When San Francisco Stopped Prosecuting Drug Users, Violent Crime Went Down: Police Chief Greg Suhr Talks Narcotics Enforcement
"I'm a narc. I've been a narcotics guy forever," says San Francisco police chief Greg Suhr. "But I'm just telling you, I've always felt bad for the people that were addicted to drugs."
Suhr is following in the footsteps of his predecessor, George Gascon, who is now District Attorney in the city and who began the process of de-emphasizing drug enforcement in the midst of cutbacks to the police force in the wake of the 2007 recession. Since Suhr has taken over, he's disbanded most of the force's narcotics unit, and drug arrests have plummeted by 85 percent.
Suhr is no fan of drug legalization. He views drug addiction as a serious public health problem, a debatable assertion with its own set of dubious public policy implications, and he looks upon drug dealers with scorn and says they are preying on the sick.
But regardless of the questionable nature of Suhr's underlying logic, San Franciso offers an enticing glimpse at what American cities might begin to look like if drugs were legalized or decriminalized. Suhr's department still makes arrests for drug dealing, but only on a complaint-driven basis. They don't go out of their way to set up stings or raids. And while causation does not equal correlation, Suhr believes that the drop in violent crime since the shift in policy began indicates that his department has its priorities straight.
"Not trying to just keep a stat game going on arresting people for narcotics has not hurt us in trying to achieve our goal in trying to make San Franciso safest," says Suhr.
Watch the full interview with Suhr above. Scroll down for downloadable links, and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this.
Approximately 3 minutes. Produced by Zach Weissmueller.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Example 949302 of the Great Recession being a boon to liberty.
"I'm a narc. I've been a narcotics guy forever," says San Francisco police chief Greg Suhr. "But I'm just telling you, I've always felt bad for the people that were addicted to drugs."
What kind of cognitive dissonance does it take to persecute and inflict violence on people you feel bad for?
He probably focused on the dealers and distributors whom he mentioned he despised. Of course dealers are also often users, so...
No, he *justified* going after the addicts he persecuted by telling himself that his efforts were also getting filthy dealers off the street.
Its amazing what a man will not understand, when his lively-hood is dependent on him not understanding it.
The correct line (from a speech by Upton Sinclair) is "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
The poor are busted for drugs way more than the upper classes. As long as SF development policy keeps rich people moving in and the lower classes moving out, they don't need the police shakedowns.
I guess I'm cynical enough to think this isn't some libertarian enlightenment on the part of SFPD. Just good ol' American classism. They're happy to bust poor people for drugs if there's a complaint, but they don't want to do stings in the nice neighborhoods because the property taxes in those neighborhoods already pay the police handsomely
Yea! Violent crime went down! I'll just whisper this so that any low-infos present can't hear...Burglaries up 2 percent from 2,683 to 2,733 .Auto theft was up 16 percent from 2,689 to 3,126 .Burglary from vehicle was up 9 percent from 7,378 to 8,044. Shhhhhh
And I'm sure there's a point buried in there, right?
If I had to choose, I'd rather be burglarized than mugged.
The REASON readers were so giddy with visions of free drugs they didn't notice the risible piece of information that disbanding the narcotics unit dropped narcotics arrests - gee, ya think?
Also ignored is that drug dealing is considered a violent crime, which fits, nicely with the earlier bit of info.
As I have said on other occasions, to a certain portion of libertarians, living in a gulag would be OK, if they could just get their drugs.
It's a violent crime because it's forced underground, just like the alcohol black market was during Prohibition. If you can't go to the cops for protection and/or justice, you have to turn to the Mob. Legalize the sale and possession of drugs (and concentrate your efforts on drug awareness and rehab), and those problems eventually go away.
Suhr was not popular with the last CoP (Heather Fong); he represented a sort of rival and was stuck running the Bay View station, which is one of the roughest 'hoods in the city.
It's not libertarianism that drives his choices, just merely utilitarianism. He surveyed what other PDs were doing to cut violence and noticed the correlation. And made use of it. The Bay View didn't turn "safe", but it's a good sight less nasty than it was.
You'll also notice the SFPD hardly ever gets ink for busting the wrong door, grenading kids, killing dogs or the other effluvia of the drug wars; same reason.
I don't agree with the principle, but I'll take the practice and the results.Got to admit, the guy runs a tight ship.
"It's not libertarianism that drives his choices, just merely utilitarianism"
Libertarianism is utilitarianism.
"Libertarianism is utilitarianism."
Uh, no.
I'm not sure that's such a good image, given how rundown and full of unsavory characters the streets of San Francisco are.
Yeah, but the city is full of Democrats, so whatcha gonna do?
Yeah, the city gov't in general is a continuing embarrassment to anyone who prefers a degree of honesty and integrity. One rent seeker after the other masquerading as 'compassionate proggies'.
The PD is about the only bright spot.
Gee, its almost like its *effects of prohibition* that really drive violent crime in addicts and not the addiction itself.
Though I agree that not busting folks for drugs is a pro-freedom step, it has nothing to do with SF's violent crime drop.
I'm in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting database and SF violent crime started dropping much faster than the U.S. starting in 1993, as did all of California. That was the year their three-strikes law was passed.
SF's drop in violent crime leveled-off before the recession, which triggered the SF police to cut-back the narc squad.
All told, likely had little to do with the bulk of a 20 year violent crime drop.
Hitem up man hitem up.
http://www.Anon-Rocks.tk
Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is wha- I do...... ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com
Good for you, Chen, we're all proud.
What is conveniently ignored by Suhr is the reason the Narcos have been disbanded.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news.....13541.html