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.
Yeah, this is punishing people for being homeless, just like Boise (though their city rules were eventually overturned)...
They had a law that it was illegal to sleep outdoors as long as a designated shelter said they had a bed available. One of the more heavily Christian shelters said their policy was to always say they had a bed available, i.e. turn nobody away.
But to stay at their shelter meant mandatory church attendance, mandatory prayer and other religious observances.
So it became de facto enforced that the homeless could face religious indoctrination or jail as their options. Was eventually turned over by threats of or actual moves to challenge constitutionality.
Your heart doesn't have to bleed for such a person but I think most people would agree it is tiresome to see homeless people in the street. It is also a public health issue. Doing heroin in the middle of the sidewalk and throwing the needle on the ground is obviously extremely un-hygienic and dangerous to everyone.
I'm not sure what sympathy has to do with anything we are discussing? People experiencing homelessness do not need sympathy, they need homes and community and support. It is a luxury to be sympathetic because the most sympathetic people are not the people dealing with issues associated with homelessness.
In my opinion the way the US deals with homelessness is a disaster because we have a disorganized, disconnected and dysfunctional social net. E.g., how is someone with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia able to treat their condition if they cannot get their medicine because they don't have health insurance? How can they get a home without a job or family support? The list of such issues goes on and on.
Telling people that they just need to have more sympathy and to accept seeing homeless people on the street is a losing strategy and not a solution. In my opinion the solutions include universal healthcare, robust social support systems and drug/alcohol treatment programs. These programs benefit everyone. At the same time it is not crazy to say, "I do not want to see drug addicted people on my doorstep every day."
Perhaps you also agree that these are part of an ideal solution but framing it as sympathy for the homeless is a losing strategy. Everyone would benefit from a social welfare system set up in a sane way, but somehow every discussion in the US turns into an "us-versus-them" mentality. It is like a reality distortion field and a victory of the media-propaganda complex.
Edit: to summarize, homelessness presents two problems, one for the individual experiencing it, and one for society. Solutions need to target both problems. But to deny the reality of one or the other is a critical error.
I have to side with the other commenter, you're just waving the issue away while grandstanding. The article discusses jailing homeless people, which would remove them from the view of the public and... and what?
Do you think the flood of sympathy will then be unleashed, unhindered as it is by the disgusting view of the subjects of the sympathy? No, what will happen is that an issue that almost no one cares about (except, like you, in terms of it being a bother) is further removed from public view.
The chance of people being sympathetic and wanting to help those who suffer is much higher if the homeless people aren't removed from their view.
Yeah. I think the ugly thing that the world is going to learn about american's (people outside america think we've plumbed the depths of depravity--we haven't, yet) casual eliminationist views sooner or later.
Most (white) people I meet in the USA, even nice people, almost all operate on the idea that someone "going away" is a solution to problems and when you press they rarely have a care or concern for where that person goes or what happens to them.
Before this decade is out we'll see death camps in this country for indigence (among other things) and no one will give a shit.
I never said what I think about the law. I think we can agree that it does not address many of the fundamental issues that people experiencing homelessness face. The alternative, however, is not more sympathy but rather specific solutions like a sane health care system (which might include mandatory drug or alcohol rehabilitation) and social service support. Everyone has the right to live in dignity which includes a safe place to live.
> The chance of people being sympathetic and wanting to help those who suffer is much higher if the homeless people aren't removed from their view.
I disagree with this completely. I think seeing homeless people in the street every day makes people think the government is incompetent and unable to deal with a serious issue. This leads to people adopting more extreme measures like exactly the one we are discussing right now.
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.
I was functionally homeless for 11 years but never used substances and wasn't psychotic.
There was a very large fraction of other homeless people who couldn't hold jobs because they were disabled, elderly, under-skilled, not presentable, or lacked the resources and support to "pick themselves up by their [invisible] bootstraps." Some had personality aggression issues that couldn't hold jobs too that didn't fall under danger to themselves or others and so they weren't necessarily able to access mental healthcare. And also some had debts, credit problems, and criminal records that presented obstacles to employment opportunities.
I knew 2 elderly retired teachers who were homeless because they lacked family and resources but were otherwise "normal", cool, and social-able.
I understand that it's human nature of privileged, inexperienced, ignorant people to scapegoat and dehumanize groups they don't understand.
> 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 ?
> The bill requires homeless defendants to pay “all or part of the cost of the treatment program to which he is assigned,” ... the average cost for residential drug and alcohol rehab treatment in Louisiana is more than $4,400 per week
> According to the bill, those who cannot afford this steep cost would be required to perform unpaid labor for the state or a local community center in lieu of payment.
WTAF? So if you're homeless you are forced to a rehabilitation center (that part isn't so bad in itself) but for which you bear the cost of, and since you have no money (or you wouldn't be homeless), you have to become an indentured servant for a very long time.
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
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.
I am an EMS instructor, and ex-paramedic. I remember a quote from my instructor, once upon a time, about judgment of the homeless, particularly the drug-addicted.
"You can question the choices that led them there, but that ship has sailed. The truth of it is if your life consisted of things like looking for food in public garbage cans amongst cigarette butts, bird shit, that had been rained on, that you were reduced to using alleyways to go to the bathroom, newspaper (if you can even find that) to wipe, then it's quite likely that you too would "choose" to retreat to a gorked out haze to escape the emotional pain of that existence. I know I certainly would."
If it's another talking point taken straight off from Fox blaming it on the poor, save it. If you had something better to say, you would've instead of responding with pure rhetorical tricks like that.
Whoa there. I do not subscribe to anything the right is selling, nor have I ever watched Fox (or Newsmax or whatever). I'm a PBS guy raised on Star Trek (TNG) and my values are likely identical to yours.
The measurements are always wrong. Volunteers tell people to lie on the point in time surveys so programs supporting them (or claiming to support them) keep getting funding. In the west coast cities the majority are from elsewhere and it’s easy to confirm if you actually talk to some of them and learn more about the backgrounds of people at the camp. They are there because not only are they tolerated and can break the law without consequences, but they also get free needles to help their habit.
> but they also get free needles to help their habit
They're not getting free needles to "help their habit", they're getting them so they don't re-use or share. Because what's more difficult to help than an addict? An addict with a communicable, potentially fatal, illness.
I am an ex-paramedic. I've lost track of the number of times I've administered narcan, gone to ODs, seen the sheer disaster of cotton fever (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23528959/). Free needles isn't encouraging people to keep their habit going, it's a means of not adding one more route to death's door.
Also, the fact that FireBeyond's comment is downvoted is a massive indictment of this community. They said absolutely nothing worth downvoting for. The hatred for the homeless is sickening.
Thinking you can confirm something statistical by talking to random people on the street is a lot of the problem with politics. Show me evidence of your claims.
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.
Just like Florida. Get arrested and spend any time in jail, and the state will start charging you $85/day. Oh, released without charge? Charges dropped or case dismissed? Found not guilty? Florida doesn't care, they're sending you a bill anyway. And if you don't pay it?
Class B Felony, my friend. Warrants issued. And so it goes.
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
> 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.