Giving addicts drug money instead of providing for their needs is the peak of inhumanity.
Not sure what you think a drug addicts needs are, because usually at the top of the list is "drugs".
There other services provided en-masse for homeless people with addiction problems but you can't force them to take advantage of them.
The "free-money" isn't about treating the root cause of the recipients addiction the hope is to address a symptom and prevent people with addiction problems from committing crimes to fuel their habits.
Maybe money isn't the right thing - it may reduce crime, but won't fix issues. But there's plenty of successful programs where they give drugs or substitutes to prevent withdrawal to addicts for free, no questions asked, no judgment. Or places to safely use, where privacy, health care and clean needles are available.
But the subject isn't addicts, it's homeless people. Not all homeless people are addicts, and not all addicts are homeless.
Drug-addicts is something you interpret. It is specified that they are homeless.
Doing this conflation is the worst kind of anti-ethical you can be. Just like assuming other things about whole groups of people.
For this debate, I can really recommend Rutger Bregman and his books. One of his important points about poverty is that people are that: Poor. And that is their problem.
My problem when I was homeless wasn’t that I was poor. My problem was that I would never be able to manage assets properly until I get my mental house in order and started prioritizing things properly.
There are plenty of homeless people who are in a poverty trap, as you describe, but I think it oversimplifies the situation to argue the arrow of causality only goes one direction for all homeless people.
Bregman I am referring is Dutch, I am Danish. Two countries where you'd have to look really hard to find homeless people.
I think over-complication is the issue in the states, which in turn makes a lot of these grants go to heads thinking about the issues rather than the actual issues.
I also think it is important to attribute issues where they are due: Mental issues is not a housing problem, it is a health care issue. Not being able to manage money is not a housing problem, it is a primary school problem. Etc.
With all respect for your previous life, it does sound like you needed some quality health care more than a parental system that handed out food stamps (in fear that the money otherwise would have gone to drugs).
I agree completely with your third paragraph; I also agree regarding the Dutch (my partner lives in Amsterdam) and Danish programmes and their successes. Apologies if my reply misunderstood your initial post, as I feel we’re actually in agreement here.
I can see that you're not in California, so I feel like I should reiterate that drugs are a massive problem among our homeless population here. It is something that needs consideration when trying to help them. The main problem with just giving people $1,000/mo is that it is nowhere near enough to get off the street, but more than enough to continue fueling a drug problem.
That, and part of the problem seems to be that when people say "get them off the streets" the hidden statement is "but keep them in SF"
SF is a ridiculously expensive city that people from across the US consider (who have homes even) consider themselves priced out of.
It seems mind boggling that people think everyone deserves a home in SF itself, instead of relocation to, say, a new suburb constructed a couple hours away (where housing is cheaper!).
Constructing that suburb would create jobs. The infrastructure needed to maintain it would create jobs. And even if it remains a net cash drain, it'll still likely be cheaper than 17B a year while giving people actual homes with opportunities to work their way up and out
> It seems mind boggling that people think everyone deserves a home in SF itself, instead of relocation to, say, a new suburb constructed a couple hours away (where housing is cheaper!).
The problem is that many homeless people would genuinely rather live on the streets or in shelters in the city proper where they have easy access to the things they want, versus having a house provided elsewhere.
They want housing near their preferred begging spots and their dealers, basically.
That lends itself to other solutions though, if there's the political will to implement them.
To take an unpopular example: Iran
Iran provides food and shelter to all it's citizens, making sure everyone has their minimum needs met. They've combined this with strict laws against begging. If they see anyone begging on the street someone will come up to them and ask "Why are you begging? Do you have some basic need that's still unmet?"
Outcomes will range from:
- Helping them with that need (if it's legitimate)
- Directing them to getting some kind of job if they merely want more income (even if it's selling trivial knick knacks on the street)
- Presumably there's penalties for repeat offenders
None of this is true. Iran has extreme poverty, people have bare access to food these days and there's a massive amount of child beggars in the street. People are selling body parts to get access to food.
I have lived in San Fransisco an commuted through Tenderloin.
I am not opposing that they are statistically related. But it is not OK to assume that people are drug addicts when they tell that they are homeless. That is normal human decency.
The majority of homeless people are homeless for economic reasons, like loss of income, cost of living increases, or lack of affordable housing, or changes in co-living situations caused by break-ups/divorce/abuse/loss of partner's income/etc.
Families are the fastest growing homeless demographic.
And that group is hurt the most by having to share the streets with people whose uncivil and dangerous behaviour puts their life and well being in danger.
Treating unhoused persons as a homogenous population is probably the original sin of modern American homeless policy.
> Treating unhoused persons as a homogenous population is probably the original sin of modern American homeless policy
It gives you some useful tricks, though. E.g. if somebody complains about the chronically homeless addicts assaulting people downtown? Why, you just point out that X% of "the homeless" are actually just regular non-addicted people temporarily down on their luck, who just need a free hotel room for a couple weeks.
It's unfortunate. Most of the conversation here is about addicts and the mentally ill and how hard they are to help. Probably because they are the most visible.
We should have separate programs for each, one with more resources. It is much easier to help someone without a substance abuse problem get back on their feet, so let’s pick the lowest fruit first? It also provides some incentive to not get addicted to drugs, knowing that society is going to not try as hard to save you (this is already true, it just isn’t codified anywhere).
But ya, most people won’t notice, since they didn’t notice these people before.
