4 ms·

We need better mental health care, and cheaper housing.

Consultant32452 7y ago
Dr. Drew was on Scott Adam's podcast recently talking about this. Apparently even free housing is insufficient because most of the people relevant to this discussion will not accept even free housing. Nor will they accept mental healthcare even when provided for free. The only way to get them into the mental healthcare situations is to compel them by force, and that is not something people are interested in. Correction: Scott Adams, not Rogan
- pieterhg 7y ago
  Dr. Drew hasn't been on Rogan
- babuskov 7y ago
  > Dr. Drew was on Rogan recently talking about this. I'm trying to find that episode on YouTube, but no luck. Google searches show that they don't like each other much. Got a link?
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    Sorry, I had the wrong podcast. A youtube search for Dr Drew plague has several interviews with him, but I was thinking about his appearance on Scott Adam's podcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72x2LfvSfE4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72x2LfvSfE4
- krustyburger 7y ago
  People aren’t interested in compelling the allegedly mentally ill by force, unless they pose a threat to themselves or others, because it is unconstitutional and contrary to the values of a free society. A given citizen disregarding the norms of society does not give society permission to use force against that citizen, or to subject them to forced medical treatments. Again, if the person poses an active threat that is a different scenario. But there’s a good reason most Americans don’t want to start rounding up the seemingly mentally ill.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    This is a tragedy of the commons problem. A few people living or even defecating on the streets isn't a serious public health problem. But there is a legitimate and reasonable concern that the situation in California right now is going to result in the return of the plague.
  - reggieband 7y ago
    > ... allegedly mentally ill ... ... disregarding the norms of society ... seemingly mentally ill I think you are giving yourself too much leeway with your weasel words here. I lived in San Francisco and saw first hand the homeless problem. These are not a group of free-spirits, bucking the norms of society and living an honest drifter lifestyle. Maybe you would like to call to mind the counter-culture described by beat poets like Jack Kerouac. Or maybe you want to warn against the kind of authoritarian cruelty fictionalized in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. However, it is my experience that the people living on the streets in the Tenderloin aren't down on their luck Woody Guthrie types, pining for a pre-technology, more social friendly USA that valued simple folk. I think we need to avoid painting ourselves into corners with false dichotomies. It isn't like the only options are to round them up and lock them away in a mental hospital or to leave them completely free on the streets. And like it or not, the middle ground may require some intervention that is forceful.
archaea_hao 7y ago
Mental healthcare may be relevant to this issue. But the cost of housing is not. These people cannot hold jobs because they are mentally ill. They need state provided institutional care, otherwise they will remain on the streets.
- ajross 7y ago
  That's a caricature. In fact there are a near infinite variety of reasons for being homeless, and many homeless folks not only can hold jobs, but work them already. Yet they're on the streets anyway because of financial pressure, look like the "these people" you want to lock up, and would probably get picked up under the same ordinance.
  - stOneskull 7y ago
    Shitting on the street and being homeless are two issues here.
    - ajross 7y ago
      The proposal in the linked opinion piece is literally to lock up all homeless because some of them shit on the street. You can't treat them as two issues while insisting on a remedy that doesn't.
    - turtlecloud 7y ago
      Yes I agree. We should use the term street shitters to differentiate. I see a huge issue when talking about homeless is that people have different ideas what we are talking about and get easily offended.
  - archaea_hao 7y ago
    "In fact there are a near infinite variety of reasons for being homeless" Near infinite in the sense that there are near infinite ways of dying. You could be hit by an asteroid. You could fall off a cliff. But that obscures the fact that most people die from some sickness or disease. I've done volunteer work with the homeless. There are 2 major causes of homelessness: mental illness and drug addiction. Everything else is insignificant in comparison.
ausjke 7y ago
by doing that too much you drag down a city to rat's hole, more homeless coming, working people move out, economy slows down, less money left to help those in need, similar to what socialism does: great on paper, horrible in practice. should we not care for those homeless? NO, should we always put them first? NO. it's a balance of arts, going in any direction a little too far will break it.
- masklinn 7y ago
  > should we not care for those homeless? NO, should we always put them first? NO. it's a balance of arts, going in any direction a little too far will break it. Bay Area is currently doing very little except complain about homeless folks. NYC has more homelessness per capita, but they've both built shelters and had a strong policy of sheltering homeless folks. As a result, ~95% of NYC homeless people (>63000 people) sleep in shelters, versus ~33% in Bay Area and ~25% in LA. And it's no surprise given Bay Area has lost shelter beds in the last decade. Which is compounded by the overall lack of housing. The west coast is singularly bad at it: Chicago is at 74% sheltering, Denver is at 84, DC is at 95.
  - ausjke 7y ago
    can you provide source for the percentages? thanks. CA is leading the path towards socialism, i'm surprised it's lagging behind to take care of the homeless there, which should be a core action item for that ideology. Maybe they're just good at talk the talk, as always. Seattle seems no better as far as homeless is concerned. Austin is becoming a favorite destination city for homeless nowadays too, tents up everywhere in hot summer.
    - masklinn 7y ago
      > can you provide source for the percentages? thanks. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Area-homeless-unsheltered-67-percent-NYC-13757259.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Area-homeless-uns...
erikpukinskis 7y ago
Where do you poop during the year you’re pulling your mental health out of the gutter though?

Dr. Drew was on Scott Adam's podcast recently talking about this. Apparently even free housing is insufficient because most of the people relevant to this discussion will not accept even free housing. Nor will they accept mental healthcare even when provided for free. The only way to get them into the mental healthcare situations is to compel them by force, and that is not something people are interested in. Correction: Scott Adams, not Rogan

pieterhg 7y ago
Dr. Drew hasn't been on Rogan
babuskov 7y ago
> Dr. Drew was on Rogan recently talking about this. I'm trying to find that episode on YouTube, but no luck. Google searches show that they don't like each other much. Got a link?
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  Sorry, I had the wrong podcast. A youtube search for Dr Drew plague has several interviews with him, but I was thinking about his appearance on Scott Adam's podcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72x2LfvSfE4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72x2LfvSfE4
krustyburger 7y ago
People aren’t interested in compelling the allegedly mentally ill by force, unless they pose a threat to themselves or others, because it is unconstitutional and contrary to the values of a free society. A given citizen disregarding the norms of society does not give society permission to use force against that citizen, or to subject them to forced medical treatments. Again, if the person poses an active threat that is a different scenario. But there’s a good reason most Americans don’t want to start rounding up the seemingly mentally ill.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  This is a tragedy of the commons problem. A few people living or even defecating on the streets isn't a serious public health problem. But there is a legitimate and reasonable concern that the situation in California right now is going to result in the return of the plague.
- reggieband 7y ago
  > ... allegedly mentally ill ... ... disregarding the norms of society ... seemingly mentally ill I think you are giving yourself too much leeway with your weasel words here. I lived in San Francisco and saw first hand the homeless problem. These are not a group of free-spirits, bucking the norms of society and living an honest drifter lifestyle. Maybe you would like to call to mind the counter-culture described by beat poets like Jack Kerouac. Or maybe you want to warn against the kind of authoritarian cruelty fictionalized in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. However, it is my experience that the people living on the streets in the Tenderloin aren't down on their luck Woody Guthrie types, pining for a pre-technology, more social friendly USA that valued simple folk. I think we need to avoid painting ourselves into corners with false dichotomies. It isn't like the only options are to round them up and lock them away in a mental hospital or to leave them completely free on the streets. And like it or not, the middle ground may require some intervention that is forceful.

archaea_hao 7y ago

Mental healthcare may be relevant to this issue. But the cost of housing is not. These people cannot hold jobs because they are mentally ill. They need state provided institutional care, otherwise they will remain on the streets.

ajross 7y ago
That's a caricature. In fact there are a near infinite variety of reasons for being homeless, and many homeless folks not only can hold jobs, but work them already. Yet they're on the streets anyway because of financial pressure, look like the "these people" you want to lock up, and would probably get picked up under the same ordinance.
- stOneskull 7y ago
  Shitting on the street and being homeless are two issues here.
  - ajross 7y ago
    The proposal in the linked opinion piece is literally to lock up all homeless because some of them shit on the street. You can't treat them as two issues while insisting on a remedy that doesn't.
  - turtlecloud 7y ago
    Yes I agree. We should use the term street shitters to differentiate. I see a huge issue when talking about homeless is that people have different ideas what we are talking about and get easily offended.
- archaea_hao 7y ago
  "In fact there are a near infinite variety of reasons for being homeless" Near infinite in the sense that there are near infinite ways of dying. You could be hit by an asteroid. You could fall off a cliff. But that obscures the fact that most people die from some sickness or disease. I've done volunteer work with the homeless. There are 2 major causes of homelessness: mental illness and drug addiction. Everything else is insignificant in comparison.

ausjke 7y ago

by doing that too much you drag down a city to rat's hole, more homeless coming, working people move out, economy slows down, less money left to help those in need, similar to what socialism does: great on paper, horrible in practice. should we not care for those homeless? NO, should we always put them first? NO. it's a balance of arts, going in any direction a little too far will break it.

masklinn 7y ago
> should we not care for those homeless? NO, should we always put them first? NO. it's a balance of arts, going in any direction a little too far will break it. Bay Area is currently doing very little except complain about homeless folks. NYC has more homelessness per capita, but they've both built shelters and had a strong policy of sheltering homeless folks. As a result, ~95% of NYC homeless people (>63000 people) sleep in shelters, versus ~33% in Bay Area and ~25% in LA. And it's no surprise given Bay Area has lost shelter beds in the last decade. Which is compounded by the overall lack of housing. The west coast is singularly bad at it: Chicago is at 74% sheltering, Denver is at 84, DC is at 95.
- ausjke 7y ago
  can you provide source for the percentages? thanks. CA is leading the path towards socialism, i'm surprised it's lagging behind to take care of the homeless there, which should be a core action item for that ideology. Maybe they're just good at talk the talk, as always. Seattle seems no better as far as homeless is concerned. Austin is becoming a favorite destination city for homeless nowadays too, tents up everywhere in hot summer.
  - masklinn 7y ago
    > can you provide source for the percentages? thanks. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Area-homeless-unsheltered-67-percent-NYC-13757259.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Area-homeless-uns...

erikpukinskis 7y ago

Where do you poop during the year you’re pulling your mental health out of the gutter though?