The article is ambiguous. Hard to tell if that’s due to RR, or the reporter, but it mentions arrests with ultimatums. It sounded to me like the idea is you arrest them, and tell them they have the option to do job training and find other lines of work, and if that fails, then it’s jail. That’s how I took it.

It sounds kind of like how, on the demand side of the drug market, in places like Portugal, people caught using heroin are given a summons where the authorities say, “go to rehab or we’ll fine you, take away your govt benefits, etc.”

Same general premise / goal. You’re trying to tell people they can’t continue as they are, but they can choose between entering social programs to help them, or getting punished (usually a criminal penalty like jail for dealers, and a civil (aka non-criminal) penalty for people who use, like fines, or loss of benefits.)

Of course, that requires that the social service programs be good, and it requires the city to follow through with the enforcement of the punishment option for those that don’t take service.

Politically, that’s hard because so many people in the US don’t believe there should ever be a punishment / enforcement angle. They think the govt should ask people to voluntarily participate in a social aid program, and if they say don’t, just let them continue buying/selling/using in hopes that eventually change their mind.

And cynically, there’s kind of an incentive for services to suck. Politicians like to spend on services as it looks like action, and the orgs that run them like getting money. And, in some sense, being good at addressing the issues means less future money. Problems call for money, fixing problems means less need for money. From the perspective of continual funding, the “ideal” outcome to appear to be effective, but to be a revolving door where people seeking help cycle in and out, and the money keeps flowing. That’s best achieved by running something like a 6 week rehab program with no follow-up services. Easy to parade around people at week six who look to be on a good path, but without after-care, it’s often just a matter of time before they return and do it all over again.

It is pretty vague, but it’s a write up of a short speech. Nobody actually goes into much detail at these things - even less is pretty common.

I’m assuming there’s a more detailed document somewhere? Especially regarding how and where this has worked in other cities?

Not really enough to go on here, one way or another, beyond noting that she’s making it part of her agenda in a way I don’t see to the same degree elsewhere (I don’t think any of the other candidates have done an onsite thing?), but I’d be interested in seeing the more thorough version.

could the arrest the dealers too tho

Yeah it’s all pretty vague