I think perhaps that because solutions have become so partisanly labled, we continue to fail on this. People in this thread are merely asking for common sense policies that exist in basically all other developed countries. This includes socialist countries, where oddly enough disincentives to junkie behavior mean that everyday people can live normal lives in urban places without the constant storm of drug induced bullshit degrading basically everything. Why the American progressives refuse to course correct is inscrutable to me.
What about the obvious punishment:
Taking their drugs away.
Doing so improves the addicts life in the medium-long term, and provides an immediate consequence. Its something that many addicts actually want, that society wants, yet no one has the balls to actually do it.
Maybe if they werent constantly cycling through erratic meth benders and on a constant search to steal enough to afford their next high, they might have a better chance at affording housing. Im all for housing those who need it. And housing is too expensive in cities, but the meth/fent addict who cant even manage to keep their pants on has more severe problems than the going rate on a studio apartment.
I know this sounds absurd, but I don't think social studies on such politically hot issues can be trusted outright. Given the state of university social science departments, can you imagine the cost of publishing something that supported ‘war on drugs’ style policy. Im not saying your study is bogus, just that Ive learned to be circumspect around research into such topics. Because often such academics are also activists or involved in public/ nonprofit institutions that have become invested in specific policy.
Heroic. I try to do this too but everyone I know thinks I'm being neurotic when I explain it to them. I still see so many people accelerating into stoplights/brake scenarios.
I think an underappreciated hurdle is how silly headsets look. I don't want to embody/identify as someone with a computer strapped over my eyes like a blindfold. It's a bad, even dystopian image. Personally, I think a helmet would be much more appealing form factor, and you have the digital astronaut/crusader allusions.
No reason why mental institutions cant be compassionate and devote time and effort to individuals. Much better than letting these people live in their own excrement in the subway.
I think if you look at areas that try to restrict the supply of these dangerous drug options you will find that that they are less available and expensive. When you look at areas like Portland/West Coast of US, you see that with increasing availability there are lots of associated problems. Perhaps there needs to be institutionally provided drug alternatives for those who have already become addicted, but id argue its very clear that lowering barriers to use has clear negative impacts.
I agree with the sentiment and think that legalizing drugs like psilocybin is a positive step. But I have learned from seeing the consequences of drugs like fentanyl and meth that some substances are too dangerous and addictive to be available to the public. And in practice, cities don't have enough resources to deal with the consequences associated with them that you've listed. It is not practical to allow the use of drugs that consistently drive people to lives of crime and dependence. Often lives are damaged irreparably and the societal costs are incalculable, but emergency bills and social services can alone be staggering high.
Your comment may be correct when talking about the visible homeless. Yes there is a new class of lawless junkies damaging the urban fabric of the west coast. But there are many more homeless that are not visible and not criminals. These people are just less fortunate in social connections and skills and they need help.
That said addicts who have chosen a life of boosting and getting high need institutional correction. Unfortunately the right wants to pretend all the homeless are junkies and the left that all are single moms who are underpaid and cant afford rent
Our elected City Council does not make crime a priority.
It also continues to be popular to recast the realities of unchecked drug abuse and crime, as housing affordability issues. The new mayor and city attorney are diverging slightly from this, but it's an uphill battle since the bulk of government here and especially the judges make leniency a priority. And the populace is obviously very liberal, so calls for accountability are muffled by disappointment that the well intentioned zeitgeist around policing needs to be more nuanced. The issue is also influence by many non-progressive-law-and-order liberals migrating to the soulless suburbs/eastide. Despite all of this, there's no other city I find more desirable in the US. People want to be here regardless of increasing crime (still lower than comparable US cities); though the issue of drug related homelessness is also a growing problem (everywhere).