- There is homelessness, and then there is drug and/or alcohol addiction.
> Those who are convicted of sleeping outdoors could be given the option to avoid jail time by instead entering into a mandatory treatment program for at least 12 months.
What happens if someone is homeless and not addicted to drugs or alcohol? Why assume everyone who is homeless is also an addict? It seems entirely reasonable that someone homeless AND addicted to drugs/alcohol should be required to enter into a treatment program.
- > What happens if someone is homeless and not addicted to drugs or alcohol? Why assume everyone who is homeless is also an addict?
Because if you actually go out and talk to people sleeping on the streets (instead of theorycrafting on the internet)then you'd see that literally all of them are strugging from some sort of addiction.
- You would be too if you got priced out of your apartment and didn't have family to support you. When I was living in Oakland, the vast majority of homeless people I met use to live nearby. Happy people don't get addicted to drugs.
- And when people do professional research on the topic, they don't find that every homeless person outside is an addict.
- homeless != sleeping on the streets.
- Because this isn't about helping people. This is about punishing the homeless.
- The American mindset: “if they’re homeless, they clearly did something wrong and/or deserve it.”
- I certainly do not agree with that. My point is that this article itself conflates homelessness and addiction, which I think is a serious error.
- I know. I mean this is the mindset that causes this conflation in the first place.
- What specific information makes you think that?
- > Those who are convicted of sleeping outdoors could be given the option to avoid jail time by instead entering into a mandatory treatment program for at least 12 months. The bill authorizes local governments to set up semi-permanent camps in remote areas, where defendants would be required to stay and receive treatment.
So basically state funded mandatory rehab for everyone ?
- Doesn't the article say they have to pay for it themselves?
- arbeit macht frei
- While your quote is meant to be snarky, my understanding is that sign isn't at Dachau any longer
- many places have resorted to giving homeless people money and or casual labour for there city/town, a very large percentage then unfortunately get stabilised and re oriented into productive roles and are no longer able to be monitised by the legal/beurocratic industrial complex
- I don’t think this is cruel at all. This is badly needed to fix broken incentives. A lot of the west coast cities (SF, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver) have serious issues with homeless drug addicts taking over public spaces, causing blight, committing property crimes, acting out in public, etc.
All the taxpayer money spent on nonprofits and random government programs have had little impact since far and mostly look like corrupt grift. There need to be new consequences and deterrents.
- all of the money we spend of department of “defense” and we get a President begging at 2:00am on social media for some canal to be opened, maybe we start there are reduce that budget by like 95% first
- Agreed. My town has a homeless problem. They say they need beds so the town adds beds and now we get homeless from all the other towns coming in.
Comparatively few of our homeless are from here.
- Do be careful. Everyone claims that, but it's almost always something like 80% local in every place that measures.
- How does this actually stop homelessness?
Most homeless people, if you fine them money, won't exactly be able to find housing more easily. Similarly, if you imprison them, they aren't suddenly able to find a job more easily.
- Most people experiencing homelessness are approached repeatedly by workers hoping to get them into programs that will provide them work, housing, mental healthcare.
There's a lot of complexity, like people who appear homeless but do have a place to sleep, but appear mentally ill.
For the most part, people in these situations are not looking for work or housing.
- At least if they’re imprisoned they’re no longer homeless
- So an unhoused person has to either go to prison (accomplishing what?) or go to some “treatment” camp in the woods and pay for it (using what money?!) Excuse me, but what the fuck? Which part of this helps them get out of their shitty situation instead of basically sticking them in a concentration camp indefinitely? And what if they don’t have a drug problem? What will they be “treated” for at this remote location?
I think the only thing that can be earnestly said to this is “fuck this inhuman shit.” Anyone who supports this program has willingly torn chunks from their soul and thrown them in the gutter.
- I just pasted this into Gemini.
"What is the estimated cost to solve the US homeless problem?"
As you might expect, it said "it's complicated!"
But, it did say HUD has estimated it would take $20B to $30B to give every single person housing. Then $9B a year in continued funding.
Just saying, that seems smaller than the Iran war cost over the last 45 days.
And it goes on to say this actually would save money long term because of all the side effects of homelessness, like emergency room care, police and social services and impact on businesses.
But then you can't run on being tough on crime or tough on nuclear proliferation.
- If you’re wondering why you’re getting downvoted, we’d like to hear from you, not Gemini.
24 points by MiguelX413 4 hours ago | 27 comments