The continued focus of these pieces continues to be on the user while ignoring the impacts they have to the community and those around them. The majority of people want to help addicts kick their habit and become functional members of society again. Of course prison is not going to help especially if they are not ready to accept help BUT the alternative proposed by TS and their many, many guest rants is to allow these addicts to terrorize innocent people, assault others, steal to support their habits and otherwise act like assholes so we can "meet them where they are at".

Here's the sad reality. We don't have enough treatment options and even if we did there is a great percentage of users who are not able or willing to make that decision. There has to be another alternative for users who do not want help but who are also unable/unwilling to abide by social norms and not victimize others. When they cross that line we'll put them in jail. Not because its better for them but because its better for US.

The current system of letting folks shoot up, snort, smoke and pass out wherever they happen to be seems to be without any consequences whatsoever seems to be working just fine.
It showcases Seattles progressive and compassionate nature.

Pretty sure 'terrorizing others' or theft, are punishable offenses and no one is talking about decriminalizing them. The drug war is directly or indirectly responsible for just about every societal ill related to drug use. Hell fentanyl became ubiquitous because of the insane lengths the drug warriors have gone to in order to cut off any and all access opiate addicts have to pharmaceutical meds. The narco states south of the border owe their existence to unhinged US drug policy. Reactionaries who take a look at this spectacular failure then turn around and advocate for doubling down on it are in need of psychiatric care themselves.

@4: Camping on public property is illegal in Seattle. So are theft and assault. If you believe any of these laws have been consistently or adequately enforced, then I have some “System Failure” reports for you to read.

“The drug war is directly or indirectly responsible for just about every societal ill related to drug use.”

I’m a lifelong advocate for decriminalization of all drugs, and for moving public funds now spent on enforcement into abatement and treatment, as we now do with nicotine.

We who so advocate must recognize the colossal damage done to decriminalization by the catastrophically failed homeless policy in Seattle. Allowing obviously-addicted persons to wander around, committing crimes with impunity, makes it easier to advocate for locking them all up. Cleaning up the filthy mess which is now downtown and elsewhere will start to rebuild public trust in decriminalization, a policy which has already worked well with cannabis.

I'd like to tell you this isn't happening nationwide, and isn't a planned action, but the cold hard statistical reality is that states and counties and cities are all pushing for forcing black and brown citizens into prisons for actions involving less than $500 total cost.

Yup. Fall on a bottle of beer and break it and they toss you in jail until AFTER SENTENCING - so six months to a year in PRISON and you're not even found guilty.

This. Is. A. Travesty.

@5: Is "the catastrophically failed homeless policy in Seattle" unique to Seattle? I see tents everywhere up and down I-5. it's not JUST Seattle. SF and LA have demonstrably worse conditions than we do.

No city can keep up with the demand for subsidized housing or social services that the homelessness/drug crisis has created. Frankly I'm not sure we even have a policy at this point. Just costs.

@9 is correct and @8 is not cognizant of the reality that forced mandatory rehab literally does not work

@10: The evidence shows involuntary treatment actually works in some cases, which is why the survey linked (twice!) in this post focuses on ethical hazards to civil liberties to push the argument against it. Still, even that survey eventually admits it can, in some cases, function as an “approach of last resort.”

You know what certainly doesn’t work? Unsanctioned encampments. You know what no evidence supports? Tiny houses. Yet the Stranger loudly advocates for both, all the time. (For the many, many times the Stranger has posted on homelessness, can you link to even one story of a person moving to stable housing from either an encampment or a tiny house?)

Ten fucking years of the progressive harm reduction approach has been a catastrophic failure. The carrots are being hollowed out to smoke fentanyl. We need some sticks.

Even a normal misdemeanor is problematic. Putting aside the injustice inherent to the idea of putting a person in jail, $1000 is a lot of money for somebody living paycheck-to-paycheck (or gig job-to-gig job).

@14 Seattle urbanite I don't think it's accurate to say that refraining from interacting with someone is "coddling". Violent behavior is obviously problematic, but coddling them would be making excuses for them and telling them it's OK to do that, not refraining from proactively forcing them to do something. The default expectation is not that we force people to do things.

(also just for my own peace of mind for consistency with my other positions: making sure that people have the bare minimum required to even hypothetically able to live functionally, ie stable shelter and enough calories/nutrition per day, is also not "coddling")

@15: “…the injustice inherent to the idea of putting a person in jail…”

Persons who prey violently upon other human beings belong in jail; the injustice would be in allowing them to continue freely harming more human beings. If you do not agree with that, then there is no point in anyone here attempting to engage you in dialog.

@17 Seattle urbanite I cannot agree with a strike first mentality. If there is an active situation of violence, yes use force to end it. But if there is not an active situation, starting one does not make the world better.

I am also realizing that I have failed to explain a relevant point in my position, which is the importance of interpersonal relationships. To look at two extremes:

If I walk up to a random person on the street, let's say somebody who is actively imbibing a drug, look at them for 5 second, don't ask them a single question, but immediately launch into a holier-than-thou lecture abut the evils of drugs, and how they need to get their life together and take their equipment from them, because I am assuming that the use of the drug is the source of all of their problems, I am being an asshole. Assuming that you know how to "fix" someone that you know nothing about is an objectively shitty thing to do.

On the other hand, say I run into an old friend from college on the street. I sit down and talk to them. We reminisce about old times, and reforge our relationship. I keep coming back to them, and they open up about the things that they want to do and how drugs have interfered with their goals. I try to help them quit, but nothing seems to stick. Eventually I decide that some "tough love" is needed, I bring them into my home, and I physically prevent them from using again. I made this decision with knowledge of their life, and importantly with knowledge of their expectations of our relationship based on countless tiny interactions. And, if I made the wrong choice here, then I am harmed too because I have damaged a relationship that I value. This is a good thing to do.

You say that you have worked with addicts. I am sure that you have been in situations where you have tried and tried and tried to help people, and eventually you decide that some tough love is needed. This is much closer to the latter situation than the former. And I cannot say that you were wrong to make that decision. I did not know those people, and I was not in that situation. But by the same token, the law does not know those people, and the legislature was not in that situation. So they cannot say that you were right. Only the people who were actually in that situation can render any judgement on it.

There can be no justice without interpersonal relationships.

Ok, if we were talking about legislation that updated the current criminal penalties against violence to take addiction into account, and offer rehabilitation as a pathway to a better life, and to reduce the level of violence in society, I would be singing a different tune. That would surely be progress. But that is not what E2SSB 5536 does. The legislation under discussion addresses people who are convicted of simple possession, not committing a violent act while under the influence of an addiction. There is not even a requirement that the person in question has a history of violence. This bill is about simple possession, nothing more and nothing less.

I grant that there is a correlation between addiction to controlled substances and acts of violence. But to pre-convict every single addict for the crimes of some addicts - even if it is a majority of addicts - is not supposed to be how we do things. We are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. There is no justification for criminalizing simple possession.

And the point about interpersonal relationships is not just about the rehabilitative process itself. The state is seeking to impose this on every single person convicted of possession, and imposing that requirement is an action that itself requires a relationship with the person in order to understand their life and what they need. The problem is not with the details of treatment, it is with the framework that mandates the treatment to begin with. I generally agree that life under addiction is not a good life, and that people would be better off if they were free of the drug. But I can't impose my judgement on other people. I can talk to them, I can advocate for my point of view, I can look for ways to support them if they want to make a change, but I can't impose my will on them. Again, this is not about violence. This is about drug possession, nothing more and nothing less.

@21, @22: “But that is not what E2SSB 5536 does. The legislation under discussion addresses people who are convicted of simple possession, not committing a violent act while under the influence of an addiction. There is not even a requirement that the person in question has a history of violence. This bill is about simple possession, nothing more and nothing less.”

And that is absolutely the wrong policy, I agree.