You replied to a post complaining that the policy also seemed to be giving violent individuals a pass, and accused them of "think[ing] that non-violent addicts should be put into prison". Which was neither said nor (as you claim) implied. The comment was explicitly bemoaning a perceived plague of "repeat violent drug addicts"
The policy being shilled by the article in question is about non-violent addicts.
Whatever problems the commenter in question has with violent criminals has absolutely nothing to do with it - but they chose to attack the non-violent policy (And then get defensive about how their points are being misconstrued. What are those points, then? Violent crime is bad, and should be dealt with? I don't think anyone disagrees with that one. What does it have to do with a diversion of non-violent addicts?)
It's like complaining that standards on organically-grown produce aren't preventing contaminated meat from ending up at your grocery store. Whatever problems you have with contaminated meat have nothing to do with the produce policy.
