I don't want to argue over the word choice, I said you implied it. Regardless, what I was trying to imply in response was that it would be unfortunate if despairing over deregulation's current state led to the belief that "tough on crime" approaches are a better alternative.
“Vindictive” means an strong or unreasonable desire for revenge. I didn’t imply that I want that.
You’re creating a false dichotomy between not enforcing laws on one hand, and being vindictive on the other. If those are the only alternatives you can see, that’s on you.
Why are you trying to argue over the word? Are you purposely trying to distract from your point and start an argument? If you don't accept how I tried to refine your point, then okay, but don't obfuscate it further.
"Police don’t bother to make arrests because the DA wouldn’t prosecute anyway. More and more homeless drug addicts move here to take advantage of the de-facto deregularization."
This reads like bemoaning they aren't locking people up, and is the rhetoric of tough on crime libertarians in my area.
"The city reacts by throwing more money at the problem, without oversight or results, and the cycle continues."
This reads like a justification for criminalization. If you don't think the criminal system is vindictive, I don't know what to tell you.
There are of course multiple options. That was what my initial post was trying to emphasize, not that you are some vengeful onlooker.
Edit: maybe I should emphasize this part of your sentence, "without oversight or results, and the cycle continues." because refining that rather than our dumb argument makes more sense.
