Well that's a gross misrepresentation of what I said, and a really weird dichotomy to boot.

I said that these violent addicts are refusing offered social services, yet we let them walk around and continue to harm the public.

I concur. its easy to feel sympathy for these addicts till you have to deal with them day by day. In the end I left san Francisco because of the constant badgering from homeless people and the waste they would leave everywhere. This is also an issue I've only really seen in America, the homeless in Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur that I encountered were super polite and conscientious by comparison.

> Well that's a gross misrepresentation of what I said,

No, it's not.

What you said, in response to the article was:

> I am just astounded that this is being spun in such a positive light.

The implication here is that redirecting non-violent addicts off the addiction --> prison pipeline was a policy mistake.

I ask why you think that non-violent addicts should be put into prison. You tell me I'm grossly misrepresenting your point of view.

Which point of view do you actually hold? Do you think that non-violent addicts should be provided with help, or prison? Pick one, and own it.

I don't care one whit about your opinions on violent people in public spaces. I doubt they differ from mine, and it's not an interesting conversation.

You replied to a post complaining that the policy also seemed to be giving violent individuals a pass, and accused them of "think[ing] that non-violent addicts should be put into prison". Which was neither said nor (as you claim) implied. The comment was explicitly bemoaning a perceived plague of "repeat violent drug addicts"

The policy being shilled by the article in question is about non-violent addicts.

Whatever problems the commenter in question has with violent criminals has absolutely nothing to do with it - but they chose to attack the non-violent policy (And then get defensive about how their points are being misconstrued. What are those points, then? Violent crime is bad, and should be dealt with? I don't think anyone disagrees with that one. What does it have to do with a diversion of non-violent addicts?)

It's like complaining that standards on organically-grown produce aren't preventing contaminated meat from ending up at your grocery store. Whatever problems you have with contaminated meat have nothing to do with the produce policy.

False dilemma. We can mandate them by court order to attend treatment programs. There are ways of helping petty criminals that don't involve locking them in a box 24/7.

They are ordered to treatment. Many don't go.

Sure you can, but do we? And are there sufficient facilities to do so? A judge also mandated that the federal government house migrant children in a humane way but how well is that working out...point being that you can’t mandate something that there are no resources to do.

That’s just crazy talk. Next you are going suggest free healthcare for all or something communist like that.