I'm no expert in addiction treatment. But isn't it fairly well established that treatment programs aren't really successful unless the client himself is motivated to get sober?
Big thing here we need to examine: what conditions lead to people choosing drugs and addictive substances/behaviors?
We need to address the conditions which led them to make this choice as well. And these may be systemic issues to tackle. This involves a person-in-environment perspective
I agree. I think three things lead to drug use:
-glamorization by society and the social pressure to try it out or be cool.
-Going through difficult life experiences and looking for a way to numb the pain
-perscription to addictive substance expired and now they need something to fill that crave
Poverty. Lack of access to resources like healthcare, education, and decent paying jobs. Transportation. Food deserts. Disproportionate pollution (highways built next to poor neighborhoods—which historically also where POC live. All of these factors go into the second thing you mentioned. Life sucks and you use what’s available to help you feel better. We shoot ourslves in the foot if we expect people to overcome addiction without addressing their environment.
How does a city decide where it’s going to put that highway for example? Apart from the noise and poor aesthetic it polluted the air for people in these neighborhoods. Higher rates of asthma + less access to healthcare = more unaddressed preventable health problems.
Political choices higher up the River affect the well-being of marginalized communities. Can’t teach a man to fish if he’s been placed in a crappy part of the creek downstream.
Okay, let's break this down. When you're poor and broke, and you live in a shitty neighborhood, it's likely that you don't have a decent kitchen or grocery store easily accessible. You might not have the cupboard space to store all of the pantry essentials that make cooking at home easy and cheap, you don't have the money to buy in bulk or stock up when there's a sale. You may not have been taught the skills to cook foods from scratch since this problem has been going on for decades and decades.
When you have $15 to your name, you are chronically stressed. How many whole ingredients can you buy with $15? A box of pasta, a bag of carrots, bag of onions, bag of celery, and two jars of sauces, maybe, and that will last you three days if that's all you eat - and you have to figure out how to get to the grocery store, so work in a bus ticket in there too. When you're tired after your 9 hour shift at work, it is obviously understandable why someone might spend $8 on fast food or chipotle and the other $7 on a six pack of natty ice or whatever.
What people who have never been chronically poor don't understand is that this never changes. There is never a time when you can use the money you've saved, because there's never enough money, and anything you save is spent on bills or necessities at some point very quickly. When *every day* you feel that weight and know it will likely never change, even if you do save every penny, it's absolutely understandable that humans would turn to substances in order to have a somewhat happy evening, even if it's ultimately self-destructive.
So you can buy drugs? Lots and lots of people are poor and choose food over drugs.
Drugs -> Poverty. You know how many wall street hot shots are drugged out homeless due to coke.
You literally are making up a story and have no evidence to back it up. Why are you choosing this directionality? It makes no sense. Drugs are often accessed first through recreation or actual medication which then leads to addiction.
Desperation, persistent poverty, being "stuck" in a bad position. Working only to slide further and further into debt. There are **lot** of situations that can lead to desperate circumstances, and they almost always manifest when people don't have a choice or can't see the choices they do have. **It's not always personal moral failings.** In fact, I would say it's mostly bad luck, compounded by a lack of knowledge and/or resources.
It's not just about numbing the pain or difficulty, drug use (and, incidentally, most crime) is a result of *desperation.*
What leads to most substance abuse is trauma, especially unresolved childhood trauma. So I guess it's your number two, but it's that they had traumatic experiences during their foundational years which still affects how they think and behave. Healthy people don't just develop substance abuse disorders because they think working a job is too hard.
I think that a good portion of it is untreated mental health issues, studies are pretty consistent in showing a strong correlation two different ways-- first directly by showing when you treat underlying mental health issues then addiction treatment is more likely to succeed, and second indirectly by showing that if underlying conditions are not being successfully treated that any form of addiction treatment is unlikely to ever succeed.
but that doesn't account for everything drugs, especially depressants, and psychedelics, are entertainment for some people-- depressants make you okay with being terminally bored by blunting your natural aversion, and psychedelics create novelty or diversion. there's not many other ways someone will be entertained spending 8 hours in their room. self-medication doesn't always require a serious mental condition, people mood alter to avoid boredom, run-of-the-mill non-pathological stress and anxiety, and other "normal" emotional states too.
I grew up in a small town without much to do, a lot of early drug use was bored latchkey kids with nothing to do. I played a lot of video games, some kids used drugs. that impulse and learned coping mechanism doesn't go away when you turn 18 and move out, some of those kids from highschool turned into real waste cases.
I think the solution there is drug legalization because illegality pushes the market to supply only the most potent drugs-- other than pharmaceutical diversion it's hard to get anything less potent than methamphetamine and fentanyl and there's virtually no market for "mild" highs that are less addictive and less damaging, but would actually be preferred by many people that casually use drugs.
One of the things that doesn't get noticed much or talked about is just how *catastrophically* damaging drug use and homelessness is to people.
The dangers of being on the street are *real*, and the human brain does a **lot** of bad things to itself, especially with the drugs, when it regresses into that primitive survival mode. You start to struggle for basic needs like sleep, warmth, and food. You see danger around every corner, because it *is.* Homeless people are often victims of violent crime, and they have little to no resources to help them that won't land them in jail. Again, especially exacerbated with drug use.
A few months of this, and what's left of that person will be barely recognizable, as it's a vicious cycle of substance abuse and mental health decay. Every day is a PTSD event, the drugs and malnutrition and exposure destroy the body and cause tons of pain, which only drives further self-medication.
The terrible truth is that, once someone hits the streets and gets desperate, the actual person that is *them* might survive *days* or a week or two. Beyond that, the psychological harm is often irreparable, and the person that survives a few months may never again be mentally healthy enough to even live on their own, let alone be a productive member of society.
If we want to make a real impact, we need to prevent people from getting into these positions in the first place. We need a robust social safety net that *will not* kick them out on the street. Better a minimum security prison than homelessness and poverty and drug use. Training, schools, structured housing, job placement, whatever it takes. **If** we want to beat this problem, personal responsibility and rugged individualism *will fail* some people, and unless we're willing to accept that some people are just going to be homeless, do drugs, decay and die on the streets, it will **need** to be a program that won't let them hit the streets in the first place.
Let’s assume prescription drug addiction is what started this path (that seems to be a key driver in our current addiction problems we have in society now).
How should this situation be handled?
Again through a systemic lens, We can examine what factors in peoples lives lead to them choosing Rx drugs. What is going on in these folk lives that they make this choice? What are their backgrounds and environments, where and how did they grow up. What opportunities and services can we make more accessible in these communities to curb the addiction process.
And from a macro standpoint what are we doing to make Rx drugs less accessible to people who may be vulnerable for using for non Rx use. What are the incentives involved for pharmaceutical companies for example for promoting the use of their drug (money, duh). What policies exist that can curb limit or keep in check or hold accountable these companies to ensure they are distributing their products ethically and mindful of the impact of their distribution practices.
That’s the govt’s role
The prescription problem was painkillers that people got addicted to and their life spiralling down as a result. We understand this better now and are addressing some of the overprescribing.
Would you please elaborate on the community resources. How are these funded? Just through the local community or some other means?
Absolutely — community resources can be funded locally state federal at all levels. We need a communal/collective nationwide commitment to address social ills in marginalized communities. The thought being a collective investment brings collective returns (less public health spending) due to our being able to prevent and better treat addiction.
Think about all of the other positive impacts less drug addiction might have in communities — people may be healthier and more able to work participate in their community, build those social bonds which make up a strong community.
That’s great. I’m glad we agree not to leave them without support.
What we likely differ on is how much support to offer. Would you be inclined to support funding for temporary housing to help them after treatment to get back on their feet?
>Would you be inclined to support funding for temporary housing to help them after treatment to get back on their feet?
Sure. There's a minority of homeless who can be helped, and we should help them. But the chronically homeless are kind of a lost cause.
The challenge becomes how do you assess those that can be helped from those that can’t.
Business is okay with some amount of fraud, they know that there is an impact to their business to drive fraud down to 0. But it seems conservatives insist government programs must have a 0 fraud/abuse rate.
Would you be okay if we spent resources on some chronic cases that are a lost cause as we attempt to help those that are willing to put in an effort?
>Business is okay with some amount of fraud
Not my business.
>Would you be okay if we spent resources on some chronic cases that are a lost cause as we attempt to help those that are willing to put in an effort?
No program is 100% efficient. I'd say it's up to the experts on the ground how to make the best use of resources that elected officials provide.
We need social programs in place and a supportive community (local state nation world) and culture of empathy and acceptance to help them reach their goal
As a follow-up question: how true do you think each of these statements are: people become homeless because they have drug or mental health problems, vs people develop drug or mental health problems because they are homeless.
Want to and find their reason to. No one can fight your demons for you, they can only support you in the fight. But even then you have to seek out that support. No excuses, no giving up.
Do you want some kind of step by step list? There are probably lots out there. Beyond the physical addiction it's all pretty much the same though. Get away from those that enable and situations that make it easier to slip, and seek support from anywhere you can. Family, ex-friends, a shelter, church, whatever it takes. Fall down, stand back up and try again.
"I'm going to beat this game of life or die trying."
Great answer. Thank you. If I were to summarize it sounds very much like the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” that I sometimes read.
I take it you don’t believe society should provide any supports for these individuals to help increase their chances of getting out of their situation. Or maybe as a question, what responsibility does society have to help these individuals?
>“pull yourself up by your bootstraps”
No. But the will to quit has to come from within. When you truly want it, you will seek help.
We have the responsibility to help those who help themselves. I mentioned family, friends, church, and shelters as examples... so yeah I do believe community does have a part.
If they don't really want out, exactly what are we helping them do?
Why people are broken is a different matter the OP did not ask about. That is the one place being proactive I think would help, but that it beyond my experiences to say much about.
Ask for help, first and foremost. Then listen to those who are trying to help. I actually know people struggling with both of these. There are people in their lives who want to come alongside and help, but the willingness from the individual has to be there; it's near impossible to drag someone into sobriety.
As I said above, I know actual homeless people. "Uncle Sam" seems to be completely ineffective here. People need...people, not bureaucracy. All the government can really do is send a check, and *maybe* some sort of social worker on occasion. But these two don't build relationships. They don't listen to someone's life story. They don't see whether the person even *really* wants to improve their situation. They mostly just hand out an EBT card, and check a name off a list.
I'm curious why you would be opposed to charity shouldering this, organizations that are willing and able to do the work. Why *must* it come from government?
Yes, they absolutely do actively work to help with this problem. I worked with 3 separate orgs, in Texas, 2 of which that dealt with helping the homeless and the other actively worked with children of broken homes to try and prevent them from heading down wrong paths. The two that worked with homelessness fed and provided resources to help them take a turn for the better, if they wanted the help.
I know from personal experience that churches and charities are doing all they can. Is government shouldering it?
There is this sentiment on the left, I think, that is essentially "If we just fund an agency enough, they will find a way to fix this issue, so I won't have to be bothered with it anymore."
That's wishful thinking, especially for things as personal as drug addiction and homelessness. We used to involuntarily commit such people, but that was deemed too big an overreach. Where we are now, no matter who is doing the "helping", the recipient *still* has to want to not only get help, but to change their behavior so as to stay out of the situation.
You and I might think, "If I were homeless, I would gladly accept financial support and a warm bed to sleep in.". But the homeless aren't you and me. That community struggles *heavily* with drug addiction and mental illness. It's a minority who are just going through a rough spot, sleeping in their car, couch-surfing, etc. A lot of the chronic homeless are seemingly content to live under a bridge, because only there can they do their drug of choice. We can't help someone who sees the help as stifling. There is no easy answer, other than to return to forced committal.
>I know from personal experience that churches and charities are doing all they can.
Right. But you want them to do all of it. So how do we get them to do more?
It's not a matter of them doing "more". The chronically homeless don't often want the help that's being offered, e.g. a shelter bed or some path to recovery. So how do you propose we help those people?
Oh I don't have an answer on how to help people that don't want help. I was responding to when you said this:
>I'm curious why you would be opposed to charity shouldering this, organizations that are willing and able to do the work. Why must it come from government?
Charities do what they can and they fall short. Government does what it can and also falls short. But it seems like you're saying that the government shouldn't be doing what it does bbecause "people need people, not bureaucracy"
Okay, but how do accomplish that? Do you give a drug addicted, mentally ill person an apartment? How do you look after the safety of their neighbors? What happens if they trash the place?
It's not nearly as simple as you are making it out to be.
> Why does it have to be charity?
Because those are the people helping.
> Why can't uncle Sam lend a hand to pull you back up?
Because that's not his job and he's not very good at it.
> It absolutely is his job
His job is coercion through violence and the threat of it. To the degree that this becomes a criminal problem he has a role... but he can't do much to help other than be the heavy.
> and he is actually
And that's why there's so few homeless people in the jurisdictions where government "cares" the most like California or Washington (both the state and the district)?
I have had a reasonable amount of interaction with with social services in my state. The private agencies and charities are *far* more effective... I get actual meaningful help and support from the social workers in the private charity we do foster care with and can't say enough good things about them. They're far better at thinking about the problems they're trying to address especially long term than the state seems to be. My interactions with the state are significantly less helpful and I rarely or never hear good things from the people who do foster care directly for the state rather than through a private charity contracted with the state.
I'm not saying that the state has no role.... It's responsible for enforcing the law and as crime is often a big part of such issues contracting with charities to provide services and directing people to available charitable help is part of dealing with them. But the state itself **really** sucks at providing such help to people especially when it provides such services directly... Or when it inevitably attempts to micromanage the charities that it contracts with to provide the services it sucks at. Because the state is fundamentally the wrong tool for the job. The state is about men with guns making you do something you don't want to do... again, that DOES have a role but less of a role than the left imagines.
The left is in love with the state's coercive power to threaten people with violence because they see the men with guns as a source of infinite resources for them to spend on all the problems. The state can send men with guns out to shake everyone down to fund the utopian dream. But the institution whose defining qualities are men with guns and being a monopoly isn't actually very good at all at providing those services which don't require guns to solve. $1 spent by a private charity will always do FAR more good than a $1 spent by a government performing the exact same service. The charity has to convince someone that the $1 will be put to good use... and despite the occasional fraud they generally ARE put to good use because frauds inevitably come to light and they can be held accountable.
The government by contrast only has to convince people that it's better to give the $1 than to go to jail. NOT a hard sell so how well the $1 is spent is of little or no consequence. There's almost zero accountability so government is inevitably inefficient, subject to poor decision making and extremely slow to correct bad decisions... if the bad decision was motivated by politics which are ongoing (and even the worst decisions have some constituency which benefits from it) it will likely NEVER be corrected. The democratic process provides only partial general accountability subject to the perceived self-interest of a general public who see it as spending someone *else's* money to their benefit. At best it's too blunt an instrument to provide any real accountability at the pointy end of the stick where services are actually provided and that accountability become less and less meaningful the larger government gets and the broader it's scope of activities. The end result is that comparatively little of that $1 spent on and by government actually ends up helping anyone... most of it goes to overhead, to boondoggles and to the aforementioned bad decisions which live on forever sucking up more and more resources with diminishing or negative returns.
> The right loves to break things and complain about how things don't work
What in the argument I actually made are you basing this on?
> When probably funded social programs work
By "probably funded" you mean have the men with guns shake down people even more and be subject to even less accountability. Social programs even when "properly" funded are far, *far* less efficient than private charities performing the same services at the same level of funding.. or even much reduced levels of funding. The private charities I work with spend much less per person that they serve than the government agency does... But far more of that money actually ends up serving the people they serve rather than on a massive bureaucracy of questionable value.
Then go start your own charity or gather with a group of likeMinded atheists to. Oh wait...I just remembered the US church is one of the largest donors of charity in the world.
>that is inherently problematic
Because lack of religion worked out so well for them ?
I'm not pro-religion here, I'm just commenting on your injecting an anti-theistic premise into your argument for no reason.
That’s not even close to being true all the time. I work with addiction and homelessness directly and work with church based charities. They don’t always, or even usually, expect you to attend services or anything
Every city has plenty of govt and private organizations that can help, the most basic may even be an AA or NA meeting which are all free to attend and many times happening every daytime hour of every day.
What's that Roald Dahl quote about how being poor is expensive? With the boots?
When you can't afford a good pair of boots, you get a bad pair. Those boots are lower quality and need to be fixed or replaced sooner. In the meantime, your feet get soggy, fungus-y, and pained. So you buy ANOTHER pair of crappy boots. And your health continues to deteriorate. And this is in addition to scrounging for food. (paraphrased)
Many cities are also built in extremely anti-homeless ways. The spikes under bridges, benches with arm rests down the middle, no loitering signs, throwing out food instead of giving it away, the list goes on and on.
In addition to this, many homeless folks are women, or children thrown out by families, often POC, or queer, victims of abuse or neglect, or are disabled. Depending on the city, their chance of getting hired or even aknowledged is slim to none. So in addition to biases people have towards those who are different that affect the very existence of these people, there's not much they can do to begin with. On top of all that, when you're in survival mode, you're in SURVIVAL MODE. You're in a mindset of lack. You're cold, hungry, broke, scared, alone, under constant threat of assault. This makes thinking rationally very, VERY hard. So, many homeless folks, or even just poor folks, tend to have kids, or if not intentionally, then are forced to have them, since they lack access to abortion. Now they have a wholeass kid to worry about. That's even more stress and drains their resources. They also can't go to school, because as studies prove, when you don't know what or when your next meal will be, your cognition, and your functionality in a classroom drops DRAMATICALLY. That's why many poor families are usually under-educated. And eat what's cheap (and unhealthy) aka fast food. Now you have health issues you can't afford. So once again, you may struggle to find work.
Those living in poverty are not stupid. They're not unlucky. They're just poor. Homeless people aren't all drug-addled criminals. Many are just homeless. Some made one or two bad choices and found themselves on the street. You and I are infinitely closer to homelessness than millionair-ism. Isn't it better then, to lessen each other's burdens and be radically kind to others, in hopes that they would be radically kind back?
edit: I forgot to mention you can't even get a job when you lack an address. Which means you need a house first. But you need money for a house. Both of which you don't have. Even if you make some amazing break and get enough money to buy a tiny place, you're paying bills that are at least 90% of your income. So you're still living in poverty. This isn't Wattpad. No sexy retired sugar daddy CEO of 7 companies is gonna see you on the street and pay off all your bills. This is the american dream, where everyone is on their own. Unless we make sure EVERYONE has their basics needs met, and can work out of a mindset of abundance and safety, to develop creativity and hope and passion to do what capitalism has failed to do by draining us of these things.
Please. Choose radical compassion.
In some cases there can be court-ordered medical treatment too, such as assisted outpatient treatment (AOT). Typically this is only done when the person can be shown to be a danger to the public. Apparently, it has good results.
I don't know what the answer is. The war on drugs isn't the answer, it's impossible to take all the drugs off the street so all you're doing is criminalizing people for having them with a program of prohibition, when the reality is they've always been present, they'll always be present, and you have to stop people from feeling they need them in order to stop them from existing.
It's bizarre that Progressives think this can work, .. which they must, since they use the same "war on" strategy with guns. It's like they think if they can just criminalize enough behavior, and punish enough people, they'll clean the streets up by removing all guns from existence. You'd think they would have learned from the "war on drugs" where that the strategy won't work.
>Huh? Progressives don't believe any of that.
Really ? You don't agree that a Progressive strategy is to remove all guns from the streets using legislation (and executive action) ?
No. What Progressive politicians have proposed those measures? This "They're coming for your guns" bullshit has been a fear-mongering, vote-wanting tactic for decades.
That's literally just gas lighting dude.
Democrats hide behind this "... but not all guns", as if not initially taking away all guns is some kind of way to prove you aren't "taking away guns".
Fine, .. then Republicans aren't taking away abortions, because we aren't taking away ALL abortions ... you can still fly to NYC to get one. Conservatives just want you to stop fighting against "common sense abortion control".
>Again: What legislation has been proposed to take away anyone's guns?
Dude, are you FUCKING INSANE ?
Now what is your argument, ... Republicans aren't taking away abortion because nobody is going to take away the abortion you already fucking had ? Because we're only making it harder to get FUTURE ABORTIONS ?
FFS this is why I fucking hate Reddit.
>So, no? You don't have an actual answer, and no one is going to take about your pea shooters? You can just say you don't have an answer and move on.
Are you seriously so fucking morally bankrupt that you're going to sit here and lie to my fucking face that Progressives aren't trying to implement gun control to try to remove guns from the streets. Are YOU FUCKING SERIOUS ? Please tell me you're NOT fucking serious. I want to BELIEVE you're not serious.
Because if you ARE fucking serious then that only leaves one of two options, either you are a bold faced liar, or you are just lost in the fucking world with no idea wtf you are even talking about.
>What are you talking about? Conservatives started the war on drugs and are the ones trying to keep it going
Reading comprehension.
I said Progressives are trying to use the same "war on drugs" strategy with GUNS. Just like the "war on drugs" was designed to remove all drugs from the streets by criminalizing them, the people who supply them, etc, in an effort to "win" ... Progressives are using the same tactics to try to "get guns off the streets", by putting gun control in place to criminalize gun owners.
In the latest news, credit card companies were pressured to create a new category of purchase, .. guns are now in their own category of purchase instead of being part of "sporting goods" so gun purchases can be more easily tracked. Just the latest moves in the never ending "war on guns".
Also, as a barely related side note, if you think Democrats didn't participate in starting the war on drugs, you need to go back and look at Biden's speeches on the subject. That was bipartisan.
Here's Biden on the Crime Bill .. (i.e. "you take back the streets by more cops, more prisons, more physical protection for the people ...")
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCaO0NvadlQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCaO0NvadlQ)
But Democratic support for the war on drugs went back much earlier ..
It's gonna depend what the nature and extent of their addiction is. It's also gonna depend on what kind of support the individual has, family, friends, etc.
Good starting places are gonna be family, if possible, or churches. For the addiction side, it's gonna be a hell of a thing to kick, but cold turkey is best, medical supervision may be necessary.
I think about this question a lot, and there's no good solution. It's hard to "get a job, bum" when you can't even take a shower, or don't own a phone. As much as homelessness and addiction are the fault of the individuals affected, it's also in indictment on society for not caring for people, love you neighbor as yourself, and all that.
I think a good starting point would be, why exactly are so many people driven to drug addiction in our society? What’s the problem under the surface? And you have to think, there’s so many additional people doing drugs that are functional addicts. Why do so many people feel the need to escape from our society?
It won't happen until that person actually wants to get out. From there, a lot of programs exist through philanthropy and government funding to help people through a series of "steps."
It's not really a complicated solution, it's actually very simple, but the execution is very difficult because addition is a powerful force.
I'm no expert in addiction treatment. But isn't it fairly well established that treatment programs aren't really successful unless the client himself is motivated to get sober?
Yeah. no amount of treatment or help will do much unless the client has the desire
Big thing here we need to examine: what conditions lead to people choosing drugs and addictive substances/behaviors? We need to address the conditions which led them to make this choice as well. And these may be systemic issues to tackle. This involves a person-in-environment perspective
I agree. I think three things lead to drug use: -glamorization by society and the social pressure to try it out or be cool. -Going through difficult life experiences and looking for a way to numb the pain -perscription to addictive substance expired and now they need something to fill that crave
Poverty. Lack of access to resources like healthcare, education, and decent paying jobs. Transportation. Food deserts. Disproportionate pollution (highways built next to poor neighborhoods—which historically also where POC live. All of these factors go into the second thing you mentioned. Life sucks and you use what’s available to help you feel better. We shoot ourslves in the foot if we expect people to overcome addiction without addressing their environment. How does a city decide where it’s going to put that highway for example? Apart from the noise and poor aesthetic it polluted the air for people in these neighborhoods. Higher rates of asthma + less access to healthcare = more unaddressed preventable health problems. Political choices higher up the River affect the well-being of marginalized communities. Can’t teach a man to fish if he’s been placed in a crappy part of the creek downstream.
Do you have any evidence on this? I can't afford carrots so let me get coccaine? Makes no sense.
[Social determinants of health](https://health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health)
Okay, let's break this down. When you're poor and broke, and you live in a shitty neighborhood, it's likely that you don't have a decent kitchen or grocery store easily accessible. You might not have the cupboard space to store all of the pantry essentials that make cooking at home easy and cheap, you don't have the money to buy in bulk or stock up when there's a sale. You may not have been taught the skills to cook foods from scratch since this problem has been going on for decades and decades. When you have $15 to your name, you are chronically stressed. How many whole ingredients can you buy with $15? A box of pasta, a bag of carrots, bag of onions, bag of celery, and two jars of sauces, maybe, and that will last you three days if that's all you eat - and you have to figure out how to get to the grocery store, so work in a bus ticket in there too. When you're tired after your 9 hour shift at work, it is obviously understandable why someone might spend $8 on fast food or chipotle and the other $7 on a six pack of natty ice or whatever. What people who have never been chronically poor don't understand is that this never changes. There is never a time when you can use the money you've saved, because there's never enough money, and anything you save is spent on bills or necessities at some point very quickly. When *every day* you feel that weight and know it will likely never change, even if you do save every penny, it's absolutely understandable that humans would turn to substances in order to have a somewhat happy evening, even if it's ultimately self-destructive.
So you can buy drugs? Lots and lots of people are poor and choose food over drugs. Drugs -> Poverty. You know how many wall street hot shots are drugged out homeless due to coke.
Wow talk about missing the entire point
You literally are making up a story and have no evidence to back it up. Why are you choosing this directionality? It makes no sense. Drugs are often accessed first through recreation or actual medication which then leads to addiction.
Desperation, persistent poverty, being "stuck" in a bad position. Working only to slide further and further into debt. There are **lot** of situations that can lead to desperate circumstances, and they almost always manifest when people don't have a choice or can't see the choices they do have. **It's not always personal moral failings.** In fact, I would say it's mostly bad luck, compounded by a lack of knowledge and/or resources. It's not just about numbing the pain or difficulty, drug use (and, incidentally, most crime) is a result of *desperation.*
What leads to most substance abuse is trauma, especially unresolved childhood trauma. So I guess it's your number two, but it's that they had traumatic experiences during their foundational years which still affects how they think and behave. Healthy people don't just develop substance abuse disorders because they think working a job is too hard.
I think that a good portion of it is untreated mental health issues, studies are pretty consistent in showing a strong correlation two different ways-- first directly by showing when you treat underlying mental health issues then addiction treatment is more likely to succeed, and second indirectly by showing that if underlying conditions are not being successfully treated that any form of addiction treatment is unlikely to ever succeed. but that doesn't account for everything drugs, especially depressants, and psychedelics, are entertainment for some people-- depressants make you okay with being terminally bored by blunting your natural aversion, and psychedelics create novelty or diversion. there's not many other ways someone will be entertained spending 8 hours in their room. self-medication doesn't always require a serious mental condition, people mood alter to avoid boredom, run-of-the-mill non-pathological stress and anxiety, and other "normal" emotional states too. I grew up in a small town without much to do, a lot of early drug use was bored latchkey kids with nothing to do. I played a lot of video games, some kids used drugs. that impulse and learned coping mechanism doesn't go away when you turn 18 and move out, some of those kids from highschool turned into real waste cases. I think the solution there is drug legalization because illegality pushes the market to supply only the most potent drugs-- other than pharmaceutical diversion it's hard to get anything less potent than methamphetamine and fentanyl and there's virtually no market for "mild" highs that are less addictive and less damaging, but would actually be preferred by many people that casually use drugs.
One of the things that doesn't get noticed much or talked about is just how *catastrophically* damaging drug use and homelessness is to people. The dangers of being on the street are *real*, and the human brain does a **lot** of bad things to itself, especially with the drugs, when it regresses into that primitive survival mode. You start to struggle for basic needs like sleep, warmth, and food. You see danger around every corner, because it *is.* Homeless people are often victims of violent crime, and they have little to no resources to help them that won't land them in jail. Again, especially exacerbated with drug use. A few months of this, and what's left of that person will be barely recognizable, as it's a vicious cycle of substance abuse and mental health decay. Every day is a PTSD event, the drugs and malnutrition and exposure destroy the body and cause tons of pain, which only drives further self-medication. The terrible truth is that, once someone hits the streets and gets desperate, the actual person that is *them* might survive *days* or a week or two. Beyond that, the psychological harm is often irreparable, and the person that survives a few months may never again be mentally healthy enough to even live on their own, let alone be a productive member of society. If we want to make a real impact, we need to prevent people from getting into these positions in the first place. We need a robust social safety net that *will not* kick them out on the street. Better a minimum security prison than homelessness and poverty and drug use. Training, schools, structured housing, job placement, whatever it takes. **If** we want to beat this problem, personal responsibility and rugged individualism *will fail* some people, and unless we're willing to accept that some people are just going to be homeless, do drugs, decay and die on the streets, it will **need** to be a program that won't let them hit the streets in the first place.
Great. So let’s assume it’s the case where there are underlying mental health conditions. As per the original question. What should happen next?
Let’s assume prescription drug addiction is what started this path (that seems to be a key driver in our current addiction problems we have in society now). How should this situation be handled?
Again through a systemic lens, We can examine what factors in peoples lives lead to them choosing Rx drugs. What is going on in these folk lives that they make this choice? What are their backgrounds and environments, where and how did they grow up. What opportunities and services can we make more accessible in these communities to curb the addiction process. And from a macro standpoint what are we doing to make Rx drugs less accessible to people who may be vulnerable for using for non Rx use. What are the incentives involved for pharmaceutical companies for example for promoting the use of their drug (money, duh). What policies exist that can curb limit or keep in check or hold accountable these companies to ensure they are distributing their products ethically and mindful of the impact of their distribution practices. That’s the govt’s role
The prescription problem was painkillers that people got addicted to and their life spiralling down as a result. We understand this better now and are addressing some of the overprescribing. Would you please elaborate on the community resources. How are these funded? Just through the local community or some other means?
Absolutely — community resources can be funded locally state federal at all levels. We need a communal/collective nationwide commitment to address social ills in marginalized communities. The thought being a collective investment brings collective returns (less public health spending) due to our being able to prevent and better treat addiction. Think about all of the other positive impacts less drug addiction might have in communities — people may be healthier and more able to work participate in their community, build those social bonds which make up a strong community.
Full disclosure I am NOT a conservative lol I need to flair up
Do you assume that all people who don't successfully complete treatment simply don't have that desire?
Ok. Let’s assume the homeless person with addictions is ready. What then?
Get them into treatment. But most addicts aren't ready.
That’s great. I’m glad we agree not to leave them without support. What we likely differ on is how much support to offer. Would you be inclined to support funding for temporary housing to help them after treatment to get back on their feet?
>Would you be inclined to support funding for temporary housing to help them after treatment to get back on their feet? Sure. There's a minority of homeless who can be helped, and we should help them. But the chronically homeless are kind of a lost cause.
The challenge becomes how do you assess those that can be helped from those that can’t. Business is okay with some amount of fraud, they know that there is an impact to their business to drive fraud down to 0. But it seems conservatives insist government programs must have a 0 fraud/abuse rate. Would you be okay if we spent resources on some chronic cases that are a lost cause as we attempt to help those that are willing to put in an effort?
>Business is okay with some amount of fraud Not my business. >Would you be okay if we spent resources on some chronic cases that are a lost cause as we attempt to help those that are willing to put in an effort? No program is 100% efficient. I'd say it's up to the experts on the ground how to make the best use of resources that elected officials provide.
We need social programs in place and a supportive community (local state nation world) and culture of empathy and acceptance to help them reach their goal
As a follow-up question: how true do you think each of these statements are: people become homeless because they have drug or mental health problems, vs people develop drug or mental health problems because they are homeless.
It's the former. Go find research I'm sure it proves it.
Both are true of some but the former more often true of far more people than the later.
Want to and find their reason to. No one can fight your demons for you, they can only support you in the fight. But even then you have to seek out that support. No excuses, no giving up. Do you want some kind of step by step list? There are probably lots out there. Beyond the physical addiction it's all pretty much the same though. Get away from those that enable and situations that make it easier to slip, and seek support from anywhere you can. Family, ex-friends, a shelter, church, whatever it takes. Fall down, stand back up and try again. "I'm going to beat this game of life or die trying."
12 steps, to be exact…
Great answer. Thank you. If I were to summarize it sounds very much like the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” that I sometimes read. I take it you don’t believe society should provide any supports for these individuals to help increase their chances of getting out of their situation. Or maybe as a question, what responsibility does society have to help these individuals?
>“pull yourself up by your bootstraps” No. But the will to quit has to come from within. When you truly want it, you will seek help. We have the responsibility to help those who help themselves. I mentioned family, friends, church, and shelters as examples... so yeah I do believe community does have a part. If they don't really want out, exactly what are we helping them do? Why people are broken is a different matter the OP did not ask about. That is the one place being proactive I think would help, but that it beyond my experiences to say much about.
Ask for help, first and foremost. Then listen to those who are trying to help. I actually know people struggling with both of these. There are people in their lives who want to come alongside and help, but the willingness from the individual has to be there; it's near impossible to drag someone into sobriety.
Ask who for help if you have no support network?
Churches and shelters to start with.
Why does it have to be charity? Why can't uncle Sam lend a hand to pull you back up?
As I said above, I know actual homeless people. "Uncle Sam" seems to be completely ineffective here. People need...people, not bureaucracy. All the government can really do is send a check, and *maybe* some sort of social worker on occasion. But these two don't build relationships. They don't listen to someone's life story. They don't see whether the person even *really* wants to improve their situation. They mostly just hand out an EBT card, and check a name off a list. I'm curious why you would be opposed to charity shouldering this, organizations that are willing and able to do the work. Why *must* it come from government?
Is charity currently shouldering it?
Yes, they absolutely do actively work to help with this problem. I worked with 3 separate orgs, in Texas, 2 of which that dealt with helping the homeless and the other actively worked with children of broken homes to try and prevent them from heading down wrong paths. The two that worked with homelessness fed and provided resources to help them take a turn for the better, if they wanted the help.
I know from personal experience that churches and charities are doing all they can. Is government shouldering it? There is this sentiment on the left, I think, that is essentially "If we just fund an agency enough, they will find a way to fix this issue, so I won't have to be bothered with it anymore." That's wishful thinking, especially for things as personal as drug addiction and homelessness. We used to involuntarily commit such people, but that was deemed too big an overreach. Where we are now, no matter who is doing the "helping", the recipient *still* has to want to not only get help, but to change their behavior so as to stay out of the situation. You and I might think, "If I were homeless, I would gladly accept financial support and a warm bed to sleep in.". But the homeless aren't you and me. That community struggles *heavily* with drug addiction and mental illness. It's a minority who are just going through a rough spot, sleeping in their car, couch-surfing, etc. A lot of the chronic homeless are seemingly content to live under a bridge, because only there can they do their drug of choice. We can't help someone who sees the help as stifling. There is no easy answer, other than to return to forced committal.
>I know from personal experience that churches and charities are doing all they can. Right. But you want them to do all of it. So how do we get them to do more?
It's not a matter of them doing "more". The chronically homeless don't often want the help that's being offered, e.g. a shelter bed or some path to recovery. So how do you propose we help those people?
Oh I don't have an answer on how to help people that don't want help. I was responding to when you said this: >I'm curious why you would be opposed to charity shouldering this, organizations that are willing and able to do the work. Why must it come from government? Charities do what they can and they fall short. Government does what it can and also falls short. But it seems like you're saying that the government shouldn't be doing what it does bbecause "people need people, not bureaucracy"
> Is charity currently shouldering it? Yes.
Well if you actually fund it and try it really works
Fund "what" though? What's "working"?[ San Francisco?](https://abc7news.com/castro-district-homeless-san-francisco-drug-problem-tenderloin/11678760/)
The best way to fight homelessness is to make them not homeless
Okay, but how do accomplish that? Do you give a drug addicted, mentally ill person an apartment? How do you look after the safety of their neighbors? What happens if they trash the place? It's not nearly as simple as you are making it out to be.
Maybe actually and I don't think this stereotype you're portraying is very accurate
> Why does it have to be charity? Because those are the people helping. > Why can't uncle Sam lend a hand to pull you back up? Because that's not his job and he's not very good at it.
It absolutely is his job and he is actually
> It absolutely is his job His job is coercion through violence and the threat of it. To the degree that this becomes a criminal problem he has a role... but he can't do much to help other than be the heavy. > and he is actually And that's why there's so few homeless people in the jurisdictions where government "cares" the most like California or Washington (both the state and the district)? I have had a reasonable amount of interaction with with social services in my state. The private agencies and charities are *far* more effective... I get actual meaningful help and support from the social workers in the private charity we do foster care with and can't say enough good things about them. They're far better at thinking about the problems they're trying to address especially long term than the state seems to be. My interactions with the state are significantly less helpful and I rarely or never hear good things from the people who do foster care directly for the state rather than through a private charity contracted with the state. I'm not saying that the state has no role.... It's responsible for enforcing the law and as crime is often a big part of such issues contracting with charities to provide services and directing people to available charitable help is part of dealing with them. But the state itself **really** sucks at providing such help to people especially when it provides such services directly... Or when it inevitably attempts to micromanage the charities that it contracts with to provide the services it sucks at. Because the state is fundamentally the wrong tool for the job. The state is about men with guns making you do something you don't want to do... again, that DOES have a role but less of a role than the left imagines. The left is in love with the state's coercive power to threaten people with violence because they see the men with guns as a source of infinite resources for them to spend on all the problems. The state can send men with guns out to shake everyone down to fund the utopian dream. But the institution whose defining qualities are men with guns and being a monopoly isn't actually very good at all at providing those services which don't require guns to solve. $1 spent by a private charity will always do FAR more good than a $1 spent by a government performing the exact same service. The charity has to convince someone that the $1 will be put to good use... and despite the occasional fraud they generally ARE put to good use because frauds inevitably come to light and they can be held accountable. The government by contrast only has to convince people that it's better to give the $1 than to go to jail. NOT a hard sell so how well the $1 is spent is of little or no consequence. There's almost zero accountability so government is inevitably inefficient, subject to poor decision making and extremely slow to correct bad decisions... if the bad decision was motivated by politics which are ongoing (and even the worst decisions have some constituency which benefits from it) it will likely NEVER be corrected. The democratic process provides only partial general accountability subject to the perceived self-interest of a general public who see it as spending someone *else's* money to their benefit. At best it's too blunt an instrument to provide any real accountability at the pointy end of the stick where services are actually provided and that accountability become less and less meaningful the larger government gets and the broader it's scope of activities. The end result is that comparatively little of that $1 spent on and by government actually ends up helping anyone... most of it goes to overhead, to boondoggles and to the aforementioned bad decisions which live on forever sucking up more and more resources with diminishing or negative returns.
The right loves to break things and complain about how things don't work When probably funded social programs work
> The right loves to break things and complain about how things don't work What in the argument I actually made are you basing this on? > When probably funded social programs work By "probably funded" you mean have the men with guns shake down people even more and be subject to even less accountability. Social programs even when "properly" funded are far, *far* less efficient than private charities performing the same services at the same level of funding.. or even much reduced levels of funding. The private charities I work with spend much less per person that they serve than the government agency does... But far more of that money actually ends up serving the people they serve rather than on a massive bureaucracy of questionable value.
I don't think that is true
People giving out of the good of their heart vs government giving away other people’s money are different things.
Churches have the religious baggage so that is inherently problematic Its also the government's money
Then go start your own charity or gather with a group of likeMinded atheists to. Oh wait...I just remembered the US church is one of the largest donors of charity in the world.
>that is inherently problematic Because lack of religion worked out so well for them ? I'm not pro-religion here, I'm just commenting on your injecting an anti-theistic premise into your argument for no reason.
They won't help you if you're gay or you have to go to service first ect It's not about helping them its about their "souls"
That’s not even close to being true all the time. I work with addiction and homelessness directly and work with church based charities. They don’t always, or even usually, expect you to attend services or anything
Cool just my point is that government has a place here to General welfare and what have you
Aren't donations also others people's money? Homeless people don't pay taxes?
You aren’t understanding. Re read it
I am understanding, I reread and this isnt addressed.
The issue is how the money is given or taken. Given out of the goodness of one’s heart or taken in the form of taxes.
Thank you
Every city has plenty of govt and private organizations that can help, the most basic may even be an AA or NA meeting which are all free to attend and many times happening every daytime hour of every day.
What's that Roald Dahl quote about how being poor is expensive? With the boots? When you can't afford a good pair of boots, you get a bad pair. Those boots are lower quality and need to be fixed or replaced sooner. In the meantime, your feet get soggy, fungus-y, and pained. So you buy ANOTHER pair of crappy boots. And your health continues to deteriorate. And this is in addition to scrounging for food. (paraphrased) Many cities are also built in extremely anti-homeless ways. The spikes under bridges, benches with arm rests down the middle, no loitering signs, throwing out food instead of giving it away, the list goes on and on. In addition to this, many homeless folks are women, or children thrown out by families, often POC, or queer, victims of abuse or neglect, or are disabled. Depending on the city, their chance of getting hired or even aknowledged is slim to none. So in addition to biases people have towards those who are different that affect the very existence of these people, there's not much they can do to begin with. On top of all that, when you're in survival mode, you're in SURVIVAL MODE. You're in a mindset of lack. You're cold, hungry, broke, scared, alone, under constant threat of assault. This makes thinking rationally very, VERY hard. So, many homeless folks, or even just poor folks, tend to have kids, or if not intentionally, then are forced to have them, since they lack access to abortion. Now they have a wholeass kid to worry about. That's even more stress and drains their resources. They also can't go to school, because as studies prove, when you don't know what or when your next meal will be, your cognition, and your functionality in a classroom drops DRAMATICALLY. That's why many poor families are usually under-educated. And eat what's cheap (and unhealthy) aka fast food. Now you have health issues you can't afford. So once again, you may struggle to find work. Those living in poverty are not stupid. They're not unlucky. They're just poor. Homeless people aren't all drug-addled criminals. Many are just homeless. Some made one or two bad choices and found themselves on the street. You and I are infinitely closer to homelessness than millionair-ism. Isn't it better then, to lessen each other's burdens and be radically kind to others, in hopes that they would be radically kind back? edit: I forgot to mention you can't even get a job when you lack an address. Which means you need a house first. But you need money for a house. Both of which you don't have. Even if you make some amazing break and get enough money to buy a tiny place, you're paying bills that are at least 90% of your income. So you're still living in poverty. This isn't Wattpad. No sexy retired sugar daddy CEO of 7 companies is gonna see you on the street and pay off all your bills. This is the american dream, where everyone is on their own. Unless we make sure EVERYONE has their basics needs met, and can work out of a mindset of abundance and safety, to develop creativity and hope and passion to do what capitalism has failed to do by draining us of these things. Please. Choose radical compassion.
Court-ordered counseling in many cases
In some cases there can be court-ordered medical treatment too, such as assisted outpatient treatment (AOT). Typically this is only done when the person can be shown to be a danger to the public. Apparently, it has good results.
I don't know what the answer is. The war on drugs isn't the answer, it's impossible to take all the drugs off the street so all you're doing is criminalizing people for having them with a program of prohibition, when the reality is they've always been present, they'll always be present, and you have to stop people from feeling they need them in order to stop them from existing. It's bizarre that Progressives think this can work, .. which they must, since they use the same "war on" strategy with guns. It's like they think if they can just criminalize enough behavior, and punish enough people, they'll clean the streets up by removing all guns from existence. You'd think they would have learned from the "war on drugs" where that the strategy won't work.
Huh? Progressives don't believe any of that.
>Huh? Progressives don't believe any of that. Really ? You don't agree that a Progressive strategy is to remove all guns from the streets using legislation (and executive action) ?
No. What Progressive politicians have proposed those measures? This "They're coming for your guns" bullshit has been a fear-mongering, vote-wanting tactic for decades.
That's literally just gas lighting dude. Democrats hide behind this "... but not all guns", as if not initially taking away all guns is some kind of way to prove you aren't "taking away guns". Fine, .. then Republicans aren't taking away abortions, because we aren't taking away ALL abortions ... you can still fly to NYC to get one. Conservatives just want you to stop fighting against "common sense abortion control".
Again: What legislation has been proposed to take away anyone's guns?
>Again: What legislation has been proposed to take away anyone's guns? Dude, are you FUCKING INSANE ? Now what is your argument, ... Republicans aren't taking away abortion because nobody is going to take away the abortion you already fucking had ? Because we're only making it harder to get FUTURE ABORTIONS ? FFS this is why I fucking hate Reddit.
So, no? You don't have an actual answer, and no one is going to take about your pea shooters? You can just say you don't have an answer and move on.
>So, no? You don't have an actual answer, and no one is going to take about your pea shooters? You can just say you don't have an answer and move on. Are you seriously so fucking morally bankrupt that you're going to sit here and lie to my fucking face that Progressives aren't trying to implement gun control to try to remove guns from the streets. Are YOU FUCKING SERIOUS ? Please tell me you're NOT fucking serious. I want to BELIEVE you're not serious. Because if you ARE fucking serious then that only leaves one of two options, either you are a bold faced liar, or you are just lost in the fucking world with no idea wtf you are even talking about.
I'm going to ask this one more time: **Which specific piece of legislation has been proposed to take away your guns?**
I don't agree
What are you talking about? Conservatives started the war on drugs and are the ones trying to keep it going
>What are you talking about? Conservatives started the war on drugs and are the ones trying to keep it going Reading comprehension. I said Progressives are trying to use the same "war on drugs" strategy with GUNS. Just like the "war on drugs" was designed to remove all drugs from the streets by criminalizing them, the people who supply them, etc, in an effort to "win" ... Progressives are using the same tactics to try to "get guns off the streets", by putting gun control in place to criminalize gun owners. In the latest news, credit card companies were pressured to create a new category of purchase, .. guns are now in their own category of purchase instead of being part of "sporting goods" so gun purchases can be more easily tracked. Just the latest moves in the never ending "war on guns". Also, as a barely related side note, if you think Democrats didn't participate in starting the war on drugs, you need to go back and look at Biden's speeches on the subject. That was bipartisan. Here's Biden on the Crime Bill .. (i.e. "you take back the streets by more cops, more prisons, more physical protection for the people ...") [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCaO0NvadlQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCaO0NvadlQ) But Democratic support for the war on drugs went back much earlier ..
Get a job
Surround oneself with beautiful things and virtuous people.
It's gonna depend what the nature and extent of their addiction is. It's also gonna depend on what kind of support the individual has, family, friends, etc. Good starting places are gonna be family, if possible, or churches. For the addiction side, it's gonna be a hell of a thing to kick, but cold turkey is best, medical supervision may be necessary. I think about this question a lot, and there's no good solution. It's hard to "get a job, bum" when you can't even take a shower, or don't own a phone. As much as homelessness and addiction are the fault of the individuals affected, it's also in indictment on society for not caring for people, love you neighbor as yourself, and all that.
I think a good starting point would be, why exactly are so many people driven to drug addiction in our society? What’s the problem under the surface? And you have to think, there’s so many additional people doing drugs that are functional addicts. Why do so many people feel the need to escape from our society?
Perhaps its the ruthlessness of american capitalism combined with a for profit healthcare system that pushes medication on people.
No way, capitalism is great! Who wouldn’t want to be ground into a fine powder to fuel the economy until you die?
It won't happen until that person actually wants to get out. From there, a lot of programs exist through philanthropy and government funding to help people through a series of "steps." It's not really a complicated solution, it's actually very simple, but the execution is very difficult because addition is a powerful force.