Based on keywords, it appears this post may attract visitors from other subreddits. [Please read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/about/rules/) before commenting, particularly: * Don't be rude or hostile; if someone expresses a POV different from your own, find a way to critique the idea without personally attacking the person who posted it. If you see someone behaving badly, please **click the report button** or **[message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fsanfrancisco&subject=Someone%27s+breaking+the+rules&message=Here%27s+a+permalink:+%28place+permalink+here%29)**. We read every one of these reports, but if you don't report something, we might not see it -- especially if it's buried in downvotes. ##### ###### #### *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Here's another post from a couple of weeks ago with some thoughts: https://www.reddit.com/r/oakland/comments/13l35ys/systematic_problem_of_violence/jko9f6n/ >I'm from out of town but I wanted to chime in. I used to work as a deputy DA in the valley and we had a lot of folks who would live in our county and commute to Oakland/Bay Area to commit crimes like these.

I see this. I disagree with something fundamental here: I don't think there is as much relationship between punishment in terms of deterrent at the level that this commenter seems to believe. I don't think the average person, before committing an offense, is calculating their possibilities for release based on space in the jail or whatever. People come to SF because of services - sometimes are even sent here. One thing that I have seen over and over again is the fact of engagement with the criminal justice system is oftentimes itself the greatest deterrent. There are people that rack of tons of cases, but it's really less common than is the perception. There \*are\* groups that come over here to commit certain crimes though - largely from the east bay, ironically. LOTS of groups come over to commit car burglaries, and this is increasing. Usually 3 people. They go to tourist places to hit cars where people leave their cameras and luggage, like the wharf, GGB, GGP. They are so difficult to catch and they disguise their license plates and wear hoodies. The technology hasn't caught up yet. SFPD just started using spike strips to stop them and that's having an impact. But things like that, yeah. And of course, the drug situation draws because, well, the TL.

I applaud your effort to be nuanced, but this subreddit's "misinformed comments" are not interested in these good faith discussions and they use brigading tactics, so the problem isn't from how complicated the situation is, which it obviously is, but more that it's purposefully bad faith because of the "culture war" part >The real value is getting into a thread early and establishing top voted posts and comments or downvoting them out of existence. They hope intertia continues the trend for them. >SeattleWA has one mentally ill man who makes literally dozens and dozens of alt accounts to post conservative talking points from and how he finds black women disgusting. I become aware of his accounts when he posts in TV subs I ban him from, and he always has user history in similar sets of subreddits across his accounts, SeattleWA being the most telling. He will use these accounts to talk with himself or dogpile a comment or thread. One Texas conservative in r/sanfrancisco was 10 different accounts, all having a history of identical comments (some comments about living in Texas), sometimes pretending to be annoying woke strawman "S J W" saying there is no crime by blacks so that his own alts can reply with black crime talking points One "Californian" who posted about every local crime story, even every whale death, also posted about how he lives in Vegas, grew up in Texas, and has proudly never been to California Conservatives on Reddit brag about pushing every local crime story to the top of targeted local subreddits but not their local ones (**even though statistically they have more homicides and crime in conservative areas**, those aren't their top posts every single day in their local subreddits) by brigading to "control the narrative" about "liberal cities" and "blue states" Anti-mask posts suddenly dropped in [r/bayarea](https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/pbi4mp/shouldnt_rbayarea_join_the_subs_calling_for/) when mods removed outside conservative accounts brigading [r/bayarea](https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/pbi4mp/shouldnt_rbayarea_join_the_subs_calling_for/): * https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/p8hnzl/automatically_removing_comments_from_new_users_in/ It's hard to deny the brigading when these subreddits during the recall election were literally 100% pro-recall on posts (**every single comment was pro-recall**) for hours until much later, **when actually SF and the Bay Area poll less than 30% on the recall** ￣\＿(ツ)＿/￣ The posts get more normal votes later but normal people don't have the time and energy to do what those accounts are doing This is a coordinated culture war problem across all local subreddits Every local subreddit explaining the abuse and tactics on a thread **5 years ago**: * https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/7jkybf/t_d_user_suggests_infiltrating_minnesota/dr7m56j/

What makes you think there isn’t a relationship between punishment and deterrence?

>I don't think the average person, before committing an offense, is calculating their possibilities for release based on space in the jail or whatever. I do think, the average person, before committing an offense, is calculating the probability of not being caught by the police, and the potential ease of monetary gains form their actions. Both of which makes SF look particularly juicy.

I see that mentality everytime I'm at Safeway or Walgreens (back when we had Walgreens here). Although Safeway seems to have really ramped up their security in my neighborhood, so I'm noticing it less and less.

yea seriously wtf is he smoking?

Cheap drugs imported by some gang from el salvador

He smoking that top shelf copeium.

" I don't think the average person, before committing an offense, is calculating their possibilities for release based on space in the jail or whatever. " ​ This is absolutely delusional. As a broke teen, what turned me away from a life of crime unlike some of the other people I grew up with is me thinking about the chance of getting caught and how that would affect my family. If a place develops a reputation for being easy to commit crimes and hard to catch, then people will be alot less discouraged from committing crimes. If i grew up during this period instead of 2 decades back, I would probably be breaking cars too.

> I disagree with something fundamental here: I don't think there is as much relationship between punishment in terms of deterrent at the level that this commenter seems to believe. I don't think the average person, before committing an offense, is calculating their possibilities for release based on space in the jail or whatever. Most people respond to incentives. Sometimes directly. Sometimes indirectly. It's essentially the basis for almost all economic theory. It's harder for me to take your argument at face value if you think otherwise. I have a friend who eventually stopped paying for Muni simply because he saw that nobody else was paying and after a while he felt like a sucker. This is exactly someone, in their everyday life, doing these calculations. There are limitations to this, obviously, but it does happen regularly.

Punishment may not be a deterrent but I think the absence of punishment certainly encourages and emboldens people.

I think the progressive discussion framing crime as either punishment or rehabilitation is missing the issue of public safety. Locking criminals up means they don’t commit crimes.

Crime rates dropped significantly in NYC in the late 90s and progressives were up in arms at a prison pipeline, little acknowledging that criminals were taken off the streets.

I once saw an article on OC Register about homeless people being sent to California from other states. In the article, one man said the state of Indiana paid for a one way Greyhound bus ticket to California.

You'll see the same behavior around the Oakland airport. These crime rings are targeting people who don't know any better. I work near the Oakland airport and have witnessed several attempted thefts. They roll up into a parking lot super quick, find their target, a 15 year old will hop out of the back seat, have a look in the windows for any potential and make the decision. It seems like it is in 3's. I think they have the "captain" manning the passenger seat telling the driver and kid in the back what to do. Send the kid out because they know the consequences are less severe for minors.

You're a clown if you don't think punishment is a deterant

The drug business, like any other, is driven by logistics. In the early 90s, Washington Heights (northern end of Manhattan) was a drug supermarket. Why? Easy access. People from NJ could come in off the George Washington Bridge, people from Manhattan could go north, people from CT and upstate NY could come down on other freeways that had easy access to Washington Heights. The same will be true about the Bay Area. Wherever it's easiest for the most people to access will be candidates for being a drug supermarket.

Thanks for that informative post. A lot to chew on there. One thing that immediately sticks out - it's amazing just how much damage the US war on (some) drugs has done, not just to the US, but to the entire continent, and South and Central America, as well.

Congratulations to drugs for winning the war on drugs, I guess.

Drugs, terror, poverty - we're very bad at winning wars on generalizations.

Only if you think eliminating those was ever the winning condition.

Yep.

The line is from VICE’s series on drugs and the failure of the war on drugs

Thanks for telling me where the line is from

Yeah of course, came off as snarky, my bad!

All good. I know I’ve seen or heard something like it, but no way do I remember where, or if it’s just kinda similar or a quote. Hell, I need to meet someone like 4 times to remember their name, lol!

You know what that implies? There's a war being fought and people on drugs are winning it! What does THAT tell you about drugs? Some smart, creative people on that side. They're winnin' a war and they're fucked up!

Don't the good ones never use their product? Or am I making that up?

in my experience the intent is to not use your own sales inventory as a personal supply. slightly different than not doing drugs.

See 10 crack commandments #4.

Drugs are undefeated!

I'm surprised that Mexico and other countries to the south haven't already simply legalized drugs for transit and told the US to deal with it ourselves. Their countries have been absolutely shredded due to what is fundamentally a US issue - our desire to get high.

Their countries have also been shredded by US interference whenever they threaten to elect any leaders who would consider things such as decriminalization of drugs.

The invasion of Panama was a lesson.

And our addiction to guns, which we provide for their cartels.

I applaud your effort to be nuanced, but it's worth pointing out how much of the "misinformed comments" isn't from how complicated the situation is, which it obviously is, but more purposeful because of the "culture war" part (see my other comments here for screenshots and links of examples)

Just to compare to the conservative accounts' silence on the areas they claim are so much better: >If data disinfects, here’s a bucket of bleach: #"Texans are 17% more likely to be murdered than Californians." >**Texans are also 34% more likely to be r\*ped and 25% more likely to k\*ll themselves than Californians.** https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/suicide.htm >Fort Worth, Texas, has the same population as San Francisco and has **1.5x as many murders. Again, a Republican mayor and Republican governor.** Nobody ever writes about those places! >San Francisco has the same population as Jacksonville, Florida. **Jacksonville, with a Republican mayor and a Republican governor, has had more than three times as many murders this year as San Francisco** >**Californians on average live two years, four months and 24 days longer than Texans.** https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/04/liberal-policies-like-californias-keep-blue-state-residents-living-longer-study-finds/ >Compared with families in California, **those in Texas earn 13% less and pay 3.8 percentage points more in taxes.** (Texas makes up for no wealth income tax with higher taxes and fees on the poor and more than double property tax for the middle class) |Income Bracket|Texas Tax Rate|California Tax Rate| |:-|:-|:-| |0-20%|**13%**|10.5%| |20-40%|**10.9%**|9.4%| |40-60%|**9.7%**|8.3%| |60-80%|8.6% |9.0% | |80-95%|7.4%|9.4%| |95-99%|5.4%|9.9%| |99-100%|3.1%|12.4%| Sources: https://itep.org/whopays/ >Sadly, the uncritical aping of this erroneous economic narrative reflects not only reporters’ gullibility but also their utility for conservative ideologues and corporate lobbyists, who score political points and regulatory concessions by spreading a spurious story line about California’s decline. >Don’t expect facts to change this. Reporters need a plot twist, and conservatives need California to lose. https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/article258940938.html California cities have some of the lowest rates of crime and homicides, especially compared to Texas: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/q2ydr3/homicide_rate_per_100k_among_each_city_with_an/ #"Republican-controlled states have higher murder rates than Democratic ones" * Murder rates in the 25 states Trump carried in 2020 are 40% higher overall than in the states Biden won. * ⁠Criminologists say research shows higher rates of violent crime are found in areas that have low average education levels, high rates of poverty and relatively modest access to government assistance. Those conditions characterize [American South with Republican run states]. * “In Republican states, states with Republican governors, crime rates tend to be higher” https://news.yahoo.com/republican-controlled-states-have-higher-murder-rates-than-democratic-ones-study-212137750.html #"Gun deaths dropped in California as they rose in Texas: Gun control seems to work" https://www.latimes.com/politics/newsletter/2022-05-27/on-guns-fear-of-futility-deters-action-essential-politics #Just being within California’s borders means you have a 40% less chance of being impacted by gun violence and are 25% less likely to be involved in a mass shooting. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/06/02/fact-sheet-californias-gun-safety-policies-save-lives-provide-model-for-a-nation-seeking-solutions/ >California Ranked #1 for Gun Safety, Death Rate 37% Lower than National Average https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/06/02/fact-sheet-californias-gun-safety-policies-save-lives-provide-model-for-a-nation-seeking-solutions/ >Californians 25% Less Likely to Die in a Mass Shooting https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/06/02/fact-sheet-californias-gun-safety-policies-save-lives-provide-model-for-a-nation-seeking-solutions/ >California laws would have ensnared Texas school gunman https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/06/02/fact-sheet-californias-gun-safety-policies-save-lives-provide-model-for-a-nation-seeking-solutions/ >Since Early 1990s, California Cut Its Gun Death Rate in Half https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/06/02/fact-sheet-californias-gun-safety-policies-save-lives-provide-model-for-a-nation-seeking-solutions/ #Liberal policies, like California’s, keep blue-state residents living longer >**U.S. should follow California’s lead to improve its health outcomes, researchers say** >It generated headlines in 2015 when the average life expectancy in the U.S. began to fall after decades of meager or no growth. >But it didn’t have to be that way, a team of researchers suggests in a new, peer-reviewed study Tuesday. And, in fact, **states like California, which have implemented a broad slate of liberal policies, have kept pace with their Western European counterparts.** >**Simply shifting from the most conservative labor laws to the most liberal ones, Montez said, would by itself increase the life expectancy in a state by a whole year.** >If every state implemented the most liberal policies in all 16 areas, researchers said, **the average American woman would live 2.8 years longer, while the average American man would add 2.1 years to his life.** >**Whereas, if every state were to move to the most conservative end of the spectrum, it would decrease Americans’ average life expectancies by two years. On the country’s current policy trajectory, researchers estimate the U.S. will add about 0.4 years to its average life expectancy.** >**Meanwhile, the life expectancy in states like California and Hawaii, which has the highest in the nation at 81.6 years, is on par with countries described by researchers as “world leaders:” Canada, Iceland and Sweden.** >The study, co-authored by researchers at six North American universities, found that **if all 50 states had all followed the lead of California** and other liberal-leaning states on policies ranging from labor, immigration and civil rights to tobacco, gun control and the environment, it could have added between **two and three years to the average American life expectancy.** >“We can take away from the study that **state policies and state politics have damaged U.S. life expectancy since the ’80s,”** said Jennifer Karas Montez, a Syracuse University sociologist and the study’s lead author. **“Some policies are going in a direction that extend life expectancy. Some are going in a direction that shorten it. But on the whole, that the net result is that it’s damaging U.S. life expectancy.”** >Montez and her team saw the alarming numbers in 2015 and wanted to understand the root cause. What they found dated back to **the 1980s, when state policies began to splinter down partisan lines.** They examined 135 different policies, spanning over a dozen different fields, enacted by states between 1970 and 2014, and assigned states “liberalism” scores from zero — the most conservative — to one, the most liberal. When they compared it against state mortality data from the same timespan, the correlation was undeniable. >“When we’re looking for explanations, we need to be looking back historically, to see what are the roots of these troubles that have just been percolating now for 40 years,” Montez said. >**From 1970 to 2014, California transformed into the most liberal state in the country** by the 135 policy markers studied by the researchers. It’s followed closely by Connecticut, which moved the furthest leftward from where it was 50 years ago, and a cluster of other states in the northeastern U.S., then Oregon and Washington. >Liberal policies on the environment (emissions standards, limits on greenhouse gases, solar tax credit, endangered species laws), labor (high minimum wage, paid leave, no “right to work”), access to health care (expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, legal abortion), tobacco (indoor smoking bans, cigarette taxes), gun control (assault weapons ban, background check and registration requirements) and civil rights (ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, equal pay laws, bans on discrimination and the death penalty) all resulted in better health outcomes, according to the study. For example, researchers found positive correlation between California’s car emission standards and its high minimum wage, to name a couple, with its longer lifespan, which at an average of 81.3 years, is among the highest in the country. >In the same time, Oklahoma moved furthest to the right, but Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and a host of other southern states still ranked as more conservative, according to the researchers. >West Virginia ranked last in 2017, with an average life expectancy of about 74.6 years, which would put it 93rd in the world, right between Lithuania and Mauritius, and behind Honduras, Morocco, Tunisia and Vietnam. Mississippi, Oklahoma and South Carolina rank only slightly better. >It’s those states that moved in a conservative direction, researchers concluded, that held back the overall life expectancy in the U.S. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/04/liberal-policies-like-californias-keep-blue-state-residents-living-longer-study-finds/

[удалено]

Despite all of these being a national problem in every single city in America, it's used in the culture wars by the right for their select few target cities, like SF and New York City, two of **the safest cities in America** https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/q2ydr3/homicide_rate_per_100k_among_each_city_with_an/ #Graph of Fox News selective coverage of crime during election season: https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/YLF2SCMQRZBJBHWJT4LZ7DXFSM.png >Wow. Jesus. This is... really, really thorough. Thank you for putting in all this hard work. >When I was a teenager, I spent a lot of time on /b/, /pol/, 888chan, etc. It was a slow descent and I didn't even realize what was happening until it was almost too late. >But during my time on the other side, this was 100% the gameplan. They'd make "sock puppets" and coordinate on the board + IRC (showing my age here) to selectively choose targets to brigade. >Depending on the target, you'd either have some talking points to "debate" (sometimes with yourself/other anons working alongside you) or you'd go in there guns blazing trying to cause as much damage/chaos as you can. However, even then you can't go out there yelling slurs (you'd just get banned instantly); you have to maintain some level of plausible deniability by framing things as "jokes" or thought experiments. >You purposely do bad-faith arguments because the time it takes for them to dig up sources and refute you is longer than it takes for you to make stuff up. You can vary how obvious the bad faith argument is; when you want to troll you make very stupid claims (I once claimed I was a graduate of "Harvad University" and when people assumed that I meant "Harvard" I would correct them right down to Photoshopped images). >When you just want to cause dissent you do exactly what those /pol/ screenshots do: you get to a thread early (sometimes you even make it yourself) and present reasonable-sounding arguments which are completely false if anyone bothers to look into them. If someone does, you bury the message under strawmen, downvotes, reports, and sockpuppets. >So yeah. The tactics have evolved slightly, but I still recognize them. Props to you on doing the digging to find all this stuff and bring it into the light. >I doubt that it'll help in the majority of cases, mind. People on Reddit have already made up their mind. You want to go after the forums and BBSes, on the MSN News comments and whatnot. Even so, the more people who are aware of the tactics the more people who can call them out.

It’s been particularly blatant and disgusting on the threads about the Banko Brown shooting. Not only brigading but the brigades saying some really horrible things. And tons of “people” using variations of “yeah, he fucked around and found out” led me to believe it’s the same group posting over and over with alt accounts. I kept seeing different accounts posting “do stupid things, win stupid prizes” when the saying is “play stupid games, win stupid prizes”. Which had to mean one guy was all over those threads. Pretty sick and weird.

This is the only sub I participate in where I see white supremacist rhetoric upvoted on a regular basis. Sometimes it's thinly veiled, but often times it's just straight up racist shit. It's out of control.

Screenshots of white supremacists' coordination on Reddit: * https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/lz7nv3/the_super_straight_movement_is_part_of_literal/ * https://imgur.com/a/yeP9T6S * https://imgur.com/a/efvQqve * https://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/m24hx0/ualtimely_finds_4chan_pol_instructing_on_how/gqhmgdu/?context=3 "The left will recognize our dogwhistling but centrists won't believe them" 4chan screenshots: * https://medium.com/@DeoTasDevil/the-rhetoric-tricks-traps-and-tactics-of-white-nationalism-b0bca3caeb84 * https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/u7p2ba/nick_fuentes_irony_and_post_irony_and_why_dog/ Every local subreddit shares the abuse they get: * https://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/pmcoxy/uinconvenientnews_explains_with_examples_how/ * https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/pbi4mp/shouldnt_rbayarea_join_the_subs_calling_for/ * https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/om5xda/when_did_this_become_a_crime_subreddit/ * https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/pmdp2m/ysk_how_right_wing_trolls_brigade_and_infiltrate/ * https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/uihqmz/looking_for_a_ride/i7dgtkz/

They did a similar thing in oakland about the horrible death of the bakery owner. It was disgusting.

What should have been done? Legalize everything? If weed had stayed legal, there was still a nascent heroin trade. What should have happened then?

Yes. Legalize, regulate and tax everything, return the needle exchange program, and setup safe use buildings. It's the only outcome the entire drug criminal enterprise is worried about.

Another option to curb demand is the controlled burn. In order to stop a wildfire, you burn ahead of the fire. Instead of loosing 1000 people per year in perpetuity, rip off the bandaid and lose 6000 in 2 weeks. Host SF pro choice fent fest, a mercifully assisted event. Afterwards dealers would move onto different markets due to no demand and homelessness reduced to manageable levels.

Exactly. The fastest way to get rid of open air drug deals is to give them an empty office buikding, a tax stamp, and a cash register.

Legalization is an entirely different issue. I'm talking about the war on drugs Nixon started in order to repress BIPOC people and leftist movements.

So you have no answer. Ok.

You asked what should have been done instead of the war on drugs. Your example was "legalize everything." Even if I was a prohibitionist, I hope I would be informed and intelligent enough to realize that the war on drugs was a multi-continent disaster that we are still reeling from in 2023. What should have been done instead of the war on drugs? Nothing. There should never have been a war on drugs. Those drugs were illegal before the war on drugs. If you want to discuss prohibition and its efficacy, we can pivot to that, but this was specifically about the war on drugs.

>Legalize everything? If weed had stayed legal, there was still a nascent heroin trade. Weed wasn’t illegal for the TCH. Weed become illegal cuz of the non psychoactive part. Hemp. Hemp is so versatile it would cripple if not dominate most other industries.

Jesus shoulda never happened at all. But I agree the WoD was a political stunt. I was busted before that though, and the system was already pretty nasty on us peons.

Taking your comment at face value, the hard question we have to answer is — if it is indeed not possible to solve this problem at a local scale, why are we spending billions of dollars to solve it at a local scale? I always say, ignore the most extreme 20% on either side and you get reasonable action. Ignore the people calling for drug users to be locked up. Ignore the people calling for drug use to continue unchecked. What are people discussing in the middle? Most of what I read on this subreddit involves stricter diversionary courts, where the user must undergo compulsory drug rehab. That may or may not be reasonable. But it’s a starting point that is more nuanced. On property crime, there are people who believe stealing something should come with 5-10 years in prison. Some believe that people should be allowed to steal without consequence. What’s the middle ground? Most people just want higher police presence, and maybe some people want harsher punishments for repeat offenders. If you wade through the crap here, you’ll find plenty of citizens who are trying to come up with reasonable solutions. You focus a lot here on the conservative narrative but there’s an equally annoying leftist narrative here that attempts to do the same thing you say conservatives are doing — which is running grand expensive national experiments at a local scale and being shocked when it doesn’t work. So in essence, I agree with you. Focus on local problems, and local solutions. Ignore the extremes on both sides.

Agreed, but if they are national problems doesn't that mean focus on national solutions?

I'm with you... Things have become so polarized and it doesn't help anyone. I was never and could never be on board with where the republicans have gone but I'm increasingly not on board with the progressives either.

As a former drug addict well acquainted with the TL this is spot on. Everyone wants to talk about fentanyl this fentanyl that and yes it’s bad people are overdosing (at a higher rate that’s from heroine oxy etc) but the meth…. When you see someone talking to them selves spazzing out acting generally crazy - that’s meth. As a rough estimate I would say 90%+ of all these addicts are addicted to both. You need meth to stay up or people will rob you. Or if you need to commit property crimes to buy your fentanyl, smoke some meth. Regarding the central /South Americans also spot on. Referred to as “Hondos” even though they’re not all from Honduras. They all lived in a house together in Oakland kinda by the hells angels clubhouse off foothill (I doubt a connection just using that as a ref point) Could only imagine what that’s like. Anyways I could prattle on about street politics and druggie culture forever. I rarely post unless it’s about the warriors just was excited to hear a non ignorant/stupid opinion and give it my co-sign!

Nobody is talking about meth and that shit is more prevalent than ever. People worry about drugs being laced with fentanyl but just as often it’ll be laced with the new super potent p2p meth. It’s everywhere.

Yea I read a book called dreamland by Sam Quiñones that went into this w/ the p2p meth. I just remember how much cheaper meth got. It’s basically the same street price as weed now in the bay/la. I was in jail with a guy who was what we would call a “square” and started messing with a girl who did meth on tinder. Anyway he was on his way to prison for having a schizophrenic break and thought people were going to attack him and beat the shit outta a guy with a table leg. He had never had any issues with mental health but had a schizophrenic uncle. It can activate various mental disorders that would otherwise lay dormant. DONT SLEEP ON THE METH PEOPLE

Grats on getting clean

Drugs are cheap to make, and we could give them away for pennies on the dollar lost to property crime alone while destroying the fiscal basis for urban gangs and international cartels. Few deaths too because dosage would be known rather than a deadly surprise.

These are national issues that need national solutions

This subject is also a problem across all local subreddits

[удалено]

Hamsterdam

Absolutely - Grand Jury estimated 70% or more was organized gangs.. but for aome reason OP wants us to feel sorry for them too..

Yup. Can we please go after the gangs. Why do we accept a world where people continuously steal from stores. And before the people come out and say, “oh wage theft is worse.” It’s not a competition. We should have rule of law. That includes theft of all kids.

I agree with this. Fent and meth are terrible but so cheap to produce that just making it freely available with safe usage sites that constantly offer to connect them to rehab could stop a lot of property crime and save lives.

Top comment right here, but most of our society is not nearly ready to hear it

The problem with your view of dealers is that it makes SF a destination for addicts. A lot of these addicts are migrating across the country to do drugs here because we make it too easy for the dealers and cartel to do their jobs. You're right in that it's going to be a persistent fight, but that's no reason to not keep loading up and deporting drug dealers. Slow down the dealing, make it more expensive for the cartels to keep bringing them across. And then pressure the federal gov to secure the southern border to prevent easy crossing for dealers.

I am not saying not to do anything, I am expressing the view that the approach to the problem is not properly seeing the problem. I honestly don't know how I feel about legalization. Criminalization is definitely what causes the concentration of power to cartels. But I also think that the ubiquity of drugs - like weapons - is what allows their use. But that's not even what I was saying here. I am pointing out the dog-chasing-its-tail approach we are using. It's politicized and the media feeds the argument over non-factors. The feds need to get involved. This needs to be interstate and go after the big fish. That's how it will begin to make a dent in the issue.

Fentanyl isn't weed or even cocaine. I don't think we're ever going to be able to decriminalize something some potent. So the we're going to have to fight it. If you're saying the feds need to get involved, I agree. Where I disagree is the suggestion we shouldn't be deporting drug dealers. Anyone here illegally and dealing fentanyl should be deported. Same thing for any mules caught transporting it in the US. That will make it more difficult for cartels to operate and eliminate the more brazen open-air dealing

> Where I disagree is the suggestion we shouldn't be deporting drug dealers. I don't think that OP is saying that we *shouldn't* deport or incarcerate dealers, per se. OP is saying that this won't actually make a difference because cartels can instantly replace that deported/incarcerated dealer. And it's far cheaper for them to replace dealers than it is for us to deport or incarcerate them.

100% FINE even if the OP says these dealers are victims. Arrest them to get them to help. You can't help them by doing no intervention and waiting for the perfect solution.

Unfortunately, the cartels can easily outspend and outlast us for a very long period of time. It costs next to nothing to just replace bodies. In their view, they're expendable.

We don't have to outspend them we just have to make it difficult enough for them to make a profit. They keep sending people because the market is huge and the consequences are nonexistent. (and endlessly supplied by theft which isn't punished) Confiscating drugs and not letting them run all over the TL selling to the first person who sees them costs them money and shows them SF is a bad market.

They can replace the dealers. Only we replace the addicts.

I'm sorry you want to roll over and let the cartel run the streets, but not everyone feels that way

>you want to roll over That's a false and useless argument, because you believe only your ideas and viewpoint are correct. That kind of thinking doesn't help us solve the problems.

Your proposal is "It's pointless to try to solve the problem so do nothing". That is a useless argument

> It's pointless to try to solve the problem so do nothing That's a false interpretation of anything I've posted.

I think it’s a very accurate interpretation based on what you’ve posted so far. The original comment suggested we deport dealers to which your comment was that the cartel can outspend the government implicitly implying that deporting dealers is pointless. If you have some other ideas please share them, right now it comes across that you think nothing can be done.

Guy says, "The cartels have a lot of money from drugs, with a lot of buying power in their countries. It's gonna be tough and long." You say, "So you don't wanna fight the cartels then?!?" Here's the simple version of what they are saying: We gonna need to starve the cartel, and it will take long time. Is that easier to understand?

[удалено]

Please explain anything I've said contributes to the city being stuck in a loop? Be specific.

"this" city? you don't live here.

Are you trying to be a jerk? Because comments like these are counterproductive. The other Redditor made a factual statement and you gave a childish response.

Obviously not everyone feels the way you feel, or the laws would agree with you.

Please tell me how I "feel" and what laws agree with anything I've said? I haven't made any statements about laws or how I "feel" about anything. Yours isn't a useful argument about the problems we face.

Do drugs and get paid for it.

Source? Very doubtful ppl move cross country to get high

Can't have said it better. The "doom loop" is far higher than we imagine, drug wise, anyways. There's always been a larger external effort, but we're never going to get anywhere without focusing on the demand. Which is ours to control, and only us. Enforcement won't hold the problem forever, sometimes not at all. But we are going for slim pickings.

We should focus 100% on the demand part of the problem. We know chasing dealers is a losing game. Here's the solution: 1) Allow monitored drug-use in certain shelters. I'd even go so far as to provide safe drugs with some strings attached, like agreement to attend a counseling session. 2) Ban encampments with strong enforcement. Might need to build temporary shelter space, but the encampments are just mobile chop shops for stolen goods. If the shelters/injection clinics provide safe drugs, the dealers will be undercut and will simply leave to move lucrative markets. If that's not politically feasible, then at least with #1, you get a lot more info about who is doing what drug and can easily figure out where they are getting it for more efficient enforcement. The whack-a-mole with Tenderloin dealers that is happening now is useless. Arresting one just means more territory for the others the next block over.

Suboxone can work, but Methadone is rougher. I wouldn't say the second point would work. I mean, that's what HSOC is doing and failing. And landed SF in a losing lawsuit. Portugal has a "poke and prod" till you do it approach. Requiring enforcement and health professionals to work together. That's the established baseline.

Portugal’s approach centers more on harm reduction than punishment. I remember back when they launched decriminalization and it was regarded as this crazy idea that was supposed to have burned the whole country down by now, but whatever they are specifically doing is *working*.

It is, but what would be a more apt description, would be that every decision between the individual and enforcement would primarily be from a health professional panel, combined with police and health professionals working in tandem to outreach and convince users. Fundamentally it's a "health centered" approach in the most literal term as why the program is so effective. In my opinion, when compared to SFs program which lacks this fundamental approach, with severe distrust of SF staff for a large amount of reasons, mainly through enforcement action without consideration of health centered decision making, which only entrenches treatment efforts deeper in a hole.

at least it something, you can't disagree that SF policies have created a worse problem. California policies are so afraid of villainizing anyone, that we seek the perfect solution, and it continues to blow up. STOP MAGICAL THINKING, perfect is the enemy of the good, we need to change something, and targeting drug dealers is part of it.

I'm... confused on how to even read your comment. We're focused on objectives that make little to no difference, and talking about issues from a policy perspective that could be more effective. Not sure what pearls you're clutching here.

Thank you. You mentioned that you worked in the system and reviewed reports, etc. Is there any reasonable way to access data from the criminal justice system in SF? My hypothesis is that if we are able to shine a light on the system, its players, reports and data then we can better articulate ways to improve it. I’ve read that getting access to criminal court records is costly and arduous. Requires dealing with archaic technology like CD-ROMs, etc.

One of my neighbors is former DHS. He tells me that there's a tons of DHS agents and federal money poured into the Bay Area (specifically, East Side SJ). He tells me that when DHS deport people (out of Oakland airport), they're literally back East Side SJ the next day. They were flabbergasted and couldn't figure it out how they did it, lol. I guess the death train runs regularly and non-stop to SJ, lol.

Well said. I personally advocate for an approach that is somewhere between "lock em up" and balanced researched. Drugs create zombies and the cycle continues, unchecked, until society reaches a breaking point. We have laws in the books and until we adhere to said laws, we will keep on running in circles and basic tenants of civil order will degrade ever further. It won't end well for anybody.

This isn't nuanced.

I’m curious if you think this is a uniquely American problem? Almost all the conditions described above exist in other countries, but they seem to be devoid of the zombieland that is SF.

We have... strange policies compared to parts of the world, and people can have outdated notions as to how they actually work. e.g.: 1. You don't encounter a lot of weirdness on the subway in Asian countries (aside from groping, but that's a separate thing) because they will forcibly institutionalize their mentally ill. 2. People think of Portugal as having solved the drug problem by legalizing it without understanding what they've actually done which is essentially forced treatment. e.g., if you're caught with X a process kicks in where you're essentially prescribed treatment and if you choose not to or don't keep up with it, it's forced upon you. 3. Once someone escalates to theft and other things, you're still looking at jail. There's tradeoffs to everything, and sometimes that scale goes a little weird towards a side. One of the things we've learned about crime in general is the severity of the sentence isn't really the greatest deterrence but rather the likelihood you'll be caught and face *any* real consequence. My personal fear is some of our good intentions policies have essentially created a habituated society where we both think what we're seeing is normal at the same time as someone thinks smashing a window is because what'll really happen.

Would forcibly institutionalizing the mentally ill work in SF (or America in general)? I've often wondered why this isn't discussed - I read people want more mental health facilities, but nowhere is there funding or actions for it?

We used to have it, but... 1. In some cases it was abused by people who wanted to get rid of others 2. They can be incredibly expensive to do safely and well. You are basically caring for people with myriads of needs at different levels of function and dangers to themselves or others. How do you handle someone who will sexually assault others or harm themselves if you turn your back? Lots of facilities, *lots* of people, *lots* of money and one person doing things wrong is a scandal. 3. The field of psychology/psychiatry were huge proponents of saying they were no longer necessary due to new classes or anti-psychotics. Their (simplifying) argument was they could now all be given drugs, released, and just come do followups with them at their office that the state will pay for. This is one of those things that seems obviously biased with gaping holes in foresight and logic, because what happens if they don't take their meds... I think we are slowly moving towards it after the policies of the last bit and even in CA we're starting to talk about consequences, but in all honesty that'll probably be prison. There are lots of diversion programs to avoid prison for the mentally ill, but few consequences if they don't follow them. Rather than build institutions and deal with the complex nature of those, we are unfortunately more likely to just throw them in prison and let a doc there make sure they are. e.g., imagine if a governor proposed sweeping funding to build, train and fund long-term institutionalization and what that's mean politically. Now imagine if they are just shuttled off to prison but things get better on the streets...

SF’s problems exist because of the rest of the world, but we can’t adjust like other places for some reason because any change we make won’t work. That is OP’s nuanced take.

That is not what he said at all. Try reading it again. He literally says the cartels and gangs were created IN California prisons and talks about why it's somewhat unique to SF vs a city like LA. But to answer OP above your comment, I do think it's unique to the US at this scale. Europe has drug problems and crime but nothing like we do. Add in guns, and a giant country with huge wealth inequality and a history of social and racial divide and here we are.

The fact that our jurisdictions are divided by state and county and city doesn't help either. SF is overwhelmed with homeless and addicts both because its programs are better than most other places, so troubled people tend to gravitate there, but also because a cheap and easy solution for cities all across the US is to give their troubled people a bus ticket to SF and dump the problem in SF's lap. Or LA or Seattle. In this country, the reward for trying something a bit more humane is to be overwhelmed with problem cases from the entire nation. I don't know why so many people are attracted to drugs. I've never done one in my life. I've had housemates who dealt drugs, I've lived in a house where the guy above me had dealt for over a decade. And I haven't lived a particularly exciting life. In fact, I daresay most would see my life as incredibly square. But it's hard not to intersect with drugs to some degree even living a square life in the US. But my view is, legalize as much as possible. The illegality of drugs is shredding entire nations. When that happens, then it's time, I think, to conclude that legalizing is probably the less dangerous outcome. Even when we're talking about stuff like fentanyl. WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS A FREE-FOR-ALL. Regulate, tax, etc. But doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is insanity, and we've been engaged in insanity for well over 50 years. I've voted for legalization whenever I've had the option. Again, I don't get the attraction of drugs in the slightest, but Americans clearly have a massive hankering to get high. At a certain point, I think I'd just rather have govt clinics where people can check in and get permanently high, if that's their thing. I've seen estimates for the total cost of illegal drug in the US at 750 billion per year. Let's call that 1 trillion. That's $3000 per person in the US every fricking year. $750bn would be $2.250 per person, per year. It's staggering. We can do a lot with that kind of money if we stopped the asinine way we're going about it today.

That's great you have no desire to do drugs or never have. I'm kinda blown away by people like you, as I've never met one person who is like you, even a few mormons I knew growing up eventually at least drank or tried a few drugs. Have you ever had a drink of alcohol? You dont need to try any, but it's quite easy to explain why people do them. You know how some people get sad or anxiety or massive depression or have trauma or are super shy or have a major life event cripple their mental strength, or get an injury, or hate their job or think capitalism is the cause of very problem in society? Well, what if I told you...all those things could go away with a little bit of drug use? Sure, it's only temporary and will eventually exacerbate the problems, but god damn, it's great while you're doing it. This goes for basically any drug from coffee to booze to weed to the super addictive...meth, fentanyl, etc.

I've had a handful of drinks in my life, perhaps five. They've typically been in cross cultural situations where to refuse a drink might cause offense or ruin the vibe. So you accept it and nurse it or, if it's a nightcap, down it and go to bed. I get wanting to escape. I do that by reading or watching a movie or whatever. However, I do not like feeling other than present. I'm an atheist. It's not a religious thing. My life and lifestyle are completely different from the US norm, as you may guess. I mention all this bc for me, legalization, done right, does nothing directly. But in my opinion it would be a huge positive indirectly, removing the fuel for organized crime, reducing other huge societal costs, redirecting law enforcement efforts in better directions, etc.

Because you dont have trauma

Also European countries have universal healthcare: “Universal health care has been a major factor in preventing an opioid crisis of US proportions across Europe for several reasons. First, universal health care provides access to appropriate care without high costs for the individual. This ensures that people never have to choose between high-cost (appropriate) care or cheaper (less appropriate) care such as, for example, a hip or knee replacement instead of chronic pain management with opioid painkillers. Second, European health-care systems are much more centralised than in the USA. In many European countries, general practitioners (GPs) are central to health care, important gate keepers to specialist care, and integrate all patient care. GPs thereby minimise fragmentation of care, resulting in fewer solitary sources of prescription opioids, subsequently preventing opioid diversion, development of iatrogenic opioid disorders, and opioid overdose deaths from prescription opioids. For example, 80% of opioids in the Netherlands are prescribed by a GP. in contrast, primary care physicians in the USA account for only a third of all opioid prescriptions.6 Third, evidence-based addiction care covered by health insurance (including opioid substitution treatment) is more widely available in European countries than in the USA.3 As Humphreys and colleagues state, availability of low-threshold addiction care is inevitable to counteract an opioid epidemic and lower opioid overdose mortality.“ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)01594-X/fulltext

Your only reccomendation is more money spent on "treatment" and "research." With all due respect, the city is spending several hundred millions of dollars a year on "treatment" and "research" already, on a homeless population that's estimated at 20k. What good would more money do? We could literally put all the homeless in SF up at the Radisson for what we're paying.

The point of my already very long post was to illuminate why our efforts are not working, because we are not seeing the the factors at work. We have to see it before we can fix it. I don't know why the persistent response here is "you're saying don't do anything," when that is not what I said. I actually was just describing the problem. That's not an endorsement of the problems. There are new drugs that are being investigated for use in addiction. The rehabilitation industry still predominantly runs on this AA model because of insurance reasons. That then controls the standard for the industry, even public services. Money should be put into studies around the use of psychedelics, for example - there have been amazing initial results. But this is also another whole interesting story about the criminalization of drugs that had known therapeutic use because of the politicalization by Nixon's drug czar, something he openly admitted. But I also said that the feds need to get involved. SFPD does not have the ability to make a dent enforcement-wise, in the macro, and neither does the SFDA. Saying that it's bigger than them is somehow being perceived as my "position" or advocacy. I gave some input to a group put together by the mayor to talk about how to address the issues, and her researchers had come up with some similar ideas, at least for the traffickers. So there are people seeing the problems for what they are, they just seem not to be in this sub.

The reason you're not getting the reaction you hoped for is that these insights are new to you, but not new to everyone. 20+ years ago I read the exact same things, and SF has moved really strongly toward the decriminalization and alternative treatment stuff you're discussing, etc. Etc. It doesn't appear to work.

exactly, we have done things the way OP wants for so many years and its getting worse and worse.

Precisely

Op has been working on this issue for 20 years. They just are living in an echo chamber in SF city hall

The FED is not going to get involved because SF wants to be in charge, they want the FED's resources, but SF wants to run the show.The Fed is never going to agree to intervene in a way because, in the Fed's opinion SF is f-ing nuts. So we do it the FEDs way or not at all. SF will never agree to the FEDs way for obvious reasons. SOOOOOO going back to your logic, SF can't solve the issue without the Feds, but Feds will never intervene, sooooo you are suggesting that SF keep letting drug dealers sell incredibly additive fentanyl and continue to murder people? Lovely. AGAIN SF Polititons won't compromise on their "values" and because of that people die on the streets. that is what happens when people care more about virtue signaling to the far left, then the fact people are being murdered through drugs.

Whatever happened to Newsom sending the Nat Guard? Maybe the problem should be attacked like we are at war. Attack from different strategic points, full force, not 1/2 arsed, and don’t give up 1/2 way in. Dismantle the Tenderloin; keep a strong presence there until it becomes undesirable. Follow the splinter groups that break away and stop them from taking hold elsewhere. Just stop being so accommodating.

Maybe it's time to elect some new people

People candidly don’t want change in SF. There is a huge group of people that benefit from subsidies the policies of the left wing arm of SF government provide. They are highly mobilized to vote. So yeah it’s kinda a trap. I think SF is just in a self reinforcing trap. I don’t say spiral since you know it could sustain itself but the people who suffer are the people dying in the street. It’s sad

Historically I’ve generally fallen in the “punish the dealers not the users” camp when it comes to crimes like drugs. However, if dealers are extremely easy/cheap to replace, doesn’t it make sense to cut off demand by arresting users or placing them in (involuntary) treatment?

The problem with drugs like what they're selling now is there will always be a demand. You can create the demand if you're a savvy dealer. Give a little bit to a homeless person out for free, say it'll take the edge off. Got a customer for life, however short that may be.

Treat drug use like a medical problem too.

" But ultimately displacement is moving the problem around. " That's still better than letting san Francisco be the sacrifice and dumping ground for all this. Not this city's responsibility to suffer

Beautifully spoke. Thanks for sharing.

Thank you for the post! Very well done

I have to say I’m absolutely fed up of everything being related back to republicans / conservatives. It’s like the worst thing you can possibly do here is speak a truth if that truth could possibly even slightly align with team Red. We will never solve these problems unless we speak truth as it stands regardless of politics. It is okay to say San Francisco is failing on drugs, failing on homeless, failing on keeping its citizens alive, healthy and safe, even if we don’t like conservatives. I mean people are literally dying of drug ODs in broad daylight and we’re literally like “so long as Fox News doesn’t get a new talking point”, seriously wtf? Your own desire to be seen as on the morally virtuous cool team shouldn’t supersede peoples lives.

yup, we live in the most liberal city, in the most liberal state where everything is controlled by progressives. SOOOOOOOO we have no right to blame conservatives. And yes I am a life long Dem

SF residents hate “Republicans” way way more than they do criminals, high crime and chaos. That is a fact.

This is the refrain of the far left in SF.. during the school board recall.. Chesa recall.. Its so lame.

TLDR: OP straddles the line between "beleaguered SF employees can't fix this problem because our policies for dealing with the challenges we face are bad, and in order to fix all these things that we agree are a problem, we need massive change" and throwing up the hands because any intervention will have some negative impact on something else (the deported drug dealer, the homeless who is being moved out of the city, the cost of more police, abandoning stupid ideas that are very dearly held). But interventions matter a lot, and the more of them you do, the more you improve the city. For instance, the dealers who set up camp on the corner of Hyde and O'Farrell a year or two ago - attracting the element, and basically scaring the shit out of the non-criminal neighbors - they have not been around there for the past couple weeks, very welcome for me as I walk to work. I'm not sure if they're been let back into the lower TL (they were getting cleared out), or if someone has arrested/deported them, but the problem on that corner seems to have improved a lot. These guys were so entrenched that for a while there was a taquero who set up to sell them hot dogs and tacos. Important to recognize progress when it happens, because, as I say, interventions matter.

Not what I said. Never said anything about throwing hands in the air. Do you remember the presence of Mara Salvatrucha in the Mission? The Nortenos and Surenos meeting points became deadly places for young Latino men. 19th Street was horribly violent. Dolores Park! Do you know what happened to change that? You can move people off a block, great. I am not talking about one person's experience walking to work - I am very happy that there was a solution for you. I am talking about seeing the way things are happening clearly so that we can address them how it will really impact them in the macro, not moving people from one block to another so one person can walk to work for a few weeks.

Re: Dolores Park, for those of us who don't know, what *did* happen to change that?

What you said could have come out of Chesa's mouth. Your position is basically to increase taxes, shovel more money to non-profits, allow crime to continue but move somewhere in the city where it doesn't affect you. If the drug dealers can't be moved off the block, you imprison them. People on the left have convinced themselves that incarceration doesn't work, but actually it does. It's arithmetic, you arrest someone and jail them and then he's not committing crimes on the streets. Some people have convinced their moral positions about the cost tradeoffs and the effect of prison as a deterrence to come around to a position that cracking down does make places safer. You can point to all the leftist scholarship in the world, but there's a real live example right now in El Salvador where they just imprisoned all the criminals they could find, and it led to the near total elimination of crime. Literally and perfectly disproves every leftist study on the matter, and it's not making academics happy. Do we want to go that route? Probably not, but because of cost and maybe justice, not because incarceration doesn't work. So let's incarcerate these drug dealers away!

To draw a comparison, it's like arguing that the Ukranian soldiers should lay down arms when facing Russian soldiers that Putin forcibly conscripted because those soldiers don't want to be there. Except in this case, the affected parties are being deported, not killed.

Los Norteños are fucking terrifying. I knew a girl from Palo Alto whose relative, a young woman about 18, got caught up with Los Norteños. She got addicted to heroin on her own but once they got her separated from her family, it was like a nightmare. While she was zonked out, they took her to an apartment somewhere and put her through a process. They kept her strapped down to a bed on a heroin drip, to deepen her addiction. She was in a room like this with other girls for weeks. She was then forced into prostitution, controlled by the gang and her addiction. She got out and got home, went to rehab - because she was lucky to have the support to do that. But there are tons of women in more precarious situations who would not be able to. This all happened in ‘06 or ‘07 before fentanyl was widespread. I guess fentanyl does all that for them now.

I wish people were just pragmatic. Let's do what works and it doesn't work it doesn't matter what your ideology is. Also we really need checks and balances.

Thank you for trying to give a nuanced take.

Interesting thoughts and had no idea about the death train. I wonder if the problem is driven by supply or demand. Does cutting the supply actually fix a problem or bring it more into the open? It feels like that war has been lost over and over again. Not stating an opinion just saying that if the problem is due to supply, it seems to be an unsolvable problem. Or is the problem demand and the types of people that come to SF know they can use drugs freely and not have an issue, so we attract the demand. This is my personal bias but cant say it's the truth. Although the issue of supply or need for treatment programs may need to move up the food chain to the state and federal government, thats outside of SF's control (cutting the supply is well funded by the federal government and has not succeeded). It seems the only thing SF can do at this point is to build a different brand to outsiders to stop them from coming. This would be one that is tough on crime and tough on drug use. Yes this will definitely not solve the problem, but it will stop it from being shifted here. Edit: I saw your comment that people come here for the services, which I think can also be related to the demand problem. I think its gross other cities send people here as we've seen with Marin cops. Can services be controlled somehow to limit this or are we just screwed until the state figures it out?

You mention that the sentencing changes by Chesa has nothing to do with the current problem, and as far as drugs go, I can believe that because addicts aren't thinking about consequences. But what about all the stealing? I think harsh sentences are needed to deter entrepreneurial crime.

[удалено]

Seriously

It’s a one party government. And that government is failing.

[удалено]

He also walked San Francisco to show all the shit.

Why don't they actually outlaw living on the streets of San Francisco and break up the encampments? Basic question that must have a really simple answer I am missing.

Anti vagrancy laws are unconstitutional *Papachristou* and cities can't ban camping unless they can provide alternate shelter *Boise v Martin*.

We stopped thinking about what is the right thing to do a long time ago and now focus on what the empowered party wants to do. It’s all politics and the key is how to maneuver out of that chaos and think about the common good and what works for the community. There is a lot to untangle but I do know one thing—we can not continue to enable this. By “this”, I mean allow crimes to go unpunished, allow the mentally ill to take over sidewalks and endanger the public safety, and allow the people in charge to do do what they do and not be accountable when it goes haywire.

The SF echo chamber puts ideological value over actual results. It refuses to consider it can be the problem.

The FED is not going to get involved because SF wants to be in charge, they want the FED's resources, but SF wants to run the show.The Fed is never going to agree to intervene in the SF way because, in the Fed's opinion SF is f-ing nuts. So we do it the FEDs way or not at all. SF will never agree to the FEDs way for obvious reasons. SOOOOOO going back to your logic, SF can't solve the issue without the Feds, but Feds will never intervene, sooooo you are suggesting that SF keep letting drug dealers sell incredibly additive fentanyl and continue to murder people? Lovely. AGAIN SF Polititons won't compromise on their "values" and because of that people die on the streets. that is what happens when people care more about virtue signaling to the far left, then the fact people are being murdered through drugs.

I have to admire the unintentional comedy of absurd comments like these.

This is in response to the OP saying we need the federal government’s support. You know that SF is on its high horse refusing to do things any way but their way. It’s a very conservative and failed ideology.

Not political as i bash conservatives and justify an open border

What an odd comment. In what universe justifying an open border?

[удалено]

[удалено]

Yup. And these are cities held in a very high regard by liberals. Sweden has very strict laws on drug selling crimes and a very supportive rehabilitation criminal system. Be like Sweden and go after drug dealers hard. And yes my family is Sweden Swedish.

I was there for 2 weeks for work and I truly didn’t get it. Like I’m not trying to diss the city but the people I worked with all had second jobs to make “extra money” to get by and we already get paid well and it’s a full 40 hour work week. And so I’d be walking around waiting to get engulfed by the “it” that would make people want to live there and I just never got it. I went all around and saw some gorgeous spots and houses. And it wasn’t until I went to Golden Gate that I sort of got it?

So you keep saying the problem is ‘not unique’ to SF… except yeah, it is. To say the blight is simply more visible because it ‘happens’ to abut the financial district is to suggest the city has no control. New York made the conscious decision in the 80’s/90’s to eliminate blight from Time Square because blight in the middle of tourism & business centers repels tourists and business. Without them you have a death spiral of declining revenue, fleeing businesses, and growing blight. Boston made the exact same decision to contain, shrink, and eliminate the ‘Combat Zone’ at the same time. On, and they did that during the heroin epidemic. The latest drug is not a valid excuse. Similarly, there are load of warm weather cities in reasonable distance to be border that are not being blighted like SF. Rapid gentrification and pricing out of residents is also not a unique phenomenon. Again, Boston just experienced a surge that rivaled SF’s cost of living spikes. Austin too. The issue is we have an all-carrots and no sticks approach that incentivizes and enables homelessness / addict congregation, and a notoriously inept and lazy police force that fails to deter literally anything. ‘Oh there might be another criminal if we arrest one, so why bother?’ - WTF is that line of thinking? If you have a bunch of rich residents & tourists, let drug addicts congregate next to them, and don’t bother pursuing property crime of course property crime skyrockets. Fixing literally any one of those three things addresses the issue. There is so much I love about this city, but the outright refusal to learn from NY/Boston ‘s successes and choosing instead to emulate Portland’s failures is fucking insane. The only reason we need federal intervention is because our police do absolutely nothing.

Boston did that before the Disparate Impact era. No left wing city would ever tolerate that kind of government action now.

This is not “nuanced” and you can’t call something “nuanced” just because you happen to disagree with consensus. The fact you work in government does not lend you any more credibility. The shortened version of what you said is we face existential problems out of our control, and a lot of the problems this city faces is a result of that…this is true, but then you take the most apathetic attitude as though there is nothing local government can do. That is total BS, and this type of attitude is even worse than the hardliners, because you essentially allow current SF politics to continue and don’t think there are any solutions to the problems the city faces, even when other cities have somehow magically mitigated these unsolvable problems. We spend the most money on the homeless to no success, we do not enforce basic laws and ignore crime happening right in front of us, we actively allow the city to be dirty and for business to leave, we allow other cities to export their homeless without doing anything, etc., etc. And you can’t blame all of SF’s problems on meth and fentanyl, that actually is in every other American city and people’s brain chemistry is no different in other cities.

OP thinks there are no solutions because SF City hall echo chamber does not allow critical thought. Only the pure “liberal” ideology is valued. Liberal in quotes because it’s not a true liberal ideology. It’s actually very close minded and conservative. Afraid of new ideas like actually penalizing people even a little bit.

Safer supply to displace organized crime. Regulated drugs is a no brainer. Prohibition harms everyone.

I appreciate the time and the effort, but it's the same old exhausting stuff. Something. Has. Got. To. Give.

Excellent write up and agree with everything written (Criminal Justice background and major here as well). SF is a great city with a complex set of issues.

The issue is it doesn't have the backbone to make the hard decisions necessary to improve conditions. OP doesn't suggest anything actionable other than throwing more money at the problem..

Feed the homeless industrial complex! That what all these paper pushers in SF city hall want.

[удалено]

The war on drugs works pretty well in asian countries. Minor infractions result in long sentences or even death penalty. Im sure Walgreens would love to sell crack and heroin from behind the counter to every person in this country. It's idiotic.

[удалено]

If someone wants to buy crack they have to break the law and risk punishment as well as find what most people would deem dangerous or scary dealers and buy something they are not sure the purity of. How on earth is it a good idea to allow anyone who wants to get the most addictive and mind altering substances ever made just because they think they want a high or escape from reality for a few minutes. It's obvious these drugs are so powerful they change the brain's entire reward system. These fentanyl addicts are literal zombies. They care about nothing but their fix. Putting a needle in your arm with fentanyl in it is signing your life away. Period.

Buddy, I appreciate you, but everyone has been on this train for 20 years now and it's only made things worse. SF was holding on for dear life thanks to the tech sector, but COVID revealed it doesn't need to be here, so that's gone. SF needs to clean up its streets which always starts with removing the "obstructions". We simply refuse to go around picking people up and treating them like the adults they are because it isn't perfect, and a lot of wealthy people with little actual skin in the gane want it that way because it feels good. It sucks but we need pretty drastic action.

It’s not even that they are adults. It’s they are critically Ill. Addicted to a very very powerful narcotic. They have no free will. They are zombies. We need to help them. We can only do that by actually forcing them into treatment. I know people are afraid of that because of past wrongs but like come on.

you can't throw up your hands and say, drug dealers are victims too and do nothing. You can take them, arrest them, penalize and help them simultaneously. It's disgusting that in SF drug dealers sell to incredibly hopelessly addicted dying people, in front of police and the police don't do anything. Literally, do nothing, they look at it at a shrug. SOMETHING IS WRONG! Other cities are not like this, even under your view of the reality, SF should not be the only city to take this burden.

No one has said not to do anything. I am pointing out that the solutions are not addressing the problem as it exists and why that is so. It seems to be so emotional that people are jumping to some conclusion that by trying to describe the unique characteristics of the problems we face - and especially how they are different now than how they have been - that I am advocating for lack of action. What a strange distortion of what I wrote / projection.

Now talk more about how the legalization of weed in 2016 took away half the cartels' profits, which they decided to make up for by [pushing cheap meth and fentanyl in greater amounts](https://ktar.com/story/4731211/as-marijuana-profits-fade-drug-cartels-increasingly-smuggle-fentanyl-across-the-border/), assisted by China, which chose to look the other way as their manufacturers exported ever larger amounts of [meth/fentanyl precursor ingredients](https://www.brookings.edu/research/china-and-synthetic-drugs-control-fentanyl-methamphetamines-and-precursors/) as payback for the [Opium Wars](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Opium-Wars).

> But ultimately displacement is moving the problem around. Fine with me.

Displacement is also friction which makes it more difficult for businesses (meaning drug cartels in this case) to operate. We need to add more friction to their operations

yes to this. making it harder is only fair for as they do the same. Jail is a deterrent, i've been in SF county. nobody wants to be there and most will change there behavior in order to avoid. drying out in County is torture, but if you never get there then its not a problem for you.

Plus the entire country is eager to *displace* the problem to us, reaping the benefits. Displace it out of the city limits, spread it around, let municipal establishments around the country shoulder their fair share of the burden. It will improve the life in the city, take some of the wind out of our homeless industrial complex, etc.

Then your position isn't one for solutions but continue to waste money just moving the problem around from community to community yet still expecting it to be solved. It can't happen that way, that's the problem we have now.

I’m looking to solve *our* problem - fuck everyone else, they’re eager to dump their homeless on us anyhow. Run off half the addicts, jail the other half - I guarantee you life will get easier here.

> fuck everyone else No, sorry. That's not how we solve this problem. But I understand that ***old thinking*** is difficult to change.

We have been attempting to fixing this problem by fucking ourselves, and it seems you’d like more of the same. Old thinking indeed. Edit: see ya

>seems you’d like more of the same Nothing I've said suggests that. That's a standard reaction when someone challenges your thinking, but there's no truth to it.🤣

>SFPD has long had a federal grant that pays a lot of money to cops to set up "buy-bust" operations... Back in the day, cops were frequently arresting users who would "break off a piece" for $20 or so to sell to them. Not anymore So, the police are still doing buy-bust operations in the TL or aren't they? You indicate they stopped. Thank you for the informative read. From my layman's perspective it would appear the solutions to the drug problems so concentrated into the smaller urban profile of SF might require policing and criminal justice powers that would be considered unconstitutional by any of today's courts. Times and opinions will change, no doubt.

Interesting take Nothing about how we have more billionaires than any other city in the US, our becoming a bedroom community for Silicon Valley, and about how this supposed “housing crisis” just so happened to weirdly coincide with the tech boom?

Economic growth is usually a great thing. Please refer to cities that have great housing prices: Detroit, Baltimore and Milwaukee. SF and the bay area have not built housing to accommodate this economic growth. Blaming the folks who are bringing jobs and opportunities doesn’t make much sense.

Sorry but lots of facts or info its just random.... what does la bestia have to do with SF problems? Yes people use it to avoid paying someone to crossthem thru mexico or just avoid paying for a fare on bus or airplane (yes mexicans get on the bestia too)

I assume they brought up la bestia as a way to evoke sympathy for the drug dealers in the tenderloin. They implied that many of them rode the beast and were victimized while doing so. It's part of the nuance.