5 ms·

The issue is we have a bunch of puritan teetotalers who think the best way to "fix" society is to criminalize the parts of society they find morally objectionab

The issue is we have a bunch of puritan teetotalers who think the best way to "fix" society is to criminalize the parts of society they find morally objectionable. It doesn't matter that the social sciences have found that rehab works WAY better than prison [1]. It doesn't matter that incarceration is WAY more detrimental both to the individual and society [2]. Nope, sinners need to be punished. If we want a better society, make drugs legal and send public funds to public rehab rather than private prisons. Let's leave prison as a last resort for people that are actually dangerous to society; Not your uncle who grew weed in his backyard. [1] https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab [2] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2021/05/13/mentalhealthimpacts/ https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2021/05/13/mentalhealthimp...

staringback 3y ago
And then when the drug affected individuals refuse help? You end up with downtowns like Seattle, Portland, LA, etc
- zokula 3y ago
  [dead]
- cogman10 3y ago
  Have you actually been to downtown Seattle/Portland? I have fairly recently. It's really not that bad. But to that, I'd also point out that "refusing help" is hardly the reason seattle/portland have so many homeless people. A lot of these people have been priced out of apartments. Some have suffered from mental health issues (or have developed mental health issues after becoming homeless). My son's teacher's aid was temporarily homeless while being fully employed. She was simply priced out of living anywhere. Do you think that was a result of substance abuse? The attitude of your post is actually part of the reason homelessness is so bad. It's the view that people are homeless because they did something wrong to deserve it. Addressing homelessness requires compassion and funds. You can never make it go away all together, but you can relieve it simply by giving people a place to exist.
  - malcolmgreaves 3y ago
    I think thread poster is only commenting on the smaller, yet much more visible mental ill homelessness. While housing is the solution to true majority of homelessness (like your individual income experience with the teacher), people like the individual above above make valid observations. They’re pointing out problems that, at the very least, get intermingled with consequences of homes being unaffordable for all. This need not be a value judgement on their character. It is a value judgement on actions, which is something that not only is fair (all are in control of what they choose to do), but necessary for a functioning society (how else do you morally compel folks to follow laws and determine responsibility if not by one’s actions?). The solution is to both make housing affordable to every person *and* ensure everyone who needs it takes it.
  - gottorf 3y ago
    > Addressing homelessness requires compassion and funds. If you're talking about working people being priced out of homes in stupidly low-density cities (which places like Seattle and Portland are), the greater part of the solution is just building more so that supply rises to match demand. Artificially suppressing the supply of homes via government action (restrictive zoning) then helping the people who lost homes as a result via government action (social services funded by redistributive taxation) is just so wasteful that I don't even know where to begin.
    - staringback 3y ago
      > the greater part of the solution is just building more so that supply rises to match demand. Just like building more lanes to match the demand of traffic, yeah?
      - gottorf 3y ago
        I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? Expanding roadways are an example of induced demand, which means that for some class of things, as it gets cheaper (or qualitatively better/less costly, as in the example of traffic), more people consume it by shifting preferences from alternatives, and in the end it's just as pricey (or qualitatively poor) as before. Is your point that as housing gets cheaper in a place, more people will be housed and eventually the equilibrium goes back higher? If so, isn't that the goal? More people are still housed than before.
- foxyv 3y ago
  The evidence indicates that primary cause of homelessness is housing affordability. Shelters are over-subscribed and programs have so many strings attached that it is nearly impossible to remain on them. The trope of drug addicts who are homeless by choice is a talking point to distract from the real issue of housing shortages and gutless assistance programs. In addition, homeless people are often the target of crime. Between 60-75% of homeless people are not on any drugs or alcohol. They are just homeless. In addition, Housing First initiatives have seen sharp drops in addiction.
- malcolmgreaves 3y ago
  Solution is mandatory treatment when someone demonstrates they can’t take care of themselves AND as a result their behavior is causing problems for others. Not the folks struggling to get housing (just build more and give it away for operating/maintenance cost, don’t recoup capital investment ). Just the few 10-20% of the highly visible ones with mental health problems (and the like 3% that are just asses- every large enough group of people has got ‘em!).
0xdeadbeefbabe 3y ago
Understanding this stuff isn't beyond puritans or teetotalers. Believing in an easy solution sounds like addict/ex-addict thinking to me.
- noobface 3y ago
  You sure? This comment looks like a misunderstanding at best and an indictment of your own character at worst. Automatically assuming people who use substances are addicts is extreme and wildly judgmental.
- cogman10 3y ago
  Who said the solution was easy? Do you think dismantling and rebuilding a huge portion of the penal code would somehow be easy? Do you think revitalizing and rebuilding our public mental health services is a cake walk? Just because the solution can be expressed simply doesn't mean it's "easy". I'm neither and addict or ex-addict. But I am an ex puritan/teetotaler. I'm well aware of how they think, preach, and talk about this stuff. I'm living proof that it's not beyond them, but the fact is you have to abandon your puritan/teetotaling beliefs to actually understand the problem.

staringback 3y ago

And then when the drug affected individuals refuse help? You end up with downtowns like Seattle, Portland, LA, etc

zokula 3y ago
[dead]
cogman10 3y ago
Have you actually been to downtown Seattle/Portland? I have fairly recently. It's really not that bad. But to that, I'd also point out that "refusing help" is hardly the reason seattle/portland have so many homeless people. A lot of these people have been priced out of apartments. Some have suffered from mental health issues (or have developed mental health issues after becoming homeless). My son's teacher's aid was temporarily homeless while being fully employed. She was simply priced out of living anywhere. Do you think that was a result of substance abuse? The attitude of your post is actually part of the reason homelessness is so bad. It's the view that people are homeless because they did something wrong to deserve it. Addressing homelessness requires compassion and funds. You can never make it go away all together, but you can relieve it simply by giving people a place to exist.
- malcolmgreaves 3y ago
  I think thread poster is only commenting on the smaller, yet much more visible mental ill homelessness. While housing is the solution to true majority of homelessness (like your individual income experience with the teacher), people like the individual above above make valid observations. They’re pointing out problems that, at the very least, get intermingled with consequences of homes being unaffordable for all. This need not be a value judgement on their character. It is a value judgement on actions, which is something that not only is fair (all are in control of what they choose to do), but necessary for a functioning society (how else do you morally compel folks to follow laws and determine responsibility if not by one’s actions?). The solution is to both make housing affordable to every person *and* ensure everyone who needs it takes it.
- gottorf 3y ago
  > Addressing homelessness requires compassion and funds. If you're talking about working people being priced out of homes in stupidly low-density cities (which places like Seattle and Portland are), the greater part of the solution is just building more so that supply rises to match demand. Artificially suppressing the supply of homes via government action (restrictive zoning) then helping the people who lost homes as a result via government action (social services funded by redistributive taxation) is just so wasteful that I don't even know where to begin.
  - staringback 3y ago
    > the greater part of the solution is just building more so that supply rises to match demand. Just like building more lanes to match the demand of traffic, yeah?
    - gottorf 3y ago
      I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? Expanding roadways are an example of induced demand, which means that for some class of things, as it gets cheaper (or qualitatively better/less costly, as in the example of traffic), more people consume it by shifting preferences from alternatives, and in the end it's just as pricey (or qualitatively poor) as before. Is your point that as housing gets cheaper in a place, more people will be housed and eventually the equilibrium goes back higher? If so, isn't that the goal? More people are still housed than before.
foxyv 3y ago
The evidence indicates that primary cause of homelessness is housing affordability. Shelters are over-subscribed and programs have so many strings attached that it is nearly impossible to remain on them. The trope of drug addicts who are homeless by choice is a talking point to distract from the real issue of housing shortages and gutless assistance programs. In addition, homeless people are often the target of crime. Between 60-75% of homeless people are not on any drugs or alcohol. They are just homeless. In addition, Housing First initiatives have seen sharp drops in addiction.
malcolmgreaves 3y ago
Solution is mandatory treatment when someone demonstrates they can’t take care of themselves AND as a result their behavior is causing problems for others. Not the folks struggling to get housing (just build more and give it away for operating/maintenance cost, don’t recoup capital investment ). Just the few 10-20% of the highly visible ones with mental health problems (and the like 3% that are just asses- every large enough group of people has got ‘em!).

0xdeadbeefbabe 3y ago

Understanding this stuff isn't beyond puritans or teetotalers. Believing in an easy solution sounds like addict/ex-addict thinking to me.

noobface 3y ago
You sure? This comment looks like a misunderstanding at best and an indictment of your own character at worst. Automatically assuming people who use substances are addicts is extreme and wildly judgmental.
cogman10 3y ago
Who said the solution was easy? Do you think dismantling and rebuilding a huge portion of the penal code would somehow be easy? Do you think revitalizing and rebuilding our public mental health services is a cake walk? Just because the solution can be expressed simply doesn't mean it's "easy". I'm neither and addict or ex-addict. But I am an ex puritan/teetotaler. I'm well aware of how they think, preach, and talk about this stuff. I'm living proof that it's not beyond them, but the fact is you have to abandon your puritan/teetotaling beliefs to actually understand the problem.