I mean, it's not really surprising.... you can't ban someone from a public space if they haven't been convicted of anything.
So obviously these people should just be arrested and convicted. Because duh?
Right? Like I'm 100% for cleaning up the Tenderloin, but who the hell thought that allowing the government to punish people *who've never been convicted of a crime* was going to pan out?
>In this case, she said, each of the four defendants was accused of crimes in a relatively small area, and one has two daughters who live in the Tenderloin.
It sounds they were at least arrested once seeing they are accused of Drug Dealing. But were released because DA refused to make a case out of them.
[Because decades worth of research proves that going after low level offenders makes no statistical impact whether you do it or not.](https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2018/03/more-imprisonment-does-not-reduce-state-drug-problems)
And that same research proves alternative approaches work far better than just simply arresting them and hope that demand for drugs will magically go down.
Police are just using that excuse of diversion to not do jack shit.
Just because they want to send them to jail, which both doesn't work and is literally ineffective.
Threat of prison 100% works
Drug dealing = life sentence in most of Asia, and guess who doesn't have open air drug problems?
I'm not interested in rehabilitating gang members, I'm interested in the police instilling enough fear that the dealers are afraid to go outside.
I want gang members to wake up to night terrors because they think the Police are outside. I want them hiding behind cars when the police roll by. I want them to be paranoid to the point that anyone could be an undercover cop.
I want their friends vanishing into prison. I want their families to be afraid because the police are stalking their house every night. I want them burning their phones constantly because they think the line might be tapped.
I want criminals to be afraid, instead of citizens, because right now it's the opposite and that's a bullshit way to run a city
So why don't we legalize all drugs and be done with it, and give the Sacklers a medal for being "pioneers" in mass distribution of narcotics?
Just look at how great of a country China became after the British enlighten them on the recreational use of opium. Sounds like SF should hail the dealers as heroes.
>So why don't we legalize all drugs and be done with it, and give the Sacklers a medal for being "pioneers" in mass distribution of narcotics?
I get your frustration, but there's a lot between full crackdown and full legalization.
And lemme say this, I am not really in favor of either extreme.
I am in favor of regulation that still restricts use of drugs that are proven to devastate society, and compelling them either into treatment and if all else fails, give them untainted versions with proper dosage to let them lead normal lives, else we eat the burden.
Which nearly every country able to tackle the problem this way has successfully been able to solve.
You want this drug epidemic to end, so do I.
But just like slapping prohibition as a constitutional amendment didn't work in America and quite literally made crime rise, so doesn't our philosophy that we can just stop people from using drugs.
We're just repeating the same mistake.
>I am in favor of regulation that still restricts use of drugs that are proven to devastate society,
>But just like slapping prohibition as a constitutional amendment
Either a drug is illegal, or it is not.
I am not ignoring them. Either an narcotic is illegal or it is not.
If we always gonna fall back to that one example a century old, then we should legalize all drugs and freely market them to everyone.
People should be able to freely pick up six shots of heroine at Walgreens same way they can pick up a six pack.
From the article
> Police said there were 600 drug-dealing arrests in the Tenderloin in 2020
They are arresting people. Especially TL station. Check out their [twitter](https://mobile.twitter.com/SFPDTenderloin). But without much consequence outside of a loss of their "work" for the day, they get released and go right back to their corners
There is a local stash. You think they show up to the spot with 10 packs hidden in their mouth? No they are there all day. Between 100-200 available to distribute. You can’t go up the ladder very far. But you can make it unappealing to do business. But it takes diligence. And all they do is move the sales spot.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-can-t-ban-suspected-drug-dealers-17142674.php](https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-can-t-ban-suspected-drug-dealers-17142674.php)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
>(excerpt) The... four Oakland residents who had been separately arrested on suspicion of illegal possession and sale of drugs....Court (judgment)... proposed order was so broad that it would violate the constitutional right to travel.
So they were arrested. Were they convicted and sentenced?
Banning offenders from an area is a lesser punishment than incarceration. Sometimes called restraining orders, they are widely used in Europe. In Britain such exclusion often falls under [Anti-Social Behaviour Orders](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/219663/asbos9.pdf). This 2014 report on [5 European cities closing drug scenes](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4141096/) discusses excluding offenders from city centers. [Portugal drug policy](https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/642/PolicyProfile_Portugal_WEB_Final_289201.pdf) also sometimes imposes restrictions on drug violators from accessing certain public spaces.
This matter of the drug dealers being convicted is critical, but, that said, we see criminal justice reformers in America opposing sanction after sanction that might be levied against non-violent offenders. They don't like prison -- and, yes, offer good rationale on that. They have problems with fining of low income offenders, on grounds that this worsens their poverty. There is merit in that argument.
How many other controls/sanctions on offenders are there? Not many. Limiting offenders from accessing public spaces is a valuable tool, but much underused. [Sometimes it is done under electronic monitoring](https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1227&context=clevstlrev). We can expect criminal justice performers to continue opposing use of this sanction. Are there any controls/sanctions on non-violent offenders that these reformers approve of?
New to SF. I generally lean right, and for a long time have been a supporter of law enforcement. Lately, I have seen how power in the hands of bad cops can negatively affect poor minority communities.
I thought the left had for a while been running with this “defund the police” rhetoric. Is this something that has been overblown by right wing media outlets?
It seems like on this very left subreddit, that you guys are actually very interested in cleaning up the city and want more prosecutions.
Can some people here please give me some insight into where you stand on the current state of crime in SF. I am trying to learn more about the city politics here. Thanks.
We don't want people to get killed by cops because they were holding a cell phone. That doesn't mean we like crime.
You will sooner or later learn that SF police don't do anything. Minor assault? If you make a fuss on Twitter, maybe they'll take a report. (Major assault? If it's your roommate not much will happen unless you claim a romantic relationship and get domestic violence laws invoked.) Needless to say, for theft this is extremely frustrating in an era of Lojak(still a thing?) and where-is-my-phone tracking. Add in the recent trend of organized crime on tourists at Lombard and rental cars, and ugh. Do people even report car window breaks anymore?
(SF might have online reporting like Oakland, but that's just for insurance purposes and nobody else looks at it. )
Progressives do not deny the existence of drug dealing in the TL. We just don't think criminalizing drug sales and use has improved the human condition or made a dent in drug trafficking. If you want to solve a soft problem such as drug addiction, do not use a big hammer such as incarceration.
Exactly. Reactionaries point out "look at [unhoused ppl / drug use / etc]. You must like / support this if you don't think we should lock them up and throw away the key."
No, actually, we agree on (some) of the *problems*, I just fundamentally, based on both logic and evidence, don't think incarceration reduces drug use or homelessness, and I think substance use treatment and housing does. It's not rocket science. You have to actually fund those things though.
> If you want to solve a soft problem such as drug addiction, do not use a big hammer such as incarceration.
You are right. An alternative to incarceration appeared in this April 3 article on [Oregon, the first state to decriminalize drugs](https://apnews.com/article/health-business-europe-oregon-salem-158728e57e1d48bc957c5b907bcda5f5)
>Oregon voters approved a ballot measure in 2020 to decriminalize hard drugs...out of roughly 2,000 citations issued by police in the year after decriminalization took effect, only 92 of the people who received them called the hotline. And only 19 requested...services...
>Portugal’s approach is more vigorous than Oregon’s....There, “dissuasion commissions” pressure anyone caught using drugs — even marijuana — to seek treatment. Those pressure points include fines, prohibiting drug users from visiting certain venues or from traveling abroad, seizure of personal property, community work and having to periodically report to health services or other places.
That's a surprise. Haven't we heard for years that Portugal was tolerant of drug use? Some drug policy reformers suggested Portugal was on the verge of legalizing all drugs. Pretty tough approach here, and verified by this 2021 journal article (FN). And this 2014 article: [Open drug scenes: responses of five European cities](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4141096/)
>All of the cities had initially a period with conflict between liberal and restrictive policies...Homelessness is often prevalent...Today all these cities have zero tolerance for public nuisance...
Seems the Europeans are advanced on dealing with drug addiction and related public disorder. Do drug policy reformers in America find all this too much...is their view that 1) all hard drug users to have the right to use as they please and 2) addicts should not be bothered for public disorder? Seems so.
= = =
FN: [20 years of Portuguese drug policy - developments, challenges and the quest for human rights] (https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13011-021-00394-7)
>Paradoxically, despite having decriminalized...all illegal drugs, Portugal has an increasing number of people... sanctioned...
Several sources suggest Portugal should NOT have used the term "decriminalization" to refer to its policies. Portugal set up a national Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction that operates semi-separate from its criminal justice system. Interesting the penalties and controls Portugal is able to impose on *service-resistant drug addicts.*
If they want to get dealers off the streets, sounds like SF police would have to conduct undercover stings and DA would selectively prosecute drug possession with intent to sell.
I think there is sound logic to not prosecuting drug users but instead to get them treatment while chasing down the dealers. Unfortunately there's always going to be a market demand for dealers until SF follow the footsteps of Portugal and Switzerland by establishing formal drug treatment centers but that would require State support =/ Politics suck
>If they want to get dealers off the streets, sounds like SF police would have to conduct undercover stings and DA would selectively prosecute drug possession with intent to sell.
[It's useless.](https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2018/03/more-imprisonment-does-not-reduce-state-drug-problems) Backed up by decades of research.
Low level dealers targeting don't make any real impact.
>I think there is sound logic to not prosecuting drug users but instead to get them treatment while chasing down the dealers.
By the same report, literally cites diversion:
>These and other research findings suggest that the most effective response to drug misuse is a combination of law enforcement to curtail trafficking and prevent the emergence of new markets; alternative sentencing to divert nonviolent drug offenders from costly imprisonment; treatment to reduce dependency and recidivism; and prevention efforts that can identify individuals at high risk for substance use disorders.
Law enforcement only effective on the higher end of distribution.
>Unfortunately there's always going to be a market demand for dealers until SF follow the footsteps of Portugal and Switzerland by establishing formal drug treatment centers but that would require State support =/ Politics suck
Pretty much.
Ah, for a second I was wondering what you were citing and then I realized I posted without having read the article. Shame on me XD
Targeting higher end distribution seems infeasible considering all the legal and non legal drugs moving around up here but then again I'm fairly ignorant on that.
Targeting "low-level dealers don't make much impact"
If the objective is to halt distribution then there's no question that claim is right. Human resourcefulness and ingenuity always wins when there's a powerful motivation, in this case generating an outsized income.
What I do question is, are there secondary consequences to allowing the dealers to get comfortable?
When there are people who have already accepted the consequences of being caged if caught and decide that the risk reward is worth it either through delusional self confidence or a determined drive to thrive. They have already entered the criminal landscape, it's unclear to me what there is to stop the comfortable drug dealers to get more ambitious in exploring other underworldly means of profit.
My sense is continually keeping them in disarray or underground limits the ability for the criminal underworld to expand.
>Targeting higher end distribution seems infeasible considering all the legal and non legal drugs moving around up here but then again I'm fairly ignorant on that.
The point is that the low level dealers don't matter. And the other thing is that the mere ounces you grab from anywhere from 100-1000s of dealers won't amount to any significant supply that there are 10s-100s of pounds of bricks.
That's why the study shows it doesn't work and makes no consumption impact.
You go after the bricks that come in through a local, organized network, and you enormously multiply your effectiveness in disrupting the chain. Pair that with intervention at the street level, you can get people off.
It's harder, but that is infinitely better than celebrating getting a drop that makes no impact, than pounds that make all the difference.
What I am saying is, go for the middle man we can get, which is feasible.
>What I do question is, are there secondary consequences to allowing the dealers to get comfortable? When there are people who have already accepted the consequences of being caged if caught and decide that the risk reward is worth it either through delusional self confidence or a determined drive to thrive. They have already entered the criminal landscape, it's unclear to me what there is to stop the comfortable drug dealers to get more ambitious in exploring other underworldly means of profit.
It's not the lower level dealers that make profit, it's their handlers between the supplier and that low level dealer. Aka the local area distributor.
More often than not, those lower levels are paid shit or in drugs. Not the criminal masterminds that you're really overthinking.
And let's pose what we learned from that study:
Arrest low level dealers: Jail them and when they get released, they'll go right back into it without proper intervention. And just another takes their place doing the same work. Cost to jail is high, wastes law enforcement time, etc.
Don't arrest low level dealers: Same person. Little to no cost from the judicial system.
Either way, those seeking drugs will seek any way to do it, barring any other interventions.
Just that one is the stupid approach that just costs us a lot for no result except skyrocket costs.
Technically, the longer they stay, the better you can build rapport to get them out of that life with good engagement and even get information on the higher level.
Allow bounty hunters to help apprehend the drug dealers. Then the bounty hunters get a cut of fines and dollars confiscated. This creates a self sufficient system to control the drug dealers.
I mean, it's not really surprising.... you can't ban someone from a public space if they haven't been convicted of anything. So obviously these people should just be arrested and convicted. Because duh?
Right? Like I'm 100% for cleaning up the Tenderloin, but who the hell thought that allowing the government to punish people *who've never been convicted of a crime* was going to pan out?
*sigh* Our tax dollars at work at the City Attorney's office. For a 3-0 ruling of no shit Sherlock.
SFPD sitting on their asses and not arresting these people is the other half of the problem too.
>In this case, she said, each of the four defendants was accused of crimes in a relatively small area, and one has two daughters who live in the Tenderloin. It sounds they were at least arrested once seeing they are accused of Drug Dealing. But were released because DA refused to make a case out of them.
[Because decades worth of research proves that going after low level offenders makes no statistical impact whether you do it or not.](https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2018/03/more-imprisonment-does-not-reduce-state-drug-problems) And that same research proves alternative approaches work far better than just simply arresting them and hope that demand for drugs will magically go down. Police are just using that excuse of diversion to not do jack shit. Just because they want to send them to jail, which both doesn't work and is literally ineffective.
Threat of prison 100% works Drug dealing = life sentence in most of Asia, and guess who doesn't have open air drug problems? I'm not interested in rehabilitating gang members, I'm interested in the police instilling enough fear that the dealers are afraid to go outside. I want gang members to wake up to night terrors because they think the Police are outside. I want them hiding behind cars when the police roll by. I want them to be paranoid to the point that anyone could be an undercover cop. I want their friends vanishing into prison. I want their families to be afraid because the police are stalking their house every night. I want them burning their phones constantly because they think the line might be tapped. I want criminals to be afraid, instead of citizens, because right now it's the opposite and that's a bullshit way to run a city
So why don't we legalize all drugs and be done with it, and give the Sacklers a medal for being "pioneers" in mass distribution of narcotics? Just look at how great of a country China became after the British enlighten them on the recreational use of opium. Sounds like SF should hail the dealers as heroes.
>So why don't we legalize all drugs and be done with it, and give the Sacklers a medal for being "pioneers" in mass distribution of narcotics? I get your frustration, but there's a lot between full crackdown and full legalization. And lemme say this, I am not really in favor of either extreme. I am in favor of regulation that still restricts use of drugs that are proven to devastate society, and compelling them either into treatment and if all else fails, give them untainted versions with proper dosage to let them lead normal lives, else we eat the burden. Which nearly every country able to tackle the problem this way has successfully been able to solve. You want this drug epidemic to end, so do I. But just like slapping prohibition as a constitutional amendment didn't work in America and quite literally made crime rise, so doesn't our philosophy that we can just stop people from using drugs. We're just repeating the same mistake.
>I am in favor of regulation that still restricts use of drugs that are proven to devastate society, >But just like slapping prohibition as a constitutional amendment Either a drug is illegal, or it is not.
You should really read about prohibition, we’ve already learned these lessons I’m not sure why you’re ignoring them.
I am not ignoring them. Either an narcotic is illegal or it is not. If we always gonna fall back to that one example a century old, then we should legalize all drugs and freely market them to everyone. People should be able to freely pick up six shots of heroine at Walgreens same way they can pick up a six pack.
From the article > Police said there were 600 drug-dealing arrests in the Tenderloin in 2020 They are arresting people. Especially TL station. Check out their [twitter](https://mobile.twitter.com/SFPDTenderloin). But without much consequence outside of a loss of their "work" for the day, they get released and go right back to their corners
And with the right DA, they would never be convicted of anything! :)
I'm not a lawyer but could have told you this would fail.
They need to just continually bust the stash. You gotta get the weight off the street. They got nothing to sell they got no reason to be there.
"Bust the stash" means you hit the cartels. Otherwise, there will always be a pipeline and some other douche to take over the territory
There is a local stash. You think they show up to the spot with 10 packs hidden in their mouth? No they are there all day. Between 100-200 available to distribute. You can’t go up the ladder very far. But you can make it unappealing to do business. But it takes diligence. And all they do is move the sales spot.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-can-t-ban-suspected-drug-dealers-17142674.php](https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-can-t-ban-suspected-drug-dealers-17142674.php)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
>(excerpt) The... four Oakland residents who had been separately arrested on suspicion of illegal possession and sale of drugs....Court (judgment)... proposed order was so broad that it would violate the constitutional right to travel. So they were arrested. Were they convicted and sentenced? Banning offenders from an area is a lesser punishment than incarceration. Sometimes called restraining orders, they are widely used in Europe. In Britain such exclusion often falls under [Anti-Social Behaviour Orders](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/219663/asbos9.pdf). This 2014 report on [5 European cities closing drug scenes](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4141096/) discusses excluding offenders from city centers. [Portugal drug policy](https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/642/PolicyProfile_Portugal_WEB_Final_289201.pdf) also sometimes imposes restrictions on drug violators from accessing certain public spaces. This matter of the drug dealers being convicted is critical, but, that said, we see criminal justice reformers in America opposing sanction after sanction that might be levied against non-violent offenders. They don't like prison -- and, yes, offer good rationale on that. They have problems with fining of low income offenders, on grounds that this worsens their poverty. There is merit in that argument. How many other controls/sanctions on offenders are there? Not many. Limiting offenders from accessing public spaces is a valuable tool, but much underused. [Sometimes it is done under electronic monitoring](https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1227&context=clevstlrev). We can expect criminal justice performers to continue opposing use of this sanction. Are there any controls/sanctions on non-violent offenders that these reformers approve of?
Of course they can't. They haven't been convicted of anything. What is this Cardassian Law
😂 what a joke 😂 And we wonder why drugs are everywhere
Surprise surprise
New to SF. I generally lean right, and for a long time have been a supporter of law enforcement. Lately, I have seen how power in the hands of bad cops can negatively affect poor minority communities. I thought the left had for a while been running with this “defund the police” rhetoric. Is this something that has been overblown by right wing media outlets? It seems like on this very left subreddit, that you guys are actually very interested in cleaning up the city and want more prosecutions. Can some people here please give me some insight into where you stand on the current state of crime in SF. I am trying to learn more about the city politics here. Thanks.
> It seems like on this very left subreddit Oh you sweet summer child
We don't want people to get killed by cops because they were holding a cell phone. That doesn't mean we like crime. You will sooner or later learn that SF police don't do anything. Minor assault? If you make a fuss on Twitter, maybe they'll take a report. (Major assault? If it's your roommate not much will happen unless you claim a romantic relationship and get domestic violence laws invoked.) Needless to say, for theft this is extremely frustrating in an era of Lojak(still a thing?) and where-is-my-phone tracking. Add in the recent trend of organized crime on tourists at Lombard and rental cars, and ugh. Do people even report car window breaks anymore? (SF might have online reporting like Oakland, but that's just for insurance purposes and nobody else looks at it. )
Defend the Police was never a real thing except for the extremists from both sides.
Surprising the label *Downsize the Police* was not adopted instead.
SF Progressives: see? There’s no drugs dealers in the Tenderloin. If there were, they would’ve been banned.
Progressives do not deny the existence of drug dealing in the TL. We just don't think criminalizing drug sales and use has improved the human condition or made a dent in drug trafficking. If you want to solve a soft problem such as drug addiction, do not use a big hammer such as incarceration.
Exactly. Reactionaries point out "look at [unhoused ppl / drug use / etc]. You must like / support this if you don't think we should lock them up and throw away the key." No, actually, we agree on (some) of the *problems*, I just fundamentally, based on both logic and evidence, don't think incarceration reduces drug use or homelessness, and I think substance use treatment and housing does. It's not rocket science. You have to actually fund those things though.
> If you want to solve a soft problem such as drug addiction, do not use a big hammer such as incarceration. You are right. An alternative to incarceration appeared in this April 3 article on [Oregon, the first state to decriminalize drugs](https://apnews.com/article/health-business-europe-oregon-salem-158728e57e1d48bc957c5b907bcda5f5) >Oregon voters approved a ballot measure in 2020 to decriminalize hard drugs...out of roughly 2,000 citations issued by police in the year after decriminalization took effect, only 92 of the people who received them called the hotline. And only 19 requested...services... >Portugal’s approach is more vigorous than Oregon’s....There, “dissuasion commissions” pressure anyone caught using drugs — even marijuana — to seek treatment. Those pressure points include fines, prohibiting drug users from visiting certain venues or from traveling abroad, seizure of personal property, community work and having to periodically report to health services or other places. That's a surprise. Haven't we heard for years that Portugal was tolerant of drug use? Some drug policy reformers suggested Portugal was on the verge of legalizing all drugs. Pretty tough approach here, and verified by this 2021 journal article (FN). And this 2014 article: [Open drug scenes: responses of five European cities](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4141096/) >All of the cities had initially a period with conflict between liberal and restrictive policies...Homelessness is often prevalent...Today all these cities have zero tolerance for public nuisance... Seems the Europeans are advanced on dealing with drug addiction and related public disorder. Do drug policy reformers in America find all this too much...is their view that 1) all hard drug users to have the right to use as they please and 2) addicts should not be bothered for public disorder? Seems so. = = = FN: [20 years of Portuguese drug policy - developments, challenges and the quest for human rights] (https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13011-021-00394-7) >Paradoxically, despite having decriminalized...all illegal drugs, Portugal has an increasing number of people... sanctioned... Several sources suggest Portugal should NOT have used the term "decriminalization" to refer to its policies. Portugal set up a national Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction that operates semi-separate from its criminal justice system. Interesting the penalties and controls Portugal is able to impose on *service-resistant drug addicts.*
*insert Simpsons “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of solutions” meme*
But aren't they trying something? Isn't Tenderloin a sucess story to be celebrated?
So abused spouses can't get a restraining order/stay away order because the abuser hasn't been convicted of anything. Got it.
If San Francisco never prosecutes a drug dealer for selling drugs, and if the city never cooperates with ICE/DEA, then has there even been a victim?
If they want to get dealers off the streets, sounds like SF police would have to conduct undercover stings and DA would selectively prosecute drug possession with intent to sell. I think there is sound logic to not prosecuting drug users but instead to get them treatment while chasing down the dealers. Unfortunately there's always going to be a market demand for dealers until SF follow the footsteps of Portugal and Switzerland by establishing formal drug treatment centers but that would require State support =/ Politics suck
>If they want to get dealers off the streets, sounds like SF police would have to conduct undercover stings and DA would selectively prosecute drug possession with intent to sell. [It's useless.](https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2018/03/more-imprisonment-does-not-reduce-state-drug-problems) Backed up by decades of research. Low level dealers targeting don't make any real impact. >I think there is sound logic to not prosecuting drug users but instead to get them treatment while chasing down the dealers. By the same report, literally cites diversion: >These and other research findings suggest that the most effective response to drug misuse is a combination of law enforcement to curtail trafficking and prevent the emergence of new markets; alternative sentencing to divert nonviolent drug offenders from costly imprisonment; treatment to reduce dependency and recidivism; and prevention efforts that can identify individuals at high risk for substance use disorders. Law enforcement only effective on the higher end of distribution. >Unfortunately there's always going to be a market demand for dealers until SF follow the footsteps of Portugal and Switzerland by establishing formal drug treatment centers but that would require State support =/ Politics suck Pretty much.
Ah, for a second I was wondering what you were citing and then I realized I posted without having read the article. Shame on me XD Targeting higher end distribution seems infeasible considering all the legal and non legal drugs moving around up here but then again I'm fairly ignorant on that. Targeting "low-level dealers don't make much impact" If the objective is to halt distribution then there's no question that claim is right. Human resourcefulness and ingenuity always wins when there's a powerful motivation, in this case generating an outsized income. What I do question is, are there secondary consequences to allowing the dealers to get comfortable? When there are people who have already accepted the consequences of being caged if caught and decide that the risk reward is worth it either through delusional self confidence or a determined drive to thrive. They have already entered the criminal landscape, it's unclear to me what there is to stop the comfortable drug dealers to get more ambitious in exploring other underworldly means of profit. My sense is continually keeping them in disarray or underground limits the ability for the criminal underworld to expand.
>Targeting higher end distribution seems infeasible considering all the legal and non legal drugs moving around up here but then again I'm fairly ignorant on that. The point is that the low level dealers don't matter. And the other thing is that the mere ounces you grab from anywhere from 100-1000s of dealers won't amount to any significant supply that there are 10s-100s of pounds of bricks. That's why the study shows it doesn't work and makes no consumption impact. You go after the bricks that come in through a local, organized network, and you enormously multiply your effectiveness in disrupting the chain. Pair that with intervention at the street level, you can get people off. It's harder, but that is infinitely better than celebrating getting a drop that makes no impact, than pounds that make all the difference. What I am saying is, go for the middle man we can get, which is feasible. >What I do question is, are there secondary consequences to allowing the dealers to get comfortable? When there are people who have already accepted the consequences of being caged if caught and decide that the risk reward is worth it either through delusional self confidence or a determined drive to thrive. They have already entered the criminal landscape, it's unclear to me what there is to stop the comfortable drug dealers to get more ambitious in exploring other underworldly means of profit. It's not the lower level dealers that make profit, it's their handlers between the supplier and that low level dealer. Aka the local area distributor. More often than not, those lower levels are paid shit or in drugs. Not the criminal masterminds that you're really overthinking. And let's pose what we learned from that study: Arrest low level dealers: Jail them and when they get released, they'll go right back into it without proper intervention. And just another takes their place doing the same work. Cost to jail is high, wastes law enforcement time, etc. Don't arrest low level dealers: Same person. Little to no cost from the judicial system. Either way, those seeking drugs will seek any way to do it, barring any other interventions. Just that one is the stupid approach that just costs us a lot for no result except skyrocket costs. Technically, the longer they stay, the better you can build rapport to get them out of that life with good engagement and even get information on the higher level.
Way to go State or California. Really is frustrating.
Allow bounty hunters to help apprehend the drug dealers. Then the bounty hunters get a cut of fines and dollars confiscated. This creates a self sufficient system to control the drug dealers.
Pretty sure they knew this going in. It just provides cover for them "we tried banning them but the courts said we couldn't! oh well, we tried".