San Fransicko Summary

Introduction

Overview

The chapter begins with the author's perplexed reaction to the 2020 anarchist occupation in Seattle, which ignites a deeper inquiry into why progressive city governments permit such disorder. From this starting point, the narrative expands to examine the author's own progressive background and growing disillusionment with policies in cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle. Personal experiences during the pandemic in Berkeley highlight escalating public crises—mental illness, drug addiction, and homelessness—that seem exacerbated by well-meaning but flawed approaches. The author sets out to uncover why decades of progressive governance have led to worse outcomes, framing the book as a journey to correct misunderstood beliefs about urban management and social justice.

The Seattle Occupation and Personal Awakening

When news broke of anarchists taking over a Seattle neighborhood following George Floyd's killing, the author initially dismissed it as inconsequential. However, after learning about the killings of two black teenagers within the occupied zone, the reality set in: a major city had allowed armed groups to seize control. This prompted urgent questions about the rationale behind such governmental acquiescence. The author reflects on a long history with radical politics, from reading Noam Chomsky as a socialist youth to protesting alongside anarchists in the 1999 Seattle WTO demonstrations. Despite this familiarity, the idea that a city government would actively participate in its own dissolution was startling, sparking a need to investigate further.

Pandemic-Era Disorder in Berkeley

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the author's daily life in downtown Berkeley became a front-row seat to escalating chaos. People in psychotic states shouted obscenities in the streets, while others reacted with unmasked aggression, such as coughing in faces or issuing threats. This disorder was linked to pandemic measures: reduced occupancy in prisons, jails, and shelters led to more people sleeping on sidewalks, leaving trash and waste near offices. These issues, however, didn't originate with COVID-19; they were symptoms of deeper, pre-existing problems. The author notes how merely making eye contact could provoke hostility, illustrating a breakdown in public safety and social cohesion.

Questioning Progressive Policies

California's reputation as a progressive paradise is contrasted with its stark realities: the highest taxes in the nation, a exodus of businesses, and persistent social woes. The author shares Bill Maher's lament about feeling like he's living in 1970s Italy despite paying super high taxes. As a lifelong Democrat, the author finds themselves asking conservative-sounding questions about the return on investment from taxes and ballot initiatives aimed at tackling drug addiction, mental illness, and homelessness. Instead of improvement, these issues have worsened, and progressive officials have ceased enforcing laws for certain groups, from unhoused individuals to armed anarchists. This contradiction fuels the book's central mission: to uncover why progressive policies are failing and how misconceptions about crime and homelessness have taken hold.

San Francisco's Homelessness Policies: A Historical Look

Delving into San Francisco's approach, the chapter traces decades of well-intentioned but ineffective strategies. In the early 1990s, a mayor elected on a platform of cracking down on nuisance crimes like camping and panhandling also offered housing and services, but faced resistance from nonprofits advocating for single resident occupancy (SRO) hotels, which became hubs for drug use and prostitution. Subsequent mayors, like Willie Brown, promised compassion but continued sweeps, leading to accusations of betrayal from progressives. The landmark "Care Not Cash" initiative under Gavin Newsom aimed to divert welfare payments to housing, yet it only housed a small fraction of the homeless population. A Ten Year Plan launched with optimism claimed it could cost-effectively address chronic homelessness, but instead, the problem grew more severe. The chapter highlights how supportive housing often perpetuates addiction, with SRO hotels becoming drug markets, and notes that chronic homelessness is closely tied to addiction and disaffiliation from support systems.

Key Takeaways

• The author's investigation is driven by a paradox: progressive cities with high taxes and ambitious social initiatives are experiencing worsening disorder, from homeless encampments to anarchist occupations.
• Personal experiences during the pandemic reveal how policies reducing law enforcement and shelter capacity have intensified public crises around mental illness and drug addiction.
• Historical policies in San Francisco, such as "Care Not Cash" and reliance on SRO hotels, have failed to curb homelessness and often enabled substance abuse, despite good intentions.
• A shift in progressive thought has reframed law and order as an obstacle to social justice, leading to toleration of behaviors that degrade urban life and harm vulnerable populations.
• The chapter sets the stage for a broader critique of how progressive ideologies misunderstand the roots of urban disorder, emphasizing the need for evidence-based approaches over ideological certainty.

Download Mindmap

If you like this summary, you probably also like these summaries...

Don't Believe Everything You Think

by Joseph Nguyen

Deep Work

by Cal Newport

Flow

by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

San Fransicko Summary

2: Pleasure Island

Overview

This chapter explores how San Francisco's well-intentioned progressive policies have inadvertently created a destructive cycle, attracting and trapping people struggling with addiction and homelessness. It traces the evolution of the city's approach from the 1980s to the present, highlighting how generous services, permissive attitudes, and lax law enforcement have turned the streets into a modern-day "Pleasure Island" where individuals are slowly stripped of their humanity. Through financial data, personal narratives, and political analysis, it reveals a system that often enables addiction rather than promoting recovery, leading to a crisis that many feel has become intractable.

Historical Context and Progressive Advocacy

San Francisco's identity as a sanctuary for the homeless has deep roots. Since the 1980s, progressive activists and officials have consistently defended the right to camp in public spaces, even when residents and businesses complained. Initiatives to ban aggressive panhandling or sitting on sidewalks were met with fierce resistance, framed by advocates as attacks on civil rights comparable to Jim Crow laws. This philosophical stance empowered those on the streets, with some homeless individuals feeling entitled to occupy spaces like downtown, supported by a network of advocates and sympathetic citizens. The provision of tents and direct aid, while humanitarian in intent, often facilitated the growth of encampments rather than their resolution.

Financial Incentives and the "Magnet Effect"

The city's generosity is quantifiable and significant. San Francisco spends far more per homeless person on housing and services than other major cities like New York or Los Angeles, and its cash welfare benefits are notably higher. Programs like General Assistance, even with restrictions, can be manipulated, as former homeless addict Tom Wolf explains, allowing funds to be diverted directly to drugs. This financial support, combined with abundant services, acts as a powerful draw. Surveys indicate that many of San Francisco's homeless are not native to the city; they come from other states, often after hearing about the plentiful services, mild climate, and tolerant environment. The chapter cites officials from San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle who acknowledge this "magnet effect," where increased spending attracts more people in need, overwhelming the system.

The Allure of "Pleasure Island"

Beyond services, the primary attraction for many is the easy access to drugs and the minimal legal consequences. The narrative is powerfully framed by the metaphor of Pleasure Island from Pinocchio, where treats mask a gradual loss of self. Homeless individuals and their families describe San Francisco as a place where addiction is openly fed—with free needles and food on one side of the street and drug dealers on the other. This environment discourages people from using shelters or seeking recovery; many prefer the freedom of encampments to use substances. Officials confirm that offers of shelter are frequently refused, and even those in supportive housing often resist rules requiring sobriety. The city's attempts to clear encampments often result in few acceptances of help, simply displacing the problem and sometimes increasing low-level crime elsewhere.

Conflict, Criticism, and a Stalemate

The crisis has fueled deep community divisions. Frustrated residents sometimes take matters into their own hands, using boulders or walls to block camping. Meanwhile, progressive homelessness advocates often respond to critics with harsh personal accusations, suggesting that calls for accountability or cleaner streets are motivated by a lack of compassion and can incite violence against the unhoused. The chapter shares experiences from former Mayor Willie Brown, journalists, and researchers who have been labeled as demonizing the homeless for simply questioning the status quo. This atmosphere of accusation stifles constructive debate and, as Brown concluded, may render the problem seemingly unsolvable, trapping the city in a cycle of good intentions and worsening outcomes.

Key Takeaways

• San Francisco's progressive policies, while compassionate in aim, have created a system that often enables addiction and chronic homelessness through generous, unrestricted aid.
• The city's high spending on services and cash benefits acts as a national magnet, drawing people from other regions who seek support, drugs, and a permissive environment.
• Many homeless individuals actively refuse shelter and services to maintain their addiction, preferring the freedom of street life, which undermines traditional outreach efforts.
• The "Pleasure Island" metaphor captures how easy access to drugs and aid can erode personal autonomy, making recovery more difficult.
• Debate over solutions is frequently polarized, with advocates accusing critics of inciting violence, which hinders pragmatic policy changes and leaves the crisis unresolved.

Download Mindmap

San Fransicko Summary

3: The Experiment Was a Success but the Patients Died

Overview

This chapter examines the contentious debate between providing emergency shelters versus permanent supportive housing for the homeless population, primarily in San Francisco and Los Angeles. It reveals a deliberate policy choice by influential advocates and city leaders to prioritize scarce resources for permanent housing, often at extraordinary cost, while opposing the expansion of shelter capacity. The narrative explores the consequences of this approach, including sustained street homelessness, and presents emerging evidence that the widely promoted "Housing First" model may not deliver the transformative health and stability outcomes its proponents claim.

The Advocacy Against Shelter

A central tenet of modern homeless advocacy in progressive cities is opposition to emergency shelters. Leading figures like Jennifer Friedenbach of San Francisco's Coalition on Homelessness and national Housing First creator Sam Tsemberis argue that shelters are a costly diversion from the ultimate goal: giving every homeless person a permanent, affordable home. They point to cities like New York, which spends billions on a massive shelter system yet still has high homelessness rates, as a cautionary tale. This philosophy has resulted in a critical shortage of shelter beds. San Francisco, for instance, shelters less than half of its homeless population, with waitlists stretching months, while Miami and New York achieve shelter rates of 75% and 95% respectively. Advocates have successfully influenced policy for decades, from opposing Mayor Gavin Newsom's shelter proposals in 2004 to fighting bridge housing in Los Angeles, framing shelter as an unacceptable alternative to a permanent home.

The High Cost and Slow Pace of Permanent Housing

The focus on building permanent supportive housing has led to staggering costs and painfully slow production. In Los Angeles, the projected cost per unit from a 2016 bond measure ballooned from $140,000 to over $530,000, with critics noting significant "soft costs." At that pace and price, initiatives will only house a fraction of the need. San Francisco's Proposition C, which increased annual homelessness spending by 84% to $672 million, was sold to voters as funding thousands of new housing units. In reality, the funding is spread across a much wider array of "exits," including rental subsidies and bus tickets, with only a portion dedicated to new physical units. This resource allocation means cities are spending more than ever while the visibly unsheltered population persists, as funds are not used to create immediate, lower-cost shelter options.

Questioning the Evidence for Housing First

The chapter presents a growing body of research that challenges the perceived effectiveness of the Housing First model. A flagship study in Santa Clara County, funded by Salesforce's Marc Benioff and led by advocate Margot Kushel, was hailed as proof that providing housing "ends homelessness. Full stop." However, the study revealed a sobering twist: death rates were equally high among the housed group and the unhoused control group. Housing providers expressed trauma and confusion over why housed clients with services continued to die at such rates. Broader reviews, including one by the National Academies of Sciences, have found "no substantial evidence" that permanent supportive housing improves health outcomes. Other studies suggest the privacy and harm-reduction approach of Housing First may even slow recovery from addiction, whereas "abstinence-contingent" housing models show promise in promoting sobriety. A long-term Boston study found that after ten years, only 12% of chronically homeless individuals placed in supportive housing remained housed, with 45% having died, indicating the model's services are often insufficient for those with severe "trimorbidity."

The Unaddressed Dilemma of Replacement and Inflow

Finally, the analysis touches on a fundamental, often undiscussed problem: even if housing is built, what prevents a new population from becoming homeless and replacing those who are housed? Experts like Randy Shaw and Louis Chicoine acknowledge this "replacement" or "inflow" problem is real and rarely confronted in policy debates. Steve Berg of the National Alliance to End Homelessness states plainly that without addressing the root causes of why people lose housing (like poverty and high rents), the system will never keep pace. This admission points to a potential ceiling on the success of any policy focused solely on building permanent units, suggesting that a more diversified strategy including prevention, treatment, and immediate shelter is necessary.

Key Takeaways

• Major homeless advocacy groups actively oppose expanding emergency shelter capacity, viewing it as a distraction from the goal of permanent housing.
• The focus on permanent supportive housing has resulted in extremely high per-unit costs and slow construction, leaving thousands unsheltered despite massive budget increases.
• Scientific evidence for the Health benefits of Housing First is weak; key studies show it does not reduce mortality and may not improve substance abuse or mental health outcomes.
• Alternative models that require sobriety (abstinence-contingent housing) show promise for certain populations but are often rejected by the dominant advocacy framework.
• A critical, unaddressed flaw in the current approach is the "replacement" problem—housing current homeless individuals does not stop new people from becoming homeless, especially without broader affordability and prevention measures.

Download Mindmap

If you like this summary, you probably also like these summaries...

Don't Believe Everything You Think

by Joseph Nguyen

Deep Work

by Cal Newport

Flow

by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

San Fransicko Summary

4: The War on the War on Drugs

Overview

This chapter takes a hard, data-driven look at the dominant stories told about drug policy and mass incarceration, revealing a more complicated reality. It begins by challenging the widespread belief that the War on Drugs is the primary cause of mass incarceration. While drug arrests increased dramatically, the data shows most state prisoners are incarcerated for violent offenses, not simple possession, complicating influential narratives. Releasing all drug offenders would do little to correct racial disparities in prisons.

The analysis argues that violence itself, particularly during the crack epidemic, was a major driver of prison growth. Policy responses, including tough crime laws, were often supported by leaders in affected Black communities seeking relief from devastation, complicating a purely racialized explanation. The narrative then shifts to the present, where the overdose crisis has become a catastrophic new front. With deaths far outpacing homicides, cities like San Francisco are experiencing severe consequences from open-air drug markets, prompting a tough reevaluation of decriminalization. Evidence suggests that removing criminal penalties can lower drug prices and increase use, with Portugal’s model—which includes fines and social pressure—differing sharply from more permissive American approaches.

A closer look at San Francisco details the escalating methamphetamine crisis and how state policy shifts like Proposition 47 had unintended consequences. By reducing possession to a ticketable offense, police lost a key tool to compel people into detox, correlating with a rise in public disorder and addiction. The city’s long, tolerant history with drugs sets the stage for this crisis, which was further fueled by the national path from overprescribed prescription pills to cheap heroin and deadly fentanyl.

The chapter finds a stark contradiction in California’s public health approach, aggressively regulating substances like tobacco while officially distributing drug paraphernalia under a harm reduction philosophy. This coexists with a culture of fatalism on the streets, where repeated overdose is normalized. Critically, interviews reveal a stunning lack of any clear strategy to actually reduce overdose deaths at the national or city level. Treatment access is severely limited, with deadly wait times for detox beds, and some recovered addicts argue that current harm reduction practices act merely as “life support.”

This leads to a core tension explored in the final sections: the role of accountability and pressure in recovery. Studies and personal testimonies show that mandated treatment, often through drug courts, can be highly effective, providing the necessary “compulsion to stop” that many credit with saving their lives. The chapter concludes by examining the contentious debate over full legalization and safe consumption sites, drawing a clear line between supporting life-saving tools like Narcan and endorsing a commercial, recreational drug market—a distinction some advocates blur but critics warn would be disastrous.

Challenging the Narrative of Mass Incarceration

The chapter opens by confronting a widely accepted narrative: that the dramatic rise in the U.S. prison population is primarily a result of the "War on Drugs." While the statistics of mass incarceration are staggering, a closer examination of the data reveals a more complex picture. Although drug arrests skyrocketed, only a small fraction of state prisoners are incarcerated for simple, nonviolent drug possession. The majority of state prisoners are serving time for violent offenses, and a significant portion of the prison growth during the 1990s and 2000s was driven by violent crime.

This data complicates the central thesis of influential works like The New Jim Crow. Even the book's author, in a later edition, acknowledged that drug offenses are not the leading cause of imprisonment, though she suggested they drive a "churn" of people through the system. However, research indicates that parole violations leading to re-incarceration are more often due to new crimes rather than failed drug tests. Furthermore, simply releasing all drug offenders would have a minimal impact on the stark racial disparities within the prison population, shifting percentages by only a single point.

The Pivotal Role of Violence and Community Response

The narrative shifts to argue that violence, not drug sentencing, was the primary engine of mass incarceration. New York State's experience is presented as a key case study. Despite enacting harsh "Rockefeller" drug laws in 1973, the prison population for drug crimes didn't surge until a decade later, coinciding with the violent crack epidemic. The subsequent decline in drug incarcerations also preceded changes in the law, tracking instead with a reduction in violence.

This policy response was often driven by pressure from within communities most affected. The chapter notes that African American communities, suffering disproportionately from violent crime in the late 20th century, advocated for stronger law enforcement. The Congressional Black Caucus supported major crime legislation, viewing it as a necessary response to the devastation wrought by crack and associated gang violence. This historical context challenges the simplistic framing of such policies as purely racist in intent.

The Overdose Crisis and the Limits of Decriminalization

The focus then turns to the present-day overdose epidemic, framed as the new frontline in the drug policy debate. The statistics are dire, with overdose deaths far surpassing homicides and car accidents, and hitting cities like San Francisco with particular severity. The chapter vividly describes the open-air drug markets and the severe health consequences for homeless populations, whose lives often revolve around addiction.

This crisis prompts a critical re-evaluation of decriminalization and harm reduction policies the author once championed. While figures like Ethan Nadelmann and funders like George Soros successfully shifted the national conversation and laws, outcomes in progressive cities raise hard questions. The comparison to Portugal—often cited as a decriminalization model—is nuanced: Portugal maintains social pressure for treatment and fines for possession, a contrast to the more permissive approach seen in some American cities.

Evidence suggests that decriminalization can have unintended consequences. By reducing risks for suppliers and users, it can lower drug prices and increase consumption and availability. Data shows heroin use and addiction rose significantly in the U.S. in the 2000s, and overdose deaths in Portugal increased after decriminalization. The chapter argues that in places like San Francisco, people are dying not because they are being arrested, but because they are not being arrested or compelled into treatment, leaving them to succumb to increasingly toxic drug supplies on the streets.

The Escalating Methamphetamine Crisis

The text details a dramatic surge in methamphetamine use from the 1990s onward, with hospital admissions for meth abuse tripling between 1995 and 2015. In San Francisco, the crisis is particularly acute: meth overdose deaths rose 500% from 2008 to 2020, and it became the most common drug in California overdose deaths. Veteran police sergeant Kelly Kruger observed that the drug culture has become more dangerous and isolated, with a loss of the community sense that once existed among people on the street. The drug's impact is severe, inducing violent psychosis indistinguishable from bipolar mania and causing extreme physical deterioration, as recounted by a former user.

Policy Shifts and Their Unintended Consequences

The passage of Proposition 47 in 2014, which decriminalized possession of small amounts of hard drugs, is cited by law enforcement and service providers as a factor that exacerbated addiction and public disorder. Police lost the ability to hold intoxicated individuals for a few days to detox, often releasing them with only a ticket. Service providers like Andy Bales note a direct correlation between this policy shift, the implementation of "Housing First" without sobriety requirements, and a sharp increase in both addiction rates and homelessness. The change also enabled open-air drug dealing, with dealers openly stating they face no meaningful legal risk.

San Francisco's Historical Relationship with Drugs

The city has a long, complex history with substance use, from opium dens in the 1840s to being the birthplace of revolutionary approaches like Alcoholics Anonymous in the 1930s. The 1967 "Summer of Love" cemented San Francisco's reputation as a haven for drug experimentation, though it left behind a legacy of addiction among poorer populations. Policy has swung between periods of tolerance, like President Carter's advocacy for decriminalization in the 1970s, and prohibition, such as the "Just Say No" campaigns of the 1980s.

The Path from Prescription Pills to Heroin and Fentanyl

A significant portion of the text traces the origins of the opioid epidemic. In the 1990s, a campaign to destigmatize pain medication, coupled with aggressive pharmaceutical marketing, led to massive overprescription. When regulations finally tightened, users turned to cheaper, more accessible heroin. Data shows a direct pipeline, with the vast majority of new heroin users having previously misused prescription opioids. This shift is visible in overdose death rates, where heroin fatalities soared as prescription opioid deaths plateaued. The narrative is personalized through the story of Tom Wolf, a city government employee who lost his family and home to an addiction that began with legally prescribed pills.

The Harm Reduction Debate and a Culture of Fatalism

The chapter presents a stark contrast between California's aggressive regulation of public health risks like secondhand smoke and its tolerant, harm-reduction approach to hard drugs. San Francisco officially promotes messages like "try not to use alone" and distributed drug paraphernalia, including crack pipes and foil for smoking fentanyl, to homeless individuals in city-funded hotel rooms. Harm reduction advocates argue that fentanyl can be used safely and frame addiction as a symptom of "poverty and structural racism." This official stance exists alongside a deep sense of fatalism on the streets, where users like Jessica explicitly state they are in San Francisco "to die," describing a cycle of overdose and revival that has become normalized.

A Stark Lack of Strategy and Treatment Access

The chapter presents a series of revealing conversations that underscore a critical absence of a coherent, national strategy to reduce overdose deaths. When asked directly, Monique Tula of the Harm Reduction Coalition states plainly there is no such strategy, while San Francisco Supervisor Rafael Mandelman admits none is clear to him within his own city. This strategic void manifests in a street-level reality where individuals revived by Narcan are often returned directly to the open drug scene without being offered treatment.

Vicki Westbrook and "Tom," a recovered addict, criticize this model, describing harm reduction as "life support" that keeps people alive but doesn't help them reclaim their lives. Tom details the desperate scarcity of detox beds in San Francisco, noting that seeking one came with an 80% chance of a multi-week wait—a deadly delay for someone in active addiction. He also reveals that the city discourages using faith-based options like the Salvation Army, further narrowing an already narrow path to recovery.

The Limits of Policy Prescriptions

The narrative challenges the idea that a single-payer healthcare system alone would solve the crisis, pointing to British Columbia, Canada. Despite having such a system and embracing decriminalization and harm reduction, the province saw a 74% increase in overdose deaths from 2019 to 2020. The text suggests that the issue is less about insurance coverage—as most destitute addicts qualify for Medicaid—and more about the availability and philosophy of treatment itself.

Instead of reevaluating the core approach, some leading harm reduction advocates focus on expanding tools like Narcan. The poignant death by overdose of Dan Bigg, a pioneer in naloxone distribution, is noted not as a cautionary tale but as a tragedy that doesn't invalidate the work. For some, the solution is framed in broad societal terms: ending overdoses requires ending poverty, racism, and homelessness first.

The Surprising Dynamics of Treatment and Accountability

A revealing study by sociologist Neil Gong compared public drug treatment on Los Angeles's Skid Row with a private, affluent program in Malibu. He found the Malibu program was significantly stricter, while the publicly-funded Skid Row program exhibited a fatalistic leniency. Social workers there, accepting that rehabilitation was unlikely, often granted difficult clients private rooms and surprising freedom to continue substance use, sometimes with fatal consequences.

This contrast introduces a central tension: the role of pressure and accountability in recovery. Many who have recovered, including Vicki Westbrook and Tracey Helton Mitchell, attest they would not have entered treatment without the external pressure of the criminal justice system. Research supports that mandated treatment can be nearly as effective as voluntary treatment. Drug courts, which mandate treatment as an alternative to incarceration, are highlighted as a successful model, reducing recidivism and saving public money.

The Contentious Debate Over Full Legalization

The chapter concludes by examining the progressive push for full drug decriminalization and the establishment of safe consumption sites. While advocates like Glide’s harm reduction director see no downside except moral outrage, recovered addicts express deep skepticism. They argue that removing all pressure eliminates the "compulsion to stop," which they believe would have led to their deaths.

This skepticism extends to arguments for legalizing drugs like heroin for recreational use, as proposed by academic Carl L. Hart. Stanford professor Keith Humphreys forcefully counters this, drawing a direct line to the corporate rhetoric of Purdue Pharma and arguing that a regulated commercial heroin industry would be disastrous. He clarifies that supporting harm reduction measures like Narcan does not equate to supporting drug legalization, framing the two as distinct policy choices.

Key Takeaways

• Strategic Vacuum: Despite skyrocketing overdose deaths, there is no clear, coordinated national or municipal strategy to reverse the trend, leaving life-saving interventions like Narcan disconnected from pathways to treatment.
• Treatment Scarcity: Access to immediate detox and long-term treatment remains severely limited, creating deadly wait times and forcing a reliance on a harm-reduction model that many criticize as merely sustaining addiction.
• The Accountability Divide: A comparison of treatment programs reveals a stark philosophical split: affluent private programs often enforce strict rules, while some public programs adopt a lenient, fatalistic approach that can enable continued substance use.
• The Role of Pressure: Personal testimonies and research indicate that external pressure, often from the criminal justice system via drug courts, is a critical and effective component in driving many addicts into life-saving recovery.
• Legalization as a Fault Line: The debate over full drug decriminalization and safe consumption sites creates a sharp divide between some progressive advocates and recovered addicts, who fear the removal of all societal pressure would lead to more deaths. Supporting harm reduction tools does not necessarily imply support for full legalization.

Download Mindmap

If you like this summary, you probably also like these summaries...

Don't Believe Everything You Think

by Joseph Nguyen

Deep Work

by Cal Newport

Flow

by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi