So What Should We Do About Drug Addicts?

[jimbogumbo]

Sometimes it is little or no available housing (two of the demographics with high rates are Samoans and Hawaiian's), lack of money (see the latest data set an analysis of California's homeless), or weather. By state two of the top five are Florida (3) and Texas (5), hardly blue states.

Here is a pretty fleshed out description: https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-have-the-highest-and-lowest-rates-of-homelessness/

I am weary of simplistic explanations from a couple of us. For marshwiggle, it seems to be the Dem's are causing it. It is way more complicated.

[Diogenes]

Here are the stats per capita:

Between 2014 and 2018, homelessness increased in Minneapolis / St Paul, Sacramento, Amarillo and Los Angeles. Cities that experienced significant falls of homelessness include Savannah, Fresno, Denver and Battle Creek.
City (State)
Homeless people
per 100,000 residents*
Rise / Fall between
2014-2018
Eugene (OR)   
432
-12.4%
Los Angeles (CA)   
397
+37.4%
New York City (NY)   
394
+16.9%
San Jose (CA)   
363
-6.5%
Seattle (WA)   
349
+23.0%
Anchorage (AK)   
274
+6.6%
Las Vegas (NV)   
273
-24.8%
San Francisco (CA)   
261
+12.1%
Savannah (GA)   
259
-26.9%
San Diego (CA)   
257
-2.0%

Do we need to explain that correlation =/= causation to you? These are also some of the most expensive cities in the country. Simple cost of living and economic inequality explains these numbers far more than "blue v. red"

[Wahoo Redux]

The Marshman has an agenda.

[ciao_yall]

We need to differentiate between different homeless demographics.

Many people are homeless for a brief period in their lives because of foreclosures, job losses, poor choices, fleeing abusive relationships, or people who will eventually overcome substance abuse problems. 

For years there has been a huge community of techies living in RVs in the parking lots of their employers such as Google, Facebook, Yahoo, and others.

They have free food, locker rooms with showers, and WiFi. Why pay rent?

[kaysixteen]

para asked if I had any loved ones who had substance abuse issues and their concomitant consequences-- yes, I did, not drugs, but booze, and lots of it.   Lives ruined, and massive effects on non-user family members.   

I have been doing more cogitatin' on this thread and remained, quite frankly, *stunned* that anyone, even perhaps half-seriously, could contemplate giving non-medically prescribed opiates to anyone, or even legally allowing their use.   Nothing good comes of their use in this context.  I have also been thinkin' in general about *why* it is that use of narcotics seems to be gaining cache amongst educated, upper-middle class folks, either by using them themselves or looking the other way at those doing so.  This seems a reflex of the not-so quaint adolescent attitudes of the late 60s-70s, where young people seemed to think that drug use was reflexively cool, and the grown-ups who didn't get it were hopelessly unenlightened squares. This attitude was lame enough 50 years ago... now, with all we know, both in terms of what drugs actually do to their users, and what their larger social and societal consequences are, it is just pathetic.

Drugs suck.  I will never tire of saying this.  Earlier this week, a 40-ish woman came up to me in BigBox Land, with the sad news that she had just discovered some junkie needles in the ladies' room stall.   I had to immediately get maintenance to glove up and deal with this problem.   But what if the finder had been an 8yo girl instead?

[Wahoo Redux]

I have also been thinkin' in general about *why* it is that use of narcotics seems to be gaining cache amongst educated, upper-middle class folks, either by using them themselves or looking the other way at those doing so. 

Huh.  I am aware that all socioeconomic levels of society use drugs.  I was not aware that there is "cache" among wealthier people.  Opiates have a pretty bad name these days everywhere.  Who have you been hanging out with?

[Kron3007]

para asked if I had any loved ones who had substance abuse issues and their concomitant consequences-- yes, I did, not drugs, but booze, and lots of it.  Lives ruined, and massive effects on non-user family members. 

I have been doing more cogitatin' on this thread and remained, quite frankly, *stunned* that anyone, even perhaps half-seriously, could contemplate giving non-medically prescribed opiates to anyone, or even legally allowing their use.  Nothing good comes of their use in this context.  I have also been thinkin' in general about *why* it is that use of narcotics seems to be gaining cache amongst educated, upper-middle class folks, either by using them themselves or looking the other way at those doing so.  This seems a reflex of the not-so quaint adolescent attitudes of the late 60s-70s, where young people seemed to think that drug use was reflexively cool, and the grown-ups who didn't get it were hopelessly unenlightened squares. This attitude was lame enough 50 years ago... now, with all we know, both in terms of what drugs actually do to their users, and what their larger social and societal consequences are, it is just pathetic.

Drugs suck.  I will never tire of saying this.  Earlier this week, a 40-ish woman came up to me in BigBox Land, with the sad news that she had just discovered some junkie needles in the ladies' room stall.  I had to immediately get maintenance to glove up and deal with this problem.  But what if the finder had been an 8yo girl instead?

I don't know why you have a hard time understanding that supporting legal access to drugs or other harm reduction strategies does not mean you are supporting drug use.  There really isn't any evidence suggesting that these approaches increase drug use, and even if drug use increases, that is irrelevant if their harms are reduced.  In contrast, there is plenty of evidence showing that the war on drugs has failed and only causes more harm in a variety of ways.

If you could show that being tough on drugs reduces addiction rates, deaths, etc., you would have a point, but that's just not reality.  It may meet the base need to feel you are doing something about the problem, but you are really just making it worse. 

[marshwiggle]

I am weary of simplistic explanations from a couple of us. For marshwiggle, it seems to be the Dem's are causing it. It is way more complicated.

Do we need to explain that correlation =/= causation to you? These are also some of the most expensive cities in the country. Simple cost of living and economic inequality explains these numbers far more than "blue v. red"

The Marshman has an agenda.

What is odd is that the places with the most government (and therefore, presumably public) support seem to have some of the worst problems. If that is because people are coming from elsewhere because of that public support, then it should be easy to survey people about their origins and establish this. If, on the other hand, the vast majority of these people are of local origin, then that implies that the local conditions, including the history of government actions, have contributed to these problems.
(Since "economic inequality" is mentioned above, what makes the inequality worse in these places where there are presumably the strongest government efforts to reduce it?)
 

[Wahoo Redux]

Usually government support is a response to a problem, not the cause.  Again, I think California has the most government support because they have the most homeless because the weather is conducive to living outside.

[ciao_yall]

California would and probably should have even higher taxes, but it's put-near impossible to pass any sort of tax increase due to laws put in place years ago that set significant constraints on the legislature and even local municipalities.

So, these leaves the State relying upon Federal tax pass-throughs - hahahahahahahahaha.

[Kron3007]

I am weary of simplistic explanations from a couple of us. For marshwiggle, it seems to be the Dem's are causing it. It is way more complicated.

Do we need to explain that correlation =/= causation to you? These are also some of the most expensive cities in the country. Simple cost of living and economic inequality explains these numbers far more than "blue v. red"

The Marshman has an agenda.

What is odd is that the places with the most government (and therefore, presumably public) support seem to have some of the worst problems. If that is because people are coming from elsewhere because of that public support, then it should be easy to survey people about their origins and establish this. If, on the other hand, the vast majority of these people are of local origin, then that implies that the local conditions, including the history of government actions, have contributed to these problems.
(Since "economic inequality" is mentioned above, what makes the inequality worse in these places where there are presumably the strongest government efforts to reduce it?)
 

When I look up overdose deaths per capita by state, this is what comes up:

The CDC reports that the states hardest hit by drug overdose in 2015 are:

West Virginia: 41.5 per 100,000 people
New Hampshire: 34.3 per 100,000 people
Kentucky: 29.9 per 100,000 people
Ohio: 29.9 per 100,000 people
Rhode Island: 28.2 per 100,000 people
Pennsylvania: 26.3 per 100,000 people
Massachusetts: 25.7 per 100,000 people
New Mexico: 25.3 per 100,000 people
Utah: 23.4 per 100,000 people
Tennessee: 22.2 per 100,000 people

Hardly a list of dem states. 
California doesn't even make the top ten.

[marshwiggle]

Usually government support is a response to a problem, not the cause.  Again, I think California has the most government support because they have the most homeless because the weather is conducive to living outside.

Sure, but then Florida (and potentially lots of southern states) should have a homeless problem at a similar scale, but it doesn't seem like they do.

[quasihumanist]

The obvious fact that has been ignored: More than anything else, homelessness correlates with how expensive housing is.

I have no evidence that I'm right, but at least a theory that seems to fit all the obvious facts:

First, I think, at least in this context, the narrative that Democrats care more about inequality isn't useful.  We should think that the Democrats are the party of the industries where intelligence (by which I basically mean the ability to design and write computer programs and correlated skills - I realize this is a narrow slice of intelligence but that's what matters here) is more useful, and the Republicans are the party of the industries where intelligence is less useful.

Second, inequality can come in different forms.  One billionaire and ninety-nine people making $20K a year is inequality.  So is fifty people making $200K and fifty people making $25K.  I'll call the first extreme inequality and the second broad-based inequality.

The second form of inequality is what breaks housing markets.  In a normal market, demand curves slope downwards - there is more demand for cheaper stuff.  But in a market where there is broad-based inequality, housing market demand curves slope upwards.  There is (relative to the supply of land) more demand for one large house (not quite a mansion) than a half dozen small cheap apartments.  The moderately well-off buy up all the land and leave the less well-off homeless.  In the worst case, the demand curve slopes upwards more than the supply curve and the market breaks completely.  (Extreme inequality doesn't cause this problem because one billionaire can only want so much land.)

Without getting into debates about whether intelligence is innate, we can at least observe that the gap in intelligence is persistent.  In an industry where intelligence is not determining, one can make a worker more productive by getting them better machinery, reorganizing how they work, training them, and so on.  All this requires capital but can be solved with capital.  In an industry where intelligence is determining, we don't know how to (with a high likelihood of success) make an unproductive worker more productive with any amount of investment!  Hence, inequality is broad-based and persistent.  People who have intelligence have a persistent advantage over those who don't, and both groups are fairly large.

So - that makes areas that lean Democratic more likely to have broad-based inequality (rather than extreme inequality), and broad-based inequality is what breaks housing markets and causes expensive housing and large amounts of homelessness.

[Wahoo Redux]

Usually government support is a response to a problem, not the cause.  Again, I think California has the most government support because they have the most homeless because the weather is conducive to living outside.

Sure, but then Florida (and potentially lots of southern states) should have a homeless problem at a similar scale, but it doesn't seem like they do.

Florida ranked third in homelessness in the U.S.

USN: States With the Largest Homeless Populations

Four states accounted for more than half of the nation's homeless population, according to the Annual Homeless Assessment Report.

California (171,521)
New York (74,178)
Florida (25,959)
Washington (25,211)
Texas (24,432)
Oregon (17,959)
Massachusetts (15,507)
Arizona (13,553)
Pennsylvania (12,691)
Georgia (10,689)

[ciao_yall]

The obvious fact that has been ignored: More than anything else, homelessness correlates with how expensive housing is.

Here in SF and other big cities, housing is expensive. This is exacerbated by:

(1) AirBnB has converted a lot of residential housing into hotel equivalents which drove up the price of homes and rental rates, though this article suggests it might be turning around.
 
(2) A certain amount of the housing is empty. A lot of second/third/plus homes and absentee owners who moved out but didn't want to rent, haven't gotten around to selling, hung up in the family estate, etc. I'd love to see a bunch of squatters take over some long-empty Pacific Heights mansion(s).

People complain about the impact of rent control, mandated supply of affordable housing, etc I would look at # 1 and # 2 as something that can be managed more directly.