Addiction is a huge factor in homelessness
A lot of articles on homelessness focus on factors such as unaffordable housing, and zoning laws that make it hard to build in certain cities. Weather’s certainly important, too, as well as permissive laws that make living in tent encampments on the streets non-actionable.
But an enormous factor in homelessness is addition to drugs such as fentanyl:
Homelessness is an addiction crisis disguised as a housing crisis. In Seattle, prosecutors and law enforcement recently estimated that the majority of the region’s homeless population is hooked on opioids, including heroin and fentanyl…For the unsheltered population inhabiting tents, cars, and RVs, the opioid-addiction percentages are even higher—the City of Seattle’s homeless-outreach team estimates that 80 percent of the unsheltered population has a substance-abuse disorder.
The obvious question is how do all these addicted homeless people find the money to support their habits? The obvious answer:
…[T]he average heavy-opioid user consumes $1,834 in drugs per month…West Coast cities are seeing a crime spike associated with homeless opioid addicts.
The article goes on to point out that if a city would deal with its growing homeless population it needs to stop denying the enormity and centrality of the drug problems of the homeless. But many West Coast cities are engaged in such minimizing.
But even if those in charge of these cities were to freely acknowledge the scope of the problem, it’s not as though we know how to treat drug addiction with enormous success, particularly in this population, which also has high degrees of mental illness, and alcoholism as well.
I have to say it’s a tremendously depressing situation. I ordinarily go to the West Coast at least once a year, and it’s disturbing and painful to see what’s happened there, and extraordinarily difficult to even think of a solution that might actually work. But it seems to me that the first step is not closing our eyes to the reality, and yet that’s what appears to be happening to a great extent.
Neo: ” I ordinarily go to the West Coast at least once a year, and it’s disturbing and painful to see what’s happened there, and extraordinarily difficult to even think of a solution that might actually work. But it seems to me that the first step is not closing our eyes to the reality, and yet that’s what appears to be happening to a great extent.”
A solution, which would not be cheap, but eventually, it would decrease the number of addicts and mentally ill on the streets.
!.Reopen the old mental hospitals where the mentally ill can receive the care they need plus food ad shelter. Enact safeguards to prevent people who are merely “odd” from being sent to such places. Recognize that mental illness is an disease that needs to be treated and it is compassionate to put people in institutes where they can get proper treatment as opposed to living on the streets.
2. Open detox centers in rural areas where the addicts can be detoxed and put to work caring for farm animals. (Chickens, pigs, cows, sheep, goats, amd horses.) Try to transition them back to a drug free life. People would be allowed two tries at detox. The third time would mean life in prison – a prison where the inmates do simple manufacturing jobs to earn their keep. Eventual parole could be earned at an advanced age.
3. Pass laws against public nuisances such as camping on streets, defecating or peeing on the streets, begging, theft, or assaulting pedestrians. Enforce them rigidly.
4. Teach school children the consequences of drug/alcohol addiction – two tries at detox and then prison for a long time.
It won’t happen, but it would decrease the homeless problem and would improve our society.
It’s not a crisis, it’s a condition. In a free society, some people will fail spectacularly at the art of living. For most of the 500,000 or so vagrants in this country, that’s the deal. There’s a minority among them who are properly subject to civil commitment and maintenance in an asylum. For the rest, private philanthropy maintaining shelters and soup kitchens and food cupboards will have to do; the problem is at such a modest scale that private charity can handle it. You can assist some of the high-functioning among them to do what they can to re-enter the world of work and fixed addresses, but it being skid row you’ll fail and fail. Local police can provide security at shelters, roust people for loitering, and arrest people for public drunkenness, possession, harassment, and disorderly conduct. JP’s can quite shilly-shallying and put such people in jail for what the law allows, and maybe some of the learn to be less obtrusive.
It should be noted that federal intervention is completely unnecessary to address this problem and that state intervention can be limited to enacting certain provision in the state penal code and financing custodial care for those among the vagrant population who qualify for it. Other than that, local ministries working with local police can contain these problems.
Reopen the old mental hospitals where the mentally ill can receive the care they need
1. You do not need state facilities except for people who have criminal convictions. State financing of philanthropic agencies will do.
2. It’s a reasonable wager that the vast majority wouldn’t qualify for custodial care.
3. Most people who’ve had schizophreniform episodes aren’t candidates for indefinite custodial care. Given the expense of 24 hour care, you do not want to make use of it promiscuously.
4. The demented already have a place in nursing homes and group homes.
and extraordinarily difficult to even think of a solution that might actually work.
You can’t cure the human condition. You can contain certain problems. Just don’t put chumps like Bill di Blasio in charge of anything.
I keep seeing people saying how much of a horrendous failure the government’s “War On Drugs” has been, how it has had the unanticipated consequence of having all sorts of otherwise law-abiding, non-violent people–who just happened to have some drugs on them when a cop stops them–being incarcerated, with blacks being the hardest hit.
The often unspoken corrolary being that the government should just abandon its efforts to stop drug use and dealing, and that drugs should just be legalized, as if that will solve the problem.
Given the widespread destruction that drug use so evidently causes—not only to the users themselves, but to their family members, friends, and those all-around them, to the society at large—can anyone honestly maintain that drug use is a good thing?
Because that seems to be the subtext of calls to just abandon any enforcement actions at all.
And then, what about the nations behind the manufacture of drugs, their task to weaken the West and our country—China chief among them? What about the drug cartels?
Should all of these maleficent actors have free rein, should they continue to poison our citizens, rake in billions of dollars, and get stronger and stronger?
By the way, I’ve seen it speculated that the reason that members of Congress are so obviously and extraordinarily sitting on their hands, and not taking any action to deal with the invasion on our southern border, is that the Democrat Party, Congressional Democrats, and substantial numbers Congressional Republicans are heeding, not their ordinary constituents, but their major donors, who want the inflow to continue—more potential Democrat voters, cheap labor, etc.
One further speculation I’ve seen recently is that among those major donors are the drug cartels, who do not want to see their profits from human trafficking, drug smuggling and sales substantially decline.
Something to think about.
Two cracks at libertarianism I’ve long enjoyed: “An ideology for people without children” and “applied autism”.
In addition to some of the solutions advocated by JJ above, my proposal—painful as it might be–would be to double down on drug enforcement actions, on the theory that any reduction of this problem is a win for individuals in general and for our society; is good for our social cohesion.
And a word about all those “otherwise law-abiding people who end up in jail ‘caus they just have a little weed on them or in their car.”
Take a couple of hours one Friday or Saturday night, tune in to LIVE PD on the A & E network, watch live as police around the nation go about their business, and you’ll soon notice that most of their “business” on this show occurs as the result of traffic stops; traffic stops for reckless driving, for speeding, for not signalling or improper lane changes, for not wearing a seat belt, for defective tail or headlights, for missing or fake tags, etc.
You’ll soon notice some patterns among those stopped.
First, a lot of those stopped turn out to have no drivers license and/or no insurance, or their license has been suspended, sometimes multiple times.
Quite often they are “impaired” by drink or drugs or both.
Next, I’d say that around 70-80% of those stopped have some kind of drugs on them and/or in their cars, and fairly frequently there is a gun–usually loaded, with one in the chamber–in the car–very often a stolen gun.
Very often, as well, those stopped who have drugs in their possession also have outstanding, sometimes multiple outstanding warrants.
Somewhat frequently the cops also find things like large amounts of cash, scales, and a lot of plastic bags, indications that that person they have stopped is not just a user, but is also selling drugs; is a dope dealer.
Surveying those stopped with drugs, they do not seem to fit the “otherwise law-abiding people who just happen to have some weed on them when a cop stops them” profile, people whose incarceration is often mentioned as one of the horrific unintended side effects of the government’s War on Drugs.
It could be argued that the eight or so police departments LIVE PD follows each Friday and Saturday night, in eight different states around the country, are police departments specifically chosen because they are located in especially high crime and drug areas, since those have a higher chance of generating “exciting” TV.
But the large geographic spread of these police departments makes me think that what they are encountering is the indication that this is major, fairly ubiquitous problem, and a nationwide problem.
It could be argued that the eight or so police departments LIVE PD follows each Friday and Saturday night, in eight different states around the country, are police departments specifically chosen because they are located in especially high crime and drug areas,
I’m going to guess they were chosen because they produce raw material for engaging entertainment, whatever it is. The little time I’ve spent viewing such programs, it seems to me they don’t emphasize severe crime, but a tapestry of the police officer’s experience in a locus, editing out the more tedious elements.
There are lowlifes everywhere. The appeal of such programs is two-fold. Police officers are commonly people one can readily admire, and the producers of these programs know how to pick ’em. The other is the fascination / amusement incorporated into seeing these men interact with lowlifes.
We could do in this world with more order and respectability than we have. You have an irriducible quantum of failure, of shabbiness, of mordant comedy, of dismay, and, on select occasions, horror. A co-worker of mine once said “I like problems much better than I do issues. Problems have discrete solutions. Issues go on and on.”. Police officers might address a discrete problem, but, ultimately their work is an address to our issues, not our problems.
“The only reward for putting up with craziness is more craziness.” Thomas Sowell
Los Angeles spends a fortune on the “homeless situation”. There is a direct correlation to the money spent and the rise of homelessness which is indeed tied to mental illness AND drug-induced mental illness. It is the latter that accounts for the giant spike in homelessness. Public-assistance money spent on drugs is driving this situation. We are funding it, big time! I’ve observed this descent into madness over the last 10 years from the picture window in my office that overlooks a ramp of the 405 freeway in Van Nuys.
As I understand it, along with the program to de-institutionalize mental patients, there were also actions taken–on a national basis–to liberalize laws allowing forced institutionalization, so as to make it a lot harder to do.
In addition, another part of this whole effort was also the elimination of laws/policies that had formerly allowed police to stop loitering, to tell people to “move along,” and to sometimes lock such vagrants up for a few days.
Thus, any attempt to try to solve the growing homeless/tent encampment problem must also include re-institution of laws and ordinances against loitering and vagrancy and their enforcement by police.
I don’t see that happening anytime soon unless the is, say, a mass outbreak of communicable disease that spreads to the general populace, or some other precipitating event.
Seattle, the home of the wealthy and the elite, spends $100,000 per year per homeless person. And each druggie homeless spends $22,000 per year on average on drugs (not on medicines!).
A couple of years ago I even saw a story saying that each year–I believe it was San Francisco–which paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in rent and electricity for the cost of huge refrigerated trailers that contained the stolen shopping carts containing homeless people’s belongings that they picked up off the street and held for them for a year or so, just in case they came looking for their “stuff.”,.
Now wasn’t that a wise expenditure of taxpayer dollars?
One possible solution is evident: return state lunatic asylums, where half of the homeless certainly belong. There are cases of senile dementia, sluggish schizophrenia, late stages of alcoholic degradation and so on. Some are just mentally retarded and cannot normally socialize. All such people need help from shrinks and other services which is impossible to provide while they are invisible in the shadows.
One possible solution is evident: return state lunatic asylums, where half of the homeless certainly belong.
In your imagination only. See here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12059843
Los Angeles spends a fortune on the “homeless situation”.
According to the Census Bureau, those ensconced in emergency shelters in LA in 2010 numbered about 6,000. The Census Bureau’s best estimate is that about 1/3 of the vagrant population are not to be found in shelters at any one time. Food consumption per person in this country is about $3,300 per year on average. Personal consumption per capita on housing is about $7,600 a year. We’re talking about a cell with a bunk bed in it, so cut that datum by 2/3. You’ll have some costs from staffing, but also a great deal of donated labor. You’re talking about a price tag of about $65 million a year to provide food and shelter, or about $5 per person per year in greater LA. The local churches can handle that. What they cannot handle is Medicaid charges (which are out of the budget of the state government) and the cost of police protection and security at these shelters (which the local government can and should assume).
Those advocating institutionalization of some sort are also advocating (whether they know it or not) involuntary institutionalization amounting to a sort of imprisonment. I say that because a huge percentage of the present-day homeless refuse shelters and the like, and would have to be involuntarily committed, perhaps indefinitely. To me that seems to be a big problem, a problem of a different sort than street people but a problem nevertheless.
In terms of treatment for substance abuse and/or mental illness, if done involuntarily, gains are difficult to achieve and often temporary, with relapses once the person is released.
Freedom for adults means, also, the freedom to ruin your own life.
Aid without strings will encourage more folk to just be homeless drug addicts, living where the weather is nice and the living is easy.
Aid with strings means, essentially, less freedom for those who choose to be irresponsible.
Starting out with offering low cost bunks in military barracks/ dorm rooms, with a nearby communal toilet / shower area, and a voluntary detox, plus other treatment.
There has long been an argument about “deserving poor”, and “undeserving poor”. All poor should be allowed some treated like they are deserving, willing and able to make responsible decisions, given reasonable help.
There will be many for whom reasonable help will not be “enough”. They need to become identified as the undeserving poor, who choose to be irresponsible.
Such folk should be “drafted” into a National Service program which takes care of them, but also gives them work to do, with some minimum stay of 3 months or so, but allowing those who want to stay longer to stay longer.
Allowing and requiring — what should the underserving irresponsible folk be allowed to do, how to live; what should they be required to do? Should be state decisions; loitering, vagrancy, public nuisance (pooping) laws are all local. But it doesn’t seem like there is even a real conversation about the borders of the problems.
What should be done, by gov’t or by others, with mentally ill folk who do NOT want to be in any institution? Yet who refuse to be polite in public.
Such folk should be “drafted” into a National Service program which takes care of them, but also gives them work to do, with some minimum stay of 3 months or so, but allowing those who want to stay longer to stay longer.
Corvee labor for 90 days as a penalty for loitering. Sounds Georgia peachy keen.
The Bell Curve illustrates what appears to be an inevitable fact of life—most people inhabit the middle—and there are always going to be outliers at each extreme.
To state the core problem—just how much are the majority of people, positioned in the middle—who do go to work each day, follow the rules, and pay taxes—willing to stand for from outliers, people who do not go to work each day, who don’t and/or refuse to follow the rules, or pay taxes, but who live on the street, are an increasing vector for disease, often a source of crime, and a general nuisance.
In essence, what sort and level of “duty”—if any—do the vast majority of the ordinary citizens in the middle of that Bell Curve have to those outliers who can’t or won’t play by the rules?
Where to draw the line between “do unto others” and “survival of the fittest,” with the aim of not being taken advantage of, and becoming a “patsy”?
Lunatic asylums exist not for benefit of inmates, but mainly for protection of society at large. Some balance between restriction of rights of the freaks and the necessity to keep cities safe and clean is obviously needed.
With some exceptions (see the link), they’re not lunatics. They’re pests (now and again). There are disputes about the number of vagrants there are in this country (the Census Bureau thought about 550,000 in 2010), but the thesis that they are (in context) a ‘growing’ problem (rather than a persistent issue) is difficult to demonstrate.
In essence, what sort and level of “duty”—if any—do the vast majority of the ordinary citizens in the middle of that Bell Curve have to those outliers who can’t or won’t play by the rules?
Why not lay off social hypochondria? Cart these people off to jail when the situation demands, remand them to prison when the situation demands, remand them to asylums when the situation demands, quarantine them when the situation demands. When the situation demands. Provide conduits for them to leave skid row if they’re willing to walk that walk. However, skid row you will always have with you.
The problem you need to address is street crime. Most metropolitan areas underpeform terribly in regard to establishing public safety in slums and points adjacent. The experience of the last generation suggests that it’s quite feasible to suppress slum crime to such an extent that the homicide rates therein are typically about 12 per 100,000 (rather than 25 or 30 per 100,000). New York, and, to a degree, Washington has worked on this. However, it’s one of those things that liberal politiicans do not address because they Just.Don’t.Feel.Like.It.
Where draw the line? A million dollar question! But natural selection cannot be abolished, and no rights can exist in a failed state or in a society seriously damaged by moral anarchy. It will fail sooner or later. So absolutization of human rights is a self-destructing device, especially when defense of the rights of the marginalized groups is cynically employed as a breaking ball to undermine the pillars of civilized social order.
The USA is just too damn rich. By which I mean the Elites, who talk the talk but never have to walk the walk fleeing assaults and other homeless-associated crimes. Seattle, SF, and other cities of the wealthy elites just throw tax money of the middle class at the problem, any problem. So middle class America dries up, disappears, and America disappears with it.
This makes for a serious argument in favor of vigorously taxing ALL wealth, including Soros’, Bezos’, Musk’s, Buffett’s and Gates’. In progressive fashion: The more you own/have. the greater the % of the wealth tax.
Never thought I’d say so but it has come to that.
So middle class America dries up, disappears, and America disappears with it.
You need to get a grip. The people injured are normal people living in zones of disorder, not ‘the middle class’. Look at the nine counties around Chicago. About 65% of the population lives in zones where the homicide rate is ~2.3 per 100,000, on average; another 23% lives in sections of the City of Chicago and in inner-ring suburbs in Cook County and Lake County, Indiana wherein the homicide rate averages 5.6 per 100,000. About 12% lives in one of four islands: a bloc of neighborhoods on Chicago’s west side with a population around 350,000; a bloc of neighborhoods on the South Side with a population of 650,000; the suburban township of Harvey, Illinois; and the municipalities of Gary and East Chicago in Lake County, Indiana. The homicide rate in this last zone averages about 48 per 100,000. Other sorts of crime track homicide rates, albeit imperfectly. The Chicago PD has ample manpower to re-establish order, but they are not organized and nurtured as an institution, and creatures like Kim Foxx and Lori Lightfoot are part of the problem and (indeed) its source. The voters elected this pair of sows.
And, no, neither the class of salaried employees and small business nor wage-earners who own property are going to ‘dry up’
A million dollar question! But natural selection cannot be abolished, and no rights can exist in a failed state or in a society seriously damaged by moral anarchy.
Blah blah blah. Skid row is a small (and, ultimately, intractable problem). Hoodlums are a large problem. Address the large problem.
Back In the day, WWII until the end of the draft in 1973, the Armed Services served as an educational and reform school for young men who were anti-social and didn’t want to follow the rules of society. Judges would often offer first time offenders the choice of prison or the military. Those who chose the military found out that not following rules and regulations led to quick and often severe punishment. Most were reformed – proving that tough love is effective. Those few that didn’t reform (the worst of the worst) ended up either in military prison or out of the military with a BCD. A lot of lives were set straight through a simple, no nonsense approach to teaching discipline and good order to potential lifetime criminals. Our society no longer has the will to offer tough love to people who need it. Not even in the military.
Nor do we have the will to provide the mentally ill with treatment, sometimes involuntary, that will improve their lives. Is it better to let someone live like and animal on the streets or to give them a decent bed, three meals a day, and the medical treatment they need?
We deserve what we are seeing on our streets. A society that has no desire to maintain law and order or decent community standards will sink slowly into degradation and moral turpitude.
Back In the day, WWII until the end of the draft in 1973, the Armed Services served as an educational and reform school for young men who were anti-social and didn’t want to follow the rules of society.
I imagine it had a salutary effect on many. I think you’ll discover that < 15% the men born after 1955 and an even smaller share of the men born between 1850 and 1880 had a tour in the military. Somehow, they came of age and managed to earn a living and (commonly) build a family.
We're not talking about a large population of people. Again, the Census Bureau's estimate is < 0.2% of the population are (at any one time) vagrants. A great many of them would have failed induction physicals in 1942.
Nor do we have the will to provide the mentally ill with treatment, sometimes involuntary, that will improve their lives.
If the state asylum census of 1955 had grown pari passu with the general population, there would be about 1.5 million ensconced in them. There are fewer than 100,000. They’re not on the street. See that link to the abstract above. Our single best guess is that there are < 100,000 schizophrenics living as vagrants. Some of that state asylum census is in nursing homes, some in group homes, some in private asylums financed various ways. Some are able to function passably with outpatient care. Some are not to be found anywhere, because ailments like tertiary syphilis have disappeared.
J.J.:
About involuntary commitment in the olden days–
It was one thing if a family was rich and could pay a lot, because it cost A LOT to go to a good private mental health inpatient hospital. But if a person was not rich and was involuntarily committed to a state institution, it could be a snake pit, and an ineffective one at that in terms of meaningful treatment. Back when I was young, that was still true; we’re not just talking about hundreds of years ago. I know people who were at such places and were pretty much warehoused for a long long time. It was not a good solution, even then, although I assume it did get some people who might have been dangerous off the streets.
But we still have prisons that get people off the streets if they are convicted of a crime.
For the more garden variety person with mental illness who does not want treatment (and is judged to be potentially dangerous to self or others), we still have the possibility of involuntary commitment that only lasts a little while (and is very expensive). With today’s drugs, we can stabilize people fairly quickly. The problem is that when they get out they often stop taking them and relapse. So then what?
It’s not just a lack of will. It’s a very difficult situation.
I know that “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” was instrumental in bringing a end to the mental treatment facilities that were common at one time. A fellow Naval officer had a wife who was in such a facility in 1967. That was when California decided to release all the non-dangerous people. He was beside himself because he was unable to properly care for her and do his duty as a Naval officer too. She was apparently too confused to function properly as an adult. He resigned from the Navy in order to try to take care of her. I don’t know how it turned out, but it certainly was a tragedy in many ways.
As I see it, there are several categories of the mentally ill. Those who are dangerous are still being committed here in Washington state. Western State Mental Hospital has 800 beds and 2200 employees. The place has been controversial because of serious understaffing and several involuntarily committed patients escaping, including a person accused of murder. Not an easy thing to administer, but the state is trying.
The second category of mentally ill is people who are in crisis who need to be stabilized using drugs and counseling. Not dangerous to others, but they can be dangerous to themselves. Most hospitals in Washington state have small mental health units to serve these people, but the demand exceeds the supply. People fall through the cracks. More needs to be done, IMO.
There is a third group of people that could become homeless if not taken care of. Those are the mentally retarded. Many are capable of doing simple jobs and functioning somewhat, but they can’t make enough money to afford anything but the most meager of housing. This population could be served by churches and charitable organizations that focus on this problem.
The mentally ill are not the majority of homeless here in Washington state. What I have seen here is that police and social workers go out to the homeless camps and offer services to any who will accept them. The acceptance rate is very low. The vast majority of these homeless are addicts to drugs and alcohol. They do not want to clean up. IMO, society should not tolerate that. These people need to be arrested and sent to detox and rehab centers that are far away from urban areas. Once they are clean, they should be helped to re-enter normal society. Two rehabs and then it’s prison.. Not normal prison, but a working prison where the inmates work in the gardens, help in the kitchens, serve one another, do laundry, and work at any manufacturing job that can be done in the prison. In other words, a world of useful work and self esteem.
I know it’s all impossible because it’s too hard, too complicated, too expensive. Well, so was mobilizing for and winning WWII. So was sending men to the moon. We can do hard things if we want to. We just don’t want to do it.
RE: “It’s not as though we know how to treat drug addiction with enormous success, particularly in this population, which also has high degrees of mental illness, and alcoholism as well.”
Very, very true. The cross over is huge. Most addicts and alcoholics I know have psychological issues, most due to trauma. Most appear to be self-medicating or at least use it as an excuse. I’ve seen more that a few addicts who drink as a substitute for addiction.
And we don’t know how to help these people. The organization that I worked for only worked with people who had hit bottom and were desperate to get better. Our short-term success rate was only about 50% — not very good for an ideal client base. You have to apply psychological bandaides while you deal with the substance abuse. Early on, the highest priority is keeping the client alive. (It’s mostly the substance abuse that kills, but suicide is common.) Many times we’d send clients to psychological professionals only to have the client come back worse.
Psychological issues are tough by themselves, but psychological issues with substance abuse are a bear.
I know that “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” was instrumental in bringing a end to the mental treatment facilities that were common at one time.
The asylum census began to decline as tertiary syphilis disappeared and with the advent of psychotropic medications. Chloropromazine has been used in hospital settings since 1955. Kesey’s book appeared in 1962 and the film in 1974.
Most addicts and alcoholics I know have psychological issues, most due to trauma.
Ha ha ha. The traumas of the one I knew best began and ended with some peer problems between the ages of 5 and 11 and a parental separation when she was 13 which kept her away from her father most of the year. She wasn’t badly treated by her mother or her father (who made their share of mistakes, to be sure), had an ample supply of friends past her tween years, attended handsome suburban schools, and emerged from Syracuse University with no debt. Didn’t stop her from drinking herself to death (and adding marijuana and cocaine to the mix). One of the social workers her brother hired to provide ‘care management’ after her last trip through rehab nearly ran screaming across the state line.
A sad story of one case, Art. kevino appears to have had more experience with these troubled individuals.
A sad story of one case, Art. kevino appears to have had more experience with these troubled individuals.
Undoubtedly true.
Keep in mind, he’s offering you case reports. The thing is, lots of people have some sort of trauma in their life. The causal component influencing bad behavior is not the trauma, but the increment in excess of background rates of trauma. That woman’s mother was a Depression baby and the daughter of a manic-depressive who spent his last years in an asylum; she knew a great deal from personal experience about domestic drama. Traumatized as she may have been by it, she had something her daughter lacked: a regard for appearances.
Art Deco: You can’t write knowledgeably about my experiences. I have dozens of examples over 20 years. I never dealt with minor problems like you described.
The most common trauma in my experience was physical or sexual abuse as a child. I worked with one guy who ran away from home and lived on the street since he was 14 because a family member was selling him for sex. He was a very angry person who used pay for heroin through armed robbery. Let’s say he lacked interpersonal skills. He enjoyed dealing with people by putting a knife to their throat. When I knew him, he had sworn that he wasn’t going to hurt anyone again, and, as far as I know, he kept that promise. But he had to quit heroin; learn to come to grips with his past; and learn new ways of being part of society, including playing well with others. He was a dedicated student; he made it; and he’s made a positive impact in his community — last I saw. Totally worth it.
kevino; Art Deco:
Nor is it possible to know what trauma a person actually has endured. A family that looks fairly normal on the outside can actually be quite abusive. And of course, not everyone reacts the same way to trauma. Some are hardy survivors who can transcend almost anything. Some are felled by more minor (seemingly, looking at it from the outside) difficulties. And of course, for alcoholism and drug abuse, there’s a high incidence of undiagnosed pre-existent depression and/or bipolar disease, particularly the latter.
Art Deco: You can’t write knowledgeably about my experiences.
I didn’t write about your experiences, except to describe them as ‘case reports”.
neo: Absolutely right. I’ve heard a lot of stories that, well, I don’t exactly believe. And I’m continually amazed at what human beings are capable of doing to each other.
Your comment on undiagnosed bipolar disorder is totally on point (or, in your case, on pointe). We don’t, as a society, do very well at getting people treatment for that if they don’t have money.
Art Deco: I wrote: “Most addicts and alcoholics I know have psychological issues, most due to trauma.” And you responded: “Ha ha ha.” and followed with an anecdote. So, yes, in the face of what I’ve seen, I think that “Ha ha ha” is more than a bit callous. My comment, “You can’t write knowledgeably about my experiences.” is a subtle, polite way of suggesting that you consider that there are many unfortunate people in this world who are suffering through no fault of their own. And the we as a society don’t do a lot to help them. You may not have experience in this area. How very lucky for you.
And, my real point, was that it’s tough: we don’t know enough.
you consider that there are many unfortunate people in this world who are suffering through no fault of their own.
There are people who are suffering, people who are not at fault, people who are suffering and not at fault. Alcoholics and drug addicts are in category A. You can debate how severe is there culpability on a certain scale, but culpable they are.
I think that “Ha ha ha” is more than a bit callous.
And I think it was Erma Bombeck who said, “You can’t make it better, you laugh at it”.
Art Deco: I suggest that sometimes people, including alcoholics and drug addicts, are doing the best they can. Self-medication is fairly common; so is suicide. Some people can’t stand who they are and what happened to them. If they die, it will be over for them. You may not understand this, from a position of comfort. As I said before: “You may not have experience in this area. How very lucky for you.”
The fundamental pillars of human morality are kindness and fairness. We’re all mammals. We have built-in neurological systems to help us bond with each other to form groups. And we understand the concept of fairness so that we can engage in reciprocal acts of kindness. Haidt and company researched the foundations of the moral mind, and they found that kindness and fairness were the universal constants across the globe. The Golden Rule, a form of which exists in almost every religion on planet earth, incorporates these values. Animal behaviorists like Franz de Waal have found that kindness and fairness aren’t just universal human values, they are found in social primates like capuchin monkeys. It’s not surprising: without kindness and fairness, social structures break down.
Our society is not very kind these days. One reason for that is that many people fail to realize that their success in life isn’t just due to their intellect, hard work, and morality: luck is also involved. The result is that those at the top can feel morally superior to those below them: “I deserve my success, just as those poor wretches deserve their squalor.” Society used to have religious values that opposed this idea and reminded everyone how fragile life was. But religion is in decline.
We can, as human beings, make life better. As I said above, it’s difficult to treat psychological conditions because we don’t know enough. And it’s difficult to treat substance abuse because we don’t know enough. Clearly there’s another reason: we don’t care enough.
Erma Bombeck, wow, that’s a high standard. Lame (abelistic).
Amplifying what Snow on Pine pointed out, a number of decisions by the Warren Court eliminated involuntary commitment unless the person was in imminent danger of harming others or himself. The decisions were based on the 5th and 14th amendments, in other words, involuntary commitment was generally unconstitutional. Similarly, the laws against vagrancy, camping on the sidewalk, public drunkenness, etc.
I don’t know how you would pass laws which do not violate the constitutional rule laid down by the Court. I’m not sure that having a rigorous commitment hearing to prove that the person was not being put away for a nefarious purpose, or that showing that the result of those earlier decisions has produced the social disorder of today would do the trick. Otherwise, a constitutional amendment would be necessary. Good luck with that.
I personally, being a great believer in multiculturalism, think we should learn from our Chinese brethren that reeducation camps are an ideal solution for those suffering from drug or alcohol addiction or unwillingness to take their meds. And for those few who could not be helped by reeducation, we should follow the example of our Russian brethren — healthy outdoor work on a low-calorie diet would be just the thing!
Somehow, though, I don’t think the Supremes would go for that. So we are left with the words of Anatole France: ““The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
so is suicide
Here’s a clue, suicide won’t get you out of this cycle of suffering. It just repeats ; )
The fundamental pillars of human morality are kindness and fairness. We’re all mammals.
Some of us are Sons of God. A slightly different species pov there.
Haidt and company researched the foundations of the moral mind, and they found that kindness and fairness were the universal constants across the globe.
Humans trying to resurrect what they lost from the divorce with the Creator and thus all of Creation itself.
Society used to have religious values that opposed this idea and reminded everyone how fragile life was. But religion is in decline.
State religion being in decline is a good thing for human progress. Less pastors buying sports cars with the donations they squeezed out of the flock/sheep. Less Vatican inquisitions, burning people alive, and homosexual clerics/rapists/child molestors.
Society did indeed have religion to control the excesses of human vices but that was not nearly full proof enough to deal with the human condition. Because who administrated the punishments and collected the debts? Other humans. It was no such thing as a “divine organization” at work.
Certainly individuals like Jesus existed, but why his apostles and disciples made him out to be a god to be worshipped and a religion crafted around him, did his message a disservice. Buddha went around and told everyone not to make his image into an idol to be worshipped, because that was pointless and harmful. His students were so scared or respectful of that, for 150 years the ban held. Until humans decided otherwise.
That woman’s mother was a Depression baby and the daughter of a manic-depressive who spent his last years in an asylum;
Epigenetics
The astronomical chart of a person is also involved as the celestial energies impact a person’s fate, although not without free will.
One of my loved ones has been an addict since he was a young high schooler (though I didn’t know him then). He has been very high-functioning all his life, but in recent years his addictions have progressed to the point where we have no idea where he will end up; we’ve done everything we can to help him, but he won’t be helped, and the nature of drug addiction is that after a certain point it will drag down everyone around you. We can’t do any more, and can’t live with him–it was destroying us along with him.
It isn’t fair, because he was so young when it started and had horrible things in his life to cope with; it feels like his choice was stripped away from him the moment he took his first dose of whatever that first drug was. I’m angry with him in the present day for all the things he’s done to the rest of my family and the self-serving choices he’s made, but when I think of how it all started, I’m left to wonder how much choice his original self has had, and how much has been addiction twisting his brain beyond all recognition since he was a child.
I used to feel mostly disgusted when seeing people who were obviously heavy users–dirty, twitchy, sleazy, and incoherent. Now I have a hard time not crying, because I don’t know who they were or could have been, or who loves them, or what choices they had or didn’t have. I’ve done many stupid things in my life; I’m so lucky that taking “just one” hit of something wasn’t one of them. I’m so lucky that my life has been good enough that drugs were never an attractive option I had to steel myself against, and that I’ve never needed heavy painkillers to function.
Our opioid crisis is sickening. I can’t fathom how many families have been destroyed right along with the lives of those eighty-thousand-some homeless addicts that are cited in that article. Most of them are probably the walking dead–we can (and should) try to help them if possible, but by and large they don’t want to be helped. Their brains and bodies won’t let them put anything above their next fix; it’s an eventual death sentence, and it’s deeply horrifying.
Tara–Stories such as yours are why I have been pressing the case here for not legalizing Marijuana.
Because–according to recent medical research–not only does Marijuana’s heavy use, especially by teenagers–result in a permanent decrease in intelligence, the loss of I.Q., plus these users exhibiting the symptoms of “neuro-psychological decline,” but for users of today’s especially high potency varieties, heavy Marijuana use leads to a much greater risk of psychosis, and its accelerated onset as well.
Even worse, Marijuana is also a ‘gateway drug,” which leads many who use it on to even more addictive, more powerful, and dangerous drugs.
Why, then, would you ever want to add Marijuana to the already far too long list of addictive substances, that lead to horrendous consequences for their addicted users, for their families, friends, and for society at large?