> but your general claim seems to be that because San Francisco is not successful... it is not progressive
No, the person clearly said the measures were *half measures* and that's the problem with them. And they did give a *specific* example about someone stealing and not being prosecuted for it, but social services/etc. not following up to see why someone may be stealing. You might disagree and argue that not prosecuting people for non-violent crimes (so they don't get permanent records that might affect their employment, housing opportunities etc. forever) should be enough, but it's a bad faith argument to say that the previous commenter simply thinks SF is not progressive because their progressive policies aren't successful. Your logic doesn't follow.
> And cause they have empty houses?
No, because they have empty houses and skyrocketing housing/rent prices and have so much homelessness at the same time.
> Comparing to to sovereign nations that have the full autonomy of the state to enact their policies (Norway, Singapore, Japan) makes no sense.
If it doesn't (your assumption seems to be that a city doesn't have enough political power to enact certain legislation/measures), then you are proving the point you are replying to: that these measures SF has, no matter how progressive they look, can only be half-measures. It doesn't matter what the intentions of people enacting them are, by your reasons (if, again, we take your assumption that SF doesn't have enough political autonomy to do much) can only be milquetoast half measures.
> open air drug markets have been allowed to operate with impunity, drug laws are generally not enforced
ok sure, you kind of have a point. Obviously there are a ton of stuff to be said, but I'll let you have it.
> harm reduction programs for drug addicts, here's a list of needle exchange places in San Francisco for example
Obvious straw man. By definition, these programs try to reduce things like HIV among people who use drugs. If you provided data that showed incidence of HIV increasing among homeless and drug using populations after needle exchanges were introduced, that would be one thing. What does this program have anything to do with anything about the root issues behind homelessness/drug addiction?
> they do provide low cost, and even free, housing for homeless people, addicts etc. I'm not going to link this for you but it's easy to find
No they don't, and you can't link it because it doesn't exist! And no, shelters don't count. If you research a little bit, you will see that a lot of homeless don't like shelters because the communal living situation makes them vulnerable to many other sorts of threats. Long-term, affordable, adequate housing. Find me the link for that.
> they have long been a sanctuary city and do not aid in enforcement of the immigration policies of the federal government
Again, nothing to do with the main point, unless the perpetrator was an undocumented immigrant (and even then, N=1, so what is your point?).
> here is their universal healthcare - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_San_Francisco it's been around for 15 years
Ok, this is good, you take this.
Anyways, you might disagree, but don't just ignore actual points made.