An Addiction Crisis Disguised as a Housing Crisis(city-journal.org)
city-journal.org
An Addiction Crisis Disguised as a Housing Crisis
https://www.city-journal.org/opiods-homelessness-west-coast
108 comments
I was a lot more compassionate 5 years ago when I thought Seattle could solve its homelessness problem. Now that it’s clear we can’t I just feel bad for everyone involved.
There are entire parts of my city (parks, downtown) I can’t even visit because of the homeless. Maybe someone who falls on hard times doesn’t deserve jail time but if you steal or break any other laws you need to face the music, just like everyone else.
The homeless deserve dignity and respect but so do the rest of us, I feel like that has been forgotten.
There are entire parts of my city (parks, downtown) I can’t even visit because of the homeless. Maybe someone who falls on hard times doesn’t deserve jail time but if you steal or break any other laws you need to face the music, just like everyone else.
The homeless deserve dignity and respect but so do the rest of us, I feel like that has been forgotten.
> There are entire parts of my city (parks, downtown) I can’t even visit because of the homeless. Maybe someone who falls on hard times doesn’t deserve jail time but if you steal or break any other laws you need to face the music, just like everyone else.
> The homeless deserve dignity and respect but so do the rest of us, I feel like that has been forgotten.
How mulmen isn't getting dignity and respect: he's afraid to visit parts of his city (parks, downtown).
How homeless people aren't getting dignity and respect: sleeping outside in the very places mulmen is afraid to visit, having to beg for food.
To be honest, even if anyone had forgotten about how inconvenient homelessness is for those who live in homes and don't have to go near areas with homeless, I'd be pretty okay with us forgetting that.
> The homeless deserve dignity and respect but so do the rest of us, I feel like that has been forgotten.
How mulmen isn't getting dignity and respect: he's afraid to visit parts of his city (parks, downtown).
How homeless people aren't getting dignity and respect: sleeping outside in the very places mulmen is afraid to visit, having to beg for food.
To be honest, even if anyone had forgotten about how inconvenient homelessness is for those who live in homes and don't have to go near areas with homeless, I'd be pretty okay with us forgetting that.
The “areas mulmen is afraid to go” include my daily commute and bus stops. They are very much places I visit frequently. Even if they were not places I frequently visit it would still not be acceptable.
The current state of homelessness in Seattle sucks for everyone. Regular citizens of the city are rightfully getting fed up by the lack of progress.
That’s important because the only way we can solve it is with the support of the public. Attacking me isn’t doing anything to help.
We have law-abiding citizens getting stabbed walking down the street. Trash, human waste and used needles litter parks and public spaces. It’s not a safe place to be and that is not acceptable.
The current state of homelessness in Seattle sucks for everyone. Regular citizens of the city are rightfully getting fed up by the lack of progress.
That’s important because the only way we can solve it is with the support of the public. Attacking me isn’t doing anything to help.
We have law-abiding citizens getting stabbed walking down the street. Trash, human waste and used needles litter parks and public spaces. It’s not a safe place to be and that is not acceptable.
> Attacking me isn’t doing anything to help.
Responding to just this: you're the one who sees people sleeping in the streets and decided to make it about you. Highlighting the incredible disparity between your problems and homeless people's problems isn't intended as an attack on you (although it is also that), it's an attack on your argument.
Responding to just this: you're the one who sees people sleeping in the streets and decided to make it about you. Highlighting the incredible disparity between your problems and homeless people's problems isn't intended as an attack on you (although it is also that), it's an attack on your argument.
[deleted]
> The current state of homelessness in Seattle sucks for everyone. Regular citizens of the city are rightfully getting fed up by the lack of progress. That’s important because the only way we can solve it is with the support of the public. Attacking me isn’t doing anything to help.
Okay, yes, we need the support of the public. But if we get the support of the public by appealing to the self-centered fear of people who live in homes, you get more of the solutions we already have: put spikes on the stoops and make benches impossible to sleep on, send cops around to wake people up every 30 minutes, etc. People haven't forgotten about your fear: that's all they care about. That's why they've driven all the homeless into a few select areas which are now scary and dangerous: so you don't have to be afraid, because you don't have to go there. Solving that last little bit of the homelessness problem will never be a priority because the fact that you want to go somewhere you don't have to go but can't because you're afraid just isn't a real problem. And if someone does decide it's a real problem, they can always just deport the homeless to another state[1].
The solution to homelessness is homes. No counseling, rehab, or drug treatment is going to reliably cure someone's mental illness while their basic physical needs aren't met. And giving homes to the homeless is an expensive solution that isn't going to be palatable to people unless they can muster a bit of compassion for the homeless. Because if all you're trying to do is create a safe space for people with homes to walk around, sweeping the homeless under the rug is a "good enough" solution.
[1] https://www.nbcsandiego.com/investigations/Nevada-Settles-Ho...
Okay, yes, we need the support of the public. But if we get the support of the public by appealing to the self-centered fear of people who live in homes, you get more of the solutions we already have: put spikes on the stoops and make benches impossible to sleep on, send cops around to wake people up every 30 minutes, etc. People haven't forgotten about your fear: that's all they care about. That's why they've driven all the homeless into a few select areas which are now scary and dangerous: so you don't have to be afraid, because you don't have to go there. Solving that last little bit of the homelessness problem will never be a priority because the fact that you want to go somewhere you don't have to go but can't because you're afraid just isn't a real problem. And if someone does decide it's a real problem, they can always just deport the homeless to another state[1].
The solution to homelessness is homes. No counseling, rehab, or drug treatment is going to reliably cure someone's mental illness while their basic physical needs aren't met. And giving homes to the homeless is an expensive solution that isn't going to be palatable to people unless they can muster a bit of compassion for the homeless. Because if all you're trying to do is create a safe space for people with homes to walk around, sweeping the homeless under the rug is a "good enough" solution.
[1] https://www.nbcsandiego.com/investigations/Nevada-Settles-Ho...
The homeless are not driven to a few small areas, I already explained that. I’m also not advocating for doing that, please stop insinuating that I am.
The homelessness problem in Seattle is very much something I see in person every day all over the city. You may not understand the nature of Seattle homelessness from New York or from a newspaper article from San Diego.
Housing the homeless is an important step and is something Seattle continues to try and do. The problems we face have more to do with the optional nature of rehabilitation and lack of social services that allow people to become homeless to begin with.
The homelessness problem in Seattle is very much something I see in person every day all over the city. You may not understand the nature of Seattle homelessness from New York or from a newspaper article from San Diego.
Housing the homeless is an important step and is something Seattle continues to try and do. The problems we face have more to do with the optional nature of rehabilitation and lack of social services that allow people to become homeless to begin with.
I live in Seattle and I think you're wildly exaggerating to the point where you are sharing an inaccurate story.
>Further cracking down on homeless people will just transfer them from the streets to jails, where they will cost the taxpayers exorbitant amounts of money (and if they're in a private prison, create profit for private interests), while failing to get people back on their feet when they are eventually let go.
It doesn't seem the article is advocating for a crackdown. The article seems to advocate for cities "to provide access to on-demand detox, rehabilitation, and recovery programs that might help people overcome their addictions."
It doesn't seem the article is advocating for a crackdown. The article seems to advocate for cities "to provide access to on-demand detox, rehabilitation, and recovery programs that might help people overcome their addictions."
There are studies that back up this claim, though[0]. From the paper: “Labor force participation has fallen more in areas where relatively more opioid pain medication is prescribed”
[0] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/1_krueg...
[0] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/1_krueg...
Very possibly reversing causality. That Brookings paper itself states that the economic downturn predates the 'opioid epidemic'. It's based on data that adds up to little more than, well, what you quoted - with little effort to prove which direction the causal link runs, although the paper seems to take for granted it's the drugs causing the labor participation reduction.
The author, describing his assumptions in building his model (pg 36), states "This is a big leap," - language I've never actually seen in an academic paper before. It's usually the sort of thing that peer reviewers say behind their hands before throwing barbs at you.
The author, describing his assumptions in building his model (pg 36), states "This is a big leap," - language I've never actually seen in an academic paper before. It's usually the sort of thing that peer reviewers say behind their hands before throwing barbs at you.
Not saying I disagree with you, but west coast cities do have temperate climates that I would think attract more of the chronically homeless. I'd much rather live on the street in LA in the winter than SLC.
They also have booming economies. People move to successful big cities for work, where they have no existing safety net. Then they can't find a job fast enough, or get sick, or get divorced and start drinking, and become homeless. These are the vast majority of "not from here" homeless people in Seattle. The chronically homeless tend to be old people in pretty bad shape who don't move cities for the weather. So is the answer that people born in economically ruined rural areas should be locked out of big cities? Only allowed to stay there so long as they have enough money? People arguing you shouldn't be able to get benefits somewhere you're not "from" are arguing for a system that entrenches the political and economic divide between rural and urban Americans.
Or maybe the fact that there has been a population explosion on the west coast due to tech combined with a retarded attitude towards urban development has resulted in more people than available bedrooms.
Ima go with that explanation since it is a lot simpler.
Ima go with that explanation since it is a lot simpler.
I think the question to ask is what created the opioid problem in the first place - I tend to think it's lack of regulation in the pharma space.
I've criticised the author (Chris Rufo, associated with the conservative and intelligent design group Discovery Institute) in his earlier pieces (see https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/acwqng/podcast_s... ) where he used seemingly incomplete estimates on the funding used in homeless initiatives and suggesting unproven solutions (large tents, sanitariums).
I'm not denying the homeless and drug problems in Seattle. I live in the same neighborhoods where I've seen people shoot up in starbucks bathrooms and on the street, RV camps of bicycle chop shops and filth. The King County complaint Rufo links to ( https://www.krcomplexlit.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/King... ) arguably means the local government is trying to take that first step in recognizing "addiction is the common denominator for most of the homeless", right?
I've criticised the author (Chris Rufo, associated with the conservative and intelligent design group Discovery Institute) in his earlier pieces (see https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/acwqng/podcast_s... ) where he used seemingly incomplete estimates on the funding used in homeless initiatives and suggesting unproven solutions (large tents, sanitariums).
I'm not denying the homeless and drug problems in Seattle. I live in the same neighborhoods where I've seen people shoot up in starbucks bathrooms and on the street, RV camps of bicycle chop shops and filth. The King County complaint Rufo links to ( https://www.krcomplexlit.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/King... ) arguably means the local government is trying to take that first step in recognizing "addiction is the common denominator for most of the homeless", right?
And if you tightly regulate the “pharma space” and those drugs are harder to get, the same addicts will just find a substitute drug. The “War on Drugs” has been an abysmal failure.
If you lock up the users, you’re just spending more money housing non violent offenders. If you lock up the sellers, someone else will take their place. Homeless drug addicts don’t fear jail, how could it be any worse than life on the street addicted to drugs?
I have no idea what the answer is, but I suspect it is a better social safety net where people think they have a fair shot in society where they don’t view drugs as an escape or have the mindset of having nothing to lose. I honestly haven’t thought about solutions that deeply.
If you lock up the users, you’re just spending more money housing non violent offenders. If you lock up the sellers, someone else will take their place. Homeless drug addicts don’t fear jail, how could it be any worse than life on the street addicted to drugs?
I have no idea what the answer is, but I suspect it is a better social safety net where people think they have a fair shot in society where they don’t view drugs as an escape or have the mindset of having nothing to lose. I honestly haven’t thought about solutions that deeply.
We are absolutely feeling the pain of a lack of social safety nets for all kinds of problems.
Unpopular opinion: I’m ok putting non-violent people in jail when they break the law. We need reform in the jails and prisons, not more lenient sentencing.
And because I’m sure it needs to be clarified, not every law breaker needs to go to jail immediately.
Unpopular opinion: I’m ok putting non-violent people in jail when they break the law. We need reform in the jails and prisons, not more lenient sentencing.
And because I’m sure it needs to be clarified, not every law breaker needs to go to jail immediately.
Why is jail necessarily the best answer? Fines and restitution, community service, court mandated counseling, "night jail" (must report to jail after work) and other tools would work better for preventing and correcting the harms of many (if not most?) types of nonviolent crime. Traditional jailing creates all kinds of assorted harms that actively prevent rehabilitation and which probably don't provide much deterrence.
Your suggestion of reform is indeed necessary, but some of the things I suggested above would fall outside of what most people would consider "jail." We are stuck on this singular "solution", and why? It doesn't seem to be very effective.
Your suggestion of reform is indeed necessary, but some of the things I suggested above would fall outside of what most people would consider "jail." We are stuck on this singular "solution", and why? It doesn't seem to be very effective.
I agree with you so I should clarify what I mean by “jail”. The reform aspect is absolutely crucial and I am not advocating for simply locking people up as we do today. When I say “jail” I should probably say something like “adequate social safety nets supported by state mandated rehabilitation” but the marketing needs work.
I agree that some “non violent offenders” should go to jail if they break the law. I don’t agree on a lot of the laws that are on the books that stop consenting adults from making their own decisions. Some things that are currently illegal that shouldn’t be:
- selling drugs to adults.
- adults buying drugs
- prostitution (either side)
- selling drugs to adults.
- adults buying drugs
- prostitution (either side)
I only agree with 1 and 2 and to a lesser extent 3 in the presence of free universal healthcare and adequate safety nets.
If we simply legalized all drugs tomorrow I don’t think it would solve many problems. We have to also look at and treat the underlying cause of addiction and drug abuse.
If we simply legalized all drugs tomorrow I don’t think it would solve many problems. We have to also look at and treat the underlying cause of addiction and drug abuse.
Results matter. Incarceration is great for satisfying a need for punishment and vengeance, but as correction it has been clearly demonstrated to make problems worse. Jails and prisons function as networks for criminals to connect and share and are extremely effective at promoting gang activity. If we want to deal with problems then we are going to have to stoop to the kind of methods that are used with medical care such as pledging to do no harm and using evidence based interventions.
I clarified in other comments but we also need reform in our jails and prisons. What we do today is just release people to the street which also doesn’t work.
The point is if you break the law the state should have the ability to force corrections.
I’m completely in support of reinventing what those corrections are.
The point is if you break the law the state should have the ability to force corrections.
I’m completely in support of reinventing what those corrections are.
What kind of reform are you proposing?
Fundamentally we should focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment. If the non-violent offense is theft in support of a drug habit then rehabilitation should be made available. It should not be optional.
What does rehabilitation entail for you?
If we're looking at addiction as a mental illness to be rehabilitated from, I would posit that forcibly housing them with a bunch of other mentally ill people, some of whom may be violent, would be traumatic enough to most people that it would more than negate the benefits of many rehabilitative interventions.
If we're looking at addiction as a mental illness to be rehabilitated from, I would posit that forcibly housing them with a bunch of other mentally ill people, some of whom may be violent, would be traumatic enough to most people that it would more than negate the benefits of many rehabilitative interventions.
Rather than focus on what might not work I would rather put energy into finding what does. Things that do not work: what we do today. Things that might work: some form of rehabilitation.
If locking up drug addicts in a room and telling them to sort it out doesn’t work maybe we should try a new form of rehab instead of just saying “well I guess rehab doesn’t work”.
If locking up drug addicts in a room and telling them to sort it out doesn’t work maybe we should try a new form of rehab instead of just saying “well I guess rehab doesn’t work”.
Drugs are often an escape but not always from immediate societal pressure. Ppl with (emotional) pain with likely eventually self-medicate. That is, addiction is a symptom. The problem is, we tend to want to treat that symptom and remain in denial that there are underlying root problems.
Even though I wish I could say that I was insightful enough to think about that when I originally posted, if you define a social safety net from the social viewpoint, it would also probably help if people dealing with emotional issues had someone to turn to and we treated clinical depression as a medical issue more often than we do.
But, I am far out of my area of expertise to know anything about clinical depression.
But, I am far out of my area of expertise to know anything about clinical depression.
Np. We're on the same side. The gist of my point is we (i.e., USA) are fond of treating symptoms and then we wonder why they persist.
Frankly, imho, this is often driven by politicians. They're fond of make campaign promises to solve Issue X. The problem is, they've gotten the problem wrong.
Frankly, imho, this is often driven by politicians. They're fond of make campaign promises to solve Issue X. The problem is, they've gotten the problem wrong.
If you think the war on drugs is a failure then you're missing the point of it. Cops can't arrest homeless people because being homeless isn't a crime. However if drug use correlates with homelessness then making drugs illegal is an indirect way of making homelessness illegal.
Solutions to the housing, homeless and drug problem exist but the voters and politicians don't want them.
Solutions to the housing, homeless and drug problem exist but the voters and politicians don't want them.
If heroin were freely available (it costs almost nothing to produce), heroin addicts could be productive members of society, and would have nothing to fear in seeking treatment.
Nodding is the only thing dangerous about heroin addicts who have access to heroin, everything else is a symptom of prohibition. Additionally, long-term heroin addicts who have a consistent supply don't really nod much, or for long. It's the gaps in supply (of unadulterated drugs with a predictable purity) and the consequent simultaneous reduction of tolerance and increase in desperation that causes accidental overdoses and deep nodding.
Nodding is of course dangerous for drivers and operators of heavy machinery, but it should be treated like we treat any other sort of chronic seizure issue.
Nodding is the only thing dangerous about heroin addicts who have access to heroin, everything else is a symptom of prohibition. Additionally, long-term heroin addicts who have a consistent supply don't really nod much, or for long. It's the gaps in supply (of unadulterated drugs with a predictable purity) and the consequent simultaneous reduction of tolerance and increase in desperation that causes accidental overdoses and deep nodding.
Nodding is of course dangerous for drivers and operators of heavy machinery, but it should be treated like we treat any other sort of chronic seizure issue.
Portugal found a solution: treatment and decriminalization of all drugs. Prohibition never addresses a social ill, except it helps the prison-military-congressional-industrial complex $$$. Prohibition and "tough on crime" are Nixon's solution to political enemies and Reagan uncaring, absence of Golden Rule what they don't wish to understand about others outside of their limited/sheltered experience.
Seizures (untreated) make one ineligible to drive and even when treated typically get a 90 day ban while medically evaluated.
Nodding and seizures are different things. An experienced drug user will know when their drugs are going to make them too sedated to drive.
I think a big part of it is the decline in social structures and lack of meaning in many people's life. Happy people with a meaningful life are much less likely to take drugs.
This is the problem. This is the core problem. This is the reason, even with intervention, rehab, psychiatry, access to modern "tools", substance addiction is so hard to fight. This is why the "War on Drugs" has been a failure. All these comments address symptoms.
Can someone give their reason as to down voting this comment?
There have been numerous articles posted here as of late relating to loneliness, suicide rates, etc. What do you need to see the bigger picture? I don't understand why this is so difficult. I feel like there must be some ideology in the way here or maybe politics or cognitive dissonance. I mean you could have just ignored the comment if you were in ambivalent disagreement.
Having worked in social services for 14 years it has become clear to me that social support, ie healthy family structures, friends and coworkers, as well as having a meaningful reason to get out of bed in the morning are the most important factors when it comes to overcoming addiction. I'm not aware of much research regarding this aspect of treatment. All I can say to that is that I have a very paranoid and pessimistic view as to why.
Can someone give their reason as to down voting this comment?
There have been numerous articles posted here as of late relating to loneliness, suicide rates, etc. What do you need to see the bigger picture? I don't understand why this is so difficult. I feel like there must be some ideology in the way here or maybe politics or cognitive dissonance. I mean you could have just ignored the comment if you were in ambivalent disagreement.
Having worked in social services for 14 years it has become clear to me that social support, ie healthy family structures, friends and coworkers, as well as having a meaningful reason to get out of bed in the morning are the most important factors when it comes to overcoming addiction. I'm not aware of much research regarding this aspect of treatment. All I can say to that is that I have a very paranoid and pessimistic view as to why.
Can someone give their reason as to down voting this comment?
I didn’t downvote the parent, but the idea that only unhappy people use drugs isn’t true. Maybe if you limit it to hard drugs or maybe if you limit to “abusing drugs”? I have no strong opinions.
Alcohol and marijuana are both drugs, plenty of happy people drink and smoke weed. On the other hand, plenty of opioid addicts started taking the drug legally because of a real pain and then got addicted.
I didn’t downvote the parent, but the idea that only unhappy people use drugs isn’t true. Maybe if you limit it to hard drugs or maybe if you limit to “abusing drugs”? I have no strong opinions.
Alcohol and marijuana are both drugs, plenty of happy people drink and smoke weed. On the other hand, plenty of opioid addicts started taking the drug legally because of a real pain and then got addicted.
Those aren't the users who end up homeless though. I know plenty of people who use Marijuana and alcohol, but it doesn't become a problem. I even have someone in my family who got addicted to opioids because it was overprescriped for treating pain. However, even that didn't turn into a major problem.
There is research that confirms this. Johann Hari talks quite a bit about it in his interview with Sam Harris:https://samharris.org/podcasts/142-addiction-depression-mean...
Most famous is probably the Rat Park study: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
Blaming the drugs is an easy out and probably is more pleasing to people coming from a puritan world view.
Most famous is probably the Rat Park study: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
Blaming the drugs is an easy out and probably is more pleasing to people coming from a puritan world view.
The regulation on pharma should not be aimed at reducing supply (which is how it's done today, trying to avoid prescribing pain meds to anyone who is addicted) but on reducing the introduction of dependence. It's not going to solve everything, but there's a reason people are winning lawsuits against the Oxycontin manufacturers.
Addicts aren't born as fully formed heroin junkies, they all have a first time when they used an opiate or opioid. If you're living on the street and stealing handbags to buy heroin, you got there through a series of crises, each one an intervention point. Not being able to steal your dad's oxys from the medicine cabinet, or not being put on opioid painkillers for three months straight, are two of those intervention points.
> I tend to think it's lack of regulation in the pharma space.
Maybe it's time we start acknowledging that perhaps the environment is at least partially to blame for individual problems. Why are people staying with drugs that they hate? Could it be that there are societal issues which keep them from becoming mentally well enough to combat their other problems?
Maybe it's time we start acknowledging that perhaps the environment is at least partially to blame for individual problems. Why are people staying with drugs that they hate? Could it be that there are societal issues which keep them from becoming mentally well enough to combat their other problems?
> I tend to think it's lack of regulation in the pharma space.
According to what I've read online though, most of the illegal opioids are not prescription, but rather from Chinese manufacturers via Mexican drug cartels.
I think that the thing that started this was the demand for psychedelics and pain killers among the rich tech workers of Silicon Valley, LA, SF, Seattle, etc, which have infected the west coast with the false notion that drugs are a 'victimless' crime. I've personally witnessed many very educated, very rich college students, take opioids -- not from a doctor's prescription -- but because they thought it would be fun. Perhaps they are not the addicts talked about here, but the fact is that their ability and desire to pay thousands for this stuff means that the drug cartels are enabled, enriched, and now have an incentive to market to less individually-wealthy, but larger markets.
According to what I've read online though, most of the illegal opioids are not prescription, but rather from Chinese manufacturers via Mexican drug cartels.
I think that the thing that started this was the demand for psychedelics and pain killers among the rich tech workers of Silicon Valley, LA, SF, Seattle, etc, which have infected the west coast with the false notion that drugs are a 'victimless' crime. I've personally witnessed many very educated, very rich college students, take opioids -- not from a doctor's prescription -- but because they thought it would be fun. Perhaps they are not the addicts talked about here, but the fact is that their ability and desire to pay thousands for this stuff means that the drug cartels are enabled, enriched, and now have an incentive to market to less individually-wealthy, but larger markets.
> I think the question to ask is what created the opioid problem in the first place - I tend to think it's lack of regulation in the pharma space.
The opioid addiction crisis is a complex issue, and the data defies reduction to any particular cause.[0] It's become popular to blame the issue on the pharma industry, but to do so is an oversimplification large enough to call a mischaracterization, and focusing primarily on that area will not solve the problem.
I think that the reason for the popularity of this misconception is that it throws a bone to almost anyone's ideological predispositions. It blames both "big business capitalism" and "the out-of-touch elite", it avoids laying blame on doctors, or on homeless urban addicts, or on poor rural addicts, or on the suburban middle class, or on a culture that fosters both urban homelessness and rural poverty, and it's a simple explanation that has intuitive appeal.
[0]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5846593/
The opioid addiction crisis is a complex issue, and the data defies reduction to any particular cause.[0] It's become popular to blame the issue on the pharma industry, but to do so is an oversimplification large enough to call a mischaracterization, and focusing primarily on that area will not solve the problem.
I think that the reason for the popularity of this misconception is that it throws a bone to almost anyone's ideological predispositions. It blames both "big business capitalism" and "the out-of-touch elite", it avoids laying blame on doctors, or on homeless urban addicts, or on poor rural addicts, or on the suburban middle class, or on a culture that fosters both urban homelessness and rural poverty, and it's a simple explanation that has intuitive appeal.
[0]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5846593/
I don't think it's "disguised" as a housing crisis: dishonest advocates took advantage of superficial similarities between the housing cost crisis to claim that homelessness was driven by it. I don't think most people serious about understanding the homelessness issue instead of exploiting it for their pet cause think that the housing crisis is a primary driving factor (though I'd be surprised if it wasn't contributing)
From my anecdotal experience living in an area filled with fentanyl shooting drug addicts I've noticed they generally are substance abusers with other drugs, such as meth or heavy drinking, ilegally procured prescription pills, cocaine etc., they have groups of fellow substance abusers they meet with daily to combine resources and when the money runs out switch to other drugs that are cheaper to buy like bags of heroin to snort which they quickly get hooked on and then I would see them on the street shooting up.
Another question is why do some countries not even have a drug taking culture in the first place. Lot's of places I've been to where the population isn't interested in any drug use despite it being decriminalized or readily available.
Another question is why do some countries not even have a drug taking culture in the first place. Lot's of places I've been to where the population isn't interested in any drug use despite it being decriminalized or readily available.
Around me a large portion are formerly employed who got injured, and then were prescribed pain relievers that turned out to be what I think were legal opioids. Then they couldn't get them when the prescription was done, and they started using others' prescription. Then people started selling extra doses from their prescriptions on the street. From there, the not so legal stuff came. All the way up that ladder to homeless heroin addict.
It's just kind of a ladder they all climbed to the strongest, least legally available variant of what started out as simple pain relief prescriptions.
One really underhanded thing that's happened around here is that there are these new apartment buildings that are "affordable". (But not really.) But if you're a homeless vet, there is a provision where they are obliged to give you a place in these kinds of buildings.
One caveat though, it's not open to substance abusers. Which most of the homeless vets are. To add insult to injury, a lot of them got on the ladder because they were prescribed pain relievers by the VA. Now a lot are differently abled because of being wounded. Hooked on opioids due to climbing up the ladder I was talking about. And homeless to boot.
It's sad.
It's just kind of a ladder they all climbed to the strongest, least legally available variant of what started out as simple pain relief prescriptions.
One really underhanded thing that's happened around here is that there are these new apartment buildings that are "affordable". (But not really.) But if you're a homeless vet, there is a provision where they are obliged to give you a place in these kinds of buildings.
One caveat though, it's not open to substance abusers. Which most of the homeless vets are. To add insult to injury, a lot of them got on the ladder because they were prescribed pain relievers by the VA. Now a lot are differently abled because of being wounded. Hooked on opioids due to climbing up the ladder I was talking about. And homeless to boot.
It's sad.
I could up until last year, by Codeine over the counter in France and there wasn’t a widespread opioid crisis. Some hysterical parents lobbied to get codeine prescription only in France and he hasn’t done anything for the levels of addiction— it only make it more obnoxious to have to go to the doctor to get a prescription for a €2.50 package of pills — pills that were amazing for coughs and headaches. I probably used that medicine once every few months when stricken by a bad cough or headache. Now, one has to spend €35 to visit a doctor just to get a pill that used to be readily available from the pharmacy. But hey, as long as we “protect the children” right? I can still buy liquor over the counter and it does more harm than most products one can consume.
I don't really get the justification for not allowing adults to buy any (legal) drugs they wish. If you have free public healthcare, I can sort of see that there's a right for the state to have control over drugs because the state then has to handle any harm caused by it.
But what's the reasoning for not completely liberalising drugs? Is there a reasoning, or is it just a means to keep control over a population one feels they own?
I'm not necessarily for complete liberalisation, just curious about how/why the system is as it is.
In the UK the only apparent motivation for the original legislation in restricting drug sales, the Pharmacy Act 1868, appears to be that particular groups wanted to be the sole parties legally allowed to distribute those substances. Deaths fell, according to Wikipedia's mixed up statistics. But the motivation appears to have been unrelated to public safety. Meanwhile, of course, anyone with sufficient funds could simply buy the substances they wished. Wartime motivation (WWI) was to keep soldiers battle-ready. Then it seemed to become an international issue.
But what's the reasoning for not completely liberalising drugs? Is there a reasoning, or is it just a means to keep control over a population one feels they own?
I'm not necessarily for complete liberalisation, just curious about how/why the system is as it is.
In the UK the only apparent motivation for the original legislation in restricting drug sales, the Pharmacy Act 1868, appears to be that particular groups wanted to be the sole parties legally allowed to distribute those substances. Deaths fell, according to Wikipedia's mixed up statistics. But the motivation appears to have been unrelated to public safety. Meanwhile, of course, anyone with sufficient funds could simply buy the substances they wished. Wartime motivation (WWI) was to keep soldiers battle-ready. Then it seemed to become an international issue.
Coming from Germany I found it interesting how much the US culture depends on ingesting substances to make you feel better. Be it painkillers or “superfood” or other things. That makes the US really vulnerable to all kinds of addictions. As a kid I remember only a few occasions where I took any kind of medicine but today’s kids know a ton about all kinds of drugs and it seems pretty standard to take some.
as an american, i view such quick-fixes as a form of american exceptionalism and magical thinking. my mother had a tendency to reach for medicines whenever i got sick growing up, and i just found that they didn't usually help much (other than the occasional antibiotic for a bacterial infection). as an adult, i tend to avoid medications, especially for pain.
i don't know about superfoods making you feel better. i generally eat what i crave, which tends to be "real" food (fresh meats, dairy, and fruits/veges) more than processed food, although i do still love sweet/salty/fatty treats (but not breads particularly). i don't think we know enough about food and our bodies yet to optimize more than that.
i don't know about superfoods making you feel better. i generally eat what i crave, which tends to be "real" food (fresh meats, dairy, and fruits/veges) more than processed food, although i do still love sweet/salty/fatty treats (but not breads particularly). i don't think we know enough about food and our bodies yet to optimize more than that.
[deleted]
Hmm, makes me wonder if it is in any way related to the somewhat “lost” cooking culture in the states. My roommate in the States didn’t even know how to cook tea or how to boil an egg. And I am really not kidding. Might be a crazy theory but maybe...
Who can't make tea? Or boil an egg. That's a terrible kind of exceptionalism. I've never seen that in the us.
Lost American cooking culture? I think you'll have to back that one up
My business is in a county with high drug addicts. This used to be a growing county in the mid-70s with a high number of manufacturing jobs with good pay. As manufacturing started to decline, drug usage started to go up.
I moved from California. One thing I noticed that doctors in this area will easily prescribe pills compare to Calfornia. Everyone takes pain killers. Pretty much everyone carries pain killers all the time.
I moved from California. One thing I noticed that doctors in this area will easily prescribe pills compare to Calfornia. Everyone takes pain killers. Pretty much everyone carries pain killers all the time.
I have been saying this for a while and the activists in San Francisco get so offended. 90% of the people on the street in the Bay Area are on meth or heroin. Their addiction is the bigger issue than housing affordability. The reason so many homeless have come to California lately is that California cities give cash handouts almost immediately. We are absolutely being taken advantage of and really we are making the problem worse.
The article points out a correlation between "being addicted" and "being homeless" but does not provide any evidence that there also is a causation.
With the same evidence one could write an article that says "increasing prices drive out the most vulnerable first".
With the same evidence one could write an article that says "increasing prices drive out the most vulnerable first".
Unclear to me if they're homeless because of addiction, or became addicted after becoming homeless. This distinction would seem crucial to me.
Almost everyone has some kind of support network, whether it's extended family or friends, that would offer a spare bed or a couch. Sure, they won't let you stay forever, but it will keep you off the street until you can get yourself together.
People who are living on the street, for the most part, have burned through all the support their family and friends are willing to give. Their addiction or mental illness (or combination) have resulted in their support network turning their back on them. Sure, there are exceptions, but this is true of a significant majority of people living on the street (this is easy to verify if you search for studies of people living on the street and addiction/mental illness).
It's not a coincidence that a large majority of people living on the street are addicted to drugs or suffering from mental illness (and in fact that the majority are suffering from both or self medicating with street drugs).
If you are homeless, but you have no mental illness and no addiction problem there are so many people and services standing by to help. The homelessness crisis is almost entirely a mental health crisis. People aren't living on the street because they can't find a job or affordable housing. Look at undocumented immigrants, they somehow find jobs and housing despite prejudice, language issues and low wages, and still find ways to send money home despite being completely ineligible for public assistance. If millions of people who are still learning the language can find housing and work and save money, then the otherwise physically healthy people living on the street can't be explained by 'income inequality' or 'housing prices', and in fact studies show that addiction and major mental health issues are nearly universal for people living on the street.
People who are living on the street, for the most part, have burned through all the support their family and friends are willing to give. Their addiction or mental illness (or combination) have resulted in their support network turning their back on them. Sure, there are exceptions, but this is true of a significant majority of people living on the street (this is easy to verify if you search for studies of people living on the street and addiction/mental illness).
It's not a coincidence that a large majority of people living on the street are addicted to drugs or suffering from mental illness (and in fact that the majority are suffering from both or self medicating with street drugs).
If you are homeless, but you have no mental illness and no addiction problem there are so many people and services standing by to help. The homelessness crisis is almost entirely a mental health crisis. People aren't living on the street because they can't find a job or affordable housing. Look at undocumented immigrants, they somehow find jobs and housing despite prejudice, language issues and low wages, and still find ways to send money home despite being completely ineligible for public assistance. If millions of people who are still learning the language can find housing and work and save money, then the otherwise physically healthy people living on the street can't be explained by 'income inequality' or 'housing prices', and in fact studies show that addiction and major mental health issues are nearly universal for people living on the street.
Lots of people don't have support networks of people who will lend them housing. Be very careful with the presumption that anyone on the street must have burned through a support network.
Exactly. And for those fortunate enough to have one, it is possible that the entire support network is also homeless, or in prison, or in another country, currently in rehab or a nursing home, or some mix of these.
I agree, but I would add that sometimes addiction is related to people being overwhelmed by life events. If those life events never happened the user never would have gotten this bad.
Yes, I hope it doesn't sound like I am trying to blame people for a situation they are trapped in. I just feel strongly that we need to underline the real issues and not let homeless people be used as a political token to push a political agenda that won't help them.
“People who are living on the street, for the most part, have burned through all the support their family and friends are willing to give.”
I have experienced this with one person. She didn’t become homeless but it had reached a point where the whole family said “enough is enough, we can’t help anymore”. Interestingly this was the turn around. Once nobody was willing to help anymore she pulled herself together and straightened things out. It’s still not perfect but much better. If she hadn’t had the energy or intelligence to get her life in order she would be homeless or dead now.
I have experienced this with one person. She didn’t become homeless but it had reached a point where the whole family said “enough is enough, we can’t help anymore”. Interestingly this was the turn around. Once nobody was willing to help anymore she pulled herself together and straightened things out. It’s still not perfect but much better. If she hadn’t had the energy or intelligence to get her life in order she would be homeless or dead now.
“Almost everyone has some kind of support network”
Except for, you know, homeless people.
Except for, you know, homeless people.
I'm not sure that comment is helpful.
Clearly the parent is saying that people start out with some sort of support network, and are likely to have transitioned from their own accommodation to sleeping on a couch or in a spare room, and _then_ become homeless. That in that process those with the most extreme problems lose, one way or another, their useful support network.
To counter the parents claim we'd need solid figures of those who went from self-supported accommodation direct to being homeless on the street without any support from family or friends [or others].
Shelter did an indicative, not statistically significant report in which they say
>"Half of the people we spoke to ended up rough sleeping because they had nowhere else to turn. This could be because they didn’t know anyone who was able to accommodate them, or they had burned bridges with friends and families due to drug and/or alcohol misuse." (Ch.3, "Summary report - On the Streets", from [2])
Half isn't quite the large majority the parent claims, but this isn't a statistical survey. I think it gives enough support that one should need to prove them wrong with well supported figures.
This page [1] has some relevant stats which I think largely support the parents position but the question of "did you arrive as a rough sleeper from being hidden homeless" doesn't seem to be well shown in stats I could readily find.
Crisis have pertinent UK stats too [3].
[1] https://www.trustforlondon.org.uk/data/rough-sleepers-london...
[2] http://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/policy_...
[3] https://www.crisis.org.uk/ending-homelessness/homelessness-k...
Clearly the parent is saying that people start out with some sort of support network, and are likely to have transitioned from their own accommodation to sleeping on a couch or in a spare room, and _then_ become homeless. That in that process those with the most extreme problems lose, one way or another, their useful support network.
To counter the parents claim we'd need solid figures of those who went from self-supported accommodation direct to being homeless on the street without any support from family or friends [or others].
Shelter did an indicative, not statistically significant report in which they say
>"Half of the people we spoke to ended up rough sleeping because they had nowhere else to turn. This could be because they didn’t know anyone who was able to accommodate them, or they had burned bridges with friends and families due to drug and/or alcohol misuse." (Ch.3, "Summary report - On the Streets", from [2])
Half isn't quite the large majority the parent claims, but this isn't a statistical survey. I think it gives enough support that one should need to prove them wrong with well supported figures.
This page [1] has some relevant stats which I think largely support the parents position but the question of "did you arrive as a rough sleeper from being hidden homeless" doesn't seem to be well shown in stats I could readily find.
Crisis have pertinent UK stats too [3].
[1] https://www.trustforlondon.org.uk/data/rough-sleepers-london...
[2] http://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/policy_...
[3] https://www.crisis.org.uk/ending-homelessness/homelessness-k...
I think if you allow a somewhat close reading your quote supports my point.
>"Half of the people we spoke to ended up rough sleeping because they had nowhere else to turn."
This is a little bit ambiguous, but I think one fair interpretation is that the other half they spoke to had somewhere else to turn. (It is also possible they had no information on half.)
So if half do have a place they could go (possibly with the condition of not using drugs, which is the reason they don't accept the accommodation?) and some number of others had burned bridges "due to drug and/or alcohol misuse", that's already a majority. Again this is a pretty close reading, but what I said is not controversial at all if you dig into some of the data and don't just read press releases which selectively quote the studies, or misleadingly combine statistics about people who have lost a residence (due to foreclosure, health, or other financial hardship) but have shelter with friends or family and people who are sleeping outside without shelter.
>"Half of the people we spoke to ended up rough sleeping because they had nowhere else to turn."
This is a little bit ambiguous, but I think one fair interpretation is that the other half they spoke to had somewhere else to turn. (It is also possible they had no information on half.)
So if half do have a place they could go (possibly with the condition of not using drugs, which is the reason they don't accept the accommodation?) and some number of others had burned bridges "due to drug and/or alcohol misuse", that's already a majority. Again this is a pretty close reading, but what I said is not controversial at all if you dig into some of the data and don't just read press releases which selectively quote the studies, or misleadingly combine statistics about people who have lost a residence (due to foreclosure, health, or other financial hardship) but have shelter with friends or family and people who are sleeping outside without shelter.
According to [1] it's both, but it makes the problem worse for people that fall into it.
[1]: https://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/addiction.pdf
[1]: https://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/addiction.pdf
From what I have seen for most people addiction or other bad live events ( bad divorce, job loss, health problems) comes first and then homelessness. Only a few people become homeless without some kind of crisis before. Once you are homeless you are in dysfunctional environment where it’s easy to get into other kinds of trouble .
In my view, there's some causation running in both directions going on here. There's not ever going to be a clean "X causes Y" in this model. For some percentage of the population, the fact that they were homeless led to their addiction problem. For some percentage of the rest of the population, their addiction either directly led to or significantly contributed to them becoming homeless. Debating about which one "is the one true cause" misses the point, and won't lead us closer to a solution.
This article aside, my general understanding has been homelessness is very often a symptom of mental health issue. Yes, there are people (read: families) who would obviously prefer not to be homeless. But many others are there because individual rights / protections are such that we can not force them to do otherwise.
> If this figure holds constant throughout the West Coast, then at least 11,000 homeless opioid addicts live in Washington, 7,000 live in Oregon, and 65,000 live in California (concentrated mostly in San Francisco and Los Angeles)
This is a pretty silly assumption to make when the data for San Francisco and Los Angeles show different, where less than a third of the homeless is addicted.
And given how the housing crisis is so much worse in San Francisco and Los Angeles than Seattle, it's choosing exactly the wrong data points to extrapolate from.
Further, it ignores how once someone is homeless it is much easier to fall into addiction, as other homeless people are often your support network and there's a higher incidence of addiction among the homeless, spreading it.
All too often "not my fault" is a reason to avoid addressing the parts that are our fault.
This is a pretty silly assumption to make when the data for San Francisco and Los Angeles show different, where less than a third of the homeless is addicted.
And given how the housing crisis is so much worse in San Francisco and Los Angeles than Seattle, it's choosing exactly the wrong data points to extrapolate from.
Further, it ignores how once someone is homeless it is much easier to fall into addiction, as other homeless people are often your support network and there's a higher incidence of addiction among the homeless, spreading it.
All too often "not my fault" is a reason to avoid addressing the parts that are our fault.
I appreciate the author identifying what is really going on with homeless on the West Coast. Any visit to Portland, Seattle, SF, LA corroborates this. We need to crack down on those that are perpetuating and benefiting from this crisis.. the dealers, cartels, and yes, the pharmaceutical companies.
These street drug networks are pretty sophisticated and hard to crack down on.
For example a typical street operation like openly selling baggies outside of a legalized injection clinic or to a homeless camp is often done by the addicts themselves, who will always only be holding just enough so they don't see much jail time if they are arrested. Security of this street dealing is overseen by very obvious looking prison gang members who hold no evidence and make sure to never take the money from the street addict peddling their baggies of heroin or crack instead there are drops coordinated with the huge prison goon nearby to prevent any robberies. Resupply is done through complicated handoffs and drops with a network of a few dozen addicts who've been recruited to sell for the gang. The gang themselves are buying off other mid level gangs who in turn are buying from higher level/cartels.
You can try to put a cop on every corner and disrupt the handoffs, or harass these enforcers off the street, but soon your police force is going to run out of overtime money, not to mention the other factor which is gang violence "management". The police know if they decimate the current street gang controlling the street trade that a dozen other gangs will immediately start fighting to be the successor meaning there will be high profile shootings going on in the media, which in turn puts pressure on city hall, which in turn puts pressure on the police chief to do something to stop the violence which eventually means relaxing enforcement on whatever gang currently controls the homeless drug trade so long as they stay in their lane and don't escalate their street violence into the media or against people not involved in the trade. It would be nice to arrest and stop the midlevel and high level suppliers but nobody has figured out how to effectively do that with limited enforcement resources either.
For example a typical street operation like openly selling baggies outside of a legalized injection clinic or to a homeless camp is often done by the addicts themselves, who will always only be holding just enough so they don't see much jail time if they are arrested. Security of this street dealing is overseen by very obvious looking prison gang members who hold no evidence and make sure to never take the money from the street addict peddling their baggies of heroin or crack instead there are drops coordinated with the huge prison goon nearby to prevent any robberies. Resupply is done through complicated handoffs and drops with a network of a few dozen addicts who've been recruited to sell for the gang. The gang themselves are buying off other mid level gangs who in turn are buying from higher level/cartels.
You can try to put a cop on every corner and disrupt the handoffs, or harass these enforcers off the street, but soon your police force is going to run out of overtime money, not to mention the other factor which is gang violence "management". The police know if they decimate the current street gang controlling the street trade that a dozen other gangs will immediately start fighting to be the successor meaning there will be high profile shootings going on in the media, which in turn puts pressure on city hall, which in turn puts pressure on the police chief to do something to stop the violence which eventually means relaxing enforcement on whatever gang currently controls the homeless drug trade so long as they stay in their lane and don't escalate their street violence into the media or against people not involved in the trade. It would be nice to arrest and stop the midlevel and high level suppliers but nobody has figured out how to effectively do that with limited enforcement resources either.
This is quite close to the plot of the The Wire. It's amazing that, 20 years later, we're still having the exact same discussions. Although I suppose that David Simon knew that, when he was working on The Wire, he was in some ways reproducing the same structures that have been in place since the "War on Drugs" and the '70s.
[deleted]
If the low level gangs knew that cops would remain present on those corners, would the shooting wars erupt when there was a power vacuum? Looking at these gangs as rational economic players, it makes sense to fight over a limited, highly valuable resource(the street corner). It doesn't make sense to fight over it if it's value is extremely reduced(because cops will be stationed there all the time).
The gangs attack each other's higher level members outside the area, meaning broad daylight shootings at some high end restaurant or Starbucks parking lot. There is already a heavy police presence outside the numerous injection sites here all day long it doesn't seem to matter at all in restricting the organized sale of fentanyl. I think you would need to quadruple the budget of the police department to try any real sustained crackdown, and you would have to build new prisons as the current ones are already to capacity.
Nobody will vote for the city mayor who wants to significantly jack up property taxes to pay for a new drug crackdown when every voter knows it's largely a tried and failed, unsustainable policy. It would be vastly cheaper to just pour money into gang recruitment discouragement, and hand out free heroin undercutting the gang's product which is what they've started to do here.
Nobody will vote for the city mayor who wants to significantly jack up property taxes to pay for a new drug crackdown when every voter knows it's largely a tried and failed, unsustainable policy. It would be vastly cheaper to just pour money into gang recruitment discouragement, and hand out free heroin undercutting the gang's product which is what they've started to do here.
to some extent, it's a prisoner's dilemma. if all the different gangs can agree not to kill each other for territory, everyone involved is better off on average. but in the short term there's still a huge incentive to be the first gang to defect and take a bunch of territory. from the perspective of an individual actor, it can be rational to do something that decreases the size of the overall pie if you can take a large enough fraction for yourself.
Cracking down on dealers does not work. I believe that we should legalize every drug under the sun, but require the “dangerous ones” (e.g. heroin due to risk of respiratory depression) be done under medical supervision.
The only exception being that drugs like Fentanyl should stay illegal, under the hopes that having legal morphine, heroin etc completely eliminates the demand for it. (Often fent is acquired by dealers, rather than directly by the end consumer. Although there are people that do Fent recreationally, god have mercy on them...)
The only exception being that drugs like Fentanyl should stay illegal, under the hopes that having legal morphine, heroin etc completely eliminates the demand for it. (Often fent is acquired by dealers, rather than directly by the end consumer. Although there are people that do Fent recreationally, god have mercy on them...)
This is a dishonest narrative propped up with misunderstood statistics. He claims that saying "30% of homeless people" are addicts contradicts the claim that "80% of unsheltered" - but he's been arguing about how to get rid of homeless people for long enough to know that unsheltered is a subset of the homeless, and generally the group with the most issues (which is why they are sleeping outside and not even in a car).
Oddly enough, he fails to include any of the research we do have about the connection between cost of housing and rate of homelessness. When rents go up, homelessness goes up. http://fortune.com/2018/12/14/rent-homelessness-housing-inco... When affordable housing disappears, evictions go up and homelessness goes up. http://komonews.com/news/local/washington-homelessness-resul...
One recent positive change was a state law increasing the time a tenant has to pay rent late from 3 days to 14 days. There are many programs that will help pay a one-time late rent, but none of them are instant. Lots of tenants will accept a landlord saying that if you're not out in three days you'll be evicted and spend that time scrambling to leave instead of scrambling to pay, so that they have a chance at renting again in the future - and there's a ton of evidence that preventing the initial step into homelessness is by far the cheapest and most successful way to prevent longterm issues. https://seattle.curbed.com/2019/4/26/18518477/eviction-refor...
Of course, Rufo and people who quote him admiringly tend not to support interventions like this at the point of entering homelessness, since they are committed to the idea that not having a place to live is not a cause of homelessness (which, to be clear, INCLUDES those who are staying with friends or using their social safety net).
Oddly enough, he fails to include any of the research we do have about the connection between cost of housing and rate of homelessness. When rents go up, homelessness goes up. http://fortune.com/2018/12/14/rent-homelessness-housing-inco... When affordable housing disappears, evictions go up and homelessness goes up. http://komonews.com/news/local/washington-homelessness-resul...
One recent positive change was a state law increasing the time a tenant has to pay rent late from 3 days to 14 days. There are many programs that will help pay a one-time late rent, but none of them are instant. Lots of tenants will accept a landlord saying that if you're not out in three days you'll be evicted and spend that time scrambling to leave instead of scrambling to pay, so that they have a chance at renting again in the future - and there's a ton of evidence that preventing the initial step into homelessness is by far the cheapest and most successful way to prevent longterm issues. https://seattle.curbed.com/2019/4/26/18518477/eviction-refor...
Of course, Rufo and people who quote him admiringly tend not to support interventions like this at the point of entering homelessness, since they are committed to the idea that not having a place to live is not a cause of homelessness (which, to be clear, INCLUDES those who are staying with friends or using their social safety net).
Rufo isn't interested in an open consideration of the facts. I think he just wants to curry conservative support.
He provides no evidence to back up his claim that it's a drug crisis at root. I walk through Seattle every day and there's definitely an aspect of drug use, but it's many many other things, including people too poor to afford a house here, people with mental issues, along with a lot of drug use. Then I noticed the name of this author, a kind of frustrated conservative who ran for office in Seattle and claimed basically that people were really mean to him - so take his claims with a giant tub of salt.
Regardless of the situation, the city is not really coping very well with this challenge. We should just do what Utah did, focus on getting housing for everyone, then you can send treatment to them. I can't quite understand why we can't arrest and hold people to longer sentences who commit crimes dozens of times in Seattle. This is separate from just arresting people for drug use, which never solves anything. Get housing, get enough services, treatment for people and also police and other services. That is how we deal with this.
[update, fixed a few typos]
Regardless of the situation, the city is not really coping very well with this challenge. We should just do what Utah did, focus on getting housing for everyone, then you can send treatment to them. I can't quite understand why we can't arrest and hold people to longer sentences who commit crimes dozens of times in Seattle. This is separate from just arresting people for drug use, which never solves anything. Get housing, get enough services, treatment for people and also police and other services. That is how we deal with this.
[update, fixed a few typos]
I think this is a belonging crisis disguised as an addiction crisis. People mostly become addicted because they don't have strong social ties to family, friends, church, whatever. If it were just a physical reaction to drugs every Grandma with a hip replacement would be a junky on the streets. But good luck putting families back together again.
Maybe I missed it in the article. What percentage of homeless in these cities are or were recent drug users?
>In Seattle, prosecutors and law enforcement recently estimated that the majority of the region’s homeless population is hooked on opioids, including heroin and fentanyl.... For the unsheltered population inhabiting tents, cars, and RVs, the opioid-addiction percentages are even higher—the City of Seattle’s homeless-outreach team estimates that 80 percent of the unsheltered population has a substance-abuse disorder. Officers must clean up used needles in almost all the homeless encampments.
No word on methodologies though.
No word on methodologies though.
Also from the article: the mayor estimates the rate at 1 in 3. Still no word on methodology.
Might be a difference in wording. As I recall, 2/3 of Seattle homeless are not sleeping on the street (instead they are in cars or shelters), which may make them "sheltered". The other 1/3 are in the street and if most of them are addicts, then yes, about 1/3 of total homeless are addicted as well
Dude, people become addicts cause life sucks when you are in a constant struggle.
Addiction is an optional choice, homelessness may well be an involuntary state of being.
If you become homeless, you are super likely to do drugs. Just visit a homeless camp and you’ll find that out.
This article gets causality backwards. It’s kind of amusing.
This article gets causality backwards. It’s kind of amusing.
For anyone interested in how drugs became such a crisis in America, I highly recommend History Channel's "America's War on Drugs" (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7026882/) - it's free with a trial on Prime Video. It is a fascinating story involving the CIA, fear of communism and, of course, the bottomless guile of corporate greed.
portonoy(1)
[flagged]
> weirdo greedlords like Jeff Bezos and Donald Trump
This breaks the site guidelines against flamebait and name-calling. Would you mind reviewing them? Taking threads further into flamewar is what's most important to avoid here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20197294.
This breaks the site guidelines against flamebait and name-calling. Would you mind reviewing them? Taking threads further into flamewar is what's most important to avoid here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20197294.
[deleted]
A friend who lives in the SF Mission likes the idea of shipping the druggies off to a drug camp in the middle of nowhere. They get all the drugs they want, until they die.
The article fails to acknowledge that drug abuse can be caused by homelessness (which also makes sense when you think about it). In fact all it says is that homeless people use drugs, and then goes on to say that therefore drugs cause homelessness.
It also fails to acknowledge (in CA at least) that the 80s republican plan to save money by closing mental health facilities put a large number of people on the streets without any means to afford necessary drugs, and so no ability to work (assuming they had somewhere to live). This dramatically increased the cost to the state as now people with mental health issues get put in prisons. Keeping someone in a prison costs much more than in a proper treatment facility, and also fails to provide any rehabilitate support, and now they have a criminal record so even if they could get treatment in prison they can’t get a job when they get out, so end up homeless, and then back in prison.
It also ignores fairly basic concepts: there are fewer rooms available to rent in SF than there are homeless people, so even if the city just paid the rent for them (which is cheaper in the long term), there isn’t anywhere for them to live.
Cool beans.
It also fails to acknowledge (in CA at least) that the 80s republican plan to save money by closing mental health facilities put a large number of people on the streets without any means to afford necessary drugs, and so no ability to work (assuming they had somewhere to live). This dramatically increased the cost to the state as now people with mental health issues get put in prisons. Keeping someone in a prison costs much more than in a proper treatment facility, and also fails to provide any rehabilitate support, and now they have a criminal record so even if they could get treatment in prison they can’t get a job when they get out, so end up homeless, and then back in prison.
It also ignores fairly basic concepts: there are fewer rooms available to rent in SF than there are homeless people, so even if the city just paid the rent for them (which is cheaper in the long term), there isn’t anywhere for them to live.
Cool beans.
Determining root cause is important to finding the right solution. Further cracking down on homeless people will just transfer them from the streets to jails, where they will cost the taxpayers exorbitant amounts of money (and if they're in a private prison, create profit for private interests), while failing to get people back on their feet when they are eventually let go.
> no city on the West Coast has a solution for homeless opioid addicts
While Utah isn't technically the West coast, how does the author's claim hold up in the face of the resounding success of their efforts to reduce chronic homelessness (down 91% in a decade while saving the government 50%)? Does this proven solution fit with his root cause model?
See: https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chroni...