4 ms·

Clearly HN does not seem to like this idea so much. But I do have to ask, what exactly do you propose as a solution to the massive, growing hordes of drug addic

Clearly HN does not seem to like this idea so much. But I do have to ask, what exactly do you propose as a solution to the massive, growing hordes of drug addicted zombies in west coast cities? You can't tell me that this problem doesn't exist, anyone who's been to a west coast city knows it's very real. The past 20 years of the "compassion" approach or whatever is clearly a total disaster. At what point do we just say "these people are a danger to society and they need to be off the damn streets?" Because that strikes me as the most realistic solution. We're not gonna be able to stop the illicit flow of fentanyl into our society.

Danjoe4 3y ago
Jail. Asylums circumvent due process as other commentators have pointed out. Jails should be staffed with a physician who has the discretion to transfer inmates to treatment centers.
- AequitasOmnibus 3y ago
  Leave it to an HN commenter to suggest that a marginalized group face the most draconian, outlandish, unrealistic proposition as a viable solution. Might as well propose that we eat the homeless and mentally ill. Then we can complete the Jonathan Swift proposal and go back to the real world.
  - code_biologist 3y ago
    Let me steelman the suggestion then. Our western answer for when society is allowed to intervene against the will of an individual is when a law is broken. I agree that we shouldn't involuntarily commit people arbitrarily, but if you break the rules of society and engage in trespassing, theft, assault or sexual assault, etc then yes society should be allowed to intervene against your will. It then becomes a question of preventing harm. Releasing the individual back onto the street seems like a recipe to have the same harm occur again. Putting a crazy person in jail seems harmful as well. Which is where your parent commenter's suggestion comes in...
    - AequitasOmnibus 3y ago
      I appreciate the good faith attempt to rationalize the idea, but it's fundamentally flawed. We (as in Western Civilization living in post-Enlightenment liberalism) can't purport to respect human dignity and self-determination and also criminalize homelessness. And that's what jail is, criminalization. There is no "non-criminal" jail. In the United States, you can't be criminalized without due process, because fundamentally, a basic western human right is the right to personal dignity and autonomy. Criminal recidivism is a problem. Some homeless or mentally ill people will be recidivist criminals. They should be punished for their crime after being afforded due process and any defenses thereto (e.g. lack of mental capacity). There are ways to handle criminal recidivism (in CA, famously, there's the "three-strikes" rule against multi-time felons). Apart from hardcore criminal-justice reformers, nobody disagrees with the idea of punishing crime according to the nature of the crime and increasing punishment for recidivism. Being homeless is not a crime. Nor is it a crime to have mental illness. There are ample failures (drug war, lack of safety net, unwillingness to regulate predatory housing/investment, lack of accessible mental healthcare, social stigma, etc.) that cause homelessness/mental illness. All of which are indictments against society at large. It is anathema to a free, liberal culture to cause the problem and then punish it criminally. To say that society only intervenes when a crime is committed is reductionist and wrong. There are plenty of civil remedies that restrain conduct (e.g. an "injunction"). More broadly, the government restrains conduct all the time for non-criminal matters (taxation, zoning permits, most financial or environmental regulation, intellectual property laws). Different efforts to restrain activity have different methods of enforcement. Including involuntary civil commitment. But for the reasons mentioned above regarding due process and personal autonomy, only crime is enforced by jail time. We cannot claim to be a free, law-abiding, liberal democracy rooted in Western ideals and at the same time carte blanche suggest that "jail" is a categorical solution to homelessness and mental illness, as the parent commenter suggested. The type of thinking that the parent commenter proposed is anti-democratic, anti-western, and candidly, fascist. There are plenty of places people can move to if they want to live in that type of society, but none of them claim to be Western in design.
- gruez 3y ago
  So you wait for the mentally ill person to commit a crime (shouldn't be hard, they'll eventually commit some sort of trivial crime like disorderly), and then you jail them for treatment? Seems like a roundabout way of implementing asylums.
aschearer 3y ago
First, I reject the notion that there are "massive, growing hordes of drug addicted zombies in west coast cities." Having lived in Seattle for over a decade, now living in Olympia, and having visited San Franscisco, Portland, and other west coast cities plenty of times, what you're describing doesn't line up with my experience at all. If you drop the hyperbole perhaps we agree, but then why hyperventilate? It undermines your point. Second, assuming you're genuinely curious and not simply trying to spread misinformation my answer would be to greatly reduce inequality. In my corner of the world housing has exploded in price. Healthcare is also very expensive. I don't see "hordes of drug addicts" I see Hoovervilles. For some reason we're not moved to help the destitute like we once were. Perhaps it's because we view them as "drug addicted zombies." So much for "love thy neighbor."
- remarkEon 3y ago
  I’ve lived in various west coast cities since 2011 and while a “horde of drug addicted zombies” roaming the streets is not literally true (like out of a zombie apocalypse film or something), you can’t deny that there is a significant problem in certain areas of these cities. In the same way that hyperbolizing the descriptor undermines the point, imagining that it isn’t a problem and just something you deal with is the other side of the same coin. >… my answer would be to greatly reduce inequality We’ve been screaming the same tune for over a decade at this point. Equality is a problem but it’s a parallel issue. Doing the same policies, but louder, is not a good faith proposal because it’s just repetition of what doesn’t work. Many, and indeed I would posit most, do not want your or my help to live as a “contributing member of society”. Some are so far gone they’re not in the position to even make a choice.
  - aschearer 3y ago
    I didn't deny that homelessness is a problem, please re-read my comment. Perhaps I've been "screaming the tune" for a decade but in that time the cost of housing has gone up dramatically. In 2009 I rented a 2-br apartment in Capitol Hill for $1,600 -- parking included. In 2019 I rented a studio apartment in the same neighborhood for the same -- parking not included. I can produce examples like this all day. My point is, we haven't successfully tackled the problem of inequality and affordability. In my opinion, we must tackle the root problem if we hope to resolve the issue long term. We can do that _and_ address the symptoms in parallel. However if I had to bet, my money is on housing continuing it's inexorable rise over the next decade, pushing further people into destitution. I've tried to respond in "good faith." Your turn.
wolverine876 3y ago
What I read from that post is that you are outraged, or acting outraged, and want to abuse other people as a result. It's hard to find any specific argument in the comment otherwise. > The past 20 years of the "compassion" approach According to research, the problem is rising housing prices, not compassion. Human rights are also not compassion. It's sick how trendy it is to disdain compassion, human rights, and any other good. You seem like more of a danger than the many unhoused people I've encountered -- including people I talked to last night and this afternoon, people I see every day. They aren't talking about locking up everyone like you - which I personally think would be a better step for society. (Don't worry; unlike you I don't think I should have the power to lock up people because of my personal feelings.) You may laugh it off, but that shows the reason behind your proposal. You have more power than they do, so if you don't like them you abuse them. They same goes for the WSJ.
- gruez 3y ago
  >According to research, the problem is rising housing prices, not compassion While this might be true for the homeless population as a whole, I suspect the parent is talking about the people with mental illness and/or substance abuse problems. Making rent 20% cheaper or whatever isn't going to magically make them get better.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Actually, from experts I've read, the best first step is stable housing. It's hard for me, with all my resources and normal functioning, to change my life; I couldn't imagine doing it while living on the street, wondering where my next meal and shelter are coming from. These people add other obstacles to what I face.
  - ahelwer 3y ago
    These things are interlinked. Developing addiction or mental health issues makes you less able to keep an income. If housing is more expensive it's then that much easier to not be able to make rent. And if you're homeless then it's quite easy to develop drug addictions or mental health issues. Housing prices are a single dial that turns up the heat on the whole system. Honestly we don't have to intellectualize this very much. A child can understand this. If housing is more expensive it will be harder for people to afford it! And people who can't afford housing become homeless!
justanotherjoe 3y ago
Sense of urgency often made people do the most harm. Sometimes the best thing to do is to do nothing. Who knows in the future there will be a good answer if we wait.

Danjoe4 3y ago

Jail. Asylums circumvent due process as other commentators have pointed out. Jails should be staffed with a physician who has the discretion to transfer inmates to treatment centers.

AequitasOmnibus 3y ago
Leave it to an HN commenter to suggest that a marginalized group face the most draconian, outlandish, unrealistic proposition as a viable solution. Might as well propose that we eat the homeless and mentally ill. Then we can complete the Jonathan Swift proposal and go back to the real world.
- code_biologist 3y ago
  Let me steelman the suggestion then. Our western answer for when society is allowed to intervene against the will of an individual is when a law is broken. I agree that we shouldn't involuntarily commit people arbitrarily, but if you break the rules of society and engage in trespassing, theft, assault or sexual assault, etc then yes society should be allowed to intervene against your will. It then becomes a question of preventing harm. Releasing the individual back onto the street seems like a recipe to have the same harm occur again. Putting a crazy person in jail seems harmful as well. Which is where your parent commenter's suggestion comes in...
  - AequitasOmnibus 3y ago
    I appreciate the good faith attempt to rationalize the idea, but it's fundamentally flawed. We (as in Western Civilization living in post-Enlightenment liberalism) can't purport to respect human dignity and self-determination and also criminalize homelessness. And that's what jail is, criminalization. There is no "non-criminal" jail. In the United States, you can't be criminalized without due process, because fundamentally, a basic western human right is the right to personal dignity and autonomy. Criminal recidivism is a problem. Some homeless or mentally ill people will be recidivist criminals. They should be punished for their crime after being afforded due process and any defenses thereto (e.g. lack of mental capacity). There are ways to handle criminal recidivism (in CA, famously, there's the "three-strikes" rule against multi-time felons). Apart from hardcore criminal-justice reformers, nobody disagrees with the idea of punishing crime according to the nature of the crime and increasing punishment for recidivism. Being homeless is not a crime. Nor is it a crime to have mental illness. There are ample failures (drug war, lack of safety net, unwillingness to regulate predatory housing/investment, lack of accessible mental healthcare, social stigma, etc.) that cause homelessness/mental illness. All of which are indictments against society at large. It is anathema to a free, liberal culture to cause the problem and then punish it criminally. To say that society only intervenes when a crime is committed is reductionist and wrong. There are plenty of civil remedies that restrain conduct (e.g. an "injunction"). More broadly, the government restrains conduct all the time for non-criminal matters (taxation, zoning permits, most financial or environmental regulation, intellectual property laws). Different efforts to restrain activity have different methods of enforcement. Including involuntary civil commitment. But for the reasons mentioned above regarding due process and personal autonomy, only crime is enforced by jail time. We cannot claim to be a free, law-abiding, liberal democracy rooted in Western ideals and at the same time carte blanche suggest that "jail" is a categorical solution to homelessness and mental illness, as the parent commenter suggested. The type of thinking that the parent commenter proposed is anti-democratic, anti-western, and candidly, fascist. There are plenty of places people can move to if they want to live in that type of society, but none of them claim to be Western in design.
gruez 3y ago
So you wait for the mentally ill person to commit a crime (shouldn't be hard, they'll eventually commit some sort of trivial crime like disorderly), and then you jail them for treatment? Seems like a roundabout way of implementing asylums.

aschearer 3y ago

First, I reject the notion that there are "massive, growing hordes of drug addicted zombies in west coast cities." Having lived in Seattle for over a decade, now living in Olympia, and having visited San Franscisco, Portland, and other west coast cities plenty of times, what you're describing doesn't line up with my experience at all. If you drop the hyperbole perhaps we agree, but then why hyperventilate? It undermines your point. Second, assuming you're genuinely curious and not simply trying to spread misinformation my answer would be to greatly reduce inequality. In my corner of the world housing has exploded in price. Healthcare is also very expensive. I don't see "hordes of drug addicts" I see Hoovervilles. For some reason we're not moved to help the destitute like we once were. Perhaps it's because we view them as "drug addicted zombies." So much for "love thy neighbor."

remarkEon 3y ago
I’ve lived in various west coast cities since 2011 and while a “horde of drug addicted zombies” roaming the streets is not literally true (like out of a zombie apocalypse film or something), you can’t deny that there is a significant problem in certain areas of these cities. In the same way that hyperbolizing the descriptor undermines the point, imagining that it isn’t a problem and just something you deal with is the other side of the same coin. >… my answer would be to greatly reduce inequality We’ve been screaming the same tune for over a decade at this point. Equality is a problem but it’s a parallel issue. Doing the same policies, but louder, is not a good faith proposal because it’s just repetition of what doesn’t work. Many, and indeed I would posit most, do not want your or my help to live as a “contributing member of society”. Some are so far gone they’re not in the position to even make a choice.
- aschearer 3y ago
  I didn't deny that homelessness is a problem, please re-read my comment. Perhaps I've been "screaming the tune" for a decade but in that time the cost of housing has gone up dramatically. In 2009 I rented a 2-br apartment in Capitol Hill for $1,600 -- parking included. In 2019 I rented a studio apartment in the same neighborhood for the same -- parking not included. I can produce examples like this all day. My point is, we haven't successfully tackled the problem of inequality and affordability. In my opinion, we must tackle the root problem if we hope to resolve the issue long term. We can do that _and_ address the symptoms in parallel. However if I had to bet, my money is on housing continuing it's inexorable rise over the next decade, pushing further people into destitution. I've tried to respond in "good faith." Your turn.

wolverine876 3y ago

What I read from that post is that you are outraged, or acting outraged, and want to abuse other people as a result. It's hard to find any specific argument in the comment otherwise. > The past 20 years of the "compassion" approach According to research, the problem is rising housing prices, not compassion. Human rights are also not compassion. It's sick how trendy it is to disdain compassion, human rights, and any other good. You seem like more of a danger than the many unhoused people I've encountered -- including people I talked to last night and this afternoon, people I see every day. They aren't talking about locking up everyone like you - which I personally think would be a better step for society. (Don't worry; unlike you I don't think I should have the power to lock up people because of my personal feelings.) You may laugh it off, but that shows the reason behind your proposal. You have more power than they do, so if you don't like them you abuse them. They same goes for the WSJ.

gruez 3y ago
>According to research, the problem is rising housing prices, not compassion While this might be true for the homeless population as a whole, I suspect the parent is talking about the people with mental illness and/or substance abuse problems. Making rent 20% cheaper or whatever isn't going to magically make them get better.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Actually, from experts I've read, the best first step is stable housing. It's hard for me, with all my resources and normal functioning, to change my life; I couldn't imagine doing it while living on the street, wondering where my next meal and shelter are coming from. These people add other obstacles to what I face.
- ahelwer 3y ago
  These things are interlinked. Developing addiction or mental health issues makes you less able to keep an income. If housing is more expensive it's then that much easier to not be able to make rent. And if you're homeless then it's quite easy to develop drug addictions or mental health issues. Housing prices are a single dial that turns up the heat on the whole system. Honestly we don't have to intellectualize this very much. A child can understand this. If housing is more expensive it will be harder for people to afford it! And people who can't afford housing become homeless!

justanotherjoe 3y ago

Sense of urgency often made people do the most harm. Sometimes the best thing to do is to do nothing. Who knows in the future there will be a good answer if we wait.