Should Homeless Addicts Be Removed From Cities?

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, Alex_Krycek said:

If your brother isn't driven to crime due to his problem, he shouldn't face incarceration. 

 

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?

[Markus Hanke]

10 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

From the addiction recovery stories I have read and watched

Have you ever actually worked in the area of addiction recovery or homelessness?

13 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Your approach may appear to be one of compassion, deeper understanding and sympathy

Yes, that’s my vocation.

I am simply attempting to point out that your understanding of this issue is inadequate, because you cannot simply equate addiction with physical dependency. It’s a far more complex issue, and continuing to ignore this basic fact will not be helpful in developing effective policies - which is ultimately what we all want.

13 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

but actually it is one of enablement that harms the addicts instead of helping them.

I disagree. We have been criminalising drug use and waging a “war on drugs” for at least the past 40+ years, to no avail whatsoever. If anything, the problem is now far worse than it ever was, despite the heavy-handed approach of authorities in the US and elsewhere. To give another example, I have just spend 1+ year in Thailand, and they have mandatory death sentences if you are caught with more than a certain amount of drugs on your person. It’s also common practice there to force addicts into “reeducation camps”. The result? The place remains awash with drugs of all kinds - if you think the problem is bad in the US, it’s far far worse in Thailand, by orders of magnitude.

Clearly, you won’t dissuade people from using by threatening them with punitive measures, or putting them forcibly through detox programs. There is not a single data point (that I am aware of) that supports the efficacy of such an approach, but plenty of data to suggest it doesn’t work.

28 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

In fact, the approach I suggested is already taking place in many cities where addicts are given a choice of rehab or jail.

This has been the standard in many jurisdictions around Europe for quite some time. Again, it did not solve the problem - the drug problem in many places in Europe is still bad.

37 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Having "no control" has never been a legitimate excuse to commit a crime.

No one here said anything about not punishing people who have committed crimes. Of course, if someone commits a crime they need to be held accountable, irrespective of whether they are addicts or homeless or whatever else. What you are suggesting though is something quite different - you want to forcibly commit people into camps purely on suspicion that they might at some point in the future commit a crime, solely based on their status as being homeless and/or addicts. Preventative incarceration, is what I’d term this - please don’t try to window-dress this as “helping the addicts”, because that is deeply disingenuous.

I’m sorry, but this is simply not ok. Luckily I have enough trust in our democratic institutions to be reasonably sure that such a thing will not happen anytime soon - even if there was data available to show that this would actually solve the problem, which of course there isn’t. 

Personally though I must say I am quite horrified that anyone would even suggest such a thing in all earnestness. I am German by birth, and at one time not too long ago a government of my country sent people into camps based on their ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, political conviction, and even mental/physical health status. We all know how that turned out. Do we as human beings really forget so quickly?

55 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

How is your policy of enablement fair to them

If I was to suggest a policy it would be roughly along the lines of:

1. Take drug consumption off the streets by providing safe, supervised and hygienic injection and usage facilities - harm reduction as a first step!

2. Address the problem of homelessness through policies that directly tackle the issue of poverty, income inequality, and lack of social mobility. So long as you facilitate an economic system where large numbers of people work full time jobs and yet remain near or under the poverty line, your drug problem isn’t going to go away, like ever.

3. Make substances available to those addicts who need them in a controlled and safe fashion, as part of a public health program - this stops the flow of money to drug cartels, cutting off much of the large-scale organised criminality that flourishes around addiction. Once addicts are within a public health network, it will be easier to help them with further therapeutic measures

4. Provide proper education around drugs to our kids - “just don’t take them” evidently doesn’t cut it!

5. Completely decriminalise possession of small quantities for personal use

This is neither exhaustive nor complete, just a rough outline. All in all, I’d advocate a radical shift away from a punitive towards a public health approach - simply because the punitive approach has already proven itself to simply not work. Only a fool would continue to do the same thing over and over, and expect different results somehow.

So I stand by what I said earlier - a complete paradigm shift is needed, because the current paradigm has failed us, and quite badly so. 

[zapatos]

8 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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.  

And thus your solution is imprison them whether they commit a crime or not?!?! It is your proposal that deserves the moniker "insane".

7 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Personally though I must say I am quite horrified that anyone would even suggest such a thing in all earnestness.

As am I. This is quite unbelievable outside of certain far-right rallies.

[Alex_Krycek]

20 minutes ago, zapatos said:

And thus your solution is imprison them whether they commit a crime or not?!?! It is your proposal that deserves the moniker "insane".

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.

 

 

 

27 minutes ago, zapatos said:

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?

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.

  

27 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

I am German by birth, and at one time not too long ago a government of my country sent people into camps based on their ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, political conviction, and even mental/physical health status. We all know how that turned out. Do we as human beings really forget so quickly?

 

 

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.   

Edited February 24, 2023 by Alex_Krycek

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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.

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.

6 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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

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. 

19 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

But an opioid addiction is a particularly dangerous type of problem that produces a particularly dangerous type of addict.

Citation? 

 

10 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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? 

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.

[TheVat]

46 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

If I was to suggest a policy it would be roughly along the lines of:

Just wanted to shout "plus one" from a rooftop.  Nice to hear from someone with actual work experience that relates to the topic.

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

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. 

The Fourth amendment, as well as Article I, and the Fourteenth, is going to make that part tricky. 

Edited February 24, 2023 by TheVat
adds

[MigL]

25 minutes ago, zapatos said:

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. 

Minority Report ???

Seriously the death rate among the homeless in Vancouver has jumped 75% after 5 years of high, but steady numbers , for 2021.
This isn't working either.

A lot of homeless drug addicts prefer to live in tent cities ( even my town of 135000 has several ) because they are easily serviced by their supplier.
All shelters have a 'No Drugs' policy, and while this is fine in the summer, Canadian winters can be brutal.
I would imagine quite a few freeze to death on the streets of Edmonton, Winnipeg or Toronto.

This being a mental health issue, or at least, a 'state of mind' issue, would the compassionate thing to do be rounding them up and sheltering them indoors.
At least for those nghts when temps are expected to fall below -5^o C.

Or am I being a NAZI ?

Edited February 24, 2023 by MigL

[Alex_Krycek]

20 minutes ago, zapatos said:

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.

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?

20 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

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.)

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.

20 minutes ago, zapatos said:

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.

If they have a track record of crime, homelessness, and drug addiction, it arguable they should have a choice.

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Minority Report ???

Seriously the death rate among the homeless in Vancouver has jumped 75% after 5 years of high, but steady numbers , for 2021.
This isn't working either.

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.

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

A lot of homeless drug addicts prefer to live in tent cities ( even my town of 135000 has several ) because they are easily serviced by their supplier.

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.

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

All shelters have a 'No Drugs' policy, and while this is fine in the summer, but Canadian winters can be brutal.
I would imagine quite a few freeze to death on the streets of Edmonton, Winnipeg or Toronto.

This being a mental health issue, or at least, a 'state of mind' issue, would the compassionate thing to do be rounding them up and sheltering them indoors.
At least for those nghts when temps are expected to fall below -5^o C.

Makes sense to me.

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Or am I being a NAZI ?

You're confronting the facts and presenting actual, concrete solutions, so apparently that qualifies you as one.

[MigL]

11 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

You're confronting the facts and presenting actual, concrete solutions, so apparently that qualifies you as one.

I'm not convinced of your idea either, but I'm open to discussing it.
And this is a discussion forum, and as such, it is intended for discussing ideas, without fear of being called names, or labelled.
This is done with reasoned, valid arguments, not insults and down-votes.

[swansont]

43 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

So why not make further decisions on where exactly homeless addicts can reside? 

Because of the 14th amendment, perhaps? “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

What enumerated power would let the government do this?

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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.

Alcatraz would likely be better. There, they have to swim!

[zapatos]

47 minutes ago, MigL said:

This being a mental health issue, or at least, a 'state of mind' issue, would the compassionate thing to do be rounding them up and sheltering them indoors.
At least for those nghts when temps are expected to fall below -5^o C.

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.

47 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

So why not make further decisions on where exactly homeless addicts can reside? 

Mainly because your proposal goes beyond that. You want to force them into those ghettos.

[Peterkin]

If enough safe shelters exist, people will take advantage of those shelters.

Just build those, make help available in physical and mental health, rehabilitation, education and employment.

Save a ton of money on police overtime, court costs and barbed wire.

[zapatos]

50 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Otherwise the police will just continue to run them from place to place

Sometimes being a public servant is not all fun and games.

52 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Surely a more settled type of accommodation with food and sanitation would be better for them?

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?

55 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

If they have a track record of crime, homelessness, and drug addiction, it arguable they should have a choice.

Okay. Let's hear your legal argument for imprisoning someone for being homeless, being an addict, and having a record.

56 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I don't see how it's ethical and compassionate to provide addicts with free reign to overdose and kill themselves.

Ah, so it is compassion that is driving your proposal. Originally it sounded like you were trying to protect the general population.

58 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

not to mention assault a passerby and steal their cellphone when they're out of cash.

Either provide a citation or quit making the claim. You're beginning to sound like a bigot.

59 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

You're confronting the facts and presenting actual, concrete solutions, so apparently that qualifies you as one.

I can't believe you are calling MigL a Nazi. No one else here has done that.

 

42 minutes ago, MigL said:

This is done with reasoned, valid arguments, not insults and down-votes.

Thanks mom.

[iNow]

54 minutes ago, iNow said:

Alcatraz would likely be better. There, they have to swim!

On second thought, send them to Australia!! That’s the ticket! 

THEM. 

That word alone is part of the problem.

[John Cuthber]

17 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

So far the corrective approach has been sorely lacking - one of tolerance and non-intervention,

How many are in jail as a result of this tolerance and non-intervention?

The big problem  is not drugs, nor addiction.
The big problem is that drug use is illegal.

 

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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.

Where?

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Cities already make legal decisions as to where the homeless can and cannot reside

If there's somewhere you reside, it's your home.
Homeless people do not have a residence.

Did you think this topic through before you posted?

[joigus]

My answer would be a resounding 'no' based on reasons pretty much pointed out by other members. I have little much significant to add to what, eg, Markus has said.

If anything, it strikes me as a sample of our most primitive instincts hijacking our reason under the guise of being a 'rational' solution. It's essentially what our traditional approach to garbage has been throughout centuries: Round it up and put it away, I don't wanna see it anywhere near me. 

[MigL]

Contrary to what Peterkin advocates, building more shelters does not work; many shelter are only half full.
The 'shelter or blanket' approach suggested by Zap seems more sensible, but requires many volunteers driving around in vans on those cold nights.

However, I'm not sure what's worse; being called a NAZI, or a 'mom'.
But as long as INow is offering; I'll take that trip to Auustralia.

[sethoflagos]

The OP has a lot in common with official policy of at least one leading democracy.

Vilify and demonise a particular minority to sway the majority away from supporting progressive social policies toward them.

Criminalise their very existence.

Deny them proper and timely legal process to have their legitimacy assessed.

'Transport' them to the safe, caring comforts of Rwanda where they will be 'taken care of'.

 

 

[TheVat]

50 minutes ago, MigL said:

However, I'm not sure what's worse; being called a NAZI, or a 'mom'.

Really, you're unsure about this?  By all means, let's consider the relative merits of Nazis and...mothers.

😏

[CharonY]

I think Markus explained very well why the proposal just would not solve the issue and others have chimed in on the legal ramifications. Now if we want to move into the realm of realistic solutions, there are studies on it that we can turn to, rather than trying tried and failed brute force methods. 

One of the key elements that Markus described is instilling motivation for change. We do know that force does not work. In fact, it may be very well what created a situation that benefits addiction in the first place. In Europe and Canada, there have been "housing first" initiatives, which aims to provide housing, not shelters and use that as a leverage to address e.g. substance abuse or mental illness.

It is likely not a perfect solution, but it was found to be at least competitive in cost compared to other initiatives (especially when medical costs are considered) and compared to other measures shows at least trends in the right direction in terms of most indices (i.e. homelessness, health outcomes etc.). It does not work equally well for everyone, but it does move the needle in the right direction.

On the other hand, even using historic knowledge using force on people for their own good on that scale and without individual consultations and deliberations has mostly resulted in trauma and even atrocities. I also note that OP has not shown any evidence how that has helped in the past, while others have mentioned negative outcomes.

And this is fundamentally an issue if we deal with vulnerable or powerless populations using very simplified reasoning. This line of thought does not really take their perspective and trajectory into account, but it is strictly top-down level of thinking. If we remove them and do something magically it will all better, though what really changes is that one does not need to deal with them anymore. This magical thinking is of course only harmful to the people affected which unfortunately makes it very popular. 

We see similar reasoning for dealing with asylum seekers, folks tried to "help" folks by kidnapping kids into residential schools and/or forced adoptions, folks still try to coerce folks into unneeded medical procedures. The issue is that even if intentions were good (which at times is clearly disputable), it uses a very limited perspective of us vs them, assuming that our perspective and experience is the norm and if we forced everyone into that line, they would improve. Clearly this is not the case and betrays as rather limited perspective on the complexity of the matter.

[Genady]

Here is one of THEM: VINCENT VAN GOGH (1853‐90)* ARTIST AND ADDICT - BETT - 1954 - British Journal of Addiction to Alcohol & Other Drugs - Wiley Online Library

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Contrary to what Peterkin advocates, building more shelters does not work; many shelter are only half full.

Which ones?

Quote

A.J. Withers, a member of IMPACT, Information Mobilization for Public Accountability Collective Toronto, a grassroots collective that believes in the importance of public knowledge to lay the groundwork for social justice, said on Wednesday that the number of people denied shelter is appalling and the system is beyond a crisis point now.https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/city-data-average-number-no-shelter-bed-toronto-1.6540647

Quote

The shelters are at full capacity in Vancouver and Fraser Valley as temperatures in B.C. plummet. This dramatic drop in temperature is especially harsh for Vancouver’s homeless population.https://www.aptnnews.ca/featured/vancouvers-homeless-population-rises-as-temperatures-drop/

Quote

As high demand in admission at homeless shelters increase, CEO and President of the Old Brewery Mission, James Hughes, is worried for those unable to get access “they’re topped out, there’s no place left.”https://montreal.citynews.ca/2022/07/20/montreal-homeless-extreme-heat/

Quote

These critical services are being stretched to the breaking point. Space is scarce as shelters try to find room for people who have tested positive for COVID-19 and need to self-isolate, as well as safely accommodate those who don't have COVID-19. Staff and volunteer shortages are taking their toll on an already struggling system. Extra support available at the start of the pandemic has been scaled down, leaving shelters ill-equipped to respond to the new surge. As a result, many shelters are being forced to operate over capacity or turn people away. People experiencing homelessness have resorted to sheltering in outdoor encampments, whether by choice or necessity.https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/en/resources/unsafe-conditions-people-experiencing-homelessness-a-pressing-human-rights-issue

I know, I know, they've made bad choices....

[iNow]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

On second thought, send them to Australia!! That’s the ticket! 

THEM. 

That word alone is part of the problem.

On third thought!!… They should be conscripted and forcibly sent to the front lines and used to wipe out the maximum amount of Ukrainian soldiers as a  Wave 1, then the “real” troops can follow as a Wave 2 on top of the homeless addicts piles of bodies. 

4 hours ago, MigL said:

But as long as INow is offering; I'll take that trip to Auustralia.

You’ll have to ask Alex for funding. It’s his idea. Just watch out. These rural camps in the mountains may not be entirely safe. 

[MigL]

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Which ones?

City of Toronto has the largest homeless population in Canada. As a result, their shelter situation is at near or full capacity according to the following data

Daily Shelter & Overnight Service Usage – City of Toronto

Other cities, having less homeless, have lower occupancy rates.

7 hours ago, TheVat said:

Really, you're unsure about this?  By all means, let's consider the relative merits of Nazis and...mothers.

You don't have a funny bone, do you ?

4 hours ago, iNow said:

Just watch out. These rural camps in the mountains may not be entirely safe.

I don't care; the weather has got to be better than here.