FAQs

• What is San Franciscans for Peace and Justice?

  • San Franciscans for Peace and Justice is a group of San Francisco residents seeking to restore peace to our city by ending homelessness, drug deaths, and untreated severe mental illness. We are open to all who want to advocate with us. We are nonpartisan and want policymakers to work together to enact our agenda. 

• Who funds you?

  • San Franciscans for Peace and Justice is self-funded, though we receive assistance from Environmental Progress, a non-profit that is in the California Peace Coalition, which SFPJ is also a part. SFPJ and Environmental Progress do not accept donations from individuals with a financial interest in homelessness, drug addiction, or mental illness.

• Why did San Franciscans for Peace and Justice form?

  • San Franciscans for Peace and Justice formed because of the crisis we see on our streets every day. Homeless people, many of whom are addicted or severely mentally ill, line our sidewalks and live in degraded and inhumane conditions. Still more San Franciscans are harmed by the easy access to drugs through the continued presence of open drug scenes in the city.

• Why is it called San Franciscans for Peace and Justice?

  • We use the word “peace” because the homelessness, drug deaths, and mental illness crises cause our city anguish in the homeless themselves and in we who witness the humanitarian catastrophe every day. We use the word “justice” because the homeless situation is unjust. The city is exacerbating the homelessness, drug death, and mental illness problems by not pursuing evidence-based solutions like a right to shelter, mandatory drug treatment, ending open air drug scenes, and, for the mentally ill, assisted outpatient treatment. 

• Are you guys liberals or conservatives, Democrats or Republicans?

  • We are explicitly nonpartisan. We have come from all political parties and ideologies to develop an agenda that is practical and effective. We have looked to the best solutions from around the U.S. and the world. We are anti-ideology. We want to do what works. And we are open-minded, and will consider changing our mind on important issues. We aim to be like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) in advocating policies but not endorsing political candidates. That said, we will praise policymakers who show leadership and do the right thing. But we are choosing not to endorse candidates at this time.

• What makes the drug deaths crisis San Francisco’s most pressing problem?

  • The drug crisis is San Francisco’s biggest issue because so many are dying through overdoses and poisonings. 712 people died from overdose and poisoning in 2020, up from 402 in 2019 and 153 in 2006. That’s unacceptable. As of 2019, San Francisco has the fourth-highest drug overdose death rate of any major city in the United States, rising sevenfold between 1985 and 2020. 

• What makes fentanyl different from other drugs?

  • Fentanyl is more fatal and more addictive than any other drug available. It is fifty times more powerful than heroin and up to one hundred times more powerful than morphine. It is a drug so potent that a saleable amount can be sent through the mail without detection. That also means its fatality rate is immense. In 2020, the Drug Enforcement Agency published its Drug Threat Assessment, which reported that half the drug deaths in the country and in California were attributable to fentanyl. Its potency also makes it perfect for counterfeiting opioids pills because it can be easily disguised and sold for mark-up. But that also means that dealers end up poisoning and killing some of their buyers who think they’re taking something different and less harmful. 

• What is the difference between an overdose and poisoning?

  • An overdose is when someone accidentally or intentionally takes more of a drug than their body can handle. A poisoning is when someone believes they are buying one type of drug, but are instead purchasing a different or contaminated substance, which injures or kills them. 

• What policies do you want to see enacted?

  • We believe that San Francisco should create a right to shelter, like New York City has, and require the homeless to sleep in shelters if that is their only option. The unsheltered homeless are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime or addicted to drugs. Public camping is unacceptable and should be banned. Housing for the homeless should be offered on a contingency basis instead of an unconditional, Housing First one. Conditioning housing on sobriety or following a medication regimen has been shown to dramatically improve health outcomes, which Housing First does not do. 

  • Open air drug scenes should be broken up using a combination of police and social services. Addicts and dealers should be offered positive paths forward or face criminal justice consequences. Public nuisance laws should be enforced and addicts who use publicly, defecate outside, or shoplift should be mandated drug treatment or face jail time.

  • Inpatient drug treatment programs have been shown to be more effective than outpatient programs, and inpatient programs should be offered to those who need it free of charge. The programs should also be longer than many are currently so that recovering addicts aren’t released right when their cravings are peaking. They also need to be available on-demand. No one should have to wait days or weeks to get into an inpatient program.

  • All individuals with severe mental illness should be treated. California should create universal psychiatric services so all Californians can receive the treatment they need. That means increasing the number of psychiatric beds available and allowing the mentally to have more time in a hospital if they need it. For the severely mentally ill that refuse treatment, they should be mandated care through conservatorship or assisted outpatient treatment. 

  • California should create a new statewide agency whose head reports directly to the governor to oversee this comprehensive policy agenda. Call it Cal-Psych. Cal-Psych would be centered around empowered and assertive case workers who can monitor their clients and direct them towards the appropriate resources offered by Cal-Psych. You can read a detailed overview of Cal-Psych here.

  • You can visit our “What We Want” page on this website to learn more.

• What is harm reduction?

  • Harm reduction addresses the harms that result from addiction, such as HIV susceptibility, abscesses, and overdoses, without requiring abstinence for treatment. Harm reduction practitioners distribute free needles to reduce the spread of disease, give out Narcan to reverse overdoses, and provide free medical care. They also advocate for supervised consumption sites where drug users can take drugs under the watch of medical professionals, which allows medical providers to reverse overdoses.

  • Harm reduction practitioners provide valuable services and genuinely help drug users live safer lives. But many proponents of harm reduction misunderstand the nature of addiction by avoiding any measures requiring abstinence. Many addicts will not stop using voluntarily. By supplying housing and other services with no strings attached, San Francisco misses an opportunity to incentivize addicts to get better. 

  • While some harm reduction measures are positive, they are not enough to stop addiction, as skyrocketing drug deaths show. We need to create real incentives for drug users to break their addiction, including contingency-based housing predicated on abstinence and the introduction of mandatory treatment as an alternative to incarceration.

• Are you calling for a new drug war?

  • No. The drug war focused on incarceration rather than rehabilitation and peace. We oppose mass incarceration, overly long jail sentences for drug use, and arresting people who are using drugs peacefully in their own homes. But without mandatory treatment for drug users who break the law or use publicly, the alternative to incarceration is the growth of open drug scenes.

• Are you only concerned about fentanyl?

  • No, other hard drugs pose a major danger, too. From 2008 to 2020, meth overdose deaths rose 500 percent in San Francisco, and half of psychiatric visits to San Francisco General Hospital are related to meth. In 2019, meth was the most common drug in California overdose deaths.

• How did it get so bad?

  • In 2014, California voters passed Proposition 47 to make three grams of hard drugs for personal use a misdemeanor instead of a felony. Proposition 47 also ended jail sentences for people convicted of many nuisance crimes, including public use of hard drugs, public defecation, and shoplifting.

• Didn’t Portugal legalize all drugs?

  • No, that’s a myth. It’s true that Portugal expanded drug treatment, but people are still arrested and fined for possession of heroin, meth, and other hard drugs. And drug users are typically sent to a regionally administered “Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction,” composed of a social worker, lawyer, and doctor who encourage, push, and coerce drug treatment.

• How many of the homeless are severely mentally ill or addicted to drugs?

  • Nationally, around a third of the homeless have severe mental illness. In Los Angeles, two-thirds of the homeless have severe mental illness, substance use disorder, or both. In San Francisco, half of the homeless have both severe mental illness and a substance abuse disorder.

• What are the current services for the mentally ill?

  • Current services for the mentally ill are woefully inadequate. The California Hospital Association recommends a minimum of 50 psychiatric beds per 100,000 people. In 2017, California had 17 beds per 100,000. This means people needing treatment and stabilization often must wait for several hours, sometimes an entire day, to get a bed, even when their needs are urgent. 

  • Someone who is severely mentally ill is nearly 10 times more likely to be behind bars than in a state mental hospital. The Los Angeles County Jail has more mental health beds than any hospital in the country. Many of the severely mentally ill do not know or understand that they have a mental illness, making treatment nearly impossible without mandates. Voluntary care should be pursued before mandatory care, but sometimes the mentally ill need mandated care.

  • In California, when someone has a severe mental illness and poses a threat to themselves or others or is gravely disabled, that person can be mandated into treatment in a hospital for up to 72 hours. Unfortunately, many people with severe mental illness need more time than that to stabilize and return to health. Many of the severely mentally ill who are homeless cycle between jail, shelters, and short hospital stays, never getting well.

• What is conservatorship and assisted outpatient treatment?

  • There are two main ways to require long-term psychiatric care in California: conservatorship and assisted outpatient treatment. Under conservatorship, which is called guardianship in other states, a judge appoints a relative or other qualified person to make financial, legal, and other key decisions on behalf of a person deemed “gravely disabled” by a physician. This is the most serious of decisions and cannot be made lightly. This is the measure of last resort overseen by the courts.

  • Under assisted outpatient treatment (AOT), courts can require mentally ill people to follow treatment plans, like taking medication, to prevent violence, addiction, and crime. Those who do not comply with their treatment plans can be held for up to seventy-two hours to determine if they meet the standard for involuntary hospitalization. 

  • Evidence suggests that AOT is highly effective. Nine out of ten AOT programs studied in California significantly reduced criminal justice involvement. Six out of seven programs reduced homelessness. AOT in other states has been shown to reduce homelessness by up to 74 percent and arrests of the mentally ill by up to 83 percent.

  • AOT prevents the mass lock-up of patients in mental hospitals or jails. AOT realizes the promise of community-based treatment by allowing the mentally ill to live outside of institutions. This lighter mandate is proven to work, which is cause for celebration.

• What is the Housing First model?

  • The Housing First model is an approach to the homelessness based on the belief that housing and poverty are the primary drivers of homelessness. Housing First advocates believe that building more affordable housing would fully solve the homelessness crisis. They often see housing as a human right and essential to human dignity. They believe that permanent housing should be offered to the homeless without preconditions. They hold that other solutions to the homeless issue—like temporary shelters, housing with preconditions, and mandatory drug and psychiatric treatment—misdiagnose the problem and should not be implemented. 

  • Proponents of Housing First are right to encourage the building of permanent supportive housing, but their philosophy goes too far. By excluding shelter and transitional housing, Housing First causes many homeless people to live unsheltered, where they are more likely to be victims of violence or suffer from addiction. Unsheltered homelessness also encourages the creation of open drug scenes. And, many homeless people do want access to basic shelter. There are frequently long lines outside of shelters in San Francisco and some homeless people have to be turned away.

  • In San Francisco, it seems unlikely that Housing First will ever build enough housing to end homelessness. Guided by the Housing First philosophy, San Francisco passed Proposition C, a new tax which will likely raise $800 million over the next two years. Yet it is expected to only add 500 new permanent supportive housing units for the homeless over the next five years. There are over 8,000 homeless people in San Francisco, so Prop C will barely reduce the homeless population. Permanent supportive housing units are expensive to build in California and take many years to complete. 

  • Housing First doesn’t recognize the root of the homeless problem: drug addiction and severe mental illness. People are usually on the streets because they are addicted to drugs or struggle with untreated severe mental illness. Policies that ignore these factors have significant downsides. Housing First has been shown to not improve the health outcomes of those it houses, because it gives housing without preconditions. Contingent housing, which requires its recipients to follow certain rules, like abstinence or accepting medical treatment, has been shown to improve health outcomes and self-sufficiency.

• What is the difference between sheltered and unsheltered homelessness?

  • According to HUD, an unsheltered homeless person resides in a place not meant for human habitation, such as a car, park, sidewalk, or abandoned building. A sheltered homeless person resides in an emergency shelter, or transitional housing, or supportive housing.

• What is Cal-Psych? 

  • Cal-Psych would be a new, statewide agency to tackle the problems of homelessness, drug addiction, and untreated severe mental illness. It would serve these populations and get them off the streets through new policies and assertive social workers with “whatever it takes” mandates.

  • Cal-Psych’s empowered caseworkers would have the resources and solutions they need to get the homeless off the streets, and the addicted and mentally ill into treatment or other support. Cal-Psych case workers will be able to track their clients and know if they stop taking medication, break their abstinence, leave their housing, or commit a crime. There will be enough Cal-Psych case workers such that they have the time to provide the support their clients need. Cal-Psych is based on solutions that work: contingency-based housing, expanded voluntary and mandatory treatment for the addicted and mentally ill, and a right to shelter. By being a statewide agency, Cal-Psych will have the buying power and accountability needed to solve the issue of homelessness. 

• Why do you want to amend Prop 47?

  • Proposition 47, or “The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act”, reclassified seven non-violent categories of crime as misdemeanors, limiting the length and type of sentence available for those crimes. Prop 47 has the important goal of reducing mass incarceration. It made possession of up to three grams of hard drugs for personal use a misdemeanor and ended jail time for many nuisance crimes, including public use of hard drugs, public defecation, and shoplifting of items worth less than $950.

  • Unfortunately, it has had negative side effects. Through high tolerance for public drug use, Prop 47 has encouraged an increase in addiction-related crime and disorder like shoplifting rings, public defecation, public urination, public drug use, and more. Users can’t be jailed for possession, which allows them to continue to use drugs, doesn’t disincentivize addiction, and doesn’t give them a space to detox.

  • We want to amend Prop 47 to make it possible to arrest addicts who commit crimes related to their addictions and offer them mandatory treatment as an alternative to jail so that they can win their lives back, and so our streets are clean, open, and safe. 

• How is social media part of the drug trade?

  • Drug dealers sell on apps like Instagram and Snapchat (where messages between dealer and buyer can disappear minutes after they’re sent and received). Through hashtags, buyers, both minors and adults, find or are sought out by local drug dealers who then deliver the substances to the buyer’s location. These transactions are incredibly hard to monitor due to the nature of the internet and the privacy-centric ethos of the apps’ business models. And, social media is causing a paradigm shift in fentanyl deaths; during COVID, dealers took to social media and bored teenagers responded to ads for prescription pills, many of which contained highly addictive amounts of fentanyl - sometimes deadly amounts. In the past year there has been a dramatic rise of 13-17 year olds’ deaths by fentanyl poisoning, who often tried drugs for the first time. Teenagers should learn from their mistakes, not die from them.

• What is Section 230?

  • Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which Congress passed in 1996, protects Internet and communications providers from being held liable for the activity that takes place on their websites. The Act made sense at the time, when the Internet was new, but today it gives the social media companies too much power. Selling illicit and potentially fatal substances should not hide behind speech protections. Nor should the manipulation of the psychologies of our children. Reforming Section 230 may be an important step in breaking up the app-based drug markets that lead to fentanyl poisoning and reversing the harms created by social media companies on adolescent psychology.