Drug use isn't associated with crime and filth until we make it so via harsh city policies. I would, however, like someone to clean the 4 different instances of poop I saw on my 3 block walk this morning.
I am pro-decriminalization but we need to be honest about the effects of chronic drug usage, especially methamphetamine.
Why especially Meth and not Heroin or other opioids?
Only until they come down and go into withdrawal later and need to pay for a fix.
In an ideal world, sure. You can't establish causality here for sure but correlation, definitely.
It absolutely is. The more addictive and mind altering a drug is, the more it contributes to users who contribute to crime and filth. Forget drugs, even high alcohol consumption is directly related to more crime and filth.
SEC. 40. DOG TO BE CONTROLLED SO AS NOT TO COMMIT NUISANCES. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person owning or having control or custody of any dog to permit the animal to defecate upon the public property of this City or upon the private property of another unless the person immediately remove the feces and properly dispose of it; provided, however, that nothing herein contained authorizes such person to enter upon the private property of another without permission. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to walk a dog on public property of this City or upon the private property of another without carrying at all times a suitable container or other suitable instrument for the removal and disposal of dog feces.
But SF poop is not the dog poop.
The key here is probably the 'depending on the environment' bit. Hashish used to be closely associated with political assassinations, now... not so much. But it could be again, given the right(?) culture.
Not all drugs are equal. You can't drink your way into effectively schizophrenia, but you can get there in no time with the currently available super-potent variety of meth. Some drugs completely wreck your ability to live in a way compatible with holding down a job, which means that you'll pretty quickly have to turn to crime if you want to keep doing them.
What's worked very well in other nations is to literally supply people with as many drugs as they'd like.
The government handles the manufacture and distribution. All of it for free. In return:
1. The government knows who and how many drug users there are
2. Rehabilitation services can be provided. They may even be a requirement for someone to obtain the drugs.
3. Addicts can begin to lead a much more stable life due to a consistent supply. This has positive impacts on the society for many obvious reasons (e.g. little incentive for crime)
4. It is much easier for someone to ween off a drug if quality/supply is consistent.
No one is a criminal in my eyes for just doing whatever drugs they do. You are, however, a criminal if you run around chasing people on the streets with an axe, screaming at them, and then steal a car[0] (I am aware that this is Seattle, not SF, but the point still stands).
And I honestly don't think that officially legalizing fentanyl or meth or whatever else they were on would have helped, especially since drug consumption crimes are de-facto non-enforced in Seattle (which imo is not a bad thing at all, I am totally fine with consumption not being a crime).
0. https://komonews.com/news/local/axe-wielding-man-apparently-...
Other drugs are worse on both user and their environment (including alcohol), but they're not the source of the other problems. Rather, we are, when we reject such people and force them to live in squalor with no options.
I don't think _anyone_ has a legitimate justification to be smoking mystery substances on the street corner like I see, but that alone doesn't make them criminals unless _we_ make it so through our policies.
>"Drug use isn't associated with crime and filth until we make it so via harsh city policies."
Now you're saying that legalizing and regulating does not lead to a 'crime spike', which is a very different position.
Researchers seem to believe that it is virtually impossible to lead a functional (non-criminal) life when addicted to certain substances (like certain opiates, methamphetamines, and crack cocaine). From my personal experiences, this seems to be true; are you arguing that people addicted to these substances will lead healthy lives if the drugs are legalized?
For the record, I am in favor of fully legalizing everything, but I don't believe it'll somehow reduce or solve the crime issues.
Hell, having the government pay for your uber if you can blow high enough on the drink-o-meter would probably only cost some billions and save tremendous amounts of lives and money.
Ending prohibition and diverting some resources from police to mental health and preventative services is just a sensible thing to do.
I would imagine mental illness would be a bigger barrier to handling a 9-5 job than drug use.
IIUC, the majority of people that drink alcohol and smoke weed daily work 9-5 just fine.
Is the same true for the majority of people that have mental illness? What are we even considering mental illness?
I don't think the visibly homeless crazy people have mild mental illness. I think their mental illness is a bigger problem then drug addiction if they even have that problem.
Drug addicts can work quite well in the trades (drywall hangers are famous for being meth-heads in some areas) but once "enforcement" starts cracking down on hiring them, they can't find work.