Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
This notion that most people living in, commuting to, or running businesses in urban areas were just going to become benignly tolerant of open drug use and its associated disorder is beyond naive. The people you call NIMBYs are mostly just regular working people - usually women - who don’t feel safe in public spaces that feel that lawless and scummy.
There’s nowhere in the world where people tolerate that kind of behaviour in their public spaces. Which is why the cities that experimented with decriminalizing open use - among the most liberal cities in the world - are all reversing course.
If you support urban densification and public transit, while simultaneously tolerating open drug use, you’re completely out to lunch. Those two policies are mutually exclusive.
|
The challenge is that we know criminalization of drug addiction does not solve the problem, that it is very expensive, and that it is a massive burden on the judicial system.
No less, I think that you're right, the way we handle open drug abuse is punitive against the general public, mostly people who are lower middle class and rely on public infrastructure and spaces. Moreover, people who work in hospitality bear a significant burden.
I don't think upstream interventions, like mental health and safe supply are bad things, but if that infrastructure exists people who aren't using them should be kept away from everyday people trying to live safe and sane lives.