Should Homeless Addicts Be Removed From Cities?

[Genady]

1 minute ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Really?  Explain please.  Why should tax dollars, pounds, euros (insert your currency here) be spent primarily on things that do not benefit those that contributed?

I didn't say they should be spent primarily on anything. They should be spent on many different causes, such as climate, environment, scientific research, arts, public health, education, helping disadvantaged, etc. 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

In what way has my treatment of the subject been cartoonish or a caricature? 

Well, I'm guessing that you're employed, boss...

[Alex_Krycek]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Well, I'm guessing that you're employed, boss...

Right, so because I'm employed, my view towards homeless people must necessarily be cartoonish.   Great logic.  

[zapatos]

5 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Solution 1.  Lenient: offer the addicts drugs, safe spaces to shoot up, no enforcement against homeless encampments, free food and social services wherever the homeless addicts choose to set up shop.  Whatever the homeless addicts want, they get, regardless of the consequences to the nearby residents.  There are no conditions or expectations for when they will get clean.  This solution is fine for those who don't live or work near the problem since it doesn't affect their day to day life directly (as seems to be the case with most people participating in this thread).  

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

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Right, so because I'm employed, my view towards homeless people must necessarily be cartoonish.   Great logic.  

Well, it's certainly biased...

 

[Alex_Krycek]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

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

In what way am I not taking the thread seriously?  There are actual proponents of Solution 1, if that's what you're referring to.

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

In what way has my treatment of the subject been cartoonish or a caricature?  You seem to be implying this because you don't have a strong counter argument.

Why are you ignoring that for five pages now there’s been total and universal opposition to your proposals which run counter to basic human rights, human dignity, and due process protections?

The counter arguments have been made, as have deeply problematic historical comparisons, and this remains true even though you continue ignoring them. 

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, Alex_Krycek said:

In what way am I not taking the thread seriously?  There are actual proponents of Solution 1, if that's what you're referring to.

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

[iNow]

You’re an Ayn Rand type of libertarian, aren’t you? That’s the whole vibe here. 

[Alex_Krycek]

 

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Why are you ignoring that for five pages now there’s been total and universal opposition to your proposals which run counter to basic human rights, human dignity, and due process protections?

This isn't a popularity contest.  An argument lives or dies on its merits, and so far I have outlined clearly the merits of each premise of my argument. 

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

The counter arguments have been made, as have deeply problematic historical comparisons, and this remains true even though you continue ignoring them. 

Historical comparisons to Nazi concentration camps, which are grandiose non-sequiturs in the context of what we're talking about.  Equating remote treatment facilities for the homeless with Nazi death camps is the epitome of hubris.

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

You’re an Ayn Rand type of libertarian, aren’t you? That’s the whole vibe here. 

I'd align myself more as a Sanders Democrat actually.

Edited February 26, 2023 by Alex_Krycek

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 Equating remote treatment facilities for the homeless with Nazi death camps is the epitome of hubris.

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

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

An argument lives or dies on its merits, and so far I have outlined clearly the merits of each premise of my argument. 

The merits of eugenics is as specious as your argument... 🙄

[Alex_Krycek]

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

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

https://www.newsweek.com/norway-testing-free-heroin-program-improve-lives-drug-addicts-1069473

Give heroin to whoever needs it.  What could go wrong?

And the documentary I linked to in the OP recounts addicts who were given rooms to stay in, AND OFFERED DRUGS!  By the government employees who work there, no less.  The addict in the documentary said he had to leave, since he would have likely overdosed had he stayed in such a permissive environment.

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The merits of eugenics is as specious as your argument... 🙄

Provide homeless addicts with better treatment facilities that are more cost effective and efficient while actually solving the homeless problem that afflicts many urban areas.  What exactly is specious about that?  I doubt you can tell me.

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

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

Perhaps, but it would be an absurd analogy.  Comparing Jewish prisoners under the Nazi regime to homeless addicts who choose to enroll in a voluntary, government funded treatment facility in a remote area is an insult to the survivors of the Holocaust.

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

https://www.newsweek.com/norway-testing-free-heroin-program-improve-lives-drug-addicts-1069473

Give heroin to whoever needs it.  What could go wrong?

And the documentary I linked to in the OP recounts addicts who were given rooms to stay in, AND OFFERED DRUGS!  By the government employees who work there, no less.  The addict in the documentary said he had to leave, since he would have likely overdosed had he stayed in such a permissive environment.

Provide homeless addicts with better treatment facilities that are more cost effective and efficient while actually solving the homeless problem that afflicts many urban areas.  What exactly is specious about that?  I doubt you can tell me.

I doubt I can teach you anything, but it's worth a try...

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

enroll in a voluntary, government funded treatment facility in a remote area

This is different from the forced insertion of those people into those facilities that was outlined in the OP. There was nothing “voluntary” about it, and this is true even if given the “choice” of this or imprisonment.

Has your position now softened in the face of the universal condemnation it’s received?

[Alex_Krycek]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is different from the forced insertion of those people into those facilities that was outlined in the OP. There was nothing “voluntary” about it, and this is true even if given the “choice” of this or imprisonment.

Has your position now softened in the face of the universal condemnation it’s received?

I've clarified several times that my view is in alignment with the Sun Break ranch proposal I referenced earlier.  

Under that proposal the homeless would be given the option to go to a treatment facility like Sun Break, find other accommodation (such as staying with family or friends, or go to prison.  However camping on the street, loitering, shooting up in public, would no longer be tolerated.  

Edited February 26, 2023 by Alex_Krycek

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

A lot of people work hard for long hours for the money they have.

And the few people who have a lot more work no hours at all, just own the housing other people can't afford.

 

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

Taking tax money off people should be treated very seriously,

Oh, yes, here I agree. And so should letting people off paying their share be treated seriously.

 

6 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

So tell me again what's so wrong with Solution 3?

It's very expensive and complicated to do properly and fairly; much cheaper and easier to do it brutally and unjustly. Whom would you put in charge?

 

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Policies should primarily favor those who work.

I think so, too.

Quote

Americans with less than five-figure incomes pay an effective payroll tax rate of 14.1 percent, while those making seven-figure incomes or more pay just 1.9 percent.https://www.americanprogress.org/article/5-little-known-facts-about-taxes-and-inequality-in-america/

But then, of course, if working people can't afford the next rent hike and become homeless, it's harder and harder to keep their job, and having been arrested for vagrancy and held in custody, they lose the job, run out of money, have no transportation to get to their hearing on time, get re-arrested on outstanding warrants and lose in a police sweep even the little property they were able to rescue from the eviction, so now they haven't got a change of clothes to go to a job interview, or anyplace to shower and shave. He's easy prey for the dealer who hands out free samples of oblivion or relief, gets addicted, and now last month's working person is a menace to society, worth no tax dollars to save, but lots and lots of tax dollars to punish. 

40 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Comparing Jewish prisoners under the Nazi regime to homeless addicts who choose to enroll in a voluntary,

FTR I didn't say anything about Nazis. There are many concentration camps under various government regimes.

However, I don't see voluntary enrollment in the OP proposal to which I responded. Which was this:

Quote

Homeless addicts would be transported in buses to the camps after a clearing operation of homeless affected areas is carried out by police. 

Not unlike operations on strikers, political dissidents, protesting natives, university students and Japanese-American communities by previous US administrations. Not a nazi in sight - just police boots and guns!

Edited February 26, 2023 by Peterkin

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

homeless would be given the option to go to a treatment facility like Sun Break, find other accommodation (such as staying with family or friends, or go to prison.  However camping on the street, loitering, shooting up in public, would no longer be tolerated.  

And where in all of this is their due process offered? Where/how is it decided whether they “won’t be tolerated” versus them being exempt from the forced relocation you propose?

[MigL]

Equating Alex's plan with NAZI concentration camps or Jewish ghettos is a gross abuse of the 'slippery slope' argument.

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

And where in all of this is their due process offered? Where/how is it decided whether they “won’t be tolerated” versus them being exempt from the forced relocation you propose?

Really ? You have to ask ?
Where is 'due process' for women who could decide what to do with their own bodies last year, yet, are now criminals if they get an abortion ?
( because half a dozen SCJustices decided so )

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Perhaps, but it would be an absurd analogy.  Comparing Jewish prisoners under the Nazi regime to homeless addicts who choose to enroll in a voluntary, government funded treatment facility in a remote area is an insult to the survivors of the Holocaust.

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. 

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

https://www.newsweek.com/norway-testing-free-heroin-program-improve-lives-drug-addicts-1069473

Give heroin to whoever needs it.  What could go wrong?

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." 

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Under that proposal the homeless would be given the option to go to a treatment facility like Sun Break, find other accommodation (such as staying with family or friends, or go to prison. 

 Again I'll ask you to provide a legal argument that allows the possibility of going to prison without a trial.

 

41 minutes ago, MigL said:

Equating Alex's plan with NAZI concentration camps or Jewish ghettos is a gross abuse of the 'slippery slope' argument.

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." 

42 minutes ago, MigL said:

Really ? You have to ask ?
Where is 'due process' for women who could decide what to do with their own bodies last year, yet, are now criminals if they get an abortion ?
( because half a dozen SCJustices decided so )

That wasn't actually an answer to iNow's question.

19 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Where is 'due process' for women who could decide what to do with their own bodies last year, yet, are now criminals if they get an abortion ?

Contrary to your statement, women are not criminals just because they get an abortion. 

Edited February 26, 2023 by zapatos

[iNow]

40 minutes ago, MigL said:

Equating Alex's plan with NAZI concentration camps or Jewish ghettos is a gross abuse of the 'slippery slope' argument.

The overlap in this particular Venn diagram is significant, regardless of how hard or repeatedly you suggest we’re arguing slippery slopes. 

Want to fix homelessness? Offer homes. 

Want to address drug abuse? Great, use ideas that have been offered here and elsewhere. 

Forced imprisonment or forced relocation to distant camps away from civilization has precedent. Chinese Uighurs, Jews in ghettos, US Japanese citizens in WWII, Native American children being taken from parents for reeducation, European imperialists treatment of South Americans as savages, Putin throwing convicts at his illegal war of aggression to be used as cannon fodder…

The list goes on and on. People without homes and with substance abuse issues deserve better than the dehumanizing paternalistic obtuse horseshit being proposed here.

49 minutes ago, MigL said:

Where is 'due process' for women who could decide what to do with their own bodies last year, yet, are now criminals if they get an abortion ?

Where, indeed. But as that’s off topic here and also not a set of circumstances I’m here advocating it’s hard to see how this is anything more than a red herring. 

[TheVat]

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

And I don't blame them. A lot of people work hard for long hours for the money they have. And would prefer to spend it on themselves and their families, which was the reason they did work hard for long hours. And of course, we all have the future of old age, when having some savings means you can pay people to do what you are no longer able to do. And often people like to help out kids and grand-kids. 

Taking tax money off people should be treated very seriously, because people spend their own money carefully, but others are inclined to chuck tax money about without a care in the world. 

I'm replying to several posts here, concerning taxation.  We elect representatives in a democracy on the basis of what they do with tax revenue we pay in.  It's generally understood in the social contract that some public benefits are general - i.e. while they don't directly benefit us personally, they help maintain a better social environment - more educated and healthier citizens, safer streets, cleaner food and water, better transit, innovation, jobs with better working conditions, etc.  I find it amusing when people suggest in one breath that money towards homeless aid doesn't benefit them, and then in the next breath tell me how awful and dangerous homeless encampments are and how they fear to walk downtown.

Now that @Alex_Krycek has somewhat modified his OP plan towards the most benign interpretation of the Sunbreaker system (how this works legally remains of interest, but I'm open to it), it's worth remembering that such systems cost money, so the public will have to see that the general benefit I described above is real and leads to permanent affordable housing and stable life situations.  I'm glad others have pointed out how the especially dire housing shortage in USA (something like over 3 million units nationally) is at the core of the problem.  

14 hours ago, Peterkin said:

IOW - people can't afford to live in houses.

And many are what we call "fitness club homeless," out here.  They live in vehicles with a camper space or at least a cargo space which fits a bed, pay 25-50$ a month for the cheapest gym membership that gives you a locker, showers, and warm changing room.  They tend to use public toilets, or use a bucket inside their camper (like Frances McDormand in "Nomadland") which is discreetly emptied down a storm drain.  Such homeless (often employed) are less visible than the encampment homeless, but quite numerous. 

[zapatos]

10 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Now that @Alex_Krycek has somewhat modified his OP plan towards the most benign interpretation of the Sunbreaker system...

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.

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

the homeless would be given the option to go to a treatment facility like Sun Break, find other accommodation (such as staying with family or friends, or go to prison.

 

[TheVat]

36 minutes ago, zapatos said:

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 remain unclear on the legal process (sounds sorta like the pretrial diversion  often used for at-risk teens), but am willing to explore the possibilities that preserve due process.  The court would have to issue a warrant and the homeless person would, on apprehension, have someone (social worker, e.g.) who insures they are understanding the Sunbreak facility is an alternative to prosecution they can choose, that they are only committed to a trial period there (72 hours, say), and that they may then leave with no police record of any kind or threat of further prosecution (unless they re-offend).  Also, Sunbreak should be for nonviolent offenders.  Violent offenders require a different approach and level of security, and realistically would have to face prosecution if it's a serious offense.  

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by TheVat
grrr

[zapatos]

8 minutes ago, TheVat said:

The court would have to issue a warrant and the homeless person would, on apprehension, have someone (social worker, e.g.) who insures they are understanding the Sunbreak facility is an alternative to prosecution they can choose,

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