313
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 99 points 3 months ago

The only thing that drug screening welfare applicants has ever done is shown that the percentage of welfare applicants that use drugs is much lower than the general population.

You fucking morons are literally adopting Florida's failures from a decade ago.

[-] Pacmanlives@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago

Man I forgot about the Florida drug screening thing from like 10-15 years ago. Been a wild decade though

load more comments (48 replies)
[-] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 68 points 3 months ago

Drug treatment is important, yes, but making it a precondition for benefits will absolutely hurt the most vulnerable. If there was actually enough affordable housing available for everyone that needs it, there would be far less of a need for this kind of policy. It is well documented that providing housing before anything else sets people up for success. If someone has been living on the streets and suddenly has housing available, their life will improve so drastically thanks to the job and social opportunities that will become available, also making it less likely that drug abuse will continue.

This seems like a cop out to me. Just build houses for fuck’s sake.

Breed has been on the wrong side of so many issues. Most recently she made an incredibly tone-deaf statement denouncing the city council’s vote against the genocide in Gaza. I’m done with her.

[-] evergreen@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

https://voterguide.sfelections.org/local-ballot-measures/measure-a

This affordable housing measure also passed in the same election, for what it's worth.

[-] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

Thanks for the heads up. Yeah, I’m cautiously hopeful, but still quite skeptical they’ll get it right. These measures often sound good, but implementation is key.

[-] evergreen@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Yeah I feel the same, cautiously hopeful. It seems like the implementation always gets bogged down with corruption, red tape and fingerpointing in this city...

[-] BobGnarley@lemm.ee 10 points 3 months ago

The thing is, they don't want drug users to have houses. Sad but true

load more comments (22 replies)
[-] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 48 points 3 months ago

One of the worst parts of this, and one that will get people killed, is they loosened the restrictions on police chases. Now police can chase cars for crimes where there's no longer a threat of violence like robbery through the second densest city in the country. People are so indoctrinated by copaganda that they think police chases always end up with the cop catching the bad guy instead of how they usually end, with a fatal crash.

[-] GluWu@lemm.ee 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I occasionally get in the police dash cam rabbit hole. It's crazy how most states have realized how dangerous car chases are and don't chase at all. BOLO the car and go arrest them the next day.

Then there Arkansas and Georgia where all the cops are just itching to get into a 130mph chase through neighborhoods willing to pit at any speed risking their life, the suspects life, and the hundreds sometimes thousands of people they go screaming past during a chase.

https://youtu.be/IQyak5_92Zk

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] evergreen@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

That same measure also allows the use of drones and other technology to follow and track the suspects, so may not necessarily mean more automobile persuits. We'll have to wait and see I guesa.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] merthyr1831@lemmy.world 35 points 3 months ago

"tough on crime" is just a euphemism for authoritarian

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 34 points 3 months ago

The NIMBY class will always project its insecurity more greatly than the remainder of the populace.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 32 points 3 months ago

This is the opposite of the advice in the book, The End of Policing. Book was so good that I bought copies for people close to me.

Just take care of people. We can afford to. It costs less than enforcement costs.

[-] evergreen@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

From the article:

Breed’s office has said the measure was intentionally designed to be flexible on the treatment component. Treatment options could range from out-patient services to a prescription for buprenorphine, a medication used to treat addiction. They noted it doesn’t include a requirement for participants to remain sober, recognizing that people often lapse in recovery and shouldn’t be kicked out of the program for a slip-up.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] gmtom@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago

People vote left wing

Left wing policies make city better

Better city attracts more people

More people increases costs

Increased costs filter for rich people

Rich people vote authoritarian.

[-] Tyfud@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

And to be clear, they vote authoritarian because they are the authoritarians. In a capitalistic society money is authority. Those with money rule.

People assume rich people are voting against their self interests somehow, but they're not. Money serves them and allows them to be exempt from most of the laws and rules.

They vote on laws that let them keep and make more money, at the expense of you not making as much. Then they use that wealth and influence to do it more.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 31 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Local tech billionares are recently dumping more money into the city politics to shift it ot the right. The CEO of Y combinator, a hugely influential silicon valley incubator is notoriously antagonist and recently drunkenly said the local city council should "die slow."

load more comments (15 replies)
[-] snooggums@midwest.social 29 points 3 months ago

Hasn't the failed war on drugs shown the narrative that drugs cause the homelessness and crime and are not just another symptom of the underlying problems is a lie?

Guess not to the general public.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

If the more progressive policies are helping, that impact is getting drowned out by other factors pushing parts of town in the other direction.

As someone who lives in the SF / Oakland area, I can attest to people constantly talking about drugs, crime and homelessness going in the wrong direction. People bring it up without being prompted.

My theory is that more progressive addiction policies work, but that’s just one variable. And there are other things impacting day to day vibe in the city that are overshadowing the stuff that’s working.

When people go to the ballot box, nuance often goes out the door. When things aren’t great, they vote for whatever is different.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
[-] BlackNo1@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago

FUCKING CHRIST CAN SAN FRAN EVER RECOVER FROM FEINSTEIN

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] militaryintelligence@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago

Policing a certain demographic more always works

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] fishos@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago

So if they test positive for drugs, that means you'll set them up with support programs, right? Treat the underlying issue, correct? Not just write them off and let the problem grow even more..... right???

[-] kick_out_the_jams@kbin.social 35 points 3 months ago

Breed’s office has said the measure was intentionally designed to be flexible on the treatment component. Treatment options could range from out-patient services to a prescription for buprenorphine, a medication used to treat addiction. They noted it doesn’t include a requirement for participants to remain sober, recognizing that people often lapse in recovery and shouldn’t be kicked out of the program for a slip-up.

Yes?

[-] fishos@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago

Holy shit I'm glad to be wrong. Honestly surprised. That's what I get for not reading the article and just assuming.

Thanks for the correction

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SourDrink@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

This is what happens when less than 25% of the population comes out to vote.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

Turnout in the last election in SF was 44.4%. Not fantastic, but much better than the rest of the state.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

That's why they pushed these referendums this election cycle, they knew it would be low turnout

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Zink@programming.dev 8 points 3 months ago

Oh good, I would hate to see a vulnerable struggling poor person get support that they don’t “deserve” because they didn’t fix their life yet.

Sincerely, 1/3 of this country. :/

[-] sexual_tomato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 3 months ago

From what I understand, drug screening usually ends up costing more than it saves because, unlike what the propagandists would have you believe, the vast majority of people on welfare aren't on drugs.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Philharmonic3@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Ah so the real estate developers are finally ready to finish their gentrification efforts. They must've forced out the last remaining owners in the area so now they can crack down and turn it into overpriced bullshit

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2024
313 points (97.9% liked)

News

21678 readers
2958 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS