Should Homeless Addicts Be Removed From Cities?

[Alex_Krycek]

If you live in a big city in North America these days, you probably encounter homeless drug addicts on a regular basis.  Cities like Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Vancouver are dealing with escalating crimes waves due to policies that are soft on crime and drug addiction.  Addicts shoot up in broad daylight, leave their needles on the sidewalk in public areas, treat public spaces as their own personal toilet, and assault citizens in brutal stranger attacks.   Stranger attacks are becoming increasingly prevalent, jumping 39% in Vancouver, with a probability that 1 in 4 Vancouverites will be victimized by such attacks.    

So far the corrective approach has been sorely lacking - one of tolerance and non-intervention, to allow the homeless addiction issue to propagate and expand across the urban areas that it afflicts.  I believe that some cities are fast reaching a breaking point, and will need to take more meaningful action with respect to this problem.

The most effective solution I can see for this crisis, since it has gotten so out of hand, is to remove homeless drug addicts from cities and place them in rural, government supervised camps.  These camps would be in rural areas where proper supervision and medical treatment could be administered to those with addiction issues.  The camps would be made up of large portable dwellings with bunk beds, AC/heating units, with fully working toilets and sanitation facilities.  On site medical and security personnel would supervise the day to day operations of the camps, with detox and recovery programs offered to help the addicts get clean.  An addict would not be able to leave the camp until they get clean. 

My view is that drug addiction is a disease, and consequently widespread drug addiction is a public health emergency.  Those with a contagious disease that threatens the health and wellbeing of society should be quarantined.  There is already legal precedent for placing citizens in camps if there is a declared public health emergency.  Covid quarantine camps are one example.  I think there is a strong argument that the homeless addiction problem in major cities presents a public health emergency, regarding both the addicts and members of the public themselves. 

Is it really responsible and humane to let addicts kill themselves via drugs with no intervention or treatment?  It is responsible or humane to the general public to let addicts leave diseased needles and human waste on public streets, or attack strangers in broad daylight?  

From a logistical and operational standpoint, government camps would be much cheaper than building bricks and mortar homeless shelters in downtown areas, which could be reserved for those who do not have addiction issues.  The housing facilities in the camps would be cost effective to establish, and since they are on rural government land, the costs could be kept low.  They would be scalable and portable; easy to establish, move, or expand.  Homeless addicts would be transported in buses to the camps after a clearing operation of homeless affected areas is carried out by police. 

Ultimately the homeless addiction problem (which I believe is a disease) needs a concerted, government mandated solution, and shouldn't be allowed to escalate further, due to the threat to the health and safety of the public.  

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by Alex_Krycek

[iNow]

Is this idea intended to be similar to the "fix rooms" Denmark tried, or similar policies out of Sweden?

[CharonY]

Considering how folks have trouble to convince folks to wear masks or keep their vaccinations up to date, in order to prevent a deadly disease, I am fairly sure that this will go over just swell.

[Alex_Krycek]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Is this idea intended to be similar to the "fix rooms" Denmark tried, or similar policies out of Sweden?

I'm reading about these now, hadn't heard of them.

Quote from the article:  “All we can do is make it as safe as possible, and if they decide that they want to give up, then we will immediately direct them to addiction support services.”

My proposal is slightly different.  Addicts would be in a safe, supervised environment, however they would not have a choice if they want to keep using or get clean.  Once they're in the camp, they would be on a mandatory detox program, where they would have access only to substances that help them reduce their dependency.  Of course food, water, sanitation, etc is all provided.  But it wouldn't be an optional program.    

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Considering how folks have trouble to convince folks to wear masks or keep their vaccinations up to date, in order to prevent a deadly disease, I am fairly sure that this will go over just swell.

I disagree.  Those policies you're referencing were intended for the entire population.  This plan is targeted at a small but very problematic subset of the population.  I don't think most people would have a problem removing homeless drug addicts from their environment.

[CharonY]

12 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I don't think most people would have a problem removing homeless drug addicts from their environment.

If we ignore ethical issues, that is. I mean it is not that we haven't used that argument in the past and off-hand I cannot think of a good example which we would celebrate as a success story.

[Alex_Krycek]

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

If we ignore ethical issues, that is. I mean it is not that we haven't used that argument in the past and off-hand I cannot think of a good example which we would celebrate as a success story.

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.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Alex_Krycek

[CharonY]

1 minute ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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?

If you want to argue from the medical side, there is a thing called consent. This supersedes quite a few of the other considerations. Using your argument, it seems you would be also in favor of forcible vaccinations and mandatory diets?

[Alex_Krycek]

10 minutes ago, CharonY said:

If you want to argue from the medical side, there is a thing called consent. This supersedes quite a few of the other considerations.

If homeless addiction is criminalized, consent wouldn't be required.

10 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Using your argument, it seems you would be also in favor of forcible vaccinations and mandatory diets?

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.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Alex_Krycek

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Cities like Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Vancouver are dealing with escalating crimes waves due to policies that are soft on crime

Do you have evidence that rising crime rates are due to specific law enforcement practices?  There are other factors driving crime, which makes analysis complex and challenging.  

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The most effective solution I can see for this crisis, since it has gotten so out of hand, is to remove homeless drug addicts from cities and place them in rural, government supervised camps. 

There are Constitutional protections that mean citizens cannot be "removed" as you describe.  You cannot detain and incarcerate people without due process of law, i.e. arrest them without a warrant and without their consent. 

Merely being homeless is not a crime.  Nor is mental illness and addiction, unless it leads to specific chargeable offenses.  And "rural, government supervised camp" sounds disturbingly like a concentration camp.  Welcome, backward Uighurs!

33 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 How is it ethical to allow our cities to be taken over by homeless addicts, who use it as their personal toilet?

It's not ethical that a wealthy society cannot provide public toilets, housing for the poor, and sufficient mental health services and social workers and medical care,  with this neglect leading to the result that people in dire circumstances have no choice but to "take over" public parks, grassy verges, sidewalks, riversides, etc.  

It's not ethical that fat comfortable people in 2000+ sq ft houses with five tv screens and climate control and home security systems, sit around whining about the horrifying prospect of paying an extra percent in taxes to help people huddled out in the cold and shitting in some bushes and wondering when someone might sneak up and clonk them on the head and steal what little they have.

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

If you live in a big city in North America these days, you probably encounter homeless drug addicts on a regular basis. 

You spend much time in any big North American cities lately? I worked in Washington DC. Never encountered anyone I could identify as a homeless drug addict

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Cities like Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Vancouver are dealing with escalating crimes waves due to policies that are soft on crime and drug addiction. 

You need to show the statistics showing escalating crime, and if you can do that, show that this is due to policies.

California’s violent crime rate in the past decade, for example, is about half of what it was around 1990.

(edit: xpost with TheVat)

 

 

 

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

remove homeless drug addicts from cities and place them in rural, government supervised camps. 

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.

[Markus Hanke]

6 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Addicts would be in a safe, supervised environment, however they would not have a choice if they want to keep using or get clean.  Once they're in the camp, they would be on a mandatory detox program, where they would have access only to substances that help them reduce their dependency.

What you suggest seems like an obvious solution, but unfortunately it does not and cannot work. Addiction is much more complex than just being a physical dependency on something. Yes, you could (ethical concerns aside for now) round them all up, put them in a camp, and forcibly put them through physical detox - the trouble with this is that it doesn’t actually address the underlying issue at all, because the dependency is in large part of a psychological, social and systemic nature. No one wakes up one morning and decides “I’m going to become a homeless addict…seems like a cool career choice!”. That’s not how it works. Most long-term addicts are in this situation because of multiple factors connected to their social environment, upbringing, past trauma, etc etc, many of which they have little or no control over. These are all complex issues that are not easily nor quickly fixed. It’s a common mistake to think that people remain addicts purely because of their physical dependency, and if we kick the physical dependency they cease to be addicts - that’s quite simply not true at all.

So as for your proposal - you take them to your camp, forcibly put them through detox, and at some point will have to let them out again to re-join their families and social environments. What do you think happens then? I can pretty much guarantee you that within days or weeks almost all of them will be right back on their drug of choice, with perhaps the odd exception. Why? Because the underlying reasons for why they have begun to use substances in the first place have not been addressed. Addiction is a symptom of an underlying disease, not really the cause itself - just putting people through detox is like giving painkillers to a cancer patient; it alleviates the symptoms for a little while, but it doesn’t cure the disease. People don’t start off using because they are physically dependent, but for other reasons. It’s those initial reasons that need to be addressed.

You cannot help an addict who doesn’t want to be helped - the impulse must always come from him/herself. People have to be ready to change, before therapy has any chance of success, and even then the relapse rates are still high. Forcing people into a treatment they are not ready for does not work. I don’t know if there are actual studies to show this (there probably are), but everyone who has ever actually worked with addicts knows that this is a basic fact.

BTW, rounding up addicts and forcing them into rehab camps is what the Taliban in Afghanistan tried to do. Needless to say, it didn’t work. But it makes for an interesting case study if you want to research into it.

So as for your proposal - it certainly has political appeal to those who don’t know much about drug addiction, but ultimately it does not and cannot work. It would just create a revolving-door kind of situation with people going in and out of camps, and the ones who ultimately profit will be the dealers and cartels, as always. Until we begin to treat homelessness and addiction as the social and health issue which it is, and stop criminalising something that the victims have little or no control over, no progress can be made on this problem. Criminalising the addicts and waging a “war on drugs” has never once worked, does not work now, and never will work. A complete re-think is needed.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Markus Hanke

[Alex_Krycek]

7 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

What you suggest seems like an obvious solution, but unfortunately it does not and cannot work. Addiction is much more complex than just being a physical dependency on something. Yes, you could (ethical concerns aside for now) round them all up, put them in a camp, and forcibly put them through physical detox - the trouble with this is that it doesn’t actually address the underlying issue at all, because the dependency is in large part of a psychological, social and systemic nature. No one wakes up one morning and decides “I’m going to become a homeless addict…seems like a cool career choice!”. That’s not how it works. Most long-term addicts are in this situation because of multiple factors connected to their social environment, upbringing, past trauma, etc etc, many of which they have little or no control over. These are all complex issues that are not easily nor quickly fixed. It’s a common mistake to think that people remain addicts purely because of their physical dependency, and if we kick the physical dependency they cease to be addicts - that’s quite simply not true at all.

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.

7 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

So as for your proposal - you take them to your camp, forcibly put them through detox, and at some point will have to let them out again to re-join their families and social environments. What do you think happens then? I can pretty much guarantee you that within days or weeks almost all of them will be right back on their drug of choice, with perhaps the odd exception. Why? Because the underlying reasons for why they have begun to use substances in the first place have not been addressed.

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.

7 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

 

Addiction is a symptom of an underlying disease, not really the cause itself - just putting people through detox is like giving painkillers to a cancer patient; it alleviates the symptoms for a little while, but it doesn’t cure the disease. People don’t start off using because they are physically dependent, but for other reasons. It’s those initial reasons that need to be addressed.

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.

7 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

You cannot help an addict who doesn’t want to be helped - the impulse must always come from him/herself. People have to be ready to change, before therapy has any chance of success, and even then the relapse rates are still high. Forcing people into a treatment they are not ready for does not work. I don’t know if there are actual studies to show this (there probably are), but everyone who has ever actually worked with addicts knows that this is a basic fact.

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.  

7 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

BTW, rounding up addicts and forcing them into rehab camps is what the Taliban in Afghanistan tried to do. Needless to say, it didn’t work. But it makes for an interesting case study if you want to research into it.

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.  

7 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

So as for your proposal - it certainly has political appeal to those who don’t know much about drug addiction, but ultimately it does not and cannot work. It would just create a revolving-door kind of situation with people going in and out of camps, and the ones who ultimately profit will be the dealers and cartels, as always. Until we begin to treat homelessness and addiction as the social and health issue which it is, and stop criminalising something that the victims have little or no control over, no progress can be made on this problem. Criminalising the addicts and waging a “war on drugs” has never once worked, does not work now, and never will work. A complete re-think is needed.

"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.  

 

12 hours ago, swansont said:

You spend much time in any big North American cities lately? I worked in Washington DC. Never encountered anyone I could identify as a homeless drug addict

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.

12 hours ago, TheVat said:

 

There are Constitutional protections that mean citizens cannot be "removed" as you describe.  You cannot detain and incarcerate people without due process of law, i.e. arrest them without a warrant and without their consent. 

If someone commits a crime, they lose their freedom.  Being an addict is not an excuse.

12 hours ago, TheVat said:

Merely being homeless is not a crime.  Nor is mental illness and addiction, unless it leads to specific chargeable offenses.  And "rural, government supervised camp" sounds disturbingly like a concentration camp.  Welcome, backward Uighurs!

Except I'm not proposing to incarcerate people due to their ethnicity, but rather due to criminal behavior.  So down goes your analogy.

12 hours ago, TheVat said:

It's not ethical that a wealthy society cannot provide public toilets, housing for the poor, and sufficient mental health services and social workers and medical care,  with this neglect leading to the result that people in dire circumstances have no choice but to "take over" public parks, grassy verges, sidewalks, riversides, etc.  

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.

12 hours ago, TheVat said:

It's not ethical that fat comfortable people in 2000+ sq ft houses with five tv screens and climate control and home security systems, sit around whining about the horrifying prospect of paying an extra percent in taxes to help people huddled out in the cold and shitting in some bushes and wondering when someone might sneak up and clonk them on the head and steal what little they have.

 

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.  

Edited February 24, 2023 by Alex_Krycek

[Peterkin]

So... the solution to homeless drug addiction is concentration camps.

Buildings, furnishings, water, sewer and power would have to be laid on. Food supplied. Staff hired.* Security measures built in: barbed wire, alarms, guards, tracking dogs - or maybe the inmates could be microchipped, right after the delousing. 

Obviously, after the entire law-enforcement budget has been used up to acquire the land and build the facilities, there wouldn't be any resources for individual or even mass trials. A classification of citizens would be criminalized without distinctions or hearings.

And then rounded up. Only, of course, the police who did the rounding up would have to tell which of the homeless people are drug addicts and which are just unsteady on their feet from hunger, and decide whether the heroin, meth and crack addicts belong in the same camp with the winos. If a few sociology students who were just distributing blankets happen to be caught up in a raid, oh well, they probably had a joint or two in their pockets.

Of course, all the alcoholics, coke users, opioid addicts and ritalin abusers who are currently housed would be immune from incarceration by the signal virtue of not yet being destitute, and could continue to support the legal and marginally respectable drug industries. 

But, of course, the illicit drug manufacturing, importing and distribution sector would be very hard hit financially, and forced to turn to other kinds of crime.

And all the people who are homeless for reasons other than addiction would still be on the street, assuming the police could tell them apart from the addicts.

 * Or, we could just provide the housing, without the maximum security. Long as we're in the country, how about a few plots of land to grow vegetables? And a daycare center for the children? Or, we could just treat people better in the first place, so they don't turn to drugs for escape.     

Edited February 24, 2023 by Peterkin

[Genady]

10 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

So... the solution to homeless drug addiction is concentration camps.

Buildings, furnishings, water, sewer and power would have to be laid on. Food supplied. Staff hired.* Security measures built in: barbed wire, alarms, guards, tracking dogs - or maybe the inmates could be microchipped, right after the delousing. 

Obviously, after the entire law-enforcement budget has been used up to acquire the land and build the facilities, there wouldn't be any resources for individual or even mass trials. A classification of citizens would be criminalized without distinctions or hearings.

And then rounded up. Only, of course, the police who did the rounding up would have to tell which of the homeless people are drug addicts and which are just unsteady on their feet from hunger, and decide whether the heroin, meth and crack addicts belong in the same camp with the winos. If a few sociology students who were just distributing blankets happen to be caught up in a raid, oh well, they probably had a joint or two in their pockets.

Of course, all the alcoholics, coke users, opioid addicts and ritalin abusers who are currently housed would be immune from incarceration by the signal virtue of not yet being destitute, and could continue to support the legal and marginally respectable drug industries. 

But, of course, the illicit drug manufacturing, importing and distribution sector would be very hard hit financially, and forced to turn to other kinds of crime.

And all the people who are homeless for reasons other than addiction would still be on the street, assuming the police could tell them apart from the addicts.

Nice picture. And it's just a beginning. +1

[Moontanman]

Are we assuming that all the homeless are drug addicts or are we going separate out the drug addicted from the just homeless and put them in separate but equal concentration camps?  

Edited February 24, 2023 by Moontanman

[Alex_Krycek]

22 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Or, we could just provide the housing, without the maximum security. Long as we're in the country, how about a few plots of land to grow vegetables? And a daycare center for the children? Or, we could just treat people better in the first place, so they don't turn to drugs for escape.     

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.  

[zapatos]

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?

[Peterkin]

3 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

What fantasy world are you living in where you think drug addicts care about these things?

Evidently, a less dystopian one than yours.

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

What fantasy world are you living in where you think drug addicts care about these things?

 

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

[Peterkin]

5 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

And as for the camps, if the convicted drug addict prefers prison,

And you have found the public funds to hold individual trials for the newly-instituted crime of addiction? What's the wait-time for a court appearance? Have you lined up the advocates for both prosecution and defence?

[TheVat]

52 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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. 

This appears to contradict your OP proposal.  If you believe your comment is true, then forcibly herding addicts into camps would not work at all.   

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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.

Homeless people form encampments for multiple reasons.  Those actually committing felonies should be arrested - that's not in dispute.  The question is what to do for those who are just sick and need treatment, and this is where cities do not generally have "plenty of resources" or off-street residential options.  Perhaps more hard data is needed here before you make further assertions. 

[Alex_Krycek]

13 minutes ago, zapatos said:

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

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.  

[iNow]

Well, we do have centuries of practice.

We rounded up black people from Africa for not meeting our personal biased standards. Nice cheap labor. Good for cotton profits. We rounded up Jews in Germany and surrounding countries for not meeting our personal biased standards. Nice easy scapegoats. Great way to bring people together… and gas them. We in the US seem to be similarly treating LGBTQ as somehow sub-human for not meeting our personal biased standards. The more we hate, the less we need to invest and grow.

Yep, people struggling with addiction and unable to navigate the system for finding housing are the obvious next step, but really we should just save time and money and shoot them where they sleep. No need pussyfooting around it with complex filters like “rounding up” and forcing into “camps” involuntarily. That’s just for the weak willed who lack the courage of their convictions. 

These people are garbage. Time to throw them out. They’re stinking up the place like vermin, bringing disease and dragging us down, no better than parasites. …

 

Do none of these points or obvious comparisons cause our OP pause? Did not this thread Godwin itself the moment it was submitted? Could’ve saved some bandwidth and time by just typing Sieg Heil instead. 

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, iNow said:

 

2 minutes ago, TheVat said:

This appears to contradict your OP proposal.  If you believe your comment is true, then forcibly herding addicts into camps would not work at all.   

Homeless people form encampments for multiple reasons.  Those actually committing felonies should be arrested - that's not in dispute.  The question is what to do for those who are just sick and need treatment, and this is where cities do not generally have "plenty of resources" or off-street residential options.  Perhaps more hard data is needed here before you make further assertions. 

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.