Well that's a gross misrepresentation of what I said, and a really weird dichotomy to boot.
I said that these violent addicts are refusing offered social services, yet we let them walk around and continue to harm the public.
I said that these violent addicts are refusing offered social services, yet we let them walk around and continue to harm the public.
No, it's not.
What you said, in response to the article was:
> I am just astounded that this is being spun in such a positive light.
The implication here is that redirecting non-violent addicts off the addiction --> prison pipeline was a policy mistake.
I ask why you think that non-violent addicts should be put into prison. You tell me I'm grossly misrepresenting your point of view.
Which point of view do you actually hold? Do you think that non-violent addicts should be provided with help, or prison? Pick one, and own it.
I don't care one whit about your opinions on violent people in public spaces. I doubt they differ from mine, and it's not an interesting conversation.
Whatever problems the commenter in question has with violent criminals has absolutely nothing to do with it - but they chose to attack the non-violent policy (And then get defensive about how their points are being misconstrued. What are those points, then? Violent crime is bad, and should be dealt with? I don't think anyone disagrees with that one. What does it have to do with a diversion of non-violent addicts?)
It's like complaining that standards on organically-grown produce aren't preventing contaminated meat from ending up at your grocery store. Whatever problems you have with contaminated meat have nothing to do with the produce policy.