Housing the homeless: “everyone deserves a granite countertop”
Much of what is in this article is what many of us have suspected anyway: that homelessness in the US is predominantly an addiction and/or a mental illness problem. Keep in mind when you read the following that “homelessness experts and advocates” tend to be on the liberal side. But these liberals (if that is what they are) seem to be homelessness experts and advocates who’ve been mugged by reality:
Today, many of California’s leading homelessness advocates insist that the current crisis is due mostly to the housing shortage.
Homelessness experts and advocates disagree. “I’ve rarely seen a normal able-bodied able-minded non-drug-using homeless person who’s just down on their luck,” L.A. street doctor Susan Partovi told me. “Of the thousands of people I’ve worked with over 16 years, it’s like one or two people a year. And they’re the easiest to deal with.” Rev. Bales agrees. “One hundred percent of the people on the streets are mentally impacted, on drugs, or both,” he said.
Most of the time what people mean by the homelessness problem is really a drug problem and a mental illness problem. ”The problem is we don’t know if you’re psychotic or just on meth,” said Dr. Partovi. “And giving it up is very difficult. I worked in the local jail, and half of the inmates in the women’s jail were Latinas in their 20s, and all were in there for something related to meth.”
The people who work directly with the homeless say things worsened after California abandoned the “carrot and stick” approach toward treating the severely mentally ill and drug addicts who are repeat offenders. “The ACLU will come after me if I say the mentally ill need to be taken off the street,” said Dr. Partovi, “so let me be clear that they need to be taken care of, too.”
I often wonder how on earth those people who originally advocated deinstitutionalization many years ago thought that the process could be managed without nearly enough community mental health facilities in place. Did they believe that the problem would magically evaporate because it was all just a constructed narrative?
But one thing I wasn’t aware of previously is that the recent lag in building shelter for the homeless, even in bluer-than-blue California and in cities which have appropriated a lot of money for that purpose, is contributed to greatly by the fact that many in the “housing first” group have delusions of grandeur [emphasis mine]:
Liberal idealism also wasted much of the $1.2 billion that L.A. voters raised in 2016 when they voted to tax themselves to build housing for the homeless. “It was supposed to build 10,000 units but in truth will create half that because each one costs $527,000 to $700,000,” said Bales. “They will take ten years to build, at which point 44,000 lives will have been destroyed by living on the street.”
Why did progressive housing activists in L.A. insist on building such expensive apartments for so few people, so slowly, rather than quickly building cheaper units faster for 44,000 people?
“[Housing First] is a dogmatic philosophy,” said Bales. “I’ve lost friends. One of my closest friends is attacking me for pushing for housing that costs $11,000 instead of $527,000 per person. He can’t get that we can’t provide a $527,000 to $700,000 apartment for each person on the street. I’ve been in planning meetings where people said, ‘Everybody deserves a granite countertop,’ but that isn’t going to work for 44,000 people.”
L.A.’s woke housing advocates have intimidated the city’s mayor. “I think the mayor’s unwilling to put out bridge shelters because of backlash from some homeless advocates,” said Bales, “and is concerned about NIMBYs, and may be concerned about union workers because the shelters may not be built by the unions.”
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need – and apparently, everyone needs a granite countertop.
On an admittedly cursory reading of the situation on the one hand, and the people involved on the other, it seems more nearly correct to say that rather than granite countertops everyone needs a good beating about the head and neck: like, “smell these roses, dipshits!”
I read about the house building for homeless in California and it appears a good deal of the money is spent on planning and design, then more planning and finding land then more admin getting permits and the whole process eats up millions and millions paying salaries for government workers who plan and admin problems and all this happens before the first house is built.
What would happen if we took a lot of the homeless out to closed up military bases where there was all sorts of housing and even kitchens and common area stuff? My guess is that most of those bases have sold off anything of value and let the rest turn to rust and dust.
There are a lot of lost souls just trying to get by, hour to hour and I would not mind trying to give them as much medication or self-medication as they need and safe places to sit down and rest. But what the heck do I know?
They’ve also suggested using cruise ships for the San Francisco problem, but then said “we don’t have enough space at the harbor to park them”. Ok…so take them out into the Bay. What a great way to also confine them – prevent them from obtaining drugs, which then (theoretically) would allow separating them into those who just need to get off drugs and those who need mental health treatment.
Seems like a good opportunity to me!
OldTexan. The correct way to think about liberal social programs is as charities that eat up 95% of their income on administrative costs and the remaining 5% on the intended beneficiaries. An awful lot of these lefties would be out on the street if they had to survive in the private sector.
The next addition to the addiction problem is going to be people debilitated by high potency marijuana. No one really knows what the long term effects of smoking the stuff is, but ingesting, over a long period of time, a lot of a drug that is intended to keep you intoxicated can’t be good for the mind.
I have no granite countertops. Poor, poor me! Tile and cultured marble just aren’t good enough.
OK, living in the Seattle area this is a huge issue. One of the biggest problems is that a homelessness industry has blown up and it includes ‘charities’, local and state governments who all have their reasons for keeping this problem active.
For the homeless ‘charities’ it is their sole reason for existing and there is huge money involved as the above stories show. If the problem is solved or just reduced that sweet, sweet cash goes away and they don’t want that.
And of course for the government it is just another excuse to raise taxes. Don’t like that homeless camp down the street? Give us more tax money and we will pretend to fix it.
It is unbelievable how bad it has gotten here in the last five years or so.
I honestly can’t see a way out of this without a widespread voter revolt and as the recent election for Seattle city council showed the voters doubled down on more of the same.
Housing the homeless: “everyone deserves a granite countertop”
I am reminded of the periodic attempts by some of our politicians to feed themselves on a Food Stamp budget. They invariably find out it is impossible to do so. Golly gee whiz, if you purchase prepared food or don’t shop carefully, it will be difficult to feed yourself on a Food Stamp budget.The truth is that if you cook for yourself and/or your family, and shop carefully,one can eat well enough on a Food Stamp budget.
My admitted limited experience with the homeless is that drug abuse- alcohol or otherwise- is an issue with them. (Yes, alcohol is a drug. 🙂 )
I asked one homeless person why, instead of living in the woods, he didn’t team up with other homeless persons and rent a 2-bedroom apt. on the diverse side of town, which at the time would be going for $400 a month- $100 per person for four people. He replied that he would rather live in the woods than in the diverse side of town. By virtue of helping put out a newspaper for the homeless, this guy was probably one of the more capable homeless. But he did have a drug problem.
Kate:
Alas, mine are formica.
I will tell you with 98% certainty that the delays and overruns in cost are all related to corruption. In Venezuela, we had a name for these: Guisos. A “guiso” is Spanish for a stew. This is a dish that feeds a lot of people. All that money in L.A. is being fought over, not about how best to house the homeless, but about who gets their serving of the stew and how much. The guy who claimed that the homeless deserve granite countertops has a friend or a relative in that business. And everyone involved will keep squabbling over that money until it is all consumed and none of them will give a hot damn if not even one homeless person is housed.
How many of the homeless could have a roof over their heads if each ‘Homeless Advocate’ would be willing to have one of them stay in THEIR homes?
The book “American Psychosis” describes the origins of the Federal mental health program during the Kennedy admin. It was an interesting and illuminating read.
I’ve been involved with a program to work with homeless/addicted people to house them and help train them for employment. The last two weeks seem to be the critical ones as they are when some people go out to celebrate and then fail. Others graduate then immediately go back to their old lifestyles. The ones that succeed rely on outside sources for recovery.
Addiction can be its own or a response to mental illness issues. Most people involved do not want to be around others because of fear, paranoia or even shame.
Housing alone will do little for these people. Many can’t or won’t take care of the property or exploit it by removing fixtures, pipes or wiring to sell to help feed their issues.
It comes down to what is worse for those with mental health issues, reinstitutionalizing them (but where) or allowing them to roam when they impact the freedom, property and lives of others in the society.
There might be 600,000 vagrants in this country. Financing shelters, community food cupboards, and soup kitchens for a population that size can be accomplished by private charity. It’s a small scale problem. Local governments can contribute police officers to provide security. No need for federal involvement at all.
A selection of these people might be candidates for confinement in asylums, others belong in prison. That’s the role for state governments in addressing the problem.
There’s a reason possession and sale of street drugs is unlawful. Libertarians will never get it.
I have little sympathy for drug adicts. I do have sympathy for the mentally ill. I have nothing good to say about the people Roy Nathanson describes. Many NGOs are a scam. The United Way falls into that category.
I’ve been involved with a program to work with homeless/addicted people to house them and help train them for employment. The last two weeks seem to be the critical ones as they are when some people go out to celebrate and then fail. Others graduate then immediately go back to their old lifestyles. The ones that succeed rely on outside sources for recovery.
I’m pleased someone is making the effort. I’m much to mean and indolent to do that.
RM Kaus used to use the term ‘6% solution’ to describe the effects of non-coercive social-work programs on problem clientele, derived from an assignment he’d had reporting on the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation and like programs: 67% fail, 27% of those in the control group recover without professional intervention, 100-67-27 = 6% are (one might surmise) improved due to the efforts of the program.
reinstitutionalizing them (but where) or allowing them to roam when they impact the freedom, property and lives of others in the society.
The asylum census in 1955 was about 850,000. as a share of the population, an equivalent number would be 1.7 million today. Fewer than 100,000 are housed in state asylums nowadays. However, there are nowhere near 1.7 million vagrants in this country. The number the Census Bureau locates is about 1/3 that, many of whom would not have been candidates for institutional care in 1955. The former asylum population is distributed among miscellaneous venues, because forcible confinement to 24 hr state care is a suboptimal address to their problems.
Some people fail spectacularly at life. You can help them keep body-and-soul together (which doesn’t require granite countertops), put them in jail when it is appropriate and prudent, and work to tighten the spigot on the street-drugs pipeline. There is no solution. There is just muddling through.
I have little sympathy for drug adicts. I do have sympathy for the mentally ill.
You can be plenty sympathetic; failure is a function of our humanity and failures aren’t necessarily predatory. The question is what is the optimal course of action.
Housing alone will do little for these people.
See Mark Hinshaw and Walter Williams on this point: the market will provide housing if you don’t regulate out of existence housing types adapted to the client’s utility function. Flophouses, boarding houses, apartments with shared kitchens, &c. We used to have a wider range of choice in these matter.
How many of the homeless could have a roof over their heads if each ‘Homeless Advocate’ would be willing to have one of them stay in THEIR homes?
There likely aren’t 600,000 ‘homeless advocates’ in this country and having them in private homes is likely to be suboptimal socially.
Art Deco,
The people who are against Drug Prohibition (like me) are not in favor of drug use and addiction. We want to see drug abuse and addiction treated as a social problem and a health problem, just like we do with alcohol. Just like with Alchohol Prohibition, the cure (Drug Prohibition) has been worse than the disease.
The criminality associated with the illegal drug trade has devastated our cities and many of our neighboring countries. It has been over half a century since Nixon declared the War on Drugs. Today, the problem is arguably worse than it was then.
If you can’t accomplish a positive result in over 50 years, don’t you think it is time to change the strategy?
The people who are against Drug Prohibition (like me) are not in favor of drug use and addiction.
You’re not in favor of pondering the relationship between acts and consequences, either.
We want to see drug abuse and addiction treated as a social problem and a health problem, just like we do with alcohol. Just like with Alchohol Prohibition, the cure (Drug Prohibition) has been worse than the disease.
Consumption of alcohol and street drugs is not a health problem, but a behavioral problem. Yes, it’s a ‘social problem’. So are muggings. No clue what your conception of what the prelapsarian ‘disease’ state was, or what you fancy is wrong with the cure.
In my small neighborhood in NE San Antonio we had a bout with the homeless situation. Don’t know exactly how it came about; there have been homeless, a few of them around for ages. A couple of local and harmless characters, whom various charities kept an eye on, and who seemed to get along well … one of the longtime homeless guys even had a hotel room paid for by some of his concerned friends during a period when he was out of the hospital for necessary surgery. It’s one of those things – he is a charming, long-time and harmless old guy who absolutely resists being settled in permanent housing. He’s been on the streets for years, it seems. Likes it that way, gets along, doesn’t offend any.
But what brought it to a head was when a homeless camp in a green belt on the edge of my neighborhood turned toxic: a careless campfire damn-near burned down a barrier fence, endangered those nearby houses, and the residents went ballistic. They had had it, up to the neck with the smells, the noise, the sheer awfulness of druggies crapping and shooting up, right next to their homes. (And a day-care center playground, let it be noted.)
I imagine that the calls to the various city authorities were epic. The meeting of local residents at the library (organized through the NextDoor app) was … interesting. And brought results. Look, my neighbors are all working to middle-class. We have small homes, of which we are proud, and have mostly paid-for through honest work. We KNOW what has happened in places like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and other places where the homeless rule. At least, we still have enough political juice to make our unhappiness with the situation bring positive results.
We were able, for a time, to move the addicted homeless to somewhere else. Where, we neither know nor care. If you want to live in a tent somewhere, crap where you wish, and shoot-up 24-7, then do it where your chosen lifestyle doesn’t adversely impact the sane and law-abiding.
Current homelessness has many causes. Even after the mental institutions were phased out, it wasn’t this bad. Sure, most of the homeless have mental problems and/or drug problems, but those people have been around forever and it wasn’t this bad.
I’d throw into the mix the decline of standards over the past fifty years or so. Standards of working and taking care of one’s self. Standards of maintaining marriages and raising children. Standards of being in and building community. Even standards of dressing better than a vagrant.
Actually that’s based on a Tony Robbins riff. When he is asked the simplest way to improve one’s life, he says, “Raise your standards.” Decide what is no longer acceptable to you and live according to that new standard.
Sometimes, I despair that the ideological blind spots of the extreme conservatives are equally as debilitating as the ideological blind spots of extreme left. I have always identified more with the Right. But, the arguments in favor of continuing Drug Prohibition are just lame.
Personally, I think that a lot of the problem can be solved simply by cities and towns enforcing the existing Vagrancy Laws. Before, there were always hobo camps outside of town. The city had its laws and the hobos had theirs. The two groups were separated, at least after sundown. Mostly, the system worked.
Trump has (gasp) tweeted about the Feds tackling the homeless problem in CA. That is absolutely a really bad idea. The policies in cities with huge homeless populations is a problem of their own creation. Let them waste their own money on their failed policies. Let the feces, discarded needles, and trash grow until it overwhelms their budgets and even the gated communities scream enough!
But unfortunately, the people fleeing the west coast to Texas and Idaho will not change their voting habits and virtue signaling in their new homes which will eventually turn their new states into that which they fled. And by all means, boost the sales of marble counter tops.
What no one on the Left wants to admit now, is that homelessness declined signficantly under President GW Bush (R), and continued down until it began to rise at the end of Obama’s (D) second term.
I remember reading about it during his tenure and shortly afterward (W also never got sufficient credit for the reduction of AIDS in Africa, and for having a more “green” house at the Ranch than Gore did at his Mansion).
I chose the Atlantic post at random from the search results.
IMO (as with others above), the lack of a solution now — after the proven successess of the past — is due mostly to turf battles, job security for advocates, and bleeding-heart do-gooders who won’t acknowledge that the perfect is the enemy of good enough.
And Leftists have no intention of letting a useful victim class be reduced.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/08/the-astonishing-decline-of-homelessness-in-america/279050/
Looks like that “save” didn’t happen, and (as with holes in levees) you have to have continuous maintenance of programs like this.
This is a problem that can and should be solved at the state and local levels. Most of the cities where it’s become a huge problem are run by Democrats and in Democrat dominated states. They prefer to think of it as a problem brought on by our competitive economic system and “robber barons” like Trump, the Kochs, Bezos, the Waltons, etc.
To deal with the mentally ill requires serious people and facilities, which are not cheap. The Dems don’t want to spend money on those things. They prefer to spend it on tiny homes, community apartments, granite countertops, and other things that are in keeping with their idea of the causes of homelessness.
The addicts and drunks can be rehabbed, but it’s only successful when they really, really want to clean up. Which is a low percentage of them.
If I were the governor of Washington sate, I would reopen the mental health facilities that are closed and staff them to treat the mentally ill homeless. Cities and towns could send their mentally ill indigent people to these facilities. It would be much more compassionate than letting them live in filth and squalor. And probably cheaper in the long run.
I would offer the addicts and drunks a choice – rehab or prison. Those who refuse rehab or fail rehab would go to a special prison for alcoholics and addicts, which I would open in Eastern Washington. It would be a working prison where the inmates would work in animal husbandry, the kitchen, the laundry, the garden, and other tasks useful to the prison. They would also have to attend group therapy for an hour every day and drug counselors would be available for additional counseling as necessary. The goal would be rehabilitation. The typical stay would be two to four years – depending on progress. After drug prison, those who relapsed would go to a real prison for ten years. Tough love? Yep.
Would that completely solve the problem? Not entirely, but it would get most of these people off the streets and give them a chance at a better life. As well as making cities safer and cleaner once again. What’s happening right now is that the homeless problem is growing with no solutions and no end in sight. This is the nation that won two world wars, has the biggest GNP in the world, and used to believe in tackling difficult problems rather than letting them fester. We’re not that nation any longer.
When it comes to countertops, I’m a Corian man, myself.
https://www.thespruce.com/corian-vs-granite-which-is-better-1822082
AesopFan: You are a marvel. I missed that homelessness improvement entirely. Interesting to note that the 2008 crash happened in the middle of it.
I would offer the addicts and drunks a choice – rehab or prison. Those who refuse rehab or fail rehab would go to a special prison for alcoholics and addicts, which I would open in Eastern Washington.
I think you’ll run afoul of the public interest bar and the appellate judiciary if you propose to make intoxication a high-grade felony. You could make possession of liquor a crime, but that’s a course of action which would incorporate steep enforcement costs and public resistance. I suppose you could try declaring alcoholism a trigger for civil commitment….
Screw it. Let em all drop dead on the streets and be swept away into Soylent Green factories.
Feed the homeless to the hungry.
Current homelessness has many causes. Even after the mental institutions were phased out, it wasn’t this bad. Sure, most of the homeless have mental problems and/or drug problems, but those people have been around forever and it wasn’t this bad.
The Census Bureau’s estimate has it that the shelter population in 2010 was about 209,000. HUD’s 2018 estimate has it that shelters, ‘transitional housing’, and people sleeping rough encompass just north of 400,000 people. Some of them have discrete diagnoses and some do not. That is 0.12% of the population. Glass half empty or half full?
I’d throw into the mix the decline of standards over the past fifty years or so. Standards of working and taking care of one’s self. Standards of maintaining marriages and raising children. Standards of being in and building community. Even standards of dressing better than a vagrant.
There’s been a decline in standards, but it has mostly to do with deportment and respect for purity and family relations. Employment-to-population ratios have not declined in the last 60 years. Married women are somewhat more likely to be working and men over 55 are somewhat less likely. The proportion of men between the ages of 25 and 55 working might be lower than it was 60 years ago; I think you can attribute the bulk of that to the advent of a system of disability benefits.
This is the nation that won two world wars, has the biggest GNP in the world, and used to believe in tackling difficult problems rather than letting them fester. We’re not that nation any longer.
I had a co-worker who said to me, “I like problems better than I do issues. Problems have discrete solutions. Issues go on and on”. Vagrancy isn’t a problem any more than is street crime. It is an issue. It’s more intractable than street crime. We live at a time when law enforcement is experiencing the hostility of liberals, black chauvinists, and libertarian neckbeards, so we won’t be tackling street crime, either, even though there’s plenty of low hanging fruit.
Gerard,
I would amend that to feed the homeless to the homeless.
“I like problems better than I do issues. Problems have discrete solutions. Issues go on and on.”
I like that attitude.
Art Deco: As is often the case, you sound like you’re disagreeing but I can’t easily locate the disagreement. I’d also like to see cites for your estimates.
How many people lived in shelters in 1960? Probably a good many less. Of course the real problem today is not the homeless in shelters, but those who live on the streets or in parks etc. I’m sure those numbers are far higher than in 1960.
As to standards for work, I mean the work ethic that one works and takes pride in the fact and feels shame for taking welfare. Are you saying there hasn’t been a decline there?
In 2005 Russell Crowe starred in an inspiring biopic of a real boxer, James Braddock, who came back from being on welfare to become the World Heavyweight Champion. From his winnings he repaid all the money he had received on relief.
I can’t imagine a story like that happening today.
Standards.
I’m with Kate. I’ve lived perfectly well for over forty years without a single granite countertop–strangely, Formica works just fine.
The Russell Crowe film was “Cinderella Man.” Braddock won the Heavyweight title in 1935 and held it for two years. Ron Howard directed.
It’s clear, as several above have noted, that the point of “programs” seems to be to provide jobs to people with otherwise unemployable skill sets gained through earning liberal arts and “studies” degrees.
When authorities really want to dent the (local) homeless numbers, they start issuing bus and train tickets to get the unwanted people to another town.
Granite countertops and free coffee!
https://babylonbee.com/news/this-hip-portland-coffee-shop-will-only-hire-you-if-you-fail-a-drug-test
Roy Nathanson:
It occurs to me that to a libertarian the social costs of free drugs, free sex, free will everything will must be born by some one else: not by the libertarian himself.
As if history only extends to the 1920’s and Prohibition or the “War on Drugs.” Oh for the good old days when ladulum, opium, and cocaine were legal. No social costs then. Or now when you have legalized marijuana, criminal elements don’t want to pay their taxes on that income. Inconceivable.
Art Deco: ‘I think you’ll run afoul of the public interest bar and the appellate judiciary if you propose to make intoxication a high-grade felony.”
Yes, my solutions are not possible in today’s culture.
Two stories.
I once passed by a homeless Native American begging on the street in Seattle. It was noon and he said he was hungry. I gave him $15 and felt virtuous. I then visited my daughter, who lived nearby, for a couple of hours. As I headed back for my car, I saw the Native American lying in the street, with blood running out of his mouth. I called 9/11 and, when the medics arrived, they gave him emergency aid, then whisked him off to the hospital. He apparently had used my money to buy some rot gut. The medics told me they had treated him before and he had bleeding ulcers, among other things. That was 25 years ago. I don’t give money to beggars anymore – no matter what.
My wife had surgery and was recovering in a two bed room at Virginia Mason, a Seattle hospital. He roommate was a woman who had been scraped up off the sidewalks of Seattle. Her kidneys had failed from ingesting too much alcohol. She was the most ill-tempered person you could imagine. My wife was scared to death of her. We tried to get my wife moved to another room, but the hospital wouldn’t budge. They did keep a nurse close by, as the woman was often ranting and raging about wanting to kill someone. One day when I was there, a doctor and social worker came by and told her in no uncertain terms that she had to quit drinking or she might die the next time. She was quite gentle and contrite with them. But as soon as they were gone she was Mrs. Hyde again. My wife begged the doctor to let her go home as soon as possible, and he did let her go a day earlier than normal.
This poor woman was, IMHO, both an alcoholic and mentally ill. She and the Indian I helped poison are typical of the homeless. I feel sorry for them, but I know most of them will not seek to clean up their acts. Feeding them or letting them live in the streets is a disservice to them and society. Should we allow such people to live on our streets, defecating wherever they want, stealing, assaulting people, and spreading disease? They need to be somewhere where they have a chance at a better life. If they don’t choose it, then they should be shut away where they could change and they aren’t a danger to society.
Building low income housing for people who are unemployable, and want to remain that way, is a waste of money.
Not to reopen the drug legalization skirmish but … if you think legalizing drugs solves the problem, then you don’t know substance abusers.
The problem for substance abusers is not if drugs are legal or not. That’s a problem once in a while, when you get caught. But the real problem, 24/7/365, is acquiring the substance, since a substance lifestyle generally precludes the ability and aptitude to consistently earn a sufficient income to acquire substances and also pay for unimportant things like rent, utilities and ramen. Legal drugs are not free – in fact, so I have heard, there’s still a healthy black market for pot even in areas where it’s legal. It doesn’t surprise me, since taxing and regulating something generally does not make it cheaper. Either way, after substance abusers have lost their jobs, spent all their money, sold all their stuff, and stolen money and stuff from all of their friends and family that still open the door and let them in, next they move on to stealing money and stuff from neighbors, strangers, whoever. They don’t give a sh1t. Nothing in the world matters more than having their substances and they will do what it takes to pay for drugs.
There’s your real problem, and legalizing drugs isn’t going to help.
KyndyllG – “There’s your real problem, and legalizing drugs isn’t going to help.”
Well, you could always decriminalize burglary.
There’s your real problem, and legalizing drugs isn’t going to help.
KyndyllG: However, drugs aren’t all the same and people aren’t all the same in how they respond to drugs, even addictive drugs.
Paul Erdos was one of the most prolific mathematicians of the 20th century. (Naturally he was Martian, that is to say, Hungarian.) Erdos took ritalin and/or benzedrine daily for the last 25 years of his life and died at the ripe old age of 83.
I don’t offer Erdos as a justification for amphetamine use, but as a data point that drugs, even the terribly addictive amphetamines, aren’t simple. Somehow Erdos used amphetamines productively without damaging his health. (Kids, don’t try this at home!)
Caffeine and methamphetamine are both drugs, both stimulants and both addictive. Should they both be treated the same in terms of the law?
Coffee has been outlawed five times. In Constantinople the second offense would get you sewn into a leather sack and thrown into the Bosporus to drown. Isn’t it a better world when caffeine is legalized?
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/12662/5-historical-attempts-ban-coffee
Drugs, like so many other things, must be considered on a case-by-case basis in terms of individuals and society.
When I was young I thought all social problems had solutions. Now I’m older and it looks like many social problems, such as drugs, don’t have solutions.
It’s trade-offs all the way down.
KyndellG,
I never once said that decriminalizing drugs was going to solve the drug problem. It won’t.
I said that criminalizing drugs hasn’t solved the problem and has arguably made it worse.
If a doctor prescribes a medication that doesn’t cure the disease but makes it worse AND has terrible side effects, should you keep taking that medication?
I agree with huxley that there may be no definative solution to the problem of drug addiction. It would be wonderful if every human were a happy and well adjusted member of society. I don’t expect that to happen either.
Which doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep trying. What we should stop, though, is doing the same thing over and over when it clearly is not working and is actually making the problem worse.
And, FYI, decriminalizing the purchase, possession, and use of drugs would not decriminalize any other offense committed (burglary, assault, etc.) because of, or in connection with, drug use and abuse.
Om,
I’m truly not sure what your point is. However, it appears as though your objection to drug use is an ideological one and not practical one. Even if there were no identifiable negative impact on society, you would still want to ban the behavior. Is that correct?
Tim: “Well, you could always decriminalize burglary.”
In CA, Dem politicians got a Proposition passed that essentially decriminalized theft of goods valued under $1000. Frees up jail cells. Reduces the demands on police. More money available for “programs”.
Porch piracy has soared.
How many people lived in shelters in 1960? Probably a good many less. Of course the real problem today is not the homeless in shelters, but those who live on the streets or in parks etc. I’m sure those numbers are far higher than in 1960.
I don’t know that there’s any satisfactory data from that era. The Census Bureau and the Urban Institute were assembling data sets ca. 1990. I don’t believe what numbers these agencies have been assembling demonstrate that the problem has grown worse in the last generation.
As to standards for work, I mean the work ethic that one works and takes pride in the fact and feels shame for taking welfare. Are you saying there hasn’t been a decline there?
Between when and when? The number of people collecting TANF (formerly AFDC) has declined by 2/3 in the last 25 years, even as the population of the country as a whole has increased by 20% or so. The sort of general relief payments that were common during the Depression have largely disappeared. As long ago as 1991, all but nine states had eliminated them. New York has retained them, but has a two-year per lifetime limit on receipts. Employment-to-population ratios are actually higher now than they were 60 years ago, though it is true that modest sections of the male population who’d have been working in 1955 are not working today. Work is less physically taxing now than it was in 1949; it was also less taxing in 1949 than it had been in 1879. There has been a decline in weekly working hours, but that decline took place during the first two decades of the 20th century (largely before James J Braddock was of age to be working).
The definition of ‘disability’ has grown increasingly lax over the last 60 years; i’d blame certain professional guilds for that.
Caffeine and methamphetamine are both drugs, both stimulants and both addictive. Should they both be treated the same in terms of the law?
You’ll have a couple of days of headaches if you give up coffee. Nearly all street drugs are intoxicants. Coffee and cigarettes are not.
It’s clear, as several above have noted, that the point of “programs” seems to be to provide jobs to people with otherwise unemployable skill sets gained through earning liberal arts and “studies” degrees.
“Studies” programs have almost no constituency among students. They are faculty patronage for privileged political interests. About 1,200 women’s studies degrees are awarded each year in American higher education. That amounts to 0.03% of each young adult cohort. Other sorts of ‘studies’ degrees are even less common.
I’m wagering that the most common degree among these types would be social work followed by sociology. There are actually hundreds of thousands of positions for social workers in public bureaucracies and private philanthropy, even though their ‘professional’ training ain’t worth a pitcher of warm spit. Sociology has the potential to be a valid academic discipline. It’s just that a couple of generations worth of academic sociologists have turned it into a rancid apologetical exercise.
“Caffeine and methamphetamine are both drugs, both stimulants and both addictive. Should they both be treated the same in terms of the law?”
They aren’t treated the same. No one this century suggests they should be, for reasons obvious to everything except perhaps libertarians.
If something isn’t a problem, it isn’t a problem. Caffeine isn’t a problem. Meth is different, as are certain other drugs.
That’s a problem. One reason we are having this discussion here today is because use of certain drugs causes people to be unable to maintain themselves in the human society that actually exists. Thus, they are homeless- the topic of this thread, mostly- or they are rendered unable to take care of their children.
Making these problem-causing drugs legal wouldn’t solve these problems. It would likely make them worse- for the exact same reason that decriminalizing shoplifting has made THAT problem worse.
Trade-offs, yes- but the the downside to legalization is much worse than any upside, in my view.
}}}I often wonder how on earth those people who originally advocated deinstitutionalization many years ago thought that the process could be managed without nearly enough community mental health facilities in place. Did they believe that the problem would magically evaporate because it was all just a constructed narrative?
You assume FAR FAR too much forward thinking on the part of liberals.
They attack a problem, then go on to attack the next problem.
SOLUTIONS are WORK. They take time and effort to supervise them properly.
“…for the exact same reason that decriminalizing shoplifting has made THAT problem worse.”
The crime in shoplifting is theft. When and where was that decriminalized?
How do you “know” that decriminalizing drugs would make the problem worse? Portugal did it, and it has been fairly successful. At the very least, it has not made the problem worse.
See: https://transformdrugs.org/the-success-of-portugals-decriminalisation-policy-in-seven-charts/
Portugal did it, and it has been fairly successful. At the very least, it has not made the problem worse.
I have the feeling that Alex Tabbarrok didn’t delve too deeply into what was done or not done in Portugal, or how outcomes are measured or the study designed.
There is a fascinating article in the Wall Street Journal about the history and repeated failures of Pacific Gas and Electric which provides energy to most of California. Despite hiring a series of very talented executives, the company has gone through two bankruptcies and is a disaster. The homelessness problems in California and Seattle are a parallel in my view. Once problems or “issues” attain a certain magnitude they become, for all intents and purposes, insoluble without truly radical change which most people are unwilling to countenance.
Roy Nathanson:
When you do not prosecute a “theft” if the value of goods is less than $1000 or if the goods are food or clothing, aka, “necessities,” then that “theft” is no longer a “crime.”
Sucks to be in trade in such a decriminalized society. Someone else pays the cost for those free lunches (formerly illicit drugs) and those non-crimes.
“There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” RAH
“Math is hard.”
Once problems or “issues” attain a certain magnitude they become, for all intents and purposes, insoluble without truly radical change which most people are unwilling to countenance.
The only ‘radical change’ which will ‘solve’ the problem of vagrancy would be something that might be dreamed up by Xi or Hitler. Vagrancy is part of the human condition. Cack-handed operation of the electricity grid is not part of the human condition, just another manifestation of how California is a silly and unserious place.
“The crime in shoplifting is theft. When and where was that decriminalized?”
I invite you to read the comment by JimNorCal about California, above.
“How do you “know” that decriminalizing drugs would make the problem worse?”
I “know” this because I comprehend how reality works. If you criminalize theft and punish it, it will decline. If you decriminalize theft, as California did, it will increase. If you decriminalize drug use, same.
The assumption here is that drug use is bad, which is an assertion I will make, because it causes people to be unable to function in human society. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
I admit not all drug use has this result- sorry, long dead functionaries of the Byzantine Empire, you were fools to try and ban coffee- but we aren’t talking about caffeine.
We’re talking about substances that cause people to let their babies to starve to death because they were more interested in using drugs than taking care of them.
Long term, I have no doubt that natural selection will handle this problem thoroughly and well. But I see no reason why we shouldn’t handle it in the short term, by various measures.
Most importantly, by declining to endorse the use of certain drugs by keeping that use illegal.
Cabrini–Green…anybody really believe this will end any different?
The people pushing deinstitutionalisation did so for 2 main reasons:
1) the severe mental and physical abuse of the inmates (officially termed patients) in the institutions would, if it were prisons, be termed inhuman torture and illegal under federal law and international treaties
2) they thought, correctly or not, that the majority of those institutionalised were so without need and could easily readjust to life outside.
Add to that the idea that those released would simply be taken in by friends and family and taken care of (which is after all the libertarian idea about why we don’t need government programs that’s very common on the political right, it is their utopian view just as the massive government taking care of everything and everyone all the time is the left’s utopian view).
As that obviously didn’t happen (and never happens, it’s a utopian view after all, has no basis in reality) those released ended up on the street to a large degree, with no help from anyone.
Churches had no interest in them as they didn’t have the money to fill their coffers.
Family had been happy to be rid of them, often were the very ones that forced them into those institutions.
And law enforcement didn’t see them as their responsibility unless they committed crimes and simply living on the street isn’t illegal per se.
Enter the 1970s and the increasing amount of drugs crime, which tends to target the mentally weak first, and drug abuse among those mentally afflicted homeless goes up.
Police and city councils start taking notice but at the same time are secretly happy, as they often overdose and kill themselves, reducing the number of homeless…
As more and more cities start up rehab programs for drugs addicts however, the number of drugs users goes through the roof (most people in those programs are forced into them against their wish by police and courts and return to drugs use when done), as at the same time the quality of drugs goes up, causing the number of ODs to go down. Street crime goes through the roof as well as the ever increasing number of addicts turn to crime to fund their habbits, often ending up on the street as well because of failure to pay rent or mortgage as the money goes towards drugs.
At the same time more mentally ill people find themselves with nowhere to go, nobody willing to help them, and end up on the streets as well. Often these people will already be addicted to prescription drugs, but turn to contraband when prescriptions aren’t renewed or they simply can no longer afford to pay for them and contraband tends to be less expensive.
Churches had no interest in them as they didn’t have the money to fill their coffers
Thanks for the libel. Been an education. MBITRW, religious congregations are just about the only sector of society which takes a consistent interest in the welfare of vagrants.
And, again, we get this state asylum nostalgia. Again, the population of the United States doubled while the state asylum census declined by more than 85%. We don’t have 1.6 million vagrants in this country. Our single best guess is that we have 400,000 vagrants, not all of whom would have been candidates for the asylum in 1955. So, no, by and large ‘they’ did not end up on the street.
1. Improvements in public health reduced the potential census. Large scale problems (tertiary syphilis) and small scale problems (the post-encephalitic patients that Oliver Sacks used to care for) have evaporated.
2. Most people who’ve had schizophreniform episodes do not benefit from l/t 24 hour care (which is verrrry expensive). Fuller Torrey, a great advocate of institutional care, threw out an estimate in 1985 that perhaps 1/3 of those who’ve had schizophreniform episodes belong in asylums. That would amount to 700,000 to 800,000 people. The advent of antipsychotic medications gave families and their troubled members more options than was once the case.
3. The retarded are now housed in specialized group homes when they’re not with their families.
4. The senile are now housed in various strata of elder care.
5. The use of public agency as a delivery vehicle isn’t strictly necessary. Philanthropic agencies financed by Medicaid and allied state programs can do the trick. Where public agency might be preferred would be to house addled people who have also run afoul of the penal code, in lieu of housing them in prisons.
6. A great many vagrants do not have a discrete clinical diagnosis like schizophrenia. If they’re ‘ill’, it’s in a metaphorical sense. When people are free, they are free to fail. Spectacularly.
7. Crime went through the roof because the authorities quit enforcing the law. Modal opinion in the Democratic Party now favors another round of such negligence. What an exasperated, soon to retire teacher told Cathy Seipp about silly pedagogy 20 years ago applies here, “”That’s where we are in the cycle right now…I’ve been doing this so long I can see the same wheel just keep turning round and round.” Thomas Sowell said you get to a certain age and you’re so disillusioned you don’t mind dying.
8. Here’s a suggestion: in an ordinary size city, scatter about 20 shelters around town. You can put them in the sketchier areas of downtown, in warehouse districts, in industrial districts, in slums. Three stories, a common area where meals can be served, a large shower stall, and two floors of bunk beds which can provide night quarters for about 60 people. Have sets of religious congregations adopt one or two shelters. The operating costs will be such that philanthopies can handle it. Assign cops to provide security. No federal involvement and no state involvement unless someone needs to be incarcerated.
Art Deco,
You cannot dismiss the results in Portugal so easily. If decriminalizing drugs was as stupid and dangerous of an idea as you and others claim then, after nearly twenty years of this policy, Portugal should be experiencing a social disaster due to unchecked drug use. It is not. You will not find any evidence that they are worse off than before. And there is quite a bit of evidence that they are better off.
I am asking you all to take off your ideological blinders and accept actual evidence. If you can’t do that, then you are just as bad as the Leftists insisting that State Planned Economies are the way to go.
I do not promote this issue from any idealistic point of view. I promote it because I can see the damage that Drug Prohibition has done and I have seen real evidence decriminalization won’t make things worse.
Ideological blinders indeed. Portugal proves the point. Somehow the free use of heroin in Amsterdam (Netherlands) and the social anthologies involved is ignored. Inconceivable.
Is Portugal the exception to history that makes the rule for Roy?
Just try it, what could be worse?
sdferr on December 28, 2019 at 2:43 pm said
Oh, for a like/thumbs-up button!
Art Deco on December 28, 2019 at 5:40 pm said:
It’s a small scale problem.
It is in most places. But certain policies provide a magnet for places like Seattle and LA and San Fran. In those places it’s not small scale, at all.
Roy Nathanson:
Portugal is one country. Are the effects in other countries the same, or are they different? Perhaps there is something about Portugal that makes it an exception? Or perhaps not. But I do know one thing: Portugal and the US are very very different places with different demographics and different cultures.
Roy Nathanson; om:
Doing a little search just now, I came up with this about Portugal from 2011 [emphasis mine]:
It seems very clear to me that what happened in Portugal was NOT mere decriminalizing, it was putting another expensive and somewhat more effective system in place. Unless we do the same here – which would mean a tremendous commitment both financially and in human resources and quasi-government commissions to handle all of this- then decriminalization will likely have more or less the same outcome as deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill when it was done without putting the alternative treatment centers in place.
The libertarian dream doesn’t seem to work by itself. Didn’t work for mental illness and probably won’t work for substance abuse.
Also see this article.
You cannot dismiss the results in Portugal so easily.
I didn’t evaluate them at all. I’ve heard these contentions before, but I’ve not looked at the studies because I don’t have access to full text databases any more. I’m definitely not stipulating to anything because (1) the contentions are counter-intuitive, (2) but attractive to a certain sort of mind, so (3) it all smells of a certain sort of cologne, l’Eau de Misleading Meme.
If decriminalizing drugs was as stupid and dangerous of an idea as you and others claim then, after nearly twenty years of this policy, Portugal should be experiencing a social disaster due to unchecked drug use. It is not. You will not find any evidence that they are worse off than before. And there is quite a bit of evidence that they are better off.
Tell us what the before and after state was, and tell us what the regression analyses were. If the before state was ‘negligent in enforcement of drug laws’ and the after state was ‘intentionally refusing to enforce drug laws, I’m not seeing how the program is a great success.
I am asking you all to take off your ideological blinders and accept actual evidence. If you can’t do that, then you are just as bad as the Leftists insisting that State Planned Economies are the way to go.
I saw what you did there.
I do not promote this issue from any idealistic point of view. I promote it because I can see the damage that Drug Prohibition has done and I have seen real evidence decriminalization won’t make things worse.
I keep asking you what damage it has done and you keep not answering.
The other thing is just like people who use various smallish Scandinavian countries as examples of leftist utopias of varying degrees picking a small country and claiming their drug policies could work in a vastly larger, more diverse country is foolish.
Unless we do the same here – which would mean a tremendous commitment both financially and in human resources and quasi-government commissions to handle all of this-
Many years ago, a social worker who specializes in alcohol and drug rehab told me he had two allies in this job, “banks” and “the criminal justice system”. “Banks, they don’t care about your problems. They just want their money”. As for the criminal justice system, he said it had one virtue, “once it has you in its maw, it keeps coming after you and after you until it is DONE with you”. Both, he offered, worked to bring addicts back to reality, the place they’ve been fleeing.
You want to replace punishment with therapy, keep in mind that the already existing therapy regimes get indifferent results, even with more – aversive – means lurking in the background as the alternative.
The other thing is just like people who use various smallish Scandinavian countries as examples of leftist utopias of varying degrees picking a small country and claiming their drug policies could work in a vastly larger, more diverse country is foolish.
My favorite Shah of Iran quotation: “When Iranians behave like Swedes, I will behave like the King of Sweden”. You police the population you have, school the population you have, design social policy to address the problems of the population you have. Not the population Sweden used to have (before they thought their country would be more interesting with some rapey boogaloo imported from the Near East).
Thomas Sowell said you get to a certain age and you’re so disillusioned you don’t mind dying.
Strangely cheery. 🙂
I left Kali because like all sane/intelligent I realized I was massively outnumbered by the insane/stupid. Don’t get me wrong. There are still sane and smart people left in Kali who can’t escape for various reasons. Like Victor Hansen whose farm has been in the family since the 19th century.
Kali can’t solve its homeless problem because the idiots who keep voting the self-dealers into office are not capable of comprehending reality.
The other day a homeless guy walked into a San Francisco grocery store and went to the toilet paper aisle. He grabbed a package of toilet paper, dropped his pants, then defecated in the aisle and cleaned himself with the stolen toilet paper.
This is not a crime in Kali anymore. Because now the homeless have all kinds of rights involving there homelessness.
The people in Kali are somehow convinced the problem is not spending enough money. Really? The grocery store I am sure had a restroom. Which would have been stocked with toilet paper. Or if not that store someplace close by. I’ve spent a lot of time in SF because now that it’s fashionable to be gay there a.lot of grateful women there. I never had a problem finding a restroom. A reading from the book of obvious. That was not normal behavior. Throwing money at him will not fix him. He needs to be taken off the street against his will if necessary. And he needs to be removed from SF so he is not near his drug contacts. A remote location. So he can be rehabilitated.
But giving your opinion about what might be best for the homeless/mentally I’ll brands you as a Nazi in Kali.
So now you know what the homeless will do on your granite counter tops.
What damage has Drug Prohibition done???
Wow! Where to start?
Criminal drug cartels
Criminal drug gangs
Drug trafficking related violence
Over half a million incarcerated for nonviolent crimes at a public cost of billions.
Billions more spent on drug law enforcement.
Loss of opportunity cost for the billions of dollars spent and the loss of human resources involved.
Complications to our Foriegn Policy objectives
Neo is correct that in the Portugal example they redirected the law enforcement savings to treatment and rehab programs. I am pretty sure that with the billions saved in the U.S., we could also address facilities, treatment and assistance for the homeless as well, which was the original topic of this article.
Look… if you start with the assumption that drug use is a sin and therefore should be a crime, then there is little room for debate. Some of you appear think this way. I hope not all.
But, if you judge the behavior in terms of its overall damage to the society then we can explore mitigating strategies for the problem that work. We don’t have to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Criminal drug cartels
Criminal drug gangs
Drug trafficking related violence
Over half a million incarcerated for nonviolent crimes at a public cost of billions.
Billions more spent on drug law enforcement.
1. The drug trade is an opportunity for organized crime, not the cause of it.
2. Again, what’s the net?
3. Didn’t you just tell me the signature of the drug trade was violence?
4. Again, what’s the net?
Roy Nathanson:
We didn’t do that with mental health services when we de-institutionalized, and it is likely that we wouldn’t do it (or do it effectively) with rehab services. We already have a lot of rehab in this country, and its track record isn’t good.
Also, at the time the Portuguese policy was implemented, the rate of drug abusers in the population there was about 1%. Here it’s far greater, not just in absolute numbers because we’re a bigger country but also as a percentage of our population.
In addition, the initial statistics in Portugal involved a country with a relatively new drug problem and almost no rehab services in place. So there was a lot of room for improvement, because they were nearly starting from scratch. That is certainly not true of the US.
Let me add that Portugal has 10 million people. So that, even now, the scope of the rehab that had to be put in place was small, more like that of a large city here.
Art Deco,
There is a parallel with the various mafias of the Alchohol Prohibition Era. The illegal alchohol trade allowed small time criminal organizations to become very large and powerful. When Drug Prohibition is removed the cartels and gangs will not just go away, any more than the mafias did, unfortunately. They will move into extortion, prostitution, and other crime. However, they will be fighting over slices of a much smaller pie than before. Just like the mafias, little by little, they will lose their reach and influence. This process will take years and a lot of hard police work. I have no illusions, nor make any claims, of this being an instant cure.
Neo,
You are right that Portugal is not the U.S., just like Iran is not Sweden. However, that does not make the underlying concept invalid. As well, I don’t expect to see this done in one fell swoop. The recent legalization of Marijuana
in many states is the beginning of a movement in this direction. I continue to fight for this issue because I, like many others in this country, believe in it.
I would note that the marijuana legalization has been accomplished in 10 states over the last seven years. There have been issues that needed to be resolved, but the “world as we know it” did not end. As a side note, I still have yet to try it since legalization and probably won’t. I don’t know anyone who started using it for the first time after it became legal.
Following is a report with the broad statistics of the issue drawn from serious and official sources: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/criminal-justice/reports/2018/06/27/452819/ending-war-drugs-numbers/
Unfortunately the born and raised in Texas hippies who came to the West Coast won’t change their loser lifestyle and the others who fled Texas for the West Coast won’t change their voting habits.
Thus, California was screwed up by Texans.
Micha, dont worry about. I don’t plan on returning the favor. As a.matter of fact I don’t ask anyone to move here unless I’m sure they won’t vote like an average Californian.
There is a parallel with the various mafias of the Alchohol Prohibition Era.
The mafias existed before prohibition and went into different lines of business after.
In response to an earlier question from Neo:
I did some quick research. There are ten countries on four continents that have partially decriminalized or legalized some drugs. No country has completely legalized drugs. See:
https://www.inspiremalibu.com/blog/drug-addiction/10-countries-that-ended-their-war-on-drugs/
I would have preferred a better source for this, but the others I found were not current.
Not mentioned are countless regions in which a specific drug use is tolerated because of it is a traditional aspect of the local culture. Examples are chewing of cocoa in Bolivia and smoking of opium in the northern hill tribes region of Thailand.
Although the article above is not in depth, I perceive no indications that any country, having backed away from the criminalization of drug use, has regretted it and reversed course.
I don’t know that there’s any satisfactory data from that era. The Census Bureau and the Urban Institute were assembling data sets ca. 1990. I don’t believe what numbers these agencies have been assembling demonstrate that the problem has grown worse in the last generation
Art Deco: Maybe that’s because there were no homeless shelters in that era and thus no homeless living in them to measure. I sure don’t remember any homeless shelters back then. There may have been hobo jungles somewhere but that seems a Depression era thing. As I recall the scandal of poverty then was people living in skid row hotels or in country shacks.
Do you recall any counter-examples? If not, I’ll score that one in my column.
Between when and when?
C’mon. I’ve made it clear my frame was “50 years or so ago.” If you don’t have data for that, that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it.
Again, from that era I recall that men worked or they were bums. There was emphasis on thrift, budgets and savings. There wasn’t much in the way of welfare. If a family got into trouble, relatives pitched in or the local churches. It was a different world. Standards.
Do you recall any counter-examples? If not, I’ll score that one in my column.
Also, by cites I mean links and quotes. Not your paraphrases.
Art Deco, Xennady: I started my drug comments thus:
However, drugs aren’t all the same and people aren’t all the same in how they respond to drugs, even addictive drugs.
I concluded:
Drugs, like so many other things, must be considered on a case-by-case basis in terms of individuals and society.
I’m glad you grasp that caffeine and amphetamines are different drugs which ought to be treated differently.
Art Deco,
“The mafias existed before prohibition and went into different lines of business after.”
If you will actually read my comment, that is what I already said.
But DURING Prohibition they became monsters.
Almost by definition, the homeless lack what is called “Social credit”. This is to say, none of their family or friends will put them up. Imagine yourself going through a patch of financial embarrassment. You almost certainly have friends or family who would give you a sofa and an air mattress in their living room.
Those who are literallywithout family are exceptions, ditto friends. But most of these folks are so messed up–psychology term–that nobody will let them in the house. Lousy hygiene, stealing to support drugs, hassling the little girls, puking on the front sidewalk…or being unable to maintain an equable relatiionship. These are not sins and they are not immoral in origin. These people are messed up. And that leads to difficulties trying to get them housed and keep them housed.
I have some friends who’ve worked with the homeless for a couple of decades. T Their organization has finally gotten a building, repurposed it in various ways which have to do with behavioral issues. Probably half the homeless population of their small town wouldn’t qualfiy for a purpose-built facility due to behavioral issues.
To “take them off the street” against their will, mess with their minds (who they are, dear to themselves if no one else, also against their will with scant prospect of success, however that is to be defined.
Or we can see them on the street.
Drugs, like so many other things, must be considered on a case-by-case basis in terms of individuals and society.
As to where we go from there, it’s a tricky business to be discussed with as much specificity and facts as can be mustered.
Mostly I don’t see that from conservatives when it comes to drugs. They tend to be as useless as liberals ranting about guns.
I have my libertarian tendencies, but I’m not a purist. I think drugs should be studied and controlled as necessary. However difficult the battles against meth, opioids and benzos may be, those are battles which must be fought IMO. Humans are all too easily destroyed by those pills and powders.
Nonetheless, opioids and benzos do have their place in medicine, so they can’t be ruled out entirely. I imagine meth has its legitimate uses too under strict control.
Math is hard and the world is complicated.
Neo, your article from the Vancouver Sun is terrific, assuming it’s reliable (“Trust but verify…”).
I have been careful to distinguish between decriminalizing drugs and legalizing them for a long, long time now, on the grounds that the two are not the same and that “legalization” carries (at least to some) a message of “OK fine, have at it” whereas “decriminalization” doesn’t imply acceptability.
Per the article, Portugal took the distinction seriously, put caps on the amount of X a person could have without its possession becoming criminal, and used various therapeutical aids to help the non-criminal users to give up their drug(s). Naturally the governmental, i.e. taxpayers’, support of the programs makes my libertarian gene twitch, but then again this is the world we have, not Libertopia.
In line with what somebody said above, I don’t see why it wouldn’t be possible, once users of the “hard drugs” (+ mj) are no longer criminally liable, for smaller jurisdictions such as counties or cities or relatively sparsely-populated states (like Wyoming), to put similar methods in place.
Neo’s article:
“Drug decriminalization is no silver bullet, says Portugal’s drug czar”
is at
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/daphne-bramham-decriminalization-is-no-silver-bullet-says-portugals-drug-czar
.
Good comments above, too; especially the ones pointing out that different areas or jurisdiction of the globe, as well as different drugs, are likely best tailored to the particular area and drug. As Dad used to say, “Circumstances alter cases.” (I can’t understand how he suddenly got so smart when I was in my fifties! /self-mockery )
.
Good observations about the Mafia and Prohibition, too. The business took advantage of a market upsurge to grow really fast and really hard to kill. Now most of the original organized crime is dead, but new businesses have sprung up that continue to take advantage of the ready-made market … among other things.
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/776036170/the-great-pretender-seeks-the-truth-about-on-being-sane-in-insane-places
The cautionary tale is also about making public policy on the basis of a single, unreplicated study, whichthe government still seems prone to do.
Those who are literallywithout family are exceptions, ditto friends. But most of these folks are so messed up–psychology term–that nobody will let them in the house
Richard Aubrey: True, plus many of the homeless would rather not put up with the strictures of anyone else’s demands — family, friends or homeless shelters. And thanks to the remarkable affluence and tolerance of America they don’t have to, especially in states like California.
Which is why I started my part in this discussion with standards. I do believe that a couple generations ago Americans did a much better job of transmitting standards. I’m saying the homelessness problem is *in part* a collapse of standards.
Where in the world did standards and societal expectations come from on this.
Go into the homeless community or experience it from brief contact in most major metropolitan areas.
Mental illness, by genes or drugs, is the main reason for almost all in this.
The outliers are the ones “down on their luck” poor.
Where in the world did standards and societal expectations come from on this.
Go into the homeless community or experience it from brief contact in most major metropolitan areas.
TexasDude: I’ve worked in soup kitchens. I’ve taken calls on a suicide hot line. When I was down and out in my twenties I lived in Ford van with two other guys. My younger sister would be dead on the streets, if she didn’t have my other sister and myself to swoop in and rescue her many times.
If you wish to argue, fine. But I’m not some out of touch guy living a privileged existence with no experience of the nitty-gritty.
Here’s where I part with the consensus. All children have fragile egos. If they have have sufficient Adverse Childhood Experirnces (ACEs) it will damage for long term. Possibly for life. They developed poor coping skills.
Basically this means they don’t want to be the person they were born as.
Asssssddiction is one manifestation of this. They are taking a vacation from themses. But then there are various disphorias.
Body integrity dysphoria. One poor woman in Atlanta wished she was blind. When she was a teenager she got a cain and dark glasses. Then as an adult she found someone willing to pour Drano in her eyes.
Why she needed to find someone else to do that but I don’t think crazy. And I know it may sound like an insult but is affirming people in their delusions helping them?.
To be continued.
But DURING Prohibition they became monsters.
No, they were already monsters.
Roy Nathanson:
Whether or not a country has reversed course isn’t much of a measure of whether the policy was successful. Once a drug is decriminalized or legalized, it can be very difficult to go back.
As I pointed out in my rather lengthy comments with all the quotes, in Portugal decriminalization was only a small part of what they did.
The there is species dysphoria. When you imagine you are really a raccoon or wombat or something. I think maybe some of you can see where I’m going with this.
Up until figuratively 15 minutes ago gender dysphoria was considered.a disease of the mind. I am speaking in geological time frames.
I knew a woman psychologist who told me she could talk to some guy.who.thought he was really a woman and in 5 minutes he didn’t know what he was talking abought.
It is not compassionate to affirm people in their delusions.
It is not compassionate to affirm people in their delusions.
Steve57: Standards.
I did not mean to spell.addiction that way. Trying to type on my phone and without a proper keyboard just makes me look.stupid.
I’ve been homeless myself in high school no less.
Today, I own a house worth $200k and make $80k a year.
My current career means I deal with homeless people a lot.
Sorry, but not only anecdotal, but evidentiary observations reveal mental illness as the vast majority of culprit behind this.
Sorry, but not only anecdotal, but evidentiary observations reveal mental illness as the vast majority of culprit behind this.
TexasDude: Well, we disagree. Your experiences are fine but as far as I’m concerned they don’t trump mine.
I sold my house for $1.1 mil and most of it was paid off, if we’re measuring that.
My evidentiary observations are different from yours. In my experience people, including my sisters and myself, who raised their standards did better. I consider mental illness an overrated and disempowering explanation.
It’s debatable.
Roy Nathanson;
Roy Nathanson:
You seem fixated on sin for an atheist. Theft, child abuse/abandonment, sexual exploitation, aka, prostitution, public defecation, assault and battery are asocial behaviors even when committed by an atheist. Those antisocial behaviors seem to be associated with criminality and drug abuse and alcohol abuse But in your world we should not discourage drug and alcohol abuse through the stigma of criminality? And this isn’t even considering people who are mentally ill.
After all, there are countless examples of high-functioning heroin addicts, crack heads, meth heads, and long-lived hard core alcoholics. /sarc
“The needle and the damage done” by Neil Young. It was old news in the 1970s.
Huxley …
I am not really trying to argue even though that is what is happening.
Can you see a majority of homeless making it to my level or to your lofty level?
Can you see a significant amount of homeless handling a steady job?
This post was about the supposition that all that is needed is a better environment.
I assert that will make no difference because the problem is not of material means, except for $$$ and the willingness to accept treatment.
“Everybody deserves a granite countertop”
Except those of us who work for our own keep and pay for others; we cannot afford the granite top. Mine’s a laminate, and a rather nice looking one at that. I don’t know if it actually Formica brand or not; and I don’t care. What I have is good enough for me. I just resent paying for others so they can have it nicer than me.
TexasDude: I don’t know what the homeless are capable of. You and I came out of it. I’m sure it varies, but I don’t think it helps the homeless to be told, one way or another, “Poor baby, you’re mentally ill and you will never hold a steady job.”
In any event I don’t appreciate your attempts to muscle me because I don’t have your experiences.
This is complicated stuff and I have spent much of my life, after seeing a heartbreaking number of people close to me go down — I mean dead — because of mental illness. And if I had been another such victim, nobody would have wondered about it, given my background.
I fought like hell to do as well as I did. I watched my sisters do so too. And if they had succumbed to the “Poor baby” stuff, they wouldn’t have made it.
Raise your standards.
Don’t worry, Mayor Pete has a plan that Roy N. may approve of:
https://www.redstate.com/alexparker/2019/12/29/pete-buttigieg-will-end-drug-crime-decriminalizing-drugs-including-cocaine-met
huxley. arguing with Texas Dude about his and your life experiences and what did and did not happen in your family and siblings. Get a grip.
“I’m glad you grasp that caffeine and amphetamines are different drugs which ought to be treated differently.”
Let’s discuss.
“Coffee has been outlawed five times. In Constantinople the second offense would get you sewn into a leather sack and thrown into the Bosporus to drown. Isn’t it a better world when caffeine is legalized?”
The plain implication you attempt to make is that banning meth and banning caffeine are pretty much the same crazy idea. Otherwise, there isn’t any reason to mention caffeine at all. Literally no one doubts different drugs should be treated differently, and literally no one wants to ban caffeine either.
We aren’t having this conversation about drug use because of the various drugs that aren’t problems or even the various people who use drugs without causing problems. We’re having it because of the drugs that are causing problems and the people who cannot use them without becoming problems.
I have been what most people would consider an addict. A drunk. When I was in port I spent my time getting drunk. Then I just got tired of it.i drank so much I couldn’t get drunk anymore. Built up that much tolerance. They kept brewing and distilling it faster than I could drink it. One day I woke up and the ice cubes in the glass on my my night hadn’t melted yet. I decided this was bull888t
I am not going to say I don’t drink. But I don’t drink competitively any more. Like I hate myself.
Night stand.
Perhaps we should look at huxley’s “standards” as a metonymy for social capital, in the sense that the truly down and out have largely lost the ties that would have been a social safety net. One destroys relationships with lack of discipline, poor impulse control, selfish behavior, lack of contribution, chronic lying. All these behaviors are associated with mental illness and substance abuse. Some people are abusers of relationships, and they find themselves with fewer and fewer places that can turn for help.
We should all be in the business of increasing social capital, particularly through private, voluntary cooperation. Voluntary organizations can defend themselves from parasitic behavior; government (i.e. political) institutions cannot, because more clients means more spending and more votes. We should therefore focus our political effort on making it easier for private charity and mutual aid to succeed.
In that context, we should think about the family as the smallest unit of mutual aid. In retrospect, it was wrong to think we could organize society around “nuclear” families, as opposed to the traditional multi-generational model. The economics seemed to work in the unusual economic environment of the 1950’s and early 60’s, but they are hard-pressed today. The economics of broken families and divorce are even worse.
Being the child of divorce and a broken family, the economic costs and the cost of fraying of social connections are apparent in my family history. Looking back over my life, I have had partial success in restoring my family’s stability, but I have always felt a downdraft working against me. And some of the downdraft comes from my own failings in the areas I mentioned above, so I know whom to blame!
There is no autonomy without responsibility. The State will inevitably fail to deal with this problem, and the issue will remain a meal ticket for bureaucrats and a toy for activists to play out their psychodramas and Daddy issues.
In retrospect, it was wrong to think we could organize society around “nuclear” families, as opposed to the traditional multi-generational model.
Rubbish. It’s agreeable to have grandparents around, but people function passably without them as a matter of routine, and grandparents have competing demands on their attention.
Old age mortality rates used to be considerably higher than they are today, and people’s time with their grandparents circumscribed. By way of example…my own parents had by age 35 lost two of their parents with a third an invalid unable to be of help; the surviving parent’s attention was divided between four adult children and the invalid spouse. Their parents had more time with the previous generation, but the problems and dispositions of the previous generation made two of them pretty useless in the realm of child-rearing; a third had died by the time their oldest child was 10 (and before their youngest child was born).
The economics seemed to work in the unusual economic environment of the 1950’s and early 60’s, but they are hard-pressed today. The economics of broken families and divorce are even worse.
Real per capita income has tripled since 1955.
Art Deco,
On what basis do you offer your emphatic opinion, ex cathedral as it were? There is, at a minimum, a discussion to be had about the economics of marriage versus single-person households, the viability of single-earner families then and now, the division of household labor between the market-based and the non-market based, the relative costs of key capital goods (eg real estate and education), the effective tax burden then and now, the nature of urbanization, and the economic expected cost (and benefit) of having children.
Now I might be mistaken, but I doubt even an acknowledged expert in the field such as Joel Kotkin would be so quick to dismiss my thesis. (Unless this is like Annie Hall, and you ARE Joel Kotkin, in which case let me say how much I have enjoyed reading your work and I am sorry to have so misunderstood it.)
Oblio,
I have to agree with Art Deco on this one. There is no need to revert to any particular previous familiar model.
Humans are endlessly adaptable. There is no single social model that works best for us. Read up on Sociology. You won’t believe the number of strange and different social structures that humans have experimented with. And what is truly impressive is how quickly and easily we adapt to to changed conditions.
If and when the nuclear family no longer serves our needs, we will automatically adjust or make changes. In a sense, in the last half century, we already have made a change from the expectation and norm of lifetime monogamy. Our longer and healthier lifespans have resulted in a new model characterized by serial monogamy.
But, our conditions will always be changing, and our primary social structures will continue to change and evolve as needed.
Humans are endlessly adaptable.
Why yes: see them wear their shoes and socks inverted on their forelimbs. Aren’t they clever?
On what basis do you offer your emphatic opinion, ex cathedral as it were?
The same basis you offered for your emphatic opinion, with some added detail to boot.
If you wish to argue that national income accountants don’t know what they’re talking about, be my guest.
I don’t know if human beings are endlessly adaptable. I do know that stem families haven’t been the mode in this country in generations – and since well before the sort of social breakdown you saw between 1958 and 1980.
Human societies (and humans) are endlessly plastic and adaptable. Bring on the “New Soviet Man.” Somehow this ideology hasn’t worked out too well. Your results in your head may vary.
And if Art can’t throw some stats on the table it is truly a slow day. The folks he cites must be reliable, they have numbers. Is it GIGO? Who knows.
it was wrong to think we could organize society around “nuclear” families, as opposed to the traditional multi-generational model.
OM is wrong on this, Art Deco more correct.
There’s lots of research about why “WE are rich”, Western Civilization, which I call Christian Capitalism. Most of it’s inconclusive, but a good amount recently points out that the Catholic Church made a big push against marrying cousins, and supporting the nuclear family, before the Reformation.
Ray: Humans are endlessly adaptable. That is mostly true for survival BUT not all social structures are “optimal”. The family of a married mother-father couple raising children is optimal for producing children as measured by the children’s life’s outcomes. No group has changed from nuclear family based marriage to any other social form with a resultant increase in the life outcomes of their children.
Socialism, which sort of works inside a family, fails with any group of families.
Having a nuclear family doesn’t guarantee no problems, and many kids from nuclear families go on to become parents in non-nuclear families, but the kids from these divorced and never married relations have even higher probabilities of having problems, including the mental health issues most are talking about here.
(I’m not really sure how Huxley’s “standards too low” isn’t just an alternate reformulation of mental issues.)
The idea that the State can be a substitute father is almost ludicrous, altho the gov’t can provide a check to a mother with children. Material poverty is not the real problem, it’s behavior of those who choose to be irresponsible, including choosing to first try, then accept becoming addicted to, drugs.
In a rich society which wants to allow people freedom, including the freedom to be irresponsible (low standards?), there will always be some number of folk who choose an addict’s / ill person’s homeless lifestyle. One of the ways to minimize that number is to maximize the number of children born into nuclear families.
The richness of society has allowed the alt-families to reduce, tho not fully close, the gap, so that women are not economically forced to stay married to bums, not even for the children.
Like all social questions, it’s related to the culture war of the elites against Christians, but reducing the homeless problem should not be too much delayed by a discussion to be had about the economics of marriage versus single-person households…[and] the economic expected cost (and benefit) of having children.
Some process keeps producing people who want to or have to (?) live in the street. The number being produced is large enough to be a problem. So do people think the problem is more about how government should respond to to the problem? Or is it how to reduce the size of the problem in the first place. The first approach is short term and reactive; the problem will keep coming back. At the worst, we will continue to throw more money (granite countertops) at the problem without reducing it at all.
The long-term problem is the supply of people in this situation. It will take some time to fix, but you have to start at the source.
IMHO, we should make sure that the long term analysis includes social connection and social capital. I think I can advocate that without losing my capitalist bona fides.
I just read my comment above. In haste, I mispoke when I said “There is no single social model that works best for us.” That is clearly wrong. There are obviously systems that are superior for any given set of conditions and systems that have been tried and discarded as unworkable.
My apologies.
Tom Grey:
I think you were referring to Oblio’s response to Art Deco. You think Art Is on the right track because of Art’s penchant for citing stats that support his claims? Whatever, it is an approach that Art often uses to bolster his opinions, except when the topic is Makeover Videos.
Wikipedia (not always the best source, I know) has a list of homelessness, by country with ratios of homelessness vs. total population.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeless_population
I found it instructive. Here are some of my takeaways from it:
1. The problem is not at all unique to the U.S., nor is it particularly bad in the U.S. compared to other modern first world countries.
2. There is more homelessness in tropical countries, where the elements are not as harsh.
3. The authoritarian countries report less homelessness than the democracies… but do we believe their statistics? On the other hand, perhaps they simply deal more harshly with the homeless.
I don’t think that net homelessness has actually gotten worse recently. However, the recent policies of several major cities permitting homeless encampments is making the problem more visible.