The chaos that passes for city governance in San Francisco received a potential overhaul last month when Mayor London Breed declared a state of emergency in the Tenderloin, an incredibly dangerous neighborhood that the city has allowed to become a 24/7 Walmart of tacitly permitted illegal drug sales: fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, meth, you name it, you can find it in the Tenderloin, with almost no chance of arrest.
In what is the most lucid perspective on this problem in years from a city official, Mayor Breed spoke of the city being in crisis, that too many people were dying, that too many people were sprawled on the streets, that law-abiding residents did not feel safe and indeed were not safe, and that the current situation was unacceptable.
Bravo. Finally, a voice of reason. In a city with many more overdose than COVID deaths, with twice as many drug users as high school students, with hundreds of thousands of used hypodermic needles lining the city streets each year, with a team of street cleaners whose job it is to clean human waste from sidewalks, the mayor hits the nail on the head. San Francisco’s drug problem is out of control, and it is way past time to do something about it, something other than the city’s long-standing policy of harm reduction.
Harm reduction is a policy approach that essentially decriminalizes illicit drug use and intends to improve the well-being of drug users. San Francisco spends millions of dollars on harm-reduction policies each year, ranging from providing over four million hypodermic needles per year (yes, that is million—this is not a typo), safe heroin snorting kits, and meth cooking paraphernalia to providing drug counseling and treatment.
Harm reduction’s principles claim to be “evidence based,” but roughly 1,300 overdose deaths over the last two years would seem to be enormous evidence to the contrary, as are the tens of thousands of lives that waste away on the city streets in full view. These include one addict urinating on the street just outside the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals while smoking a crack pipe, as another shoots up one of the 10 needle sticks she has each day, just a third baseman’s throw from the headquarters of Uber. Look at these photos and you will see anything but the reduction of harm among these people. This is inhumane, and the problem continues to worsen.
Perhaps some addicts might be helped by harm reduction, but thousands are not. And what goes with drugs is crime, as San Francisco has nearly the highest property crime rate in the country.
Breed’s state of emergency calls for more treatment facilities and social workers in the neighborhood, along with more toilets. But it also calls for more police and for arresting those who refuse treatment, with a first-time offense being something along the lines of a citation, and a potential short jail stay for a second offense. But the idea of expanding police presence and lightly prosecuting addicts who refuse treatment is apparently a bridge too far for many San Francisco officials. Breed’s sane voice is being drowned out by those who don’t seem to notice the thousands of addicts who are slowly killing themselves.
Who objects? One is Chesa Boudin, the city’s elected district attorney, and his objection is incredibly important because without his cooperation, the threat to addicts of being held accountable loses much of its teeth. Boudin believes that increasing prosecution and pushing back on progressive policies such as harm reduction is “knee-jerk” and “shortsighted”, and he is dead set against the mayor’s declaration.
Yes, this from none other than the city’s chief prosecutor. Perhaps now we understand why San Francisco has such an enormous crime problem. Failing to prosecute means lots of crime. Such as a woman who previously had been arrested on 128 charges, including eight felonies, but still managed to be out on the streets with just an ankle monitor as deterrence, and who still managed to rob a Target store to the tune of $40,000.
What is Boudin’s solution? Doubling down on more harm reduction while pointing to a study of 12 cities that he claims shows that such policies reduce crime. But that is not exactly what the study showed. It didn’t show much more than that crime tended to increase the longer the lapse between welfare payments. Not exactly a compelling reason to continue with the status quo, eh?
Who else objects? Well, of course those who make their livings in the harm-reduction business. If you Google “harm reduction jobs San Francisco,” you will see what I mean. This is big business. And if you reduce the customer base, then you reduce the demand for harm-reduction workers.
Breed’s state of emergency is only operative for about another two months—not much time to move the needle meaningfully, particularly without the support of the DA’s office. But then again, Boudin is facing a recall in less than five months for his failure to adequately prosecute criminals.
Perhaps San Francisco is on the verge of making some positive changes. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and Mayor Breed has taken that important first one.
