10 ms·
This is such a hard problem to solve. I work with drug and alcohol addicts regularly and addiction is such a damned nightmare. And every homeless person hates
by qingcharles 3y ago
This is such a hard problem to solve. I work with drug and alcohol addicts regularly and addiction is such a damned nightmare.
And every homeless person hates shelters. They have way more rules than prisons and all of the drama.
I don't know what the solutions are :(
- alostpuppy 3y agoWe appreciate you
- gafage 3y ago[flagged]
- iAMkenough 3y agoIt is a hard problem to solve. Criminalizing drugs and throwing addicts in jail doesn't resolve the problem.
- skippyboxedhero 3y ago...apart from in every country that does this and doesn't have lots of addicts? It is quite strange because you go almost anywhere else in the world...no addicts, no-one uses drugs, they find it strange that anyone would use drugs...go to the US, you not only have drug addicts but a whole industry dedicated to offering very knowledgeable-sounding opinions about what should work...it never is explained why the drug problem in the US is so out of control with so many people who know what "should" work. The only places where I have ever been that have had lots of drug addicts have been places that have tried to decriminalize (for some reason, almost always with help from the police who just want this stuff off their books altogether).
- argc 3y agoAFAIK there are drug addicts all over the world, including in the Middle East and Philippines where drug addicts are met with severe punishments. The problem is IMO more the availability of drugs vs the potential punishments people face. People are willing to take risks to do drugs. Unless a government completely controls everyone's private life there remains an ability to evade detection and take drugs while telling oneself that one will not be caught. https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/02/middleeast/saudi-drug-capital-mime-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/02/middleeast/saudi-drug-capital...
- bluescrn 3y agoIt's not a total solution, but a jailed addict isn't breaking into your car, robbing people at knifepoint, or resorting to prostitution to fund their habit. And they should have much more limited in access to drugs. To help the addicts and reduce reoffending, what we probably need is better jails that are less a punishment and more an enforced rehab program with high-quality mental health support. And then a better path from jail back into society. But that's expensive.
- iamcasen 3y agoJust curious if you'd include alcohol in that list? What about prescription pain-killers? Just curious where you draw the line on what's criminal, and what's not. Personally, I'd rather criminalize the negative behavior, rather than the drugs themselves. Like DUI laws, for example.
- rpmisms 3y agoThis is slightly smarter. I have zero issues with people being addicted to whatever they want, so long as it doesn't negatively affect others. You do fentanyl in the privacy of your own home, then go to work in the morning? Cool.
- gafage 3y ago[dead]
- defen 3y ago> Personally, I'd rather criminalize the negative behavior, rather than the drugs themselves. Like DUI laws, for example. How do you punish a homeless drug addict living on the streets with no assets or income?
- iamcasen 3y agoWell that's the rub ain't it? Punishment, at its root, is just a method for control. The more brutal the punishment, the more fear is created, and fearful people will then obey commands (laws). It's such an infantile mindset, I'm frankly surprised it has stuck around this long. We all just want to live, and enjoy the fruits of our lives, our friends, our families, our work. When a social break happens due to anti-evolutionary behavior, that situation needs to be corrected. Threat of punishment never needs to come into it.
- hooverd 3y agoHell, why not just summarily execute them. No more homeless problem!
- tiahura 3y agoSounds like you’re volunteering to take them in. Good for you.
- mrtesthah 3y agoI don’t see how his comment implied that. Perhaps you can explain?
- thereisnospork 3y agoP is a sarcastic rejoinder to the GP with approximate intent of: don't put down others' solutions without a solution of your own / don't minimize others'[0] suffering because you don't have skin in the game. [0]That of people victimized by the homeless/addicts.
- mrtesthah 3y agoI'd think that but GP sounds just as sarcastic to me.
- toofy 3y agoI don’t like having my own very not-homeless and not drug addict family members for extended stay… Not wanting houseguests doesn’t somehow mean we aren’t collectively smart enough to figure out which levers need some tweaking to mitigate drug addiction and housing issues.
- namesbc 3y agoWe tried this cruel inhumane policy for the decades called thew war on drugs and it was one of the worst failures in US history
- notyofriend 3y agoSingapore has been successful so clearly we’re doing it wrong and focusing on the wrong things.
- lazyasciiart 3y agoOoh, is it the Bill of Rights!?
- lupusreal 3y agoThe Bill of Rights doesn't say anything about not locking up junkies. You just have to give them due process.
- lazyasciiart 3y agoSingapore doesn’t just lock people up…
- lupusreal 3y agoIn many American states and the federal level, we execute murderers. The Bill of Rights plainly permits this. Executing drug dealers isn't over the line either if we consider the number of people killed by drugs and the drug trade, and if we make a regular habit of it. As for flogging people, this is arguably less cruel than imprisonment and is a good option for the sort of criminals the public doesn't need to be protected from (not suitable for violent criminals who will likely reoffend.) It doesn't keep people away from their families for years, let's them stay current in their job training, etc. It is nevertheless a strong deterrent but it does less damage to the rest of society. Singapore gets results and most of their policies don't violate the letter of Bill of Rights except in a purely subjective sense, but most people in America aren't ready to give real progressive reform serious consideration.
- legitster 3y agoOh, believe me I don't think it's an easy problem either. My brother is a social worker and I know the stories. But I think the suffering of the individual is largely unchanged whether it happens out in public or on the periphery. In contrast, I think we as a larger society are suffering from lack of safe and clean public spaces. So we may as well maintain some sort of enforcement.
- CydeWeys 3y agoThis is exactly the right call, and closer to the way we used to run things -- people acting a nuisance in the city weren't tolerated. We need to go back to it.
- bglazer 3y agoWhy did we stop?
- lmm 3y agoFeels like a follow-on from the "white flight" phenomenon. The rich and/or influential (that is, middle-/upper-class, but Americans aren't used to thinking that way) people who set policy for a city no longer live or even spend any time downtown. They push for the policies they think are right, but there's no feedback mechanism to tell them what effect they're actually having.
- panick21_ 3y agoThis was part of the 'efficiency' drive. Many cities added or merged with lots of the subburbs. And then those subburbs control policy. Torronto is a perfect example. It was merged into Greater Torronto, and those new areas are what led to Trumpist style Rob Ford being elected. And its also zoning. Its always surprising to me how in the US people don't live in the cities. In Europe, the city center are very lived in. The downtown can't turn into a ghost town, even if everybody works from home.
- ninth_ant 3y agoThe fact that shelters have "drama" and "rules" is not a compelling reason for someone to make a home in an area that is intended for public use, and render it unusable and unsafe for others. Is this really a hard problem to solve? I can certainly buy the argument that criminalizing homelessness doesn't make sense when the "criminal" has no other options. But if someone has a viable option for not living on the street, I'm considerably less sympathetic given the downsides to everyone else involved.
- cortesoft 3y ago> someone has a viable option for not living on the street I guess it depends on how we define viable. In my experience working with the homeless, there are a lot of valid reasons shelters are avoided; they can be more dangerous, don't allow pets (who are sometimes the only companions they have), and don't allow families or couples. Whether that is viable or not depends on how you use the word.
- namesbc 3y agoPermanent Housing is the only solution. Shelters are at best temporary to survive a cold night, but they are not a solution for a sustainable life.
- notyofriend 3y agoHow can someone pushing themselves to the limit of heroin od have anything sustainable.
- notfed 3y ago[flagged]
- recursive 3y agoHow? Why? It seems like a reasonable question to me, so maybe I'm prejudiced too. That's entirely possible. What's the prejudice? How do I stop? Why is this a bad question? Does it have an answer?
- notfed 3y agoThe stereotype here is that every drug user is pushing themselves to the limit of od.
- recursive 3y agoMaybe some are, maybe some aren't. But it seems likely that the ones in the worst condition that need the most help probably skewed towards out of control. And they will probably be hardest to help. I'm in favor of helping those that need help that can be helped. But that will probably come with rules. There are comments all over this thread that shelters are under-utilized because of these rules. I don't know what the answer is.
- InSteady 3y agoKind of valid. In Portland "housing first" has been all the rage, but having lived with pretty severe addiction for some years, and spent lots of time around fellow addicts in considerably worse circumstances, it's pretty hard to imagine that a house on its own is some kind of solution. Especially when compared to a support network and high quality addiction treatment, medical care, and mental health services. In terms of sustainable recovery, the former is a luxury, while some combo of the latter are essential requirements. Of course, having all of them is by far the best.. man, addiction is a bitch.
- anon291 3y ago> They have way more rules than prisons a Rules are good for a well lived life. My house has more rules than prisons.
- pr0zac 3y agoWhat, no it doesn't? Like seriously, what?
- buzzert 3y agoIn my house, guests are required to remove their shoes before entering. Also coasters must be used for beverages.
- csin 3y agoJail and Admin manual is 383 pages long: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/jail-administration-and-procedures-manual-manual-guidelines https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/jail-adm... Can you even come up with 383 annoying things you require your guests to comply with... let alone 383 PAGES.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- huytersd 3y agoSolution is easy. If you’re visibly publicly intoxicated with hard drugs, you go to a special rehab that’s essentially prison without the violent criminals. If you’re already a violent criminal, you get put into a segregated area. You then get forcibly treated. If youv’e stayed clean for a set number of months, you get to leave. None of this shows up on any permanent/criminal record.
- janalsncm 3y agoAgreed. I will add that we’ve come full circle on psychiatric hospitals, which is essentially what you’re describing in different words. Budget cuts and deinstitutionalization meant many of those were closed down 50 years ago.
- xref 3y agoIn no small part because psychiatric hospitals were wildly, wildly abused. Basically you could lock people up indefinitely with no conviction of anything because someone said they’re a danger to themselves/society/whatever. Basically used like an on-shore Guantanamo.
- lupusreal 3y agoSimple solution; require convictions. The problem wasn't with locking up junkies, the problems was doing it without due process. Create laws against public drug use, then enforce them.
- huytersd 3y agoSet them up again but increase inspections and have maximum times you can keep a person there.
- zztop44 3y agoChrist, I’ve been visibly publicly intoxicated with hard drugs on a number of occasions (many years ago) while holding down a respectable middle class professional job (and being good at it!). If I’d been forced into months(!!) of rehab I’d have lost my job and had to move cities and/or change industries (it’s a small world and people talk). And the scariest thing (for me personally) is that even if I knew that was a potential outcome, I don’t think it would have stopped me. And I wasn’t a junkie or hopeless addict by any means.