3 ms·

It's really good to see the breakdown into the four broad classes. The big question: should we as a society be allowed to force permanently unsheltered people w

It's really good to see the breakdown into the four broad classes. The big question: should we as a society be allowed to force permanently unsheltered people with substance abuse and mental illness into some kind of facility for treatment? Most people who even want to do anything about these problems would probably say no but I think it's at least worth asking.

TaylorAlexander 5y ago
I would say no, absolutely not. You should build optional facilities and if people don’t go maybe it’s because your facility sucks. For example lots of places require you to be in at a certain time every night and vacate early in the morning. This may seem fine but it leads to problems for anyone who wants to work a night job or socialize with friends after a day shift. It seems that housing-first is the way to go. Give someone keys to their own place they can come and go from any time. Offer medical and mental health services nearby. This gives people the time and space to get well and stabilize their life. Using cops to throw someone in to a facility is just one more difficult and disruptive challenge that makes people’s lives worse, not better.
- caddemon 5y ago
  Addicts (homeless or not) frequently make decisions that are not in their best interests. Decisions they would not make if they were not sick, including actively resisting help. I'm not saying that help should be forced upon huge swaths of people (there are reasons to be against that in principle) or that they don't deserve a bed. I am just skeptical that housing-first would lead to much change in the mental health of that population. Addiction recovery rates are really not good even when looking at a much more financially comfortable population or people with family members that are trying their best to keep on top of them. For many addicts, it is also difficult to recover and remain sober unless they stop spending time with others that are using. If only a minority of a dorm-style housing unit were serious about wanting to get clean this could make it even harder for them.

TaylorAlexander 5y ago

I would say no, absolutely not. You should build optional facilities and if people don’t go maybe it’s because your facility sucks. For example lots of places require you to be in at a certain time every night and vacate early in the morning. This may seem fine but it leads to problems for anyone who wants to work a night job or socialize with friends after a day shift. It seems that housing-first is the way to go. Give someone keys to their own place they can come and go from any time. Offer medical and mental health services nearby. This gives people the time and space to get well and stabilize their life. Using cops to throw someone in to a facility is just one more difficult and disruptive challenge that makes people’s lives worse, not better.

caddemon 5y ago
Addicts (homeless or not) frequently make decisions that are not in their best interests. Decisions they would not make if they were not sick, including actively resisting help. I'm not saying that help should be forced upon huge swaths of people (there are reasons to be against that in principle) or that they don't deserve a bed. I am just skeptical that housing-first would lead to much change in the mental health of that population. Addiction recovery rates are really not good even when looking at a much more financially comfortable population or people with family members that are trying their best to keep on top of them. For many addicts, it is also difficult to recover and remain sober unless they stop spending time with others that are using. If only a minority of a dorm-style housing unit were serious about wanting to get clean this could make it even harder for them.