zapatos

Seems like this one should have gone in the "Jokes" section.

I often find that you see things that I do not. For example, I missed the part where someone took offense. Which one of us did that?

I know that when someone calls me 'woke' they are using it as a pejorative, but it never bothers me. I've always tried to better understand how words and actions might have a negative impact on others, and modify accordingly. I'm really not sure why they think it is an insult. I'd have the same reaction if someone tried to insult me by proclaiming I always try to live a healthy lifestyle.

I'm happy to admit there is a serious problem. I don't think anyone here believes the problem is not serious.

What are the crimes for which they face prosecution? AFAIK neither homelessness nor drug addiction are crimes.

In some ways his new position is worse, IMO, than his original position. While his OP suggested internment camps as a worst case scenario, he has now modified his worst case scenario as actual prison with no mention of duration, and still with no due process.

I was comparing it to the Holocaust-like proposal you made in the OP where undesirable people were rounded up without due process and moved to internment camps. You presented a caricature of the position you are opposing, and only presented evidence that one aspect of that caricature is true. It would be helpful if you supported all aspects of the caricature I asked you about, such as: "Whatever the homeless addicts want, they get, regardless of the consequences to the nearby residents." Again I'll ask you to provide a legal argument that allows the possibility of going to prison without a trial. No, it is quite accurate. Here is a quiz. Does the following apply to a Jewish Ghetto or to an internment camp for homeless addicts? "Undesirable people are rounded up without due process and moved to internment camps." That wasn't actually an answer to iNow's question. Contrary to your statement, women are not criminals just because they get an abortion.

Perhaps comparing your camps to the Jewish ghettos is more accurate at this early stage.

I was. Can you please provide a citation? Perhaps I am mistaken.

If you aren't going to take this thread seriously you should stop participating.

Luckily we participate on a site where this type of discussion is allowed and interesting to a lot of members, even when one suggests an unpalatable idea.

That seems a bit of an exaggeration.

Chicken and the egg. People did drugs before drug use was outlawed.

Sometimes being a public servant is not all fun and games. It's not your decision to make! Not eating McDonald's would also be better for people but do you really want the State to round up everyone at McDonald's and put them in a nice camp with beds and running water and give them access to healthier foods until they are off fast foods? Okay. Let's hear your legal argument for imprisoning someone for being homeless, being an addict, and having a record. Ah, so it is compassion that is driving your proposal. Originally it sounded like you were trying to protect the general population. Either provide a citation or quit making the claim. You're beginning to sound like a bigot. I can't believe you are calling MigL a Nazi. No one else here has done that. Thanks mom.

As long as it is voluntary. We already have this in my town. People drive around in vans encouraging the homeless to come with them to a shelter, and if they refuse they are offered blankets. Mainly because your proposal goes beyond that. You want to force them into those ghettos.

Cities also make legal decisions as to where you and I can and cannot reside, and we can be arrested if we loiter in certain areas. Citation? Not a citation saying that some commit crimes to sustain their addiction. But a citation that suggests everyone you round up will commit crimes. It would also be useful if you could provide some legal argument supporting the use of imprisonment for crimes that have not yet been committed. Citation? Because it is A) a forced relocation B) there was no trial prior to locking them up C) they most certainly CAN harm the general public (The people in the camp did not cease being part of the public just because you moved them to an internment camp.) D) they may not want 'more substantial help' E) I suspect that most people won't agree with your view that better toilets and beds equates to "somewhere nicer to live" if the "somewhere nicer to live" involves imprisonment.

And thus your solution is imprison them whether they commit a crime or not?!?! It is your proposal that deserves the moniker "insane". As am I. This is quite unbelievable outside of certain far-right rallies.

The reason I mentioned my brother was to rebut your misunderstanding of what addicts are like. They are not all like the characters in Trainspotting. I don't believe your original proposal made 'committing a crime' part of the rules for who got rounded up. Did that change?

My brother is an alcoholic. He is also a health physicist and we often trade tips on gardening.

What about the addicts who sleep in shelters? Are they homeless? What if they stay with a friend. It's not their home after all. There are a lot of very functional addicts, including alcoholics. If they are out doing good all day but then get drunk before they fall asleep in the shelter they built out in the woods, are they to be rounded up? Some people choose to be homeless, traveling around the country, getting odd jobs to pay their way. Now we are rounding up people due to lifestyle choices. And what about those old people who sell their homes and sleep in campers all the time? If they are an alcoholic, are we going to round them up?

Life experience and just common sense.

Yes, I was there when you did.

So the bottom line is that you want to make homelessness and drug addiction a crime (no trial necessary), punishable by imprisonment for an unspecified duration of time. I'm going to have to vote "NO" on your proposal.

Wrong again. If you can expand the definition of things to suggest they lead to pain or pleasure, then I can expand the definition of things to suggest they lead to breathing.

I didn't say you did.