San Francisco fact of the day

San Francisco has more drug addicts than it has students enrolled in its public high schools, the city Health Department’s latest estimates conclude.

There are about 24,500 injection drug users in San Francisco — that’s about 8,500 more people than the nearly 16,000 students enrolled in San Francisco Unified School District’s 15 high schools

Here is more, via an MR reader.

'the overall San Francisco, CA crime rate is 134% higher than the California average and is 151% higher than the national average. Looking at violent crime specifically, San Francisco, CA has a violent crime rate that is 59% higher than the California average and 87% higher than the national average. For property crime, San Francisco, CA is 147% higher than the California average and 161% higher than the national average.'

mebbe somebody oughta remind the sociology dept. there has always been a causal relationship they have overlooked between hard drugs, impairment and violent crime
violent crime in our state is up about 25% over the last 5 years
about half is due to gangs and half is domestic violence both of which
are related to drugs and impairment.

does the sociology dept. still claim that violent crime is decreasing?

Absolutely terrible considering the high per capita income and very favorable demographics.

... and very favorable demographics.
California demographics are not at all favorable since the average IQ in the state is about 95.5. Outside of of dense Asian and Caucasian urban areas are enormous legions of people supported by cheap services, agriculture, and especially the taxes of the productive.

My home state and birth state are #1 and #2!

I have met so many dummies in CA, including those in the UC system. The state is captivated by post-modernism, and it shows. It's the bend over and take it in the state.

Eh, I made my first million in CA and kept my health while doing it. It is not so bad out on the left coast.

SF is third in the ranking of cities by number of billionaires, NYC is first,Hong Kong second. All three are known for violent crime, homeless drug addicts, Hong Kong was founded by Britian to push drugs in China. China's drug addicts went to SF to work, certainly to pay for drugs.

And the biggest drug pusher of the past few decades is NYC based Perdue Pharma run by the NYC Sackler crime family.

Sorry, no. That's the last battle.

Now the Chinese have retaliated. The majority of our addicts get their fentanyl and heroin from China; we cracked down (too late, yes, and possibly too hard for actual pain sufferers) on Perdue et al, and so cheaper supplies have been slipped into containers that are mostly unchecked at US ports or run across the southern border or sent through the mail.

Meth, smoked or injected, has become a mainstay drug among the West Coast homeless, and it isn't cooked up by trailer-park people in flyover country, but instead arrives from China via the same means.

Such is life in Trump's America. An entire metropolis lost to drugs and crime while Red China goes ahead with the biggest military build up in Man's history.

Yes, San Francisco is well-known for closely adhering to Trump's philosophies and policies.

I think the bucket stops at and on the President's desk. As President Captain Bolsonaro says, "we have no right to fail". As common Americans are sold in bondage by big business to Red China, as Joseph was sold in bondage by his brothers, crime and drugs swallow whole communities. In this metaphor, manufacturing is the almanac and Red China is Tannen.

Incoherent as ever, I see.

It's a shithole county.

Because Red China has hollowed up America's economy.

Red China apparently hollowed out your head too.

by actually trying to build the wall, Trump is actually trying to do something (that is within his power) to address the problem in SF.

Let us be blunt: the real problem is, Red China is taking America's lunch money. That is it. It is time for action. It is ridiculous that America can impose embargos over Cuba and Iran when human rights violarion 1,000,000 times worse are happening in Red China and Saudi Arabia and while Red China plans world conquest.

Absolutely! Also, people riding unicycles!

My point is, Red China is the aggressor.

It is, and sadly Brazil shirks from her destiny as defender of the free world.

Brazil is acting strategically.

That is what cowards always say.

We are consolidating our power.

That is the next thing the cowards say.

You know who else besides China steals American technology? American corporations.

There's probably some overlap between the two populations.

Beat me to it. Yeah I think there probably is. Then there's the cohort that are "non-native" (moved to the area) for the lifestyle.

SF only has 15 high schools ? 16k kids ?

Want to guess why?

There are two correct answers.

People with kids can't afford to live there, because of high housing prices.

People with kids can't afford to live there, because of high housing prices. So they flee to cheaper areas like Palo Alto and Cupertino? My wife and I left SF because we wanted to give our kids a lawn and garden in Los Gatos.

True, but there is another reason. Assignment to schools is by lottery, do rich people can't ensure their kids go to a pish neighborhood school protected by apartheid zoning laws.

posh neighborhood school

That's the real outlier data point.

The 16k only counts public high schools, not private ones. I assume that would add at least another couple thousand or so to the total if you included those schools.

If the presence of Silicon Valley nearby cannot inspire locals to steer clear of sordid drug decorum across the Frisco region, just think what consequences Silicon Valley's products and services wreak across the country.

What websites and apps most appeal to the tens of thousands of recreational intravenous drug users of San Francisco? How many are Lyft or Uber drivers?

My guess is that most, maybe all, of those street drug addicts are 'homeless' street people living entirely off free social services provided by the city. The rich lefties don't care about paying the taxes, the social services provide many safe and lucrative county and city jobs with to die for public pensions, and the bums stay right there in the city.

We have the same problem in my coastal city in CA. The same scenario - rich lefties, fat and lazy public employees, and the permanent bums.

I am planning to sell and get out in the next few years, depending on what my kids do. The state is hopeless. Nice weather though!

I lived in SF for 6 years (until 2017) and it is the most overrated city in America.

It's actually number 2 -- behind NYC -- on this Overrated list.

Overrated European cities and travel destinations also come up with a quick googling (unless you're a reporter doing a story on not using Google for a week or whatever)

I wonder how many bodies one can step across every day before it becomes enough of a problem to actually do something effective about it?

Evidence suggests the number is pretty high.

Sounds like the problem is solving itself by your account

I was in and out in the early 1970's and then mid 1980's. Beautiful city, wouldn't want to live there.

I've read the problem isn't stepping over corpses, it's stepping over human excrement.

They are (mostly) not dead yet:

"The hordes of homeless, sprawled in doorways and sleeping on the sidewalks, are a bitterly eclectic mixture of the mentally deranged; burnt out druggies; dead-eyed hippies; con artists; pickpockets; and hundreds of simply lost, forgotten souls."

As for excrement, since October there's an app for that:

They're doing lots of things about the problem; it's just that those things are unexpectedly making the problem worse.

mebbe unexpected by sociologists
but expected by many nonsociologists

Before making any conclusions, we need access to the data for the story. This story could simply be one of a declining student population.

the story isn't about declining student population
it is about the increasing drug addict population

I lived in San Francisco's Pacific Heights overlooking the Golden Gate bridge for many years and never saw a single drug addict who injects, just a wino or two. Granted it's where the rich live. I guess these addicts, if they really exist, are in Tenderloin? Color me skeptical.

Yeah, I was just in SF for the first time in years. Managed to cover most of the peninsula. Tenderloin has a few blocks of concentrated filth and homeless. Reminded me of the urban skid rows of olden days.

Outside of that, there is some sketchiness, but pretty par for the course for a big city. Most parts of the city are fine.

Looked up 2010 US Census data. That 24,000 injecting drugs constitutes 3% of the population, and is about the same numbers reported living in group quarters as opposed to in households.

Racial components: Whites constitute 48.5%; Orientals 33.3% (up 10% from 2000; Latinos 15.1%, Negroes 6.1% (well below national component). Seemingly, it isn't a racist problem.

I presume that a libertarian like Tyler is thrilled by this news: fewer children sucking at the public teat, more rugged individualists exercising their individual liberty to put whatever they want into their bodies.

Show a liberal that his Paradise City is in fact a festering shithole, and he will take a pointless shot at libertarians.

This is why everyone hates you.

Hahaha, I'm not a liberal. I think liberals, libertarians, and liberaltarians are all crazy. Stringent social controls, of the sort both Tyler and the Bay Area elite despise, are necessary to produce livable communities. If Tyler didn't have an admissions office and a campus police force to maintain the order he despises, he'd be walking in feces and hypodermic needles strewn by the riff-raff.

OP didn't take a "pointless shot" in fact they pointed out a rather glaring inconsistency in the thinking of libertarians that is worth a discussion. No need to be angry at comments on the internet. Lol.

Progressive policies drew the homeless drug addicts there, right?

Libertarian policies. Let's call a spade a spade, and admit that libertarian policies only work for communities where entry is restricted (like universities) and even then, only for a generation.

Climate and progressive municipalities, where social services are available, will combine to draw people in.

It seems to me we are in a libertarian/liberal trap: heaven forbid there should be any restraints; oh, and afterward we'll mitigate all consequences. Just yesterday was chatting with a friend of mine who is eagerly awaiting a drug-addicted grandbaby - not biologically related to her, of course; her kids have gone through the process to foster infants, possibly newborn, and they have been told by social services (in fact, a Christian group that contracts with the state) to expect that a middle-of-the night call will likely deliver to them a child suffering withdrawal symptoms. They are prepared and on standby. She said all connected have been trained to hope that the child can ultimately be reunited with its parent, or another relative, by the end of a year. I said I thought it would be useful if the mother could be forced onto birth control so that she didn't become pregnant again before this possible "reunion," because it seemed that would lessen her ability to or perhaps interest in retrieving her child, combined with the fact that the state and good people like my saintly friends have ... removed a possible impediment (children being sometimes an effective form of birth control) by assuming all responsibility for the baby.

My friend, an evangelical, of course found the idea of discouraging anyone from reproducing, to be repugnant. (To her credit, she lets me sketch out all manner of wicked or uncharitable ideas, on a variety of subjects, and never holds it against me - she's that good.)

Encouraging irresponsible or mentally ill or drug-addicted people to reproduce, though - putting the finger on the scale in that direction - evidently has no negative connotations.

One of the most welfare-enhancing and money-saving things we should be doing is to offer money to women in poverty (and close to it) to use Norplant or some other long term REVERSIBLE birth control.

When those women truly and thoughtfully decide they want a baby they can have one, but many will take the money instead and not have too many children.

I can't think of a single downside to this, unless you are totally opposed to any kind of birth control (and I don't give those people a lot of respect)

Perhaps it takes a misanthrope like me to appreciate how humane your proposal is. Standing in the way is, unfortunately, a very crude understanding of what is a correct idea, brought to you, presumably, by the people who put up a billboard on the freeway near my house. It says something like - "Don't believe in God?" or "Proof that God exists" - with a picture of a baby. Full stop. Brought to you by the same people who say they love animals but seldom get farther than loving dogs, the amazing animals that should have taught them to love other creatures and wish that we share the earth with them as long as possible. Life *is* the thing we should cherish most; with the population heading toward 8 billion people, moronic worship of human babies is akin to a twisted heresy of an underlying truth.

To be considered before getting too excited about Kamala Harris and/or Gavin newsome as national candidates

Does that include people who say they are "micro-dosing" and like to pretend it's a science experiment?

My friend tells Mr. Google tells me there are 21 million drug addicts in America and 15 million public high school students

This comment section is not interested in facts, and you really shouldn't be bringing them up here - it kills the buzz, apparently.

+1. Tyler falls for the base rate fallacy

I would be open to this objection if you could point to data about the base rate for IV drug users. This is the best summary of the base rate I could find (I presume it might be a little out of date).
It estimates about 774,000 Americans injected drugs in the prior year (meta study was done in 2014) . SF had about 0.26% of the US population in 2014 (853K/318M). If it had average IV drug use in 2014, SF would have had about 2,200 users (774K x 0.26%), which is well below what the article describes. I don't know if this study (or the article) is accurate or reflective of current reality but it suggests that there is no base rate fallacy here.

"My friend tells Mr. Google tells me there are 21 million drug addicts in America and 15 million public high school students"

The article says injection drug users . IE Hard core users. It isn't talking about somebody smoking weed.

About 1 million Americans reported injecting heroin in the last year. Maybe double that for all injected drugs, so perhaps 0.5-1.0% of the population in total for injected recreational drugs.

For San Francisco, that number is about 3% of the population.

About 1.8% of San Francisco's population is enrolled in public high school there. In Maryland, that number is 4.3%, 2.4x the San Francisco number.

Interestingly, white students may up only 13.3% of San Francisco's public school population.

A friend and colleague of mine, a high tech CEO, pulled his kids from the city school system and went private. In his words, he didn't want his kids cheek by jowl with kids taking knives to school. He didn't value the colorful cultural diversity.

If you have a bicycle in San Francisco, it will be stolen. No matter where you keep it.

Also a car. At the least, its windows will be smashed several times a year even if there is nothing inside to steal.

We have this problem in my coastal city - the smash and grab capital of the world.

Anywhere you have tolerance for bums and druggies you have smash and grabs, panhandling, feces, ERs crowded with derelicts overdosed with drugs and alcohol.

Reminds me of the time I saw and heard Thomas Sowell say "you can have all the homelessness you are willing to pay for".

No, I don't really want to be that guy, but it amazes me that no one else makes the connection.

The Family That Built an Empire of Pain

Increasingly the path to injectable street drugs comes from abuse of prescription opiates. Those were pushed by the Sackler family, billionaires.

I see that in a newer article Tyler is going to tell us that our hard feelings about billionaires are just jealousy.

No, too many of them are engaging in antisocial behavior.

To be honest I had a good feeling about billionaires when Bill Gates and Warren Buffett were my models. They take their position seriously and try to do good in the world. Sadly they are increasingly the odd men out.

As I will say in the future blog, maybe these other billionaires need some push back to do better.

The Sackler family and other unnamed "billionaires" are the best explanation for why SF is such a mess?

That's the question isn't it? Is the purpose of this page to say that San Francisco is bad?

Note that the top of page says SF has thousands of junkies. The article I linked said the Saklers created millions.

So focus on what you want, I guess.

The derogatory name for what you're engaging in is called whataboutism.

Is it? Surely some of those same SF junkies started with OxyContin. This being a blog on the political economy, we might want to look upstream to policy and causes.

And I say, it ties to Tyler's other, newer essay. It connects the two.

Yes, it is. Thanks for asking.

And you're bringing this up because...? You wanted to distract everyone? Unless everywhere in the U.S. has the same levels as San Fran then this is irrelevant.

Maybe a way to restate this is that I am catching a vibe, from the zeitgeist, that billionaires are bad.

That may be because wrong kind of billionaires have pushed themselves to the front page.

Perhaps better understood as certain billionaires being selectively pushed to the front pages, where its politically useful to establish/tune the proper zeitgeist, building toward the Democrat's 2020 efforts.

If only there was a journalist list serve to coordinate these things.

Its hard to be too cynical regarding zeitgeist management.

Possibly, but one thing about the old days, when Republican presidents and their cabinets were plausibly "upper middle class," was that it was easier for them to say that they were speaking for the middle class. Not simply trying to cut taxes for the super rich. Trickle down to "us" rather than to "you" if you get my meaning.

Howard Schultz falls in this opportunity and trap situation. On the one hand people listen to him more readily because he is a billionaire, on the other hand they might not trust him so much when he says that billionaire should not see tax increases. It starts to look like self-interest.

So, my advice for conservatives would be to find middle class candidates, and ideally ones that represent middle class interests.

Yes we all remember the good old days, 26 years ago when Democrats didn’t enlist the press to portray Republicans as horrendously out of touch and elitist.

George Bush and the grocery store incident apparently never occurred.

Of course they admitted to the lie. In his obituary.

At least we now have Nancy Pelosi as speaker, a true middle class American.

Gerald Ford, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon all had humble beginnings and quite moderate wealth by billionaire standards, but yes once you get to the Bushes you start to get into intergenerational wealth.

According to Wikipedia GHWB left office with $26M, GWB with $39M.

Bill Clinton $70M, Obama $50M, in case you are wondering.

Oops, Obama $40M

Michelle’s book deal alone is over $60 million.

Missed the / on the bold.

but yes once you get to the Bushes you start to get into intergenerational wealth.

Dorothy Bush died in 1992. If her son's 1984 financial disclosures are on the square, neither she nor her husband had as of that date distributed any assets to their children pre-mortem. Her son's net worth was $2 million in 1984. It was known at that time that he'd sold Zapata oil in 1963 for just shy of $1 million.

As for the current generation of Bushes, Jeb's financial disclosures a few years back put his net worth at about $2 million, derived from his years in banking and real estate.

Are you ignoring bequests for some reason?

There's no indication they received any bequests until they were approaching retirement age. When Dorothy Bush died, her children were between the ages of 54 and 71. The children of George and Barbara Bush were between 58 and 73 at the time they lost their mother and father.

Except, you really want to be that guy, don't you? The one that says that no one else makes the connection, and links to a *New Yorker* article that makes the connection - for the umpteenth time. The one that has found his boogieman, and does not want things like people's choices and doctors' opinions to muddy his clear vision. That guy...

Well if I haven't flipped to MR today, what would you have been? A happy little silo clucking that more capitalism and more billionaires would make San Francisco a better place?

By the way, if you are hung up on who's telling the story, surely you trust the Capitalist Tool

(For those not in on the joke, Capitalist Tool is Malcolm Forbes' humorous self-branding)

"Except, you really want to be that guy, don't you? ..The one that has found his boogieman,"

That's taking the rhetorical question and turning it up to 11.

Truth is, I did look through for anyone making the capitalist connection at Marginal Revolution. I was disappointed.

File under true things you'd rather not hear?

Doesn't San Francisco provide free, sterile needles? I recall reading an article that the City's spending on homelessness amounts to $40,000 per homeless individual (which obviously includes administrative and logistical tail). You get what you pay for.

San Francisco has more Doggy Day care than Kid Day care... for the same reason we have more drug addicts than students.. facts like this without proper demographics are pointless..

We need the drug addicts to shoot up in school and even the ratio.

Comments for this post are closed