4 ms·

Don’t you think it makes sense to attack the root problem (addiction) as well as the “big symptoms”? Wouldn’t that look like a rule to be in a treatment program

by bumby 3y ago

Don’t you think it makes sense to attack the root problem (addiction) as well as the “big symptoms”? Wouldn’t that look like a rule to be in a treatment program or be otherwise clean? I can get on board with housing being a basic human need that society helps supply. But that’s subtly different than the OP’s claim of housing with virtually the same freedom from rules. I’m not sure “unfettered housing” is a human right.

toddmorey 3y ago
Well don’t frame it as a right, think in terms of desired outcome. If a user relapses, does removing their housing help in recovery?
- bumby 3y ago
  I think we’re in agreement. The two are coupled. This is contrary to the OP, where housing would be completely decoupled, no-strings-attached.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    How do you expect to get. an addict to voluntarily accept housings with strings that experience is that a lot of them actively avoid? The pint of the Finnish approach is that the old approach of attaching strings fails at both addressing homelessness and addiction.
    - bumby 3y ago
      Ah, ok. I think I see the confusion. I think you're applying a false dichotomy here. It's not an "either you are clean or you don't get housing" in most places. But, if a therapist sees that addiction is a contributing factor, they will often make the free housing contingent on being part of a drug rehab program. So it's not "clean or else you're back on the street" but it's looking at it as part of the overall problem that's keeping a person from being self-sufficient. They aren't even generally piss tested as part of that. The cases where they are forced to be clean prior is when they are referred to housing services by a probation or parole officer. But that "remain clean" condition is more a function of the probation/parole than the housing program.
abofh 3y ago
Addiction isn't a root problem of anything, it's a symptom of other things that led you to become addicted to whatever (gambling, drugs, etc) If you address only the symptoms and not the sociatal issues that exacerbate them, you won't actually solve the problem.
- bumby 3y ago
  Fair enough, but doesn’t the same principle apply? Namely, that if we really want to solve the problem, the root issues need to be the priority? You seem to agree with this, but that doesn’t necessarily align with the OP. Giving no strings attached housing isn’t fixing root issues.
  - cutemonster 3y ago
    They didn't say that housing fixes root issues. They said it's a "baseline for treating people".
    - bumby 3y ago
      But they also framed it as simply a means to an end: "finding people so you can treat them." I can sympathize with the "baseline for treating people" argument, but that, by itself, doesn't address the fact that there is a fundamental symmetry missing. If people want "freedom" they also need to demonstrate "responsibility" for a society to work. There is no free lunch, unfortunately. Literally every "baseline" right guaranteed by the US Constitution can be framed in this same give/take dynamic. The OP was conflating the issue IMO. They are saying basic shelter isn't enough; people have a right to free housing with no strings attached. I think those are two very different mental frameworks to view this problem.
- throw9away6 3y ago
  Addiction is the problem homeless is a symptom. Homelessness is a temporary state that one can move in and out of based on access to economic resources but addiction is a permanent state that though great willpower some can occasionally be suppressed.
liveoneggs 3y ago
Addicts will choose the streets over housing to feed the addiction.
TheCleric 3y ago
For me it boils down to this, which is more successful: treating addiction without houselessness as a factor or treating it with houselessness as a factor? If it's the former, then you provide the home to increase efficacy.
- bumby 3y ago
  I understand this point; I think where most people take issue is that it doesn't seem very effective. (or maybe it is, and people are just ignorant of the impact). And once you give people a benefit, it's exceedingly hard to take it away, potentially leaving society worse off than before.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    Where other than Finland is it being tried? What is systematically failing is to expect people to get clean before providing housing. It doesn't get people clean and it doesn't get people off the streets.
    - bumby 3y ago
      See my response to your comment below. It's the general case (where I live, at least) that people aren't required to be clean to get housing. But they are required to be part of a rehab program is a therapist/counselor/case worker has deemed addiction to be a contributing factor to their circumstances. They don't have to be clean in those cases, but working toward being cured of their addiction.
duped 3y ago
> Wouldn’t that look like a rule to be in a treatment program or be otherwise clean? It looks more like using permanent supportive housing as a way to get people into treatment programs and stick with them.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Don’t you think it makes sense to attack the root problem (addiction) as well as the “big symptoms”? Addiction very often isn’t the root problem, there may not even be a unique root problem. Addiction is a difficult to manage persistent condition that complicates, is conplicated by, reinforces, and co-occurs with other problems, which may be caused by it, may cause it, or may be linked by more distant causal connections or not, at root, commonly caused despite interacting and reinforcing each other once present. You need to deal with the complex situation presented, not try to solve a tricky and generally unsolvable chicken-and-egg problem that is usually irrelevant to the path forward.
- bumby 3y ago
  Let me be clear: I’m not advocating an either-or solution. My point is that the complex problem must be treated as exactly that. To me, just focusing on giving people housing is the antithesis of treating it as a complex problem.

by bumby 3y ago

toddmorey 3y ago

Well don’t frame it as a right, think in terms of desired outcome. If a user relapses, does removing their housing help in recovery?

bumby 3y ago
I think we’re in agreement. The two are coupled. This is contrary to the OP, where housing would be completely decoupled, no-strings-attached.
- vidarh 3y ago
  How do you expect to get. an addict to voluntarily accept housings with strings that experience is that a lot of them actively avoid? The pint of the Finnish approach is that the old approach of attaching strings fails at both addressing homelessness and addiction.
  - bumby 3y ago
    Ah, ok. I think I see the confusion. I think you're applying a false dichotomy here. It's not an "either you are clean or you don't get housing" in most places. But, if a therapist sees that addiction is a contributing factor, they will often make the free housing contingent on being part of a drug rehab program. So it's not "clean or else you're back on the street" but it's looking at it as part of the overall problem that's keeping a person from being self-sufficient. They aren't even generally piss tested as part of that. The cases where they are forced to be clean prior is when they are referred to housing services by a probation or parole officer. But that "remain clean" condition is more a function of the probation/parole than the housing program.

abofh 3y ago

Addiction isn't a root problem of anything, it's a symptom of other things that led you to become addicted to whatever (gambling, drugs, etc) If you address only the symptoms and not the sociatal issues that exacerbate them, you won't actually solve the problem.

bumby 3y ago
Fair enough, but doesn’t the same principle apply? Namely, that if we really want to solve the problem, the root issues need to be the priority? You seem to agree with this, but that doesn’t necessarily align with the OP. Giving no strings attached housing isn’t fixing root issues.
- cutemonster 3y ago
  They didn't say that housing fixes root issues. They said it's a "baseline for treating people".
  - bumby 3y ago
    But they also framed it as simply a means to an end: "finding people so you can treat them." I can sympathize with the "baseline for treating people" argument, but that, by itself, doesn't address the fact that there is a fundamental symmetry missing. If people want "freedom" they also need to demonstrate "responsibility" for a society to work. There is no free lunch, unfortunately. Literally every "baseline" right guaranteed by the US Constitution can be framed in this same give/take dynamic. The OP was conflating the issue IMO. They are saying basic shelter isn't enough; people have a right to free housing with no strings attached. I think those are two very different mental frameworks to view this problem.
throw9away6 3y ago
Addiction is the problem homeless is a symptom. Homelessness is a temporary state that one can move in and out of based on access to economic resources but addiction is a permanent state that though great willpower some can occasionally be suppressed.

liveoneggs 3y ago

Addicts will choose the streets over housing to feed the addiction.

TheCleric 3y ago

For me it boils down to this, which is more successful: treating addiction without houselessness as a factor or treating it with houselessness as a factor? If it's the former, then you provide the home to increase efficacy.

bumby 3y ago
I understand this point; I think where most people take issue is that it doesn't seem very effective. (or maybe it is, and people are just ignorant of the impact). And once you give people a benefit, it's exceedingly hard to take it away, potentially leaving society worse off than before.
- vidarh 3y ago
  Where other than Finland is it being tried? What is systematically failing is to expect people to get clean before providing housing. It doesn't get people clean and it doesn't get people off the streets.
  - bumby 3y ago
    See my response to your comment below. It's the general case (where I live, at least) that people aren't required to be clean to get housing. But they are required to be part of a rehab program is a therapist/counselor/case worker has deemed addiction to be a contributing factor to their circumstances. They don't have to be clean in those cases, but working toward being cured of their addiction.

duped 3y ago

> Wouldn’t that look like a rule to be in a treatment program or be otherwise clean? It looks more like using permanent supportive housing as a way to get people into treatment programs and stick with them.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Don’t you think it makes sense to attack the root problem (addiction) as well as the “big symptoms”? Addiction very often isn’t the root problem, there may not even be a unique root problem. Addiction is a difficult to manage persistent condition that complicates, is conplicated by, reinforces, and co-occurs with other problems, which may be caused by it, may cause it, or may be linked by more distant causal connections or not, at root, commonly caused despite interacting and reinforcing each other once present. You need to deal with the complex situation presented, not try to solve a tricky and generally unsolvable chicken-and-egg problem that is usually irrelevant to the path forward.

bumby 3y ago
Let me be clear: I’m not advocating an either-or solution. My point is that the complex problem must be treated as exactly that. To me, just focusing on giving people housing is the antithesis of treating it as a complex problem.