The surge isn't being driven by dealer arrests. It's being driven overwhelmingly by low-level offenses — paraphernalia possession, minor drug charges, the kind of citations that cycle people through the system and back onto the same sidewalks within days. The big fish? Still swimming.

As one SF resident put it bluntly: "Why don't they ever arrest the dealers?"

It's a fair question, and one the Lurie administration needs to answer with more than talking points. Nobody disputes that open drug use is a quality-of-life disaster. Another local was refreshingly honest about their priorities: "I just want less public drug use, tbh. If they can get high somewhere private, that's fine too." That's probably where most San Franciscans land — not interested in running a moral crusade, just tired of dodging needles on their morning commute.

But here's the fiscal reality that should concern every taxpayer: processing arrests is expensive. Booking, court time, public defenders, jail beds — all of it costs real money. If we're spending that money primarily on paraphernalia busts while mid-level dealers continue operating, we're not running a crackdown. We're running a very expensive game of whack-a-mole.

The question isn't whether enforcement should happen. Public drug markets are a genuine public safety crisis, and residents have every right to demand clean, walkable streets. The question is whether this particular enforcement strategy is actually disrupting the drug trade or just generating arrest statistics that look good in a press release.

Mayor Lurie, we wanted a crackdown on drug dealing. What we're getting so far looks more like a crackdown on drug having. Those are very different things, and only one of them will actually move the needle. Show us the dealer cases. Show us the supply chains being disrupted. Otherwise, this is just expensive theater — and San Francisco taxpayers have already bought enough tickets to that show.