linguoboy wrote:Seems to me if your goal is to not have so many addicts, one of your priorities should be to stop creating new ones.
Have I somehow misunderstood your goal?
(There also seems to be an implicit either-or fallacy here, as if we can't both provide harm reduction and treatment for those already addicted AND also tackle some of the root causes of addiction--especially given that those root causes exacerbate or create a lot more social ills than just substance dependency.)
When a building is on fire, is your priority to go around the city improving fire prevention measures, or is it to put out the damn fire? SF has a four alarm fire, which is what the article is about. Tackling the root causes (the ones that are even amenable to state intervention) of addiction is a long-term project that has little to do with ending the current crisis.
Yasna wrote:Not to mention a big part of the problem is addicts coming to SF from places with lower income inequality, more affordable housing, and smaller class disparities because of the incentives created by SF.
Citation for what? That drug addicts move to places with easy access to cheap, potent narcotics? Or that they come from places as I described? SF has about the worst income inequality, least affordable housing, and biggest class disparities in the country, so it stands to reason that a move to SF is a step down by those metrics.
Ein Buch muß die Axt sein für das gefrorene Meer in uns. - Kafka