San Francisco is grappling with proposed measures to screen welfare recipients for drug addiction, sparking a contentious debate over public safety, civil liberties, and the efficacy of compulsory treatment measures. Here’s the full story.
San Francisco, one of the many coastal cities decried by many on the right for being a bastion of soft-hearted, liberal policies, seems to be taking a move towards the dystopian recently.
Change of Heart
Mayor London Bree has proposed a pair of ballot measures aimed at tackling the city’s long-standing issues with homelessness, drug abuse, and petty crime, which have turned out to be highly controversial for many of the city’s residents, as well as activist groups.
More Money for Cops, Less Money for People
Mayor Breed advocates for two key measures that residents will vote on in March.
The first aims to target drug addiction among single adults receiving welfare benefits by removing their benefits should they not agree to be screened and, if found to be using narcotics, entering treatment programs.
As if this wasn’t dystopian enough, the second measure aims to grant considerably more powers to police in the use of surveillance drones and cameras.
Cry for Help
The push for these measures stems from growing concerns over public safety in the city, with Mayor Breed highlighting demands from residents, particularly in poorer, Black, and immigrant neighborhoods, for increased policing.
The surge in drug-related deaths, with over 800 fatalities attributed to accidental overdoses in the past year, has underscored the Mayor’s demand for decisive action.
The increase in drug-related deaths is caused by the ongoing and pervasive problem of fentanyl available widely and cheaply throughout the country.
Breed stated that the city needed to be “a lot more aggressive” in its attempts to curb the use of drugs within San Francisco.
While Breed is not currently running for re-election, many see measures like the two she has recently proposed as the firing of the starting gun for her campaign.
The measures have been perceived as an attempt to reposition herself against her opponents who have been critical of her handling of the city’s issues, with the lives of those affected by further state intrusion into their private lives and an apparent gradual erosion of civil liberties a fair price to pay for her electoral ambitions.
The decision by Mayor Breed to submit these proposals to the public vote has been met with a barrage of criticism.
Critics argue that the proposed measures infringe on privacy rights, a cause célèbre in tech-focused San Francisco.
To Protect and Serve?
Many activist groups also say that, as has all too often been the case in recent American history, increased policing will only hurt the poor and marginalized communities that the new security measures seek to protect.
Drugs Winning the War On Drugs
They contend that coercion is ineffective and could exacerbate homelessness in the city, driving away those most in need of government support into the hands of more nefarious actors.
Many drew parallels with the harms disproportionately affecting Black Americans in the ongoing war on drugs, one in which drugs, by every measure available, seem to be winning.
However, proponents of the measures assert that coercive treatment measures are necessary given the severity of the drug crisis, civil liberties be damned.
Heal or Harm?
They contend that giving state benefits to people battling addiction actually harms their health rather than helping them.
Many also stress the benefits for the community at large with the removal of addicts from the streets of the city.
The debate surrounding compulsory treatment has shifted considerably in California, reflecting the state’s evolving attitude towards addiction problems.
Despite ongoing concerns over civil liberties, there is growing acceptance of coercive measures, particularly in the face of the confluence of homelessness, mental illness, and drug addiction.
The Slippery Slope
If the measures are approved, they would mark a significant shift in San Francisco’s approach toward addressing drug addiction among welfare recipients.
Mayor Breed has insisted the city would implement rigorous screening processes and offer a range of treatment options, with the aim of not only mitigating addiction but also preventing homelessness and reducing drug-related fatalities.
The city’s decision will be closely watched by other municipalities around the country, taken as a bellwether for treating the least fortunate.
Many will hope that the rights of the individual will take precedence. Still, during the ongoing humanitarian disasters of homelessness, drug addiction, and untreated mental health disorders sweeping the country, that hope may be slim.
More From Frugal to Free…
The post San Francisco Proposes Welfare Drug Checks – No Funds for Addicts first appeared on From Frugal to Free.
Featured Image Credit: Shutterstock / Srdjan Randjelovic.
The content of this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute or replace professional financial advice.