This is not, and should not be, an important factor in journalistic reporting. Often, the most valuable stories are those which would never receive consent by the relevant parties.
> Addiction in general vs. the individual
I don't understand. We should treat the problem as a statistical one without a personal human element? Absolutely not. Plenty of reports abound on statistics, already. A garish front-line perspective could be exactly what saves some kid from walking down that path in the future and what motivates some community activists or politicians to effect meaningful changes in their community.
> We should treat the problem as a statistical one without a personal human element?
No, we shouldn't concentrate on specific people. This shouldn't be poverty porn. "There's an issue, here's an affected person who agreed to talk to us about it, here's more about the issue" - great personal element! "Look at this affected person, and this one, and this one, and this one, the end" - no, that's not reporting about the issue itself.
Absolutely we should focus on individuals. This isn't pornography (for pleasure). It's a crisis. And, just like Palestine or Ukraine or Darfur, it should be documented and individual's experiences should be broadcasted. Hiding the problem isn't going to fix anything. Treating it like a class thing isn't going to fix anything - this issue crosses race and class. It's a human problem and requires human-human interactions.
Starting the drug use - sure. But do you think the same of people who are already physically addicted continuing use? And does it matter for the problem itself?
> Absolutely we should focus on individuals.
How much can you achieve here by focusing on every single affected person individually -vs- knowing this is a city wide issue and actually trying to hit the distributors since they seem to be so obvious, people can just switch the corner they go to? (according to the article)
Yes, I think if you're neck deep in a fentanyl and tranq addiction you're making a choice to continue using. That's evidenced by those who chose to stop using. And, yes, assigning responsibility correctly is important.
Note that drug treatment programs almost always require patients to accept responsibility for their outcomes. That's not just empty posturing. That's crucial to solving the problem.
> How much can you achieve...
You'll accomplish much more positive change by focusing on individuals suffering from drug use (that includes non-users). If cracking down on distribution did anything to solve addiction then we still be living in Prohibition and drugs wouldn't be more popular, dangerous, and addictive than ever. Cracking down on distribution only increases inequality measures (look at Mexico today and also the results of applying the "zero tolerance" policy to crack cocaine distributors in the 80s - the African American community is still reeling from heavy-handed administration and enforcement) and accelerates the arms race.