I think there are victims for public camping but people will argue about the severity of the victimization. For example, I have to step off the sidewalk into the street in order to get by a set of tents.

Agreed on public intoxication.

By that logic, burning down a forest, defacing a public work of art, building a personal home in the middle of a public park, and dynamite fishing a coral reef are not "actual crimes" either.

A good definition of "crime" needs to be able to include action that indirectly harm a large number of potential people. Otherwise, you are powerless to address the tragedy of the commons.

In Seattle if those were performed by a drug user they wouldn’t be.

This implies that you have data around if drug users and non-drug users who commit crimes are punished differently, or that you are just flippantly responding to a well thought out comment. In the spirit of HN, I'll assume it is the former. Can you show that data?

Certain methods of punishment don’t work for people with no assets. So if the city might fine someone with money a couple hundred bucks for urinating on a public building, the city won’t bother with a destitute addict as it’s not going to gain them money and might embarrass government officials. Here is a similar example https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/03/05/25878343/when-a-...

If I park illegally and get towed well tough shit, if van dweller gets towed the city has violated their rights and it’s terrible. So homeless druggies get free pass to commit all sorts of low level offenses that everyone else gets crazy fines for.