Drug use isn't associated with crime and filth until we make it so via harsh city policies. I would, however, like someone to clean the 4 different instances of poop I saw on my 3 block walk this morning.
> Drug use isn’t associated with crime and filth until we make it so via harsh city policies
It absolutely is. The more addictive and mind altering a drug is, the more it contributes to users who contribute to crime and filth. Forget drugs, even high alcohol consumption is directly related to more crime and filth.
I don't live in San Francisco, so please humor me, but are you talking about dog poop or human poop? I know this is an absurd question -- I've never seen human poop on a sidewalk in my entire life -- but I've heard stories about SF...
Against the health code for someone to not cleanup their dog's poop in SF
SEC. 40. DOG TO BE CONTROLLED SO AS NOT TO COMMIT NUISANCES. (a) It shall be unlawful for
any person owning or having control or custody of any dog to permit the animal to defecate upon the public
property of this City or upon the private property of another unless the person immediately remove the feces and
properly dispose of it; provided, however, that nothing herein contained authorizes such person to enter upon the
private property of another without permission.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to walk a dog on public property of this City or upon the private property of
another without carrying at all times a suitable container or other suitable instrument for the removal and disposal
of dog feces.
Drug prohibition clearly leads to crime. Drug users would rather use drugs than commit crimes, but paying for a drug habit when drugs are expensive and you have a hard time holding down a 9-5 job (usually due to mental illness) forces people to do things they don't want to do.
Ending prohibition and diverting some resources from police to mental health and preventative services is just a sensible thing to do.
Counterpoint: Oregon has done exactly that via Measure 101. It's been a complete mess. Every societal ill that comes along with drug use has gotten substantially worse. In theory, ending prohibition and diverting resources is a good idea, but it sure hasn't worked out that way in practice and I wouldn't encourage anyone in the U.S. to vote for it or trust that it will be well implemented here.
While I agree prohibition certainly does more harm than good, spending time in parts of SF where crack/meth/heroin/fentanyl are effectively legal has convinced me a firm hand is also needed to contain the externalities. It destroys a place and makes it unlivable. You can't just allow it wherever.
Ending prohibition would, at best, depress prices and increase use. You don't need to legalize the use or sale of methamphetamine or fentanyl or crack to offer more mental health and preventative services.
> but paying for a drug habit when drugs are expensive and you have a hard time holding down a 9-5 job (usually due to mental illness)
I would imagine mental illness would be a bigger barrier to handling a 9-5 job than drug use.
IIUC, the majority of people that drink alcohol and smoke weed daily work 9-5 just fine.
Is the same true for the majority of people that have mental illness? What are we even considering mental illness?
I don't think the visibly homeless crazy people have mild mental illness. I think their mental illness is a bigger problem then drug addiction if they even have that problem.
Nobody wants to talk about it but we really need to decriminalize hiring druggies.
Drug addicts can work quite well in the trades (drywall hangers are famous for being meth-heads in some areas) but once "enforcement" starts cracking down on hiring them, they can't find work.
Look at what happens when drug use is legalized and regulated. Did crime spike with weed legalization in any major city?
Other drugs are worse on both user and their environment (including alcohol), but they're not the source of the other problems. Rather, we are, when we reject such people and force them to live in squalor with no options.
I don't think _anyone_ has a legitimate justification to be smoking mystery substances on the street corner like I see, but that alone doesn't make them criminals unless _we_ make it so through our policies.
You made a much stronger claim in your original post:
>"Drug use isn't associated with crime and filth until we make it so via harsh city policies."
Now you're saying that legalizing and regulating does not lead to a 'crime spike', which is a very different position.
Researchers seem to believe that it is virtually impossible to lead a functional (non-criminal) life when addicted to certain substances (like certain opiates, methamphetamines, and crack cocaine). From my personal experiences, this seems to be true; are you arguing that people addicted to these substances will lead healthy lives if the drugs are legalized?
For the record, I am in favor of fully legalizing everything, but I don't believe it'll somehow reduce or solve the crime issues.
Reducing DUI by reducing the amount of "necessary driving" would be a much better use of our time than trying to criminalize all sorts of other things.
Hell, having the government pay for your uber if you can blow high enough on the drink-o-meter would probably only cost some billions and save tremendous amounts of lives and money.
The same ones they are committing now? I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that they are upset with those people just because they do illegal drugs, thus making them criminals just by the virtue of doing those drugs. It's all the other non-drug criminal stuff that they do (presumably under influence, but not necessarily) that people are upset about.
No one is a criminal in my eyes for just doing whatever drugs they do. You are, however, a criminal if you run around chasing people on the streets with an axe, screaming at them, and then steal a car[0] (I am aware that this is Seattle, not SF, but the point still stands).
And I honestly don't think that officially legalizing fentanyl or meth or whatever else they were on would have helped, especially since drug consumption crimes are de-facto non-enforced in Seattle (which imo is not a bad thing at all, I am totally fine with consumption not being a crime).
Alcohol might be a bad example since it does lead to lowered inhibitions and, depending on the environment, often more brawling or risky driving than would happen without it.
The key here is probably the 'depending on the environment' bit. Hashish used to be closely associated with political assassinations, now... not so much. But it could be again, given the right(?) culture.
Evidence from Portland, which decriminalized all drugs via Measure 101, the answer is, "Whatever crimes are necessary to enable people to afford their drug of choice."
Not all drugs are equal. You can't drink your way into effectively schizophrenia, but you can get there in no time with the currently available super-potent variety of meth. Some drugs completely wreck your ability to live in a way compatible with holding down a job, which means that you'll pretty quickly have to turn to crime if you want to keep doing them.
I think the problem is decriminalization is just one half of the solution. It doesn't make the supply of drugs more available, it just removes a penalty for the people who are caught with possession.
What's worked very well in other nations is to literally supply people with as many drugs as they'd like.
The government handles the manufacture and distribution. All of it for free. In return:
1. The government knows who and how many drug users there are
2. Rehabilitation services can be provided. They may even be a requirement for someone to obtain the drugs.
3. Addicts can begin to lead a much more stable life due to a consistent supply. This has positive impacts on the society for many obvious reasons (e.g. little incentive for crime)
4. It is much easier for someone to ween off a drug if quality/supply is consistent.
Is there any evidence that Measure 101 was a pivot? My limited understanding is that drugs and craziness were pervasive and on the rise in Portland well before that. The idea that criminalization controls drug use isn't clearly supported by historical evidence at this point.
