Stay on topic in your discussions, and avoid making off-topic or irrelevant posts. If you want to discuss a different topic, it is okay provided you mark the subject starting 'OT:', and also consider posting on a different board.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 1
An ex-cop worked for just over 10 years in Oceanside, CA. Oceanside is a beach town between Camp Pendleton to the north, and San Diego to the south. Oceanside has been experiencing explosive growth/urban sprawl. Oceanside cop has written an opinion piece that was picked up by Fox (Fox hates Gavin Newsom) and a bunch of other websites.
His premise: "Lack of affordable housing is a problem, but it's not why we have such a huge increase in homeless camps and mentally ill people in California," he wrote. "I believe we have a massive drug addiction crisis, and no longer any tools to force anybody to change."
"Lack of affordable housing is a problem, but it's not why we have such a huge increase in homeless camps and mentally ill people in California," he wrote. "I believe we have a massive drug addiction crisis, and no longer any tools to force anybody to change."
There aren't words to describe the horrors I saw. And yet, in my opinion, civil rights advocates continue to stand in the way of reform," he continued.
I have a hunch, not verified by surveys, that people who are homeless, substance abusers and mentally ill are being squeezed out of red states, to the western states without freezing climates....so a few states are being burdened with what is actually a nationwide problem.
Suspending civil rights seems to be part of the Oceanside cop's solution. Chilling? Seems to be consistent with the Fox theme.
Thoughts?
No. of Recommendations: 1
Suspending civil rights seems to be part of the Oceanside cop's solution. Chilling? Seems to be consistent with the Fox theme.
When I was growing up (eons ago), I viewed the ACLU as an impediment to "justice". I suspect I got a lot of that from my father. They would take up the cause of obvious scofflaws and get them free on "technicalities". I have since come to realize that those aren't technicalities, they are rights that were violated. On rare occasion that may be appropriate (i.e. violation of rights). Such as during a pandemic when everyone is ordered to remain at home (I'm not speaking specifically about COVID, but just as a general principle). Usually it is not (e.g. Manzanar). Careful consideration needs to be exercised when suspending rights, and it must be very temporary.
So I contribute to the ACLU semi-regularly.
As to homelessness, yeah...the sunnier states are more attractive. You're not going to freeze to death in Oceanside. And it's a multi-faceted problem that includes housing (some folks can't afford it, but have no issues with drugs and such), mental health, drug abuse, and probably some other stuff I'm not thinking of at the moment.
Without the full context, it is difficult to judge. Suspend civil rights for the mentally ill? Well, Reagan set them loose on our streets in the name of unlawful imprisonment. But that is a special situation in which the mentally ill need help, and in many cases cannot be relied upon to seek it themselves. There need to be procedures in place to prevent abuse of the system, but the system should have able to scoop those folks up so they can be treated and maybe live semi-normal lives. If that was what he was referring to, I agree. Drug abuse is more difficult because the person has to want to be free of drugs. Otherwise rehab won't take, and you're just wasting time and money trying to treat them. But if they do want it, it should be more available than it appears to be.
No. of Recommendations: 1
And it's a multi-faceted problem that includes housing (some folks can't afford it, but have no issues with drugs and such), mental health, drug abuse, and probably some other stuff I'm not thinking of at the moment.In west coast cities the vast majority of the homeless are on drugs. They routinely are offered treatment and shelter and refuse, picking up and moving their tent camps to different parts of the cities. Thanks to lax drug policies or outright decriminalization of hard drugs they have all the access in the world for feeding their addictions.
The answer is NOT "housing first". All you get when you put a meth-addicted homeless person into a hotel or an apartment is a destroyed hotel or apartment.
The answer IS a program similar to this one:
https://maprehab.com/
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'm all for rehab, but the person has to want to change. Otherwise they will refuse, as you said. If you force them, I suspect most will relapse as soon as they leave rehab because they didn't want rehab in the first place. How do you make them choose recovery? I have no idea.
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm all for rehab, but the person has to want to change. Otherwise they will refuse, as you said. If you force them, I suspect most will relapse as soon as they leave rehab because they didn't want rehab in the first place. How do you make them choose recovery? I have no idea.
That's where Rhode Island's MAP program comes in - typically their patients are arrested first and are offered treatment while in lockup.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Otherwise rehab won't take, and you're just wasting time and money trying to treat them. But if they do want it, it should be more available than it appears to be. - 1pg
===============
Agree. If the homeless who genuinely want to change, treatment and support should be available and the resources to do provide that need to be a priority. However, for those who don't want it, the status quo (live on the streets with basic sustenance provided in varying degrees by some communities) has to change.
How about this idea.. Pass laws allowing for the druggies who don't want treatment to be forcibly separated from regular civilized society and live in some sort of facility where basic housing is provided, food is provided in a shared dining facility, perhaps a few basic activities are available for those who choose to participate, and most importantly security to prevent external criminals and drug dealers from entering, and actual residents from assaulting one another. Think boy scout camp with tight security. A resident who assaults has to face consequences meaning conviction followed by prison time. The genuine drug addict won't like it here since drug supply will be cut off so maybe the answer to that is if you really want to waste your life in a drug induced haze, the facility will provide the drugs to you, better than overdosing on street drugs and eliminates the crime necessary to buy from drug dealers on the street. Probably a lot of problems with this but offered for discussion sake. Something has to change.
No. of Recommendations: 0
It would be an interesting discussion. Though it might warrant its own thread.
First problem I see is unlawful detention. I'm sure albaby could dissect it further. But I generally like the idea of government handling the drugs. They would be clean (both from disease, and from whatever they use to "cut" the drugs, if what I see on TV is even remotely close to reality**), doses could be monitored, and it cuts the legs off of the cartels/criminals if the government is basically giving it away.
**Allegedly, the dealers "cut" the drugs to reduce potency, and pad the weight of the drugs with filler. Sometimes, so I am led to believe, those fillers are harmful.
No. of Recommendations: 1
They would be clean (both from disease, and from whatever they use to "cut" the drugs, if what I see on TV is even remotely close to reality**), doses could be monitored, and it cuts the legs off of the cartels/criminals if the government is basically giving it away.
I felt that instead of trying to demolish the Afghanistan poppy crops to deny the talibs revenue, we should have bought the entire crop. That way the talibs would be denied revenue and we could use the product to maintain our junkies as well as the junkies in all NATO nations, eliminating a large % of street drug traffic. . That would also deal a severe financial blow to the coke, fentanyl and meth cartels.
No. of Recommendations: 0
That way the talibs would be denied revenue and we could use the product to maintain our junkies as well as the junkies in all NATO nations,
Junkies addicted to hardcore drugs do crimes, cannot hold down a productive job, become homeless, become a burden on society.
Why do we want to "maintain" them?
Hard drugs are not like marijuana and alcohol where you can have functioning druggies.
It's a qualitatively different problem. Maybe Netherlands has solved it by legalizing everything, but I don't know if that will work in America.
No. of Recommendations: 1
"I believe we have a massive drug addiction crisis, and no longer any tools to force anybody to change."
I'm not sure we had any tools to force someone to change. Forced rehab and the person behaves for 60-90 days, then relapses. Rousting out just shifts the problem. The really mentally ill should be off the streets, but 98% are harmless. Singapore is a little more draconian, but it works.
No. of Recommendations: 1
It's a qualitatively different problem. Maybe Netherlands has solved it by legalizing everything, but I don't know if that will work in America. = kof3
--------------------
Worth a shot. Clearly after 50 years, the war on drugs is simply not a solution.
Consider all the billions (perhaps trillions) spent over that time period - not only the judicial system costs for direct interdiction of drug smugglers and drug dealers, but all the lesser crimes (burglary, robbery) that addicts commit to support their habit; plus all the associated medical resources to prevent / treat overdoses.
If even half of that humongous amount of money was spent on services, rehab, mental health, and yes even providing drugs of known potency to those who choose that lifestyle, instead of massive law enforcement at the federal, state and local levels, we certainly would be in a better position that we are now. At what point do we stop sending good money after bad?
