It seems like any rational person could see the connection between drugs and the dystopian aspects of the Tenderloin. What I would do instead is precisely what I would do if my children were addicted to drugs; tough love. I would make it impossible for them to acquire drugs and deal with the consequences of withdrawl.
Japan and Singapore are examples of countries that are extremely tough on drugs. I believe it is no coincidence that these places also turned out to be essentially the opposite of the Tenderloin with regards to public safety and heigene.
There seems to be a correlation vs causation issue there though. An equally plausible rational explanation is that the criminal act of selling drugs tends to make more sense in a place where that act is overlooked. If drug sales were decriminalized then those areas would tend to be less focused. Case in point is the proliferation of legal marijuana dispensaries. At least in the places that I've seen these (in Seattle), they don't seem to induce a higher criminal / unsanitary / dystopian atmosphere. Perhaps my perspective is unique.
>Japan and Singapore are examples of countries that are extremely tough on drugs. I believe it is no coincidence that these places also turned out to be essentially the opposite of the Tenderloin with regards to public safety and heigene.
Yes, and Singapore's approach still regards possession / use as a medical with an initial focus on rehabilitation, not just punishment. Singapore has some pretty big advantages over the US in its administration of the law (single jurisdiction / set of laws, single highly populous city). The laws vary widely in the US (consider Marijuana legalization an obvious example).
Depending on the drug and the severity of their addiction, that could kill them. Would you take it that far?
Methadone maintenance therapy leaves several problems, starting with the fact that other opioids still feel good and are still being profitably sold on the street. There's supply and demand, right there.
The illegality makes it expensive. Most opioid users start with pills, and continue to injection because heroin and analogues are expensive, and injection works better. Unfortunately it's also a much better way to kill yourself, as is taking what you think is one drug (such as heroin) and lacing it with a stronger one (such as fentanyl). It's possible to kill yourself with a bunch of pills of a known opioid of a guaranteed strength, but it's pretty tough to do by accident.
So let's remove the profit motive, by letting the state take over the sale of opioids. No advertising, of course, and this is done in settings where help can be made available to anyone who wants to quit being addicted to drugs. Make it expensive enough that it isn't the cheapest way to have a good time (opioids cost basis is very low), but not so high that constant petty crime is the only way to stay high. Limit purchase quantities; maybe give known addicts a license, so they can have a slightly higher limit to account for their tolerance. A little bit will leak onto the street, sure, that's tolerable compared to a hundred kilos at once arriving from overseas or the southern border.
This puts the dealers out of business, clears out the Tenderloin, reduces opioid overdoses, puts addicts where they can get help, and reduces the burden on our overcrowded prisons. Evidence from Switzerland and Portugal suggest that over time it will also reduce the number of opioid addicts.
All in all, pretty big win.
If the goal is to punish somebody for the rest of their life for having fun on an illegal substance, then mission accomplished. If the goal is to remediate the user so that they can be a productive member of society, then it's an utter failure. Sometimes people don't get hooked on the methadone itself, but it's a very delicate balancing act and not at all guaranteed
But how? Drugs are already illegal. There is currently a vast government apparatus designed to make drugs impossible to acquire. The US has the largest prison population on the planet due in no small part to the war on drugs. It's not like we go easy on drugs.
And yet, in your city there is an "open-air drug market". Making drugs illegal doesn't make drugs harder to get, because drugs are profitable. To paraphrase Ian Malcom from Jurassic Park "drugs will find a way."
I think you're noticing a correlation and labeling it a causation. If people had a place to safely do drugs, would they be overdosing in the street? If SF had more public restrooms would people defecate in the streets? If the city had more affordable housing would people be living in the streets? If people had access to jobs so they could earn a living, would they be committing crimes? You blame the drugs for the problems, but I see them as a symptom of larger societal causes.
Now do automatic weapons, straw purchases, felons getting guns, etc.
Both sides have their political bugaboos about problems that haven't been completely solved by existing approaches. Both sides want to try something different by cracking down on their own citizens; both sides want to try something different by lessening the burdens on good people who don't hurt others. Unfortunately, the two major political parties take opposite positions on which approach to take with which issue.
Maybe our political discourse wouldn't get quite to the level of talking about secession if we tried to understand one another's values a little better.
I see the outside reference fitting here.
You're missing the point entirely. Drugs aren't an isolated example. There are a number of highly divisive issues in the US for which the majority of Americans appear to hold largely emotionally based views. (Note that the degree to which a view is emotional is entirely orthogonal to whether or not it can be arrived at rationally.)
> There was no mention of "parties" or "sides".
And yet in practice, the vast majority of opposition to drug decriminalization (let alone outright legalization) comes from more conservative people. Such divides exist in a statistical sense whether you like it or not.
Your points about the relative inefficiencies and overall failures of the current approach to drugs based on available data is well taken. However, when it comes to highly divisive issues such as this one, it seems that simply appealing to rationality in this manner is not a viable tactic on its own for the majority of people. The analogy to gun laws helps to illustrate this fact - imagine how the majority of liberals would react to a "rational" explanation of why a particular gun law was unlikely to improve things.
Burying your head in the sand won't change the fact that there are significant emotional components which are relevant here.
I wanted to talk about the merits and reasons for/against drug decriminalization, as well as alternative solutions.. You keep telling me that I'm missing the point, but maybe you're missing my point. I'm not interested in the discussion about the broader point of the process itself. Talking about parties and sides and gun control is not the discussion I engaged in. The fact that it's a controversial issue that elicits strong emotional responses from people is not germane to the discussion at hand.
The original poster said: "Maybe our political discourse wouldn't get quite to the level of talking about secession if we tried to understand one another's values a little better."
That's exactly what was happening! I wanted to take part in that. The last thing I would want to do in that discussion is bring in heated tangential topics that would serve to derail the conversation. That's not burying your head, that's staying on topic. There are significant emotional components about this and also as well about guns. Agreed. The original point stands.