Oakland’s fentanyl problem is nowhere near as large as San Francisco’s but we do have issues. Anyone who lives in the Flatlands and does a lot of walking (like me) has seen discarded needles on the sidewalks, and a lot of the wackos wandering the streets appear to be stoned out of their minds. We know, also, that many homeless people are addicted to fentanyl and other hard drugs.
The question for authorities in drug-racked cities is how to deal with dealers and addicts. Usually, the debate comes down to left vs. right differences: the left demands rehabilitation and treatment, including for dealers, while the right insists on arrests and prosecutions, leading to jail time if necessary. We’ve seen this debate play out for decades; meanwhile, the drug problem gets worse and worse, more people die, and more ordinary citizens’ health and wellbeing are interfered with.
What San Francisco is currently going through may provide a glimpse of the future for Oakland. San Francisco clearly doesn’t have the same left vs. right spectrum as does America at large. Every elected in San Francisco is a Democrat, so the debate comes down to what we might call “moderates” versus extreme progressives. You can see this debate starkly outlined in the current struggle between S.F. Mayor London Breed and the most leftish elements on the Board of Supervisors. Breed has consistently been “tougher on crime” (to use that stale cliché) than many on the Board. For example, Breed made national headlines when she vowed to clear up the Tenderloin (and appointed Brooke Jenkins as D.A.) in order to clean up the mess left behind by soft-on-crime Chesa Boudin.
Now, Breed is pushing even harder for a criminal approach to drug-dealing in the Tenderloin and other areas of the city. And predictably, her critics (of which there are many) are pushing back, accusing the Mayor of turning her back on drug treatment and instead reverting to the “failed” policy of the War on Drugs, which dates to the 1960s and 1970s. Meanwhile, we, the citizens, are forced to try and decide for ourselves which is better: Should these dealers and users be dealt with through the criminal justice system, or should they be seen as unhappy victims and given second chances?
My own view, for what it’s worth, is the former. It seems to me that drug treatment doesn’t work as well as its supporters might wish. We have very little data on the subject, but anecdotes suggest that there’s a revolving door to drug treatment, with people in one day and out the next, where they’re back on the streets and using again. The supporters of drug treatment acknowledge this, but they resort to the same intellectually tired argument that all social interventionists trot out when the weakness of their suggestions is pointed out: namely, that we, society, simply haven’t invested enough money in drug treatment programs.
The problem with this analysis, as I think most readers will agree, is that there’s never “enough money” for drug treatment (or for helping homeless people), for the simple reason that there can’t be enough money: not only because the budgets of cities are limited, but because the populations we’re dealing with (dealers and addicts) are in many cases too recalcitrant. No city in the world, especially not cities like San Francisco and Oakland, has the financial means to provide the kind of services that the pro-rehab supporters demand. Which leaves us with the question, what to do with these dealers and users?
It may not be the most popular thing to say, but we’re left with only one conclusion: criminal prosecution. That’s why I agree with London Breed and Brooke Jenkins that these people need to be arrested. They need to be stopped every time they appear on a sidewalk peddling their poison, or passed out in some gutter. They are a threat to society, and we shouldn’t let a misguided sense of “compassion” overrule our reasonable instincts to control them and protect our communities. This isn’t to say we shouldn’t provide treatment to the extent our limited funds allow. But two things are clear: dealers must be dealt with harshly, and addicts must be made to face some very hard choices, for in the end, it’s only themselves, not us, who can clean up their acts.
SAVE THE DATE! We’re gathering in San Antonio Park on Saturday, Oct. 22 at noon, for a picnic and to meet some candidates. Please be there! Bring a snack and make new friends.
Steve Heimoff