That's not one bit compelling, and doesn't support what you're saying
Please check who you are replying to.
> some text
I assumed that to be a quote. Was it not?
---
> and you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.
You mean the article we are commenting on shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.
I agree! My point is that it did indeed bring it up. Nothing more.
You are arguing with no one, and directing it at me.
I mean that you in particular shouldn't have brought it up. You should apply your reasoning, and not argue using bad arguments. If the article has a bad argument, don't repeat it.
Did you read literally any other part of my comments?!?
I agree that this article's claim really should be backed by a source.
Unnamed sources have been used since forever by journalists to create stronger articles, but I disagree with their use entirely. If you're going to quote someone, quote them. Don't tell me "local residents", or "local police" think this or that. It seems like a journalistic writing tactic that blurs the truth more than it clarifies.
The increase in drug use that's being described happened in the last 3-4 years. The decriminalisation policy is from 2001. So the increase is not connected to the policy, thus the police is not asking for a repeal of it.
The increase in drug use and decriminalisation are not related, basically. So the sentence you quoted, I don't see how that is a request from the police for a review.
(italics for emphasis)
> Are you American?
Yes
> Is this some point of pride for you to be agaisnt this kind of program?
On the contrary! I am in favor of this kind of program. I am very critical of my country's war on drugs. It is a war with one singular belligerent: US.