Thank you for the follow up. We are at small risk of talking past each other. One correction if I may, SF had open hard drug use - that policy was reversed. Is

Thank you for the follow up. We are at small risk of talking past each other. One correction if I may, SF had open hard drug use - that policy was reversed. Is that correct? I'm looking at: [1] > There was a time when suggesting that at some point in the intervention chain arrest should be at least be considered was treated as abhorrent. I acknowledge this. I think I understand the perspective. I would tend to agree too. It's one thing to say "hey, criminilization is a whack-a-mole game, we're really just wasting money and not helping anyone" vs a very extreme version of that with zero enforcement in-all-cases no matter what. One thing I've learned recently though is that CA has dumped some pretty serious money into the problem. It reads as those attempts were ineffective for a number of other reasons. My perspective, from Seattle, where the whack-a-mole policies have been lessened & there has been no serious money to back a sustained solution. It's seemingly a very different situation. Though, even still, we may have the possible biggest difference in perspective in viewing the desired intent from whack-a-mole criminilization. I don't think anyone was really calling the pause of that type of enforcement as an actual solution. Yet, CA was backing up the rhetoric with money for other programs. So, namely, putting a person in jail does not really alter behavior & a criminal record arguably worsens the situation. I'm not aware of anyone claiming that to be a true solution. Yet, to your point, an extreme view of no-enforcement I would agree has unintended consequences. [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-francisco-crackdown-open-air-drug-use-intensifies/ https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-francisco-crac...