I don’t know nearly enough about the behavior of mentally ill homeless people and how it varies with addiction status and current meth levels, but I think there is no shortage of recent reports of dangerous addicts in various cities.
Regulation sounds good, but it doesn't just happen because it's written down. Enforcement is the messy part.
I am?
My question stands, then: does "legalize and regulate" mean that there would be regulations preventing the stated problems in Portland, and that they'd be actually enforced? Or is it essentially just the same as plain legalization?
They can get help if they want to get over the addiction and otherwise they can get a job so they can get a place to do drugs legally.
They are a part of society and their actions have negative consequences for others. We regulate that.
I think you're imagining a hypothetical scenario that doesn't match the problems described in the article.
Portland isn't having problems with crime and homelessness because responsible adults are consuming moderate amounts of drugs from the comfort of their homes on the weekends.
> If someone breaks those regulations, then they face similar kinds of penalties as people who produce and consume alcohol would.
I think you've missed the point of the article and what's being discussed. Decriminalizing drug use means removing those penalties, which has resulted in widespread public drug use in those cities.
If someone breaks those regulations, then they face similar kinds of penalties as people who produce and consume alcohol would. I really do not understand why people do not draw the same conclusion as if we don't already have a terribly destructive drug that society has more or less made peace with.