is similarly lacking. Based on some searching I found a paper that provides the following definition: "Open drug scenes are gatherings of drug users who publicly consume and deal drugs." But also acknowledges it is generally a fairly loosely defined term. You repeatedly say "don't support open drug scenes" but never explain what you mean beyond a vague assertion that advocates for the unhoused support open drug scenes. You make absolutely no concrete comments on specific policy approaches, you just dismiss an entire group in a very general fashion. Homelessness and open drug scenes are entwined, but different issues. Not all people at an open drug scene are unhoused. Many unhoused people are not drug addicts, though they tend to be less noticeable than the ones who are. All of this seems to be a red herring since the article we are discussing brings up specific laws. Those are not laws focused in any way on addressing open drug scenes, but rather laws that target vagrancy in general. These laws are being pushed forward by groups funded by private prison owners. Thus your assertion that this is somehow not true with a deflection onto "open drug scenes" is not convincing.