Yes. But we are already paying more to many keep these people out of prison than in. $100k/year per unhoused neighbor on fent is hugely expensive, and they aren't even getting treatment in most cases.

Personally, this is where I hope the costs are going to come down with time. I'm content for this to be something we try, and we can measure its costs and efficacy after some real time and investment. The initial outlay and efforts are likely going to have a lot of bespoke work and trial and error, and lack economy of scale.

If after a decade it ends up being very expensive but very effective, or moderately expensive and moderately effective, or expensive and not very effective, we can make better informed decisions -- rather than stick with prison by default, just because it is cheapest for now.

It’s a hugely expensive experiment that we are primarily paying for with local funds. Can the richer cities of Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles solve our nation’s drug problem by throwing their money at it? Obviously not, and even if we were successful, our problem would just get worse (since none of these cities are closed).