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).

0. https://komonews.com/news/local/axe-wielding-man-apparently-...

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.