Alex_Krycek

If you can't get yourself off the floor, go and stay in a state run homeless shelter, which is only different from downtown shelters in that there's more beds and space, and it's further out in the countryside, so you'd get a free ride out there. Gee, what an abhorrently dystopian concept.

I've clarified several times that my view is in alignment with the Sun Break ranch proposal I referenced earlier. Under that proposal the homeless would be given the option to go to a treatment facility like Sun Break, find other accommodation (such as staying with family or friends, or go to prison. However camping on the street, loitering, shooting up in public, would no longer be tolerated.

https://www.newsweek.com/norway-testing-free-heroin-program-improve-lives-drug-addicts-1069473 Give heroin to whoever needs it. What could go wrong? And the documentary I linked to in the OP recounts addicts who were given rooms to stay in, AND OFFERED DRUGS! By the government employees who work there, no less. The addict in the documentary said he had to leave, since he would have likely overdosed had he stayed in such a permissive environment. Provide homeless addicts with better treatment facilities that are more cost effective and efficient while actually solving the homeless problem that afflicts many urban areas. What exactly is specious about that? I doubt you can tell me. Perhaps, but it would be an absurd analogy. Comparing Jewish prisoners under the Nazi regime to homeless addicts who choose to enroll in a voluntary, government funded treatment facility in a remote area is an insult to the survivors of the Holocaust.

This isn't a popularity contest. An argument lives or dies on its merits, and so far I have outlined clearly the merits of each premise of my argument. Historical comparisons to Nazi concentration camps, which are grandiose non-sequiturs in the context of what we're talking about. Equating remote treatment facilities for the homeless with Nazi death camps is the epitome of hubris. I'd align myself more as a Sanders Democrat actually.

In what way am I not taking the thread seriously? There are actual proponents of Solution 1, if that's what you're referring to.

Right, so because I'm employed, my view towards homeless people must necessarily be cartoonish. Great logic.

In what way has my treatment of the subject been cartoonish or a caricature? You seem to be implying this because you don't have a strong counter argument.

Really? Explain please. Why should tax dollars, pounds, euros (insert your currency here) be spent primarily on things that do not benefit those that contributed?

Exactly. Social policies should take into consideration those who work and earn a living, as well as the disadvantaged. Policies should primarily favor those who work. To them it's other people's tax money, so they don't mind.

This is what it's about: solutions, and thus far I haven't seen anyone willing to put their money where their mouth is and choose one. The options can be boiled down to three approaches: Solution 1. Lenient: offer the addicts drugs, safe spaces to shoot up, no enforcement against homeless encampments, free food and social services wherever the homeless addicts choose to set up shop. Whatever the homeless addicts want, they get, regardless of the consequences to the nearby residents. There are no conditions or expectations for when they will get clean. This solution is fine for those who don't live or work near the problem since it doesn't affect their day to day life directly (as seems to be the case with most people participating in this thread). This solution isn't practical in my view due to the costs and the social reinforcement that society condones addiction as acceptable. Solution 2: Strict: Criminalize homeless addicts but offer them no alternatives. Send them directly to jail for loitering or camping, and give them the maximum time in prison for possession of illegal drugs. This solution isn't practical either as it offers no viable alternatives for treatment / recovery. Solution 3: Balanced: Criminalize loitering and camping but offer an alternative facility which offers a premium level of social services such as medical care, addiction support, and counseling (camp, ranch, etc). This would be the most cost effective (more so than prison and the lenient approach), is humane, and is entirely practical. If homeless addicts don't choose the support facility they can go to prison. So tell me again what's so wrong with Solution 3? Is it simply the word "camp" that triggers an emotional reaction and illogical conflation with Dachau or Bergen-Belsen? The camp isn't a prison. It's an alternative to them being on the street, which would be classified as illegal. If they find a friend who can house them that would work, or they can relocate to another state and find work, whatever. But the bottom line is the camp wouldn't be a facility to incarcerate homeless addicts. Not in many places, such as Vancouver. See the documentary from the OP. Vancouver is now very much "hands off" with violent homeless offenders. The camp would be a support facility where homeless addicts can choose to reside, not a prison. If you had actual direct experience with this issue, I don't think you'd refer to it as a caricature. Idea: let's not wait 20 years for long term government studies to come out before taking action. Glad to see you think the Sun Break proposal is meritorious. I agree that it's a sound plan. I have no problem accepting that the Sun Break solution is better in many ways than mine. We're brainstorming here - it's a process of iterative design.

Here we need to clarify again two points, which I believe others missed also. 1.) Just how entrenched and dangerous a certain element of the homeless population has become in many cities. These are mainly opioid / meth addicts. I'm not referring to one or two guys who got laid off when their factory was relocated to Mexico, and now they drink Jack Daniel out of a brown paper bag and sleep at the bus stop. This is a new breed of homeless we're seeing today. Young, unremorseful about their addiction, increasingly entitled (thanks to local government who coddle them and tell them it's normal to be an addict) and violent towards the citizens who live in the surrounding area. See the original documentary link I posted about Vancouver for an accurate frame of reference - this is the homeless profile that I'm talking about. 2.) About bothering you. This is exactly the problem in many cities. The homeless actively harass, rob, assault, in some cases even murder the local citizens and not a darn thing is done about it. The enforcement has been reduced to such an extent that it's given free reign to these people. I posted one link about Portland, but there are many others if you search for them. Local citizens who are constantly under threat by homeless addicts and the city does little to nothing to help them.

Come on, don't feign ignorance. We both know you're smarter than that. The options are very simple: go to Sun Break (where all the support facilities are provided, and yes, they can leave at any time), or go to jail (if loitering / public camping). And as established, the city has a right to arrest those trespassing, loitering, public camping etc.

I don't think you read the entire article. You missed this paragraph: "With a safe Sunbreak housing option available to all homeless persons in need, public loitering, camping, littering, defecating, urinating, illicit substance use and criminal activity on our streets, parks, canyons, and river basins will no longer be permitted, and strictly enforced." This is exactly what I was arguing for earlier: removing the option to camp on the street (which is much more unsafe for the homeless anyway). Cities have the legal right to arrest people who loiter, camp, or shoot up on the streets. With the Sun Break Ranch, or other option available, the homeless addict has a choice: go to the provided shelter or go to jail. Very simple. But shooting up, camping, going to the bathroom, in front of someone's house, a school, or a business would no longer be an option.

This video pretty much sums up the gravity of the problem, and the specific homeless element that I'm referring to (i.e. meth and opioid addicts). The situation in Portland is a microcosm that can be applied to many others cities in North America.

Some of the greatest scientists in history were religious. Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Claude Shannon... Before it became taboo for scientists to hold religious beliefs, it was the norm. "There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony. And indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls." - Max Planck

In my continued research of this issue I found a recent column by Bill Walton in the Times of San Diego that proposes more or less exactly the same solution as my camp idea. It's called "Sunbreak Ranch" in San Diego. Very well thought out. Full column here: https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2023/01/14/sunbreak-ranch-is-the-answer-to-san-diego-and-americas-homeless-crisis/ Here's another program that is already active in Oregon called "Safe Rest Villages": https://www.portland.gov/united/saferestvillages

Exactly. So why not make further decisions on where exactly homeless addicts can reside? Otherwise the police will just continue to run them from place to place. Surely a more settled type of accommodation with food and sanitation would be better for them? Not if they're out in a remote area, for example North Country or Mohawk Valley if they're in NYC. There's some very remote areas where they would have to walk for miles to come into contact with other people if they chose to leave. If they have a track record of crime, homelessness, and drug addiction, it arguable they should have a choice. Good point. The death rate of addicts after the lenient policies kicked in has skyrocketed. I don't see how it's ethical and compassionate to provide addicts with free reign to overdose and kill themselves. Super easy to do that too with opioids. 100%. They want to live where they can more easily get their next fix, not to mention assault a passerby and steal their cellphone when they're out of cash. Makes sense to me. You're confronting the facts and presenting actual, concrete solutions, so apparently that qualifies you as one.

Cities already make legal decisions as to where the homeless can and cannot reside. Tent cities are forcibly cleared, homeless people can be arrested if they loiter in certain areas. There is already legal precedent to take such action. Unfortunately many cities have become much more lenient when it comes to the issue. What I think should be considered is the probability of risk to the public if someone is an addict, especially with opioids. These people need to commit crime to sustain their addiction - thus they target the innocent. So why not relocate them somewhere where A.) they can get more substantial help B.) they have somewhere nicer to live and can be monitored and C.) they cannot harm the general public? Most of you already advocated for building more dwellings for the homeless - this would be a form of that approach, specifically for those who are struggling with substance abuse. The alternatives are either to abdicate control and let addicts victimize society, arrest them for trespassing and send them to jail, or build more expensive bricks and mortar facilities in downtown areas (at a much higher cost to the taxpayer). A camp would be a compromise, middle of the road solution. Sure, I get it. There are different kinds of addicts. But an opioid addiction is a particularly dangerous type of problem that produces a particularly dangerous type of addict. This isn't a logical analogy. We're not talking about death camps as in Nazi Germany. Nobody wants to hurt these people. We're talking about treatment facilities where they would be required to stay if they are homeless and have an addiction. Certain conditions would exempt them from being housed there. If an addict can hold down a job and stay off the street, no need to be in the treatment camp. If they're homeless and aren't an addict, no need to be there either, as criminalizing homelessness isn't the point. It's that specific, dangerous element of homeless addicts who threaten society that need to be addressed.

This is precisely what is in dispute. There are those that argue that due to the addiction, the drug addict shouldn't be held accountable for his or her actions. They commit a violent crime and are released within 24 hours. It's insane.

If your brother isn't driven to crime due to his problem, he shouldn't face incarceration. If he drives drunk and hurts someone, he should.

What fantasy world are you living in where you think drug addicts care about these things? And as for the camps, if the convicted drug addict prefers prison, that would be fine. Perhaps the camps should only be reserved for those who want to be there instead of jail.

From the addiction recovery stories I have read and watched, most if not all addicts get clean because they make a decision to get clean. That is, they take personal responsibility for the state of their life and where they want to go. As long as they pass the buck, and people around them enable them to pass the buck, blaming their addiction on social factors, trauma, their upbringing, or whatever excuse they want to reach for, instead of actually taking responsibility for their choices, will only keep them in the cycle of addiction. Your approach may appear to be one of compassion, deeper understanding and sympathy, but actually it is one of enablement that harms the addicts instead of helping them. Back to point number one: only the addict can take responsibility and stop making excuses for his/her behavior. The camps would be the more supportive alternative to prison, with counselors, psychologists, addiction experts and so on. If the addicts didn't want to take advantage of this help, they can go to prison instead. Give them that choice. If an addict is arrested for assaulting and robbing someone in broad daylight to feed their addiction, they should be punished accordingly. In fact, the approach I suggested is already taking place in many cities where addicts are given a choice of rehab or jail. It's not exactly a new concept, my plan would just be slightly more clear cut. I don't think so. The using is the disease. We all have problems, we all struggle to various extents in life. It's what a person does in response to that suffering that either improves their life or makes it worse. The addict has chosen a means of coping that is fundamentally destructive. The more you tell an addict: "You're different. You have special trauma. The addiction isn't the real problem, it's something nebulous and cryptic from your childhood" the more you give the addict an excuse to use. Just more enablement that supports the justification to use. If you tell them: "You're not really different than anyone else. What makes you different is how you choose to deal with it, i.e. by using." That is more helpful and is actually true. I agree. But what is going to make them want to change? Hitting rock bottom. When their environment becomes so uncomfortable that they have to finally step up and take the responsibility from within. That's why the enablement of giving them free reign to pitch a tent on main street, letting them off with a slap on the wrist when they assault and rob people for drug money, or coddling them by providing drugs or safe spaces to use will never work. You're just pushing the impetus to change further and further into the distance away from the present moment. You're normalizing their behavior and giving them a sense of entitlement to continue. Watch the documentary I posted. When the Vancouver city council changed their policy and allowed tents on the streets again, immediately addicts took advantage of that. When they changed the policy on policing to reduce the ability of police to patrol and enforce the law, the addicts took advantage of that. Such policies are simply illogical when dealing with addicts. An addict's goal is to use, full stop. That's why they live in tents on the street, to be near the drugs. Surely this is a clear fact. Somewhat of a far fetched analogy. The US has been sending drug addicted criminals to treatment instead of prison for decades, with conditions attached. It's not exactly a new idea. Everyone has to make a choice as to where they stand on the punitive spectrum. Do you send drug addicted criminals straight to jail, make them learn the hard way? Do you provide addiction treatment and support in prison? Do you send them somewhere else instead of prison, where they can get better help? Do you just let them use on the street and commit crime with revolving door policy, thereby endangering the public and putting innocent people at risk? Turning a blind eye is more unethical and destructive, in my view, since you're endangering both the addict and the general public. And how about those who work hard and pay rent, or run a business? How is your policy of enablement fair to them, when they see tents spring up outside their business, or are assaulted or murdered by homeless addicts just trying to get back to their residence that they work hard and pay for? The lack of respect that is shown to those innocent people is infuriating. With the camp option, at least it's a focused and clear approach as to what the goal is, instead of mixing addicts with violent offenders in regular prison. "Something they have no control over." Here we're back to the original problem. If they have "no control" over the addiction, then they shouldn't be allowed to roam freely in society, I'm sorry. If there is a mentally ill person who has "no control" over his or her actions, and is a danger to himself or others, that person can be committed to a psychiatric hospital and forcibly held. We don't allow people who have no control over their actions to endanger others at will, and then make excuses to further enable their reckless behavior. That entire way of thinking is fundamentally illogical. If someone has no control and commits a crime, and they tell you they have no control because of drugs, they lose their freedom, end of story. Having "no control" has never been a legitimate excuse to commit a crime. I live in one. I see this garbage everyday, although thankfully I only work near a drug infested area, I don't live near one. That would be intolerable, and I really empathize with those who have had their neighborhoods taken over by this scourge. It's disgusting, and the sooner we vote out the politicians who are backing these policies, the better for all. If someone commits a crime, they lose their freedom. Being an addict is not an excuse. Except I'm not proposing to incarcerate people due to their ethnicity, but rather due to criminal behavior. So down goes your analogy. This simply isn't the case. Homeless addicts choose to live in tents in downtown areas because it's where the drugs are. There are plenty of resources in most cities for such people to get off the streets. Their priority is using, not getting help. Nor is it ethical for those who never have to confront this problem in day to day life to make excuses for addicts. It seems to be driven by virtue signaling and not real life consequences.

The obvious implication is intelligent intervention / control. That wasn't an isolated incident either.

If homeless addiction is criminalized, consent wouldn't be required. Only if the lack of the vaccination directly affects the public health of others. It depends on the disease. Someone's personal physical fitness (weight) doesn't affect other people's health, so no.

How is it ethical to allow addicts to kill themselves with drugs with no intervention? Is there not a duty of care that society has to such people? For non-addicted citizens, how is it ethical to make them vulnerable to stranger attacks by addicts, to place them in imminent harm from such people who suffer little to no legal consequences? How is it ethical to allow our cities to be taken over by homeless addicts, who use it as their personal toilet? The situation as it stands is already extremely unethical. The ethical approach would be for the government to step in and start taking corrective action. If this means criminalizing homeless addiction so we can treat drug addicts, I think that's entirely appropriate.