The impact of homelessness and the opioid crisis on San Francisco streets(cnn.com)
cnn.com
The impact of homelessness and the opioid crisis on San Francisco streets
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/27/health/drug-use-san-francisco-streets/index.html
118 comments
I don't know if it's wise or helpful to lay this at the feet of government and big companies. They are big beasts that do well with defined budgets and defined directives, but they rely on their constituents and shareholders heavily for both of those two things. While that may not seem ideal, it's practical and what we have always seen in reality.
I think many in government knew this was going on, and becoming an increasing issue/epidemic in recent years, but until the public becomes outraged and is willing to support a big shift in policy and budget, what they can do is limited. It might be some of the people in government that we should feel most sorry for - they've been witnessing it for years and voicing concern, but few in the public will listen or do anything about it.
Perhaps I'm being too generous, but I see government and big institutions as behaving very much like computers, with much less intelligence and autonomy than the general public might think.
I think many in government knew this was going on, and becoming an increasing issue/epidemic in recent years, but until the public becomes outraged and is willing to support a big shift in policy and budget, what they can do is limited. It might be some of the people in government that we should feel most sorry for - they've been witnessing it for years and voicing concern, but few in the public will listen or do anything about it.
Perhaps I'm being too generous, but I see government and big institutions as behaving very much like computers, with much less intelligence and autonomy than the general public might think.
It's incredibly obvious that housing, homelessness, and general city livability are major problems in SF to everyone, even passing tourists. How much clearer does it need to get?
Government officials are constituents too and they should be able to figure this out even without any public feedback. This is their job. Ignorance and apathy have no place there and they would be fired in any other industry for this kind of incompetence. Unfortunately they're also in charge of any rules around accountability.
Government officials are constituents too and they should be able to figure this out even without any public feedback. This is their job. Ignorance and apathy have no place there and they would be fired in any other industry for this kind of incompetence. Unfortunately they're also in charge of any rules around accountability.
I don't believe housing is the issue. Housing is the distraction. The real issue is that the US incentivizes disparity. Shitty minimum wage, no car = no job (lack of public transport), no universal health care (health issue? Your life is over) and no free education (no money and no good grades? Good luck)
Some might contend that San Francisco has all of those problems addressed. There is adequate public transportation, a livable minimum wage, access to health care, and free education for all.
It may be worth considering how all the issues you so correctly and wisely identify have been addressed in the place that seems to continue to exemplify the worst of the crisis. Perhaps they're all addressed improperly or inefficiently. Perhaps trying to address the issues is simply too new to have had any impact at all. Perhaps the solutions are so successful that they've drawn people from elsewhere in need of help, making the crisis falsely appear to be ongoing. Perhaps the critical services you point to are insufficient somehow.
What are your thoughts on explaining this apparent conundrum? I'd very much love to hear! I want to understand.
It may be worth considering how all the issues you so correctly and wisely identify have been addressed in the place that seems to continue to exemplify the worst of the crisis. Perhaps they're all addressed improperly or inefficiently. Perhaps trying to address the issues is simply too new to have had any impact at all. Perhaps the solutions are so successful that they've drawn people from elsewhere in need of help, making the crisis falsely appear to be ongoing. Perhaps the critical services you point to are insufficient somehow.
What are your thoughts on explaining this apparent conundrum? I'd very much love to hear! I want to understand.
So admittedly I'm not a resident of SF or California, but to address the first item on your list, housing - if it's a major problem identified by everyone, why haven't the public voted in line with that assertion? https://sf.curbed.com/2018/11/8/18075464/yimby-sf-election-v.... And trust me that's not the first group to try do something like that. For years voters have been turning down similar initiatives to ease the housing problem there.
I still hold my point that the public may get "outraged" or whine about the problem, but they won't act or vote in alignment with that outrage until it actually impacts them. The homeless/opioid epidemic finally crossed that threshold and so they did. But that just proves my point that it's the public that must act/vote and see themselves as the responsible party, and not wait for the government to solve everything.
I still hold my point that the public may get "outraged" or whine about the problem, but they won't act or vote in alignment with that outrage until it actually impacts them. The homeless/opioid epidemic finally crossed that threshold and so they did. But that just proves my point that it's the public that must act/vote and see themselves as the responsible party, and not wait for the government to solve everything.
The government is the people. At some point, the officials need to just get on with it.
The reality is fine-grained democratic voting on every issue does not scale to today's world. People do not have the time, attention, education and understanding to vote properly on everything, and when you add in personal biases, lack of risk management, short-term outlooks, majority power, and special interests; things break down completely.
Many of these things which could improve civic life do not really need a voting process. It's not a system for the people (not anymore) but stays around because it removes accountability and provides regulatory capture for the few who profit. Of course, as you say, the very people who do not take action are the ones that need to take action for this to get better. I do not have an answer for that.
The reality is fine-grained democratic voting on every issue does not scale to today's world. People do not have the time, attention, education and understanding to vote properly on everything, and when you add in personal biases, lack of risk management, short-term outlooks, majority power, and special interests; things break down completely.
Many of these things which could improve civic life do not really need a voting process. It's not a system for the people (not anymore) but stays around because it removes accountability and provides regulatory capture for the few who profit. Of course, as you say, the very people who do not take action are the ones that need to take action for this to get better. I do not have an answer for that.
> The reality is fine-grained democratic voting on every issue does not scale to today's world.
Tell it to Switzerland. The most recent referendum included such important issues as "should the government offer subsidies to farmers who leave the horns on their cows".
Having lived in Switzerland a while, direct democracy may not be perfect but it definitely works. It might not work in America but it works.
Tell it to Switzerland. The most recent referendum included such important issues as "should the government offer subsidies to farmers who leave the horns on their cows".
Having lived in Switzerland a while, direct democracy may not be perfect but it definitely works. It might not work in America but it works.
I don't follow. The fact that such an issue was voted on is not evidence that it should be voted on by the whole population. How many really care or know about that situation? Why do you say that "it works"? In what way exactly?
Switzerland is also around 8M people which is smaller than some cities in bigger countries so it barely qualifies for the scale argument.
Switzerland is also around 8M people which is smaller than some cities in bigger countries so it barely qualifies for the scale argument.
The public is outraged. That’s why prop C with a 300MM blank check was passed.
60% vs 40% at that. Thank god.
Allocating social resources to address social needs is the foundational purpose of government. Voters elect governments to focus, prioritize and implement solutions. Ultimately any failure falls at the feet of voters.
I think we all know that it's just not that simple. There are too many things to vote for which is half of the reason for delegating to officials in the first place. However there's no real way to know what people are going to do in office and it seems they are increasingly unpredictable and ineffective, led astray by apathy and greed rather than any duty to the people.
A large part of it is likely the vast isolation they see from the actual issues. More skin in the game would greatly change things if they actually had to face these problems themselves instead of just answering public feedback with empty platitudes.
A large part of it is likely the vast isolation they see from the actual issues. More skin in the game would greatly change things if they actually had to face these problems themselves instead of just answering public feedback with empty platitudes.
I was in the city this month and it is very sad to see this first hand. I think this is why we need to legalize drugs and get these people help. I live north of San Francisco and the homeless problem is worse here too. It seems like the 2008 recession left a whole bunch of people unemployable and they are officially off the "books" now and out in the streets. This is just my observation but it seems like homelessness increased and not decreased and with unemployment % going down.
Yes it's tragic. Typical SF sight (pile of garbage on sidewalk with e-Scooter, and hypodermic needles, + my cute dog): https://imgur.com/a/vUwkfGd. A lot needs to be done to fix this. CNN covered this too (warning: gross injection-wound imagery) https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/27/health/drug-use-san-francisco...
We need to REPORT the ISSUE with the city - use the "311" phone number to report people behaving suspiciously or who obviously need support. This generates METRICS.
Then, the CITY can use the metrics to justify ACTION. Politicians can feel "safe" by responsibly spending $$ beaucoup bucks $$ without fear of voter reprisal come election-time.
The PEOPLE can use the metrics to justify SOCIAL CHANGE. Why does the US face this problem? Is it because of our "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality? How can the US adopt a holistic social approach, to accept and respond healthily to the fact that some people have harder times than others? There needs to be a change in attitudes.
We need to REPORT the ISSUE with the city - use the "311" phone number to report people behaving suspiciously or who obviously need support. This generates METRICS.
Then, the CITY can use the metrics to justify ACTION. Politicians can feel "safe" by responsibly spending $$ beaucoup bucks $$ without fear of voter reprisal come election-time.
The PEOPLE can use the metrics to justify SOCIAL CHANGE. Why does the US face this problem? Is it because of our "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality? How can the US adopt a holistic social approach, to accept and respond healthily to the fact that some people have harder times than others? There needs to be a change in attitudes.
300 million were recently voted as an increase in the budget to solve this issue. If more money is the issue we should see a decrease as this enters the system.
But who are we kidding, it is not. A huge portion of them are too mentally ill to take proper care of them selves; A huge portion prefers the freedom and the drugs and another portion needs forced drug treatment.
But all we ever hear is more money is needed, never what that money should be spent on. Because we both know it won't be spend on more cops to arrest people who shit in public, to keep those arrested for drugs from the places they previously frequented, or to raize illegal homeless camps.
But who are we kidding, it is not. A huge portion of them are too mentally ill to take proper care of them selves; A huge portion prefers the freedom and the drugs and another portion needs forced drug treatment.
But all we ever hear is more money is needed, never what that money should be spent on. Because we both know it won't be spend on more cops to arrest people who shit in public, to keep those arrested for drugs from the places they previously frequented, or to raize illegal homeless camps.
Yeah - our politicians can allocate the funds to implement the priorities requested by the citizens.
At the same time the citizens need to establish more holistic expectations around what their society is all about.
Materialism, identity defined by an individuals job, tribalism all help and hurt. I think we're missing a kind of consideration / a kind of subsystem in our societal system, resulting in the "unsolvable" situation we find ourselves in now. With a different perspective I think we could find new solutions.
At the same time the citizens need to establish more holistic expectations around what their society is all about.
Materialism, identity defined by an individuals job, tribalism all help and hurt. I think we're missing a kind of consideration / a kind of subsystem in our societal system, resulting in the "unsolvable" situation we find ourselves in now. With a different perspective I think we could find new solutions.
I hate this kind of argument. "Oh no it's my money, I don't want to pay for these fuck ups, I pay for my own healthcare and I work hard". Dude, just help the people around you, don't tell me you couldn't leave with less money.
This kind of selfish mentality needs to go away.
This kind of selfish mentality needs to go away.
Everytime I bring up prop C here people tell me that spending more money on the problem won't improve anything, that these people are just never going to leave the streets and that they want to be there. The amount of bullshit people are willing to make up just so that they can live with the fact that there are people dying next to their tesla.
Do you think there might be a cultural issue as well? I think individuals might be hesitant to report offenses because it might make them feel like they're trash-shaming the homeless/neighbors. I know for myself that I hesitate to cause any ruckus, and let people be, but I think the residents of SF take that view to the 10th degree.
SF residents do take extreme stances sometimes, yes. Shaming a disadvantaged person seems unhelpful, to me.
Culturally I'm thinking about something which might not be what you were asking about -- the responsibility of the society to care for its disadvantaged or "ill fitting" citizens. US does have some programs to help but it's also famously still crushing large groups of its population.
I don't know what the solution would be.
Culturally I'm thinking about something which might not be what you were asking about -- the responsibility of the society to care for its disadvantaged or "ill fitting" citizens. US does have some programs to help but it's also famously still crushing large groups of its population.
I don't know what the solution would be.
The country needs to throw money at the problem at this point. This is getting really bad.
> I think this is why we need to legalize drugs
Drugs are already completely legal for the underclass - basically, any and all petty crimes are. Our judges dismiss the citations (~65K in one case!), our juries acquit them, our DA refuses to prosecute them, and our cops don't bother at all anymore.
Drugs are already completely legal for the underclass - basically, any and all petty crimes are. Our judges dismiss the citations (~65K in one case!), our juries acquit them, our DA refuses to prosecute them, and our cops don't bother at all anymore.
Legalization would provide some additional things, such as standard dose/strength/purity quality-control, i.e. people would know what they are buying and not get a suprise OD by a fentanyl cut that was not adequately mixed. It would also make it easier for treatment providers to operate, get insurance, take insurance/medicaid or cash payments without tainting themselves with "drug money" and potentially having their assets forfeited. In theory, taxes on the sales could fund treatment/recovery.
How about not doing those drugs in the first place? Or is that too much to ask?
[deleted]
No drugs are used as selective imprisonment of the underclass and minorities. Even the arrest by itself is a significant disruption to someone's life.
Rich people get to use drugs all the time without even any worry of arrest.
Rich people get to use drugs all the time without even any worry of arrest.
Legalize Meth? Some of the most utilized “gateway drugs” are already legal (opiods et al). The police rarely arrests homeless drug users, and there’s plenty of foundations to supoort them. I don’t think the issue has to do with legalization...
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jimdalrympleii/public-d... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/health/san-francisco-opio...
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jimdalrympleii/public-d... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/health/san-francisco-opio...
Legalization means non-leo intervention such as medical intervention and crises counseling. LEOs aren't interested in drug users because all they can do is arrest them which fixes nothing.
The issue with the legalization approach is lack of intervention infrastructure to help them.
The issue with the legalization approach is lack of intervention infrastructure to help them.
Legalization also means they can use the existing support structures without worrying about being thrown in prison because of what they may have in their pockets.
Yes, we should legalize drugs like meth. We need to bring "hard" drug use "into the light". That's the whole idea behind safe injection sites - doctors can monitor the opioid user for respiratory depression, and have an opportunity to convince them to enroll in some sort of program. (disclaimer: I'm not GP)
Look no further than Portugal and their solution to heroin problem - decriminalization of drugs. This enables NGOs to work with people more easily, removes the stigma, provides access to save consumption sites and safer drugs, allows for funding of new drug-abuse programs (such as better access to anti-opioids for medical staff), etc...
it's not hard to figure out that whatever you're doing in the US is not working. I've been to SF and just walking past Tenderloin is not a preety sight.
- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-dec... - https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/59eqqk/ungass-portugal-w...
it's not hard to figure out that whatever you're doing in the US is not working. I've been to SF and just walking past Tenderloin is not a preety sight.
- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-dec... - https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/59eqqk/ungass-portugal-w...
Decriminalization of drugs in Portugal didn't result in reduced drug use. It resulted in significant reduced heroin use among youth (which was also reduced in the same time period in other countries that didn't decriminalize it), but that reduction was more than made up by increased rate of use of other drugs by the youth, especially ecstasy.
In the general Portugal population, since the decriminalization, cannabis use is increased, heroin use decreased (thought much less than it decreased among the youth, which means that it likely increased in older groups), cocaine use is increased, amphetamine use is basically the same, LSD use is increased, ecstasy use is increased, and hallucinogenic mushroom use is increased.
If drug decriminalization in Portugal led to increased total drug use, and increased heroin use among people over 35, why exactly you believe that doing the same in the US would solve any problems here?
In the general Portugal population, since the decriminalization, cannabis use is increased, heroin use decreased (thought much less than it decreased among the youth, which means that it likely increased in older groups), cocaine use is increased, amphetamine use is basically the same, LSD use is increased, ecstasy use is increased, and hallucinogenic mushroom use is increased.
If drug decriminalization in Portugal led to increased total drug use, and increased heroin use among people over 35, why exactly you believe that doing the same in the US would solve any problems here?
One should compare against other countries that didn’t change their laws.
Increased use could be explained by increased availability that is independent of legality (eg: better smuggling routes or larger synthetic batches).
Anyways, reduced opiate use and increased use of the other drugs mentioned generally sounds like a win to me.
I’d also consider more widespread recreational use by previous non-users. I’m not sure if that’s a problem for the lower-dependence risk drugs mentioned.
Increased use could be explained by increased availability that is independent of legality (eg: better smuggling routes or larger synthetic batches).
Anyways, reduced opiate use and increased use of the other drugs mentioned generally sounds like a win to me.
I’d also consider more widespread recreational use by previous non-users. I’m not sure if that’s a problem for the lower-dependence risk drugs mentioned.
In Germany, which didn't change its laws, prevalence of drug use fell during the same period.
Also note that it's significantly reduced opiate use among youth (15-34 y.o.): total opiate use only went down a little, which means that it likely has increased among people over 35.
Point is, even if overall drug problems decreased in Portugal (which is not clear to me at all, since total drug use increased), evidence that it's the decriminalization that helped, is flimsy at best.
Also note that it's significantly reduced opiate use among youth (15-34 y.o.): total opiate use only went down a little, which means that it likely has increased among people over 35.
Point is, even if overall drug problems decreased in Portugal (which is not clear to me at all, since total drug use increased), evidence that it's the decriminalization that helped, is flimsy at best.
Use increased, but did the problems associated with it increase or decrease? Taking drugs is not terrible in itself (except for your health and your wallet I guess), but the associated organized crime does a lot of harm.
>Taking drugs is not terrible in itself (except for your health and your wallet)
Gee, I wonder if this is the reason why people say drugs are terrible?
Gee, I wonder if this is the reason why people say drugs are terrible?
Smoking tobacco is also terrible for your health, but we don't jail people for doing it.
Vancouver[1] does all of this, short of making drugs flat-out-legal, and it is currently in the middle of an overdose crisis (In addition to the homelessness crisis that you would expect when rents and home prices skyrocket.)
I don't think any solution short of the government/pharmacies selling/giving clean drugs to people with addictions (As long as they are actively attending counselling programs, that aren't one-size-fits-all 12-step nonsense) is going to work.
[1] Also, a hospital bed to detox in is free, but good luck getting your shit together after you go through withdrawal.
I don't think any solution short of the government/pharmacies selling/giving clean drugs to people with addictions (As long as they are actively attending counselling programs, that aren't one-size-fits-all 12-step nonsense) is going to work.
[1] Also, a hospital bed to detox in is free, but good luck getting your shit together after you go through withdrawal.
In practice, given a person who wants to get clean, what works better than a 12-step program? I was under the impression that those were effective. Is the "higher power" thing what you are thinking of when you say "nonsense?" In many programs that is not specifically religious as much as it is admitting that your problem is bigger than yourself. And I think having a sponsor to help you through is a huge part of why these programs work.
I have never been through a 12-step process but I know a few people who have done it for alcohol and it works for them (I know, survivorship bias etc.)
I have never been through a 12-step process but I know a few people who have done it for alcohol and it works for them (I know, survivorship bias etc.)
We know that people with an opioid addiction need a medically assisted treatment programme for any real chance of sucess.
The evidence base for 12 step programmes isn't great.
Unfortunately the US has a load of wilderness-retreat style camps using some half-assed version of a 12 step program. They're very good at getting people's money and attention, but pretty poor at sucessful treatment.
Beth Macey has a good book about the Opioid Crisis and some of it is alarming.
https://www.amazon.com/Dopesick-Dealers-Doctors-Company-Addi...
The evidence base for 12 step programmes isn't great.
Unfortunately the US has a load of wilderness-retreat style camps using some half-assed version of a 12 step program. They're very good at getting people's money and attention, but pretty poor at sucessful treatment.
Beth Macey has a good book about the Opioid Crisis and some of it is alarming.
https://www.amazon.com/Dopesick-Dealers-Doctors-Company-Addi...
> In practice, given a person who wants to get clean, what works better than a 12-step program?
For some people, it's fixing whatever drove them to a situation where shooting heroin into their arm is a better decision then not shooting heroin their your arm.
For other people, it's switching a dependency on a street drug to a dependency on a prescription drug.
Telling people that they have zero agency in their lives, and that only Jesus can magically cure them - definitely works for some people, but not for everyone.
AA has a success rate of, depending on which study you cite, between 5% and 25%, over doing nothing.
For some people, it's fixing whatever drove them to a situation where shooting heroin into their arm is a better decision then not shooting heroin their your arm.
For other people, it's switching a dependency on a street drug to a dependency on a prescription drug.
Telling people that they have zero agency in their lives, and that only Jesus can magically cure them - definitely works for some people, but not for everyone.
AA has a success rate of, depending on which study you cite, between 5% and 25%, over doing nothing.
Vancouver has special problems to deal with, it is the only year-long livable city in Canada so a lot of people end up congregating here, additionally the housing market is absolutely bonkers.
There is no significant provided housing in the city and it's causing the problem to get much worse - decriminalizing drugs has helped quite a bit with street safety though.
There is no significant provided housing in the city and it's causing the problem to get much worse - decriminalizing drugs has helped quite a bit with street safety though.
Street safety from gangs and drug traffickers may be better, but property crime is up, and my friends bitch non-stop about used needles, and having to share public space with aggressive homeless people.
Also, 'All the homeless people moving to Vancouver' is a problem, but only a part of it. Most of the non-locals are from small dying towns in the BC interior. They aren't really suited, financially, to dealing with the social problems[1] that result - yet Vancouver would rather close its eyes, and pretend that they don't exist.
Even so, if we sent everyone who isn't originally from Vancouver back to the towns they came from, there would still be a catastrophe of homelessness, overdose deaths, etc.
[1] Yes, it would be much cheaper to provide housing for homeless persons, within their communities, instead of in the most expensive city in Canada. Sadly, nobody in Victoria seems to be keen on fixing this, on a province-wide level. The Liberals didn't care, and the NDP care, but aren't doing anything.
Also, 'All the homeless people moving to Vancouver' is a problem, but only a part of it. Most of the non-locals are from small dying towns in the BC interior. They aren't really suited, financially, to dealing with the social problems[1] that result - yet Vancouver would rather close its eyes, and pretend that they don't exist.
Even so, if we sent everyone who isn't originally from Vancouver back to the towns they came from, there would still be a catastrophe of homelessness, overdose deaths, etc.
[1] Yes, it would be much cheaper to provide housing for homeless persons, within their communities, instead of in the most expensive city in Canada. Sadly, nobody in Victoria seems to be keen on fixing this, on a province-wide level. The Liberals didn't care, and the NDP care, but aren't doing anything.
I’m not sure I understand how legalization would help. There’s nothing stopping access or use of these drugs now. Honest question: is any place enforcing drug laws against heroin, and is it making things worse somehow?
Intuitively it seems to me like the opposite would be better, if you could not get heroin you couldn’t get addicted to it. But my minimal understanding is it’s too easy to make for enforcement to be practical.
Intuitively it seems to me like the opposite would be better, if you could not get heroin you couldn’t get addicted to it. But my minimal understanding is it’s too easy to make for enforcement to be practical.
Legalization opens the door for constructive treatment and therapy options to step in, e.g. injection sites where users can inject safely with clean needles while being exposed to opportunities for treatment. Users have a higher likelihood of accepting help at places like this, versus something like drug court.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radic...
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radic...
To be fair, you don't need legalization for that, just decriminalisation of use, like Portugal did, and which had pretty good outcomes.
Correct, decriminalization is the answer, NOT legalization. Handing out free needles to addicts while suggesting that they stop is never going to get an addict off their drug.
Free needles is actually part of multiple successful treatment programs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin-assisted_treatment
Of course, this is in a controlled fashion, and doesn't require legalization.
Of course, this is in a controlled fashion, and doesn't require legalization.
I think a slightly less risky version of legalization would be to legalize selling buprenorphine/naltrexone (Suboxone) and extended-release methylphenidate under-the-counter at pharmacies without a prescription.
If they cant get heroine , they will find something else. People need drugs. That's how kingdoms have blossomed.
That's funny. The cities have most homeless are the places where Marijuana be legalized states: SF(California) and Seattle (Washington).
lol I think if you try hard enough you can think of other features of these cities that might be to blame.
"a woman urinates on the sidewalk"
"human excrement on the sidewalks"
"urinating near his restaurant"
"human feces lies nestled in front of a doorway"
"going to the bathroom in the street"
"The city has also launched the so-called "poop patrol," a team that responds to complaints of feces on city streets."
"put up a video interview with a homeless man talking about how difficult it is to find a place to go to the bathroom after dark"
Why not just put porta potties -- on a temporary basis -- on street corners in the worst areas?
It seems such a stupidly obvious quick fix for half the problem that I feel I'm missing something.
It would surely be cheaper than paying clean up teams? More humane for the homeless? Healthier for local residents?
Why not just put porta potties -- on a temporary basis -- on street corners in the worst areas?
It seems such a stupidly obvious quick fix for half the problem that I feel I'm missing something.
It would surely be cheaper than paying clean up teams? More humane for the homeless? Healthier for local residents?
This already exists. Its called Pit Stop (https://sfpublicworks.wixsite.com/pitstop). But they are only open during certain hours, because they require a full time attendant. If these locations were left unattended they would quickly become unusable because someone would either decide to camp out in one, destroy it, or both. The same goes for the permanent public toilets that spread throughout the city.
Additionally most businesses will no allow homeless to use their facilities out of fear. Even if most would be respectful, it only takes one person to disrupt or destroy a restroom and cost business owners thousands of dollars.
But as the old adage goes, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. You can provide the toilets, but you cannot make people use them. Many of these people have mental or drug related problems. So even if you provide a toilet, there is no guarantee they will use it.
Additionally most businesses will no allow homeless to use their facilities out of fear. Even if most would be respectful, it only takes one person to disrupt or destroy a restroom and cost business owners thousands of dollars.
But as the old adage goes, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. You can provide the toilets, but you cannot make people use them. Many of these people have mental or drug related problems. So even if you provide a toilet, there is no guarantee they will use it.
Mental/drug problems -> provide facilities. Look at what Zurich did.
Actually, that seems to be the opposite. Those are only open during the day (7am-8PM at most, fewer hours than that at most, and only M-F).
Are they just supposed to hold it for 12+ hours overnight?
Are they just supposed to hold it for 12+ hours overnight?
I wouldn't want those near where I live, it would a) stink and b) become permanent (no such thing as a temporary government measure).
A better solution would be the German solution: actual pay toilets, where somebody is on premise to ensure cleanliness and that nobody takes drugs there.
The last and most expensive German toilets I have used were about 50 cents a visit, so within pay range of homeless persons. Also, and I can't emphasizes this enough, they were nice, clean and safe.
But America hates pay toilets, so instead there are no toilets.
A better solution would be the German solution: actual pay toilets, where somebody is on premise to ensure cleanliness and that nobody takes drugs there.
The last and most expensive German toilets I have used were about 50 cents a visit, so within pay range of homeless persons. Also, and I can't emphasizes this enough, they were nice, clean and safe.
But America hates pay toilets, so instead there are no toilets.
I’m not paying to pee. I’d rather pee in the street.
One if the things I don't understand is how San Francisco is the majority exposure of this problem. Apparently New York has the most homeless at a whole magnitude more[1] than San Francisco, but there seems to be less of a focus on the problem with the homeless population there. Los Angeles as well, news tends to SF in my experiences. It's also discussed more (for instance in Sweden SF and the west coast in general gets more focus by searching t.ex. "hemlösa USA")
That's not to take away from this and I hope they can do something for those folks, but it also strikes me as amazing this city in general has the largest focus and not even close to the largest homeless population.
1. https://www.statista.com/chart/6949/the-us-cities-with-the-m...
That's not to take away from this and I hope they can do something for those folks, but it also strikes me as amazing this city in general has the largest focus and not even close to the largest homeless population.
1. https://www.statista.com/chart/6949/the-us-cities-with-the-m...
NYC has a "right to shelter" due to the cold winter months. SF has no right to shelter, which means there are many more unsheltered people in SF than in NYC.
In LA I suspect that due to the large geographical size, high automobile usage (whereby there's less direct interaction with people) and perhaps more draconian law enforcement, the unsheltered population is slightly less visible.
In LA I suspect that due to the large geographical size, high automobile usage (whereby there's less direct interaction with people) and perhaps more draconian law enforcement, the unsheltered population is slightly less visible.
I assume it's also easier to live in a car in LA than SF or NY
Unlike NYC, SF has a sizable problem with the sheer number of unsheltered homeless. NYC is required by a consent decree to provide shelter, and they do to a great extent. This does a lot of limit the visibility of the problems there.
I think the rest of it might be the contrast. SF is seen as - sees itself as - the shining city on a hill, the city of the future, a place made of innovation and progressiveness. Where kindness and compassion flow like water.
I think the rest of it might be the contrast. SF is seen as - sees itself as - the shining city on a hill, the city of the future, a place made of innovation and progressiveness. Where kindness and compassion flow like water.
A little context for those stats:
San Francisco · Population 884,363 (2017)
New York · Population 8.54 million (2016)
https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/05/california-...
San Francisco · Population 884,363 (2017)
New York · Population 8.54 million (2016)
https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/05/california-...
Dividing by each yields a higher per capita for New York still
Please post your calculations. I imagine the per capita difference isn't huge. It's probably not "a whole magnitude more."
I know a lot about homelessness. Among other things: I had a class on Homelessness and Public Policy many years ago. More recently, I spent several years homeless. I still blog about it and still talk with homeless individuals regularly.
Your argument doesn't look like a good faith argument to me. It looks like a case of "how to lie with statistics." That makes it difficult to engage with you.
I know a lot about homelessness. Among other things: I had a class on Homelessness and Public Policy many years ago. More recently, I spent several years homeless. I still blog about it and still talk with homeless individuals regularly.
Your argument doesn't look like a good faith argument to me. It looks like a case of "how to lie with statistics." That makes it difficult to engage with you.
I understand your wariness.
I am using your population numbers and dividing by the numbers in my reference.
The per capita rates are:
SF: 6857/884363 = 0.00775360344
NY: 78676/8540000 = 0.00921264637
The reason I said this is not to lie with statistics, but to show that when normalizing for population the rates are still worse in NY.
I am using your population numbers and dividing by the numbers in my reference.
The per capita rates are:
SF: 6857/884363 = 0.00775360344
NY: 78676/8540000 = 0.00921264637
The reason I said this is not to lie with statistics, but to show that when normalizing for population the rates are still worse in NY.
Thanks.
It's not hugely worse. So, the reason it's a whole order of magnitude worse in absolute figures is that New York is a whole order of magnitude larger.
There are probably more accurate figures in New York. California has a really high percentage of rough sleepers compared to New York, in part due to mild temps and dry weather. I have participated in a homeless program that did the annual point in time count. There are serious challenges in counting rough sleepers. You probably see a lot more undercounting of street people than of homeless people using the shelter system. So my guess is the real per capita figures are actually pretty close.
San Francisco has a fairly small footprint and good public transit. It has insanely high housing costs. California has underbuilt housing for decades and has serious systemic problems in that regard.
There is evidence that individuals voluntarily choose to relocate to California while homeless, in part due to the weather. There is also evidence that sometimes other states just issue them a bus ticket to California.
The high cost of housing plus lovely weather contribute to California having more chronic, long term homeless. These people wind up typically being the most visibly homeless. The longer you are on the street, the harder it gets to fit in to normal society for various reasons.
The figures I've seen (some linked above) suggest that California overall seems to have a lot more homeless per capita than the rest of the nation. The most destitute homeless tend to gravitate to the bigger cities because that's where soup kitchens et al are found.
It's not hugely worse. So, the reason it's a whole order of magnitude worse in absolute figures is that New York is a whole order of magnitude larger.
There are probably more accurate figures in New York. California has a really high percentage of rough sleepers compared to New York, in part due to mild temps and dry weather. I have participated in a homeless program that did the annual point in time count. There are serious challenges in counting rough sleepers. You probably see a lot more undercounting of street people than of homeless people using the shelter system. So my guess is the real per capita figures are actually pretty close.
San Francisco has a fairly small footprint and good public transit. It has insanely high housing costs. California has underbuilt housing for decades and has serious systemic problems in that regard.
There is evidence that individuals voluntarily choose to relocate to California while homeless, in part due to the weather. There is also evidence that sometimes other states just issue them a bus ticket to California.
The high cost of housing plus lovely weather contribute to California having more chronic, long term homeless. These people wind up typically being the most visibly homeless. The longer you are on the street, the harder it gets to fit in to normal society for various reasons.
The figures I've seen (some linked above) suggest that California overall seems to have a lot more homeless per capita than the rest of the nation. The most destitute homeless tend to gravitate to the bigger cities because that's where soup kitchens et al are found.
Anecdotally, it seems that SF is one of the few places where homelessness is very concentrated among the major employment and tourist centers, so the well-off really see the homelessness up close and personal there. By comparison when I visit New York I don’t encounter much.
That’s just my anecdotal experience, but if true it would explain why the problem in SF gets so much attention.
That’s just my anecdotal experience, but if true it would explain why the problem in SF gets so much attention.
It's encountered daily. Maybe if you live in one part that lacks it and stay there, then maybe, but quite unlikely especially if you take transit.
NYC is about an order of magnitude larger than SF in many different ways - for example, total population (8.6m vs 880k people) and area (302 vs 46 square miles). So comparing absolute number of homeless people between the two cities is not likely to be a useful thing to do. Your link does however demonstrate that NYC has a slightly higher percentage of homeless population than SF - .9% vs .7%. So I tend to agree that there's something else that contributes to it being a larger conversation in SF than NYC beyond just the number/percentage of people.
Well my hope is that something can be learned about this difference. As I said I don't want to take away from the fact it's a problem in all cities no matter how large. Rather, I want to understand what is causing differences in perception and is there a difference in regulation or response that causes this.
Seems that I've seen shelter rates brought quite a bit in the last 5 minutes, and I'm currently investigating these differences. I hope homelessness gets solved for every city of course.
Seems that I've seen shelter rates brought quite a bit in the last 5 minutes, and I'm currently investigating these differences. I hope homelessness gets solved for every city of course.
Different behaviour? More homeless per capita (how large is the NY "Continuum of Care" and how large is SF's) ? Your last sentence, by eye, would make more sense if you were comparing it to Seattle.
ED: also, as your posted link says, "New York can at least claim that 65 percent of its rough sleepers are given sheltered accommodation" - what is that figure for SF?
ED: also, as your posted link says, "New York can at least claim that 65 percent of its rough sleepers are given sheltered accommodation" - what is that figure for SF?
IIRC, California has by far the highest percentage of rough sleepers in the nation, in part due to the mild year-round temps and relatively dry weather.
Yeah this is all stuff I'd like to know. It could point to potential frameworks for solutions. Maybe they have implemented something that mitigates problems associated with homeless in SF.
This is kinda where my mind is taking me with this kind of interesting deviation in exposure.
This is kinda where my mind is taking me with this kind of interesting deviation in exposure.
Man this is sad... I just moved in SF a few months ago and I’m starting to get used to it... my parents want to come visit but I don’t want them to see all of this. I’m thinking of just meeting them in san diego and touring california while avoiding SF.
This is not a SF problem. This is an American problem.
This is not a SF problem. This is an American problem.
Opioids are an American problem, but homelessness across the US has been mostly decreasing over the past decade(1).
The situation in SF and Seattle (to name two) has a lot to do with how bad the overall housing situation is in those places.
1: https://www.businessinsider.com/homeless-population-usa-stat...
The situation in SF and Seattle (to name two) has a lot to do with how bad the overall housing situation is in those places.
1: https://www.businessinsider.com/homeless-population-usa-stat...
And the problem of SF being a magnet for homeless to either be shipped to from other locales or "migrating" from the greater bay area.
My mother was one of the latter.
My mother was one of the latter.
I don’t agree with you. Inside a country homeless people will generally tend to stick together in specific regions. This is what is happening here, what you can see in San Francisco is a consequence of many decisions the US has been taking over the years, no universal health care being one.
The housing situation in many places is bad, it doesn’t mean it will attract homeless people from all over the place.
The housing situation in many places is bad, it doesn’t mean it will attract homeless people from all over the place.
I came to US ~5 years ago and spent most of my time in SF. In my home country we had no homeless (ok, probably not like 0 but nowhere near close to SF, I've never seen a homeless person in my childhood) ao I thought this is an American problem. Now I'm living in Boston and there are surprisingly few homeless people. It's obviously not 0, I still get to see homeless sleeping in subway, streets etc but the difference between SF and Boston is day and night. SF has a ridiculously concentrated homeless population.
It is indeed a US problem. Just look at the depressed areas of the US on the east coast and south.
However, SF brands itself as the city of the future, innovation, and progress. Because it is the epicenter of the worlds technology startup scene.
But this darker aspect of the city contradicts that positive brand. You can’t be the city of progress and innovation if half of your people are subsisting in third world pits of despair. I mean you can try to be, but it doesn’t quite work. Something is wrong.
However, SF brands itself as the city of the future, innovation, and progress. Because it is the epicenter of the worlds technology startup scene.
But this darker aspect of the city contradicts that positive brand. You can’t be the city of progress and innovation if half of your people are subsisting in third world pits of despair. I mean you can try to be, but it doesn’t quite work. Something is wrong.
> However, SF brands itself as the city of the future, innovation, and progress. Because it is the epicenter of the worlds technology startup scene.
I think what you describe are mostly business-related things. As an outsider, SF’s brand is about [mostly young] people claiming their opportunity to make a lot of money. None of the branding I see is about improving wellbeing.
If something is wrong, I think it must be more general, perhaps that money and wellbeing aren’t so coupled. But unless SF is totally misrepresenting its brand to me, I’m not seeing any contradiction in its brand.
I think what you describe are mostly business-related things. As an outsider, SF’s brand is about [mostly young] people claiming their opportunity to make a lot of money. None of the branding I see is about improving wellbeing.
If something is wrong, I think it must be more general, perhaps that money and wellbeing aren’t so coupled. But unless SF is totally misrepresenting its brand to me, I’m not seeing any contradiction in its brand.
I think the misunderstanding here is between what San Francisco supposedly used to be (a haven for hippies, LGBTQ, and other misfits) and what it is now (a haven for young people with business ambitions)
Yup. They are propositions to solve the problem (prop C) but hilariously people are against them because it means more money being spent. Screw the people living in the streets if that means I can’t buy the next iPhone am I right?
How does one clean up a snarl of used, uncapped drug syringes like this picture shows?
I imagine you could use a snow shovel and a long push broom to get them into the shovel, but where do you put them afterwards? A garbage bag seems to be a bad idea, as it'd conceal the neon orange warning color of the syringes, while allowing the points to stab and infect anyone who handled the bag. Do you put them directly in a metal garbage can?
Afterwards how do garbage collectors in SF deal with this? Are thick leather gloves and maybe chaps enough to protect people?
I imagine you could use a snow shovel and a long push broom to get them into the shovel, but where do you put them afterwards? A garbage bag seems to be a bad idea, as it'd conceal the neon orange warning color of the syringes, while allowing the points to stab and infect anyone who handled the bag. Do you put them directly in a metal garbage can?
Afterwards how do garbage collectors in SF deal with this? Are thick leather gloves and maybe chaps enough to protect people?
Would this work? (And scrape off the needles somehow?)
https://www.harborfreight.com/30-inch-magnetic-sweeper-with-... (They make a 12" version too)
Or this (stick)? https://www.harborfreight.com/15-lb-capacity-telescoping-mag...
https://www.harborfreight.com/30-inch-magnetic-sweeper-with-... (They make a 12" version too)
Or this (stick)? https://www.harborfreight.com/15-lb-capacity-telescoping-mag...
I work and live in the tenderloin – usually the street teams use one of those telescoping grabbing poles to pick up needles.
I heard one of those folks excitedly shout "jackpot" as they came across a bunch of needles on the floor the other day! I guess they're getting some pleasure out of cleaning up the neighbourhood at least…
I heard one of those folks excitedly shout "jackpot" as they came across a bunch of needles on the floor the other day! I guess they're getting some pleasure out of cleaning up the neighbourhood at least…
they put them into hard plastic containers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharps_waste
It should be noted that almost no for profit developer willingly builds housing targeting anyone but the highest income.
Maybe if the big tech companies set up non-profit housing organization at various price points, it would help. Maybe even at least get the working homeless off the street. After all, a huge percent of bay area corporate expense just flows through employees into rent or mortgage interest.
Maybe if the big tech companies set up non-profit housing organization at various price points, it would help. Maybe even at least get the working homeless off the street. After all, a huge percent of bay area corporate expense just flows through employees into rent or mortgage interest.
When people move into expensive housing, they also move out of wherever they used to be living -- often some place cheaper where they lived when their income was lower. Any increase in supply helps.
That doesn't account for all of the people moving into the city from other parts of the State or Country.
Also if they are moving within the city and the previous location is rent controlled, then the landlord will likely raise the rent for the next tenant.
Also if they are moving within the city and the previous location is rent controlled, then the landlord will likely raise the rent for the next tenant.
Except San Francisco has a net outward domestic migration now.
This is nothing new BTW. I remember back when training for a marathon in 2001, I had a conference in San Francisco. Dude dropped a duece outside a pay toliet (I guess you tried them for awhile in SF) while I was running at 6am.
From working with homeless people in my state, mental illness is usually a contributing factor. Self-medicating that condition often manifests itself as drug abuse.
Indeed, generally people do not move a short distance to different rental with vastly a higher price.
Charities like Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley already exist and do good work. Any company that wants to help improve the low income housing situation would probably achieve better results by contributing to an existing charity rather than reinventing the wheel.
https://www.habitatebsv.org/
https://www.habitatebsv.org/
SOMA has been hit really hard. I used to work there and now I work in the financial district. The difference is night and day. It’s really sad.
Gotta move homeless people out of ultra expensive SF and into cheap housing. And make sure they go to therapy/take their perscribed drugs/etc. so they aren't a problem for everyone else AND they get the help they desperately need.
Other cities offer one way tickets to CA cities to get rid of their homeless.
I read comments like this frequently (also about Seattle, where I live), but have never seen data to back it up, do you have any?
It's not an uncommon tactic to give homeless one-way tickets to other cities. In fact, San Francisco actively does it as well [0]. It doesn't seem like San Francisco and cities like it are particularly targeted for this kind of activity. The only case I can recall is in the case of Nevada intentionally sending mental patients to SF which was settled out of court[1].
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/...
[0] HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18375280
[1] http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-reaches-400k-settlement-proposa...
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/...
[0] HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18375280
[1] http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-reaches-400k-settlement-proposa...
I talked to someone who worked at a shelter about this. He was able to provide several cases of someone calling the shelter from another city informing them someone else was on a bus on on their way to SF and that they needed a bed. He had to inform them that a person had to be present that day to request a bed, and the other person on the phone going, "Whatever, they are your city's problem now."
So it does happen, but they don't want to publish it out of fear that it will just legitimize the practice for other cities.
So it does happen, but they don't want to publish it out of fear that it will just legitimize the practice for other cities.
Homelessness is a legitimate crisis that needs addressing, it is severe in every west coast city.
There is no 'opioid crisis', it is a new moral panic fed by hysteria from media and politics. There have always been drug addicts and drug users, and there always will be.
There is no 'opioid crisis', it is a new moral panic fed by hysteria from media and politics. There have always been drug addicts and drug users, and there always will be.
This comment is both unhelpful (dismisses the original claim using zero evidence) and completely incorrect.
Please look at the trendlines for "heroin deaths" and "synthetic opiod deaths" in the following graph of US CDC data, and note that from the turn of the millennium to 2017, opioid-related deaths in the US have increased more than 10x:
https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/o...
Please look at the trendlines for "heroin deaths" and "synthetic opiod deaths" in the following graph of US CDC data, and note that from the turn of the millennium to 2017, opioid-related deaths in the US have increased more than 10x:
https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/o...
Your link largely supports my statement. For example this graph:
https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/od2...
Overdoses have increased because of fentanyl being sold falsely as other drugs or mixed with other drugs, and that happens because it's cheaply imported from China by anyone with internet access and the desire to do so. Overdoses are NOT because of a marked increase in use of drug use or addiction, there is always a segment of society that will use drugs, be addicted, and participate in these activities.
We're deep in a moral panic while simultaneously ignoring the real problem (imported fentanyl), thus the complete inefficacy of the ongoing overreactions form society and governments.
https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/od2...
Overdoses have increased because of fentanyl being sold falsely as other drugs or mixed with other drugs, and that happens because it's cheaply imported from China by anyone with internet access and the desire to do so. Overdoses are NOT because of a marked increase in use of drug use or addiction, there is always a segment of society that will use drugs, be addicted, and participate in these activities.
We're deep in a moral panic while simultaneously ignoring the real problem (imported fentanyl), thus the complete inefficacy of the ongoing overreactions form society and governments.
Why are people taking fentanyl?
It's because they're hooked on opioids. How did they become hooked? They started with legally prescribed opioids. Sometimes those meds were prescribed to them. Sometimes those meds were prescribed to a family member or neighbour and handed on or stolen.
It's because the US is awash with opioids that were legally prescribed. The US massively over-prescribes opioids. That's why the US used over 99% of the world supply of hydrocodone.
Americans are prescribed 6 times more opioids that people in France or Portugal.
Here are some details: http://www.painpolicy.wisc.edu/opioid-consumption-data
And we know Americans start with meds that were legally prescribed because: https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-DetTab...
Look how many people are getting meds for free from friends and family.
It's because they're hooked on opioids. How did they become hooked? They started with legally prescribed opioids. Sometimes those meds were prescribed to them. Sometimes those meds were prescribed to a family member or neighbour and handed on or stolen.
It's because the US is awash with opioids that were legally prescribed. The US massively over-prescribes opioids. That's why the US used over 99% of the world supply of hydrocodone.
Americans are prescribed 6 times more opioids that people in France or Portugal.
Here are some details: http://www.painpolicy.wisc.edu/opioid-consumption-data
And we know Americans start with meds that were legally prescribed because: https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-DetTab...
Look how many people are getting meds for free from friends and family.
You have been indoctrinated and you are repeating propaganda talking points with zero basis in reality. There is NO DATA to support any of your claims. Because you have been indoctrinated you are probably at the point where no amount of evidence would convince you otherwise, a bit like a flat earther being flown into space to look at the planet.
Nonetheless, we can try using some data. Here's a massive retrospective cohort study on 500,000(!) patients clearly demonstrating there is an absurdly low risk of addiction from legitimate prescriptions (0.5%):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29343479
Virtually no overdoses are from legal prescriptions, and virtually no addiction is from legal prescriptions. Abundant data and evidence shows this repeatedly.
Now let's go ahead try your hysterical logic with some other issues:
Why do people drink alcohol?
It's because they're hooked on alcohol. How did they become hooked? They started drinking legally available alcohol! Sometimes they bought the alcohol, sometimes a family member or neighbor had the alcohol and it was handed on or stolen!
The US is awash with alcohol!
Or, let's take a legitimate crisis, the obesity epidemic. Why are people so fat? Why do people eat so much?
It's because they're hooked on food! How did they become hooked on food? Because they ate food which is widely available! Maybe they ate food at a restaurant, or at home... maybe it was stolen or given to them!
Look how many people are getting alcohol or food free from friends and family!!
Nonetheless, we can try using some data. Here's a massive retrospective cohort study on 500,000(!) patients clearly demonstrating there is an absurdly low risk of addiction from legitimate prescriptions (0.5%):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29343479
Virtually no overdoses are from legal prescriptions, and virtually no addiction is from legal prescriptions. Abundant data and evidence shows this repeatedly.
Now let's go ahead try your hysterical logic with some other issues:
Why do people drink alcohol?
It's because they're hooked on alcohol. How did they become hooked? They started drinking legally available alcohol! Sometimes they bought the alcohol, sometimes a family member or neighbor had the alcohol and it was handed on or stolen!
The US is awash with alcohol!
Or, let's take a legitimate crisis, the obesity epidemic. Why are people so fat? Why do people eat so much?
It's because they're hooked on food! How did they become hooked on food? Because they ate food which is widely available! Maybe they ate food at a restaurant, or at home... maybe it was stolen or given to them!
Look how many people are getting alcohol or food free from friends and family!!
There is definitely a drug problem here. If you live in SF you WILL see people shooting up in the street.
That's because the city is overly tolerant to blatantly harmful activities, public indecency, and antisocial behavior, not because of drugs.
Agreed -- it seems ridiculous that there's no meaningful crackdown on antisocial behavior.
If laws regarding public drug use, loitering, etc. were actually enforced in a meaningful way, I think we'd see some actual improvement.
If laws regarding public drug use, loitering, etc. were actually enforced in a meaningful way, I think we'd see some actual improvement.
> There have always been drug addicts and drug users, and there always will be.
And surely we could do more work to understand why people fall into this hole, and make societal changes to help those who want to beat their addiction do so more reliably. It’s absolutely misinformed to suggest that addiction isn’t a real problem or that doing anything about it is somehow beyond our control.
And surely we could do more work to understand why people fall into this hole, and make societal changes to help those who want to beat their addiction do so more reliably. It’s absolutely misinformed to suggest that addiction isn’t a real problem or that doing anything about it is somehow beyond our control.
Why do people have a beer? Or drink a glass of wine? Or smoke a joint? Why do some become alcoholics? Or eat junk food? Or overeat in general? Why are so many people unable to control their urge to eat too much, leading to 85% of the population being overweight or obese? Why do people sit in a sauna? Or go to a concert? Or meditate? Or exercise? Why do some people become addicted to exercise? Or stare at their phones all day? Why do some people become addicted to a screen or video games or social media?
Why do people do anything? It's all the same fundamental reason.
Why do people do anything? It's all the same fundamental reason.
I’m not sure if I’m breaking through the hyperbole correctly, but I think we’re saying a similar thing: the more that people are able to search for meaning or find satisfaction through less risky avenues, the lower the incidence of drug abuse.
Is that what you were getting at?
Is that what you were getting at?
The data disagrees with you, unless your definition of crisis is sufficiently idiosyncratic.
There needs to be proper leadership that understands how people live and work to build a city that can cater to everyone outside of the upper/middle class at major companies.