3 ms·

There are a few things. The longer you are unhoused, the more that you are in a chronic state of danger. Opioids turn that stress response off for a moment and

There are a few things. The longer you are unhoused, the more that you are in a chronic state of danger. Opioids turn that stress response off for a moment and simultaneously make it harder to get out of the situation that caused the problem. The Opioid addicts don't care about being seen in a way that the invisible homeless do. The people whose mental health crises are exacerbated by being homeless are more likely to be visible because they have no reserves left. And Fentanyl is a good way to ignore that mental health crisis for a moment.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
I get that. But that’s probably not all of the cases, maybe a few. A lot of them had a support network and simply burned their bridges with them via drug use, and now they are in the streets. But we should definitely prioritize helping the non drug addicted homeless population, get them off the streets as fast as possible, since once they get into fent, helping them is a magnitude harder! And that’s why we should prioritize sober housing. Yes, it’s sad, but once they get addicted to fent, they are probably not recovering from that, so let’s throw our resources at not letting that happen, rather than burning them on people that are very very hard to help.
- ebiester 3y ago
  Ironically, getting the addicts off the street also helps, and the "housing" is more important than "sober." If you can get them stable, they may have a chance. The drug addiction happens because of the trauma in a vast majority of cases. Poor decisions may compound, but trauma causes rational decisions that also have the negative consequences that compound.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    It doesn’t really help. They get off the streets into a mini home for example, or maybe a spot in a RV park, or hotel room. But the city pays $10k/month for that, since housing an addict requires a lot more maintenance and services than housing someone sober, and that’s not even treating their addiction. The costs are unsustainable, the treatment isn’t available or they dont want to go (it’s not jail, they can’t be forced to go to treatment). And again, treatment doesn’t even work most of the time, especially if the patient is unwilling. We are just throwing away our money here when we could focus it on the non-addicted homeless instead, get them housed, and prevent them from getting addicted to drugs. Sober housing helps these people a lot, and could prevent the problem from getting worse, because once they start doing drugs, it’s pretty much over.
    - ebiester 3y ago
      Last time I saw, that 10k/month was actually less expensive than leaving them on the street. https://endhomelessness.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Cost-Savings-from-PSH.pdf https://endhomelessness.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Cost-...
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        Yes, although not cheaper than prison (only applicable for those that commit felonies and then get a slap on the wrist instead of prison time, but we have plenty of that).

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

I get that. But that’s probably not all of the cases, maybe a few. A lot of them had a support network and simply burned their bridges with them via drug use, and now they are in the streets. But we should definitely prioritize helping the non drug addicted homeless population, get them off the streets as fast as possible, since once they get into fent, helping them is a magnitude harder! And that’s why we should prioritize sober housing. Yes, it’s sad, but once they get addicted to fent, they are probably not recovering from that, so let’s throw our resources at not letting that happen, rather than burning them on people that are very very hard to help.

ebiester 3y ago
Ironically, getting the addicts off the street also helps, and the "housing" is more important than "sober." If you can get them stable, they may have a chance. The drug addiction happens because of the trauma in a vast majority of cases. Poor decisions may compound, but trauma causes rational decisions that also have the negative consequences that compound.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  It doesn’t really help. They get off the streets into a mini home for example, or maybe a spot in a RV park, or hotel room. But the city pays $10k/month for that, since housing an addict requires a lot more maintenance and services than housing someone sober, and that’s not even treating their addiction. The costs are unsustainable, the treatment isn’t available or they dont want to go (it’s not jail, they can’t be forced to go to treatment). And again, treatment doesn’t even work most of the time, especially if the patient is unwilling. We are just throwing away our money here when we could focus it on the non-addicted homeless instead, get them housed, and prevent them from getting addicted to drugs. Sober housing helps these people a lot, and could prevent the problem from getting worse, because once they start doing drugs, it’s pretty much over.
  - ebiester 3y ago
    Last time I saw, that 10k/month was actually less expensive than leaving them on the street. https://endhomelessness.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Cost-Savings-from-PSH.pdf https://endhomelessness.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Cost-...
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      Yes, although not cheaper than prison (only applicable for those that commit felonies and then get a slap on the wrist instead of prison time, but we have plenty of that).