So What Should We Do About Drug Addicts?

[marshwiggle]

Ok, I am all for paramedics having Narcan and using it to save the lives of ODing junkies.  But giving the junkies dope a/o needles will certainly increase their usage of junk, and this is, in the long run, not going to save their lives, and even in the short-/mid-term, it is going to mess up those lives, *and* the lives of their loved ones, and hurt society in general.  What exactly is hard to understand about this, and who thinks it is a good thing?  And why?

Giving dope away free is not a good idea at all. Cheaper drug, more consumption. Like alcohol and McMansions and Higher Ed.

What is useful in the extreme is making sure that the supply of drugs available is not compromised in quality and dose. Legalization does that. At the moment, doctors are scared out of their brains to prescribe this stuff on account the DEA is after them, insurance or no insurance.

Not all druggies are suicidal. Many live normal lives. Legalization would help them. Narcan is for the others.

The needle exchanges help us! Fewer dangerous needles lying around to hurt non-addicts.

If only.

Is Vancouver becoming 'syringe city'?

The number of needles being left on city streets is on the rise, but the problem with drugs goes deeper.
The number of needles showing up in parks, on sidewalks and elsewhere is on the rise. It's prompted complaints and concerns in neighbourhoods near the Downtown Eastside.
"There are more needles being distributed to make sure that [drug users are] using clean needles and not reusing dirty needles, which leads to infectious diseases and other problems," said Jang. "Unfortunately a lot of [the needles] are showing up in our parks and waterways, for example," he said.

This is in Vancouver, where Insite (A "safe injection" site) is famous.

[dismalist]

Ok, I am all for paramedics having Narcan and using it to save the lives of ODing junkies.  But giving the junkies dope a/o needles will certainly increase their usage of junk, and this is, in the long run, not going to save their lives, and even in the short-/mid-term, it is going to mess up those lives, *and* the lives of their loved ones, and hurt society in general.  What exactly is hard to understand about this, and who thinks it is a good thing?  And why?

Giving dope away free is not a good idea at all. Cheaper drug, more consumption. Like alcohol and McMansions and Higher Ed.

What is useful in the extreme is making sure that the supply of drugs available is not compromised in quality and dose. Legalization does that. At the moment, doctors are scared out of their brains to prescribe this stuff on account the DEA is after them, insurance or no insurance.

Not all druggies are suicidal. Many live normal lives. Legalization would help them. Narcan is for the others.

The needle exchanges help us! Fewer dangerous needles lying around to hurt non-addicts.

If only.

Is Vancouver becoming 'syringe city'?

The number of needles being left on city streets is on the rise, but the problem with drugs goes deeper.
The number of needles showing up in parks, on sidewalks and elsewhere is on the rise. It's prompted complaints and concerns in neighbourhoods near the Downtown Eastside.
"There are more needles being distributed to make sure that [drug users are] using clean needles and not reusing dirty needles, which leads to infectious diseases and other problems," said Jang. "Unfortunately a lot of [the needles] are showing up in our parks and waterways, for example," he said.

This is in Vancouver, where Insite (A "safe injection" site) is famous.

This sounds like municipal incompetence to me.

The US CDC likes so called Syringe Services Programs and claims they reduce needles lying around. But there have been flops of individual county programs. One gave out a lot more needles than were collected, e.g. Not hard to guess what happened then.

[Kron3007]

Ok, I am all for paramedics having Narcan and using it to save the lives of ODing junkies.  But giving the junkies dope a/o needles will certainly increase their usage of junk, and this is, in the long run, not going to save their lives, and even in the short-/mid-term, it is going to mess up those lives, *and* the lives of their loved ones, and hurt society in general.  What exactly is hard to understand about this, and who thinks it is a good thing?  And why?

Perhaps giving free drugs would, but I dont see why free needles would increase use. It would just prevent people from re-using and sharing needles, thereby reducing the spread of various infections and improving safety.

As for increased use, there are situations were increased use of a drug sourced from a safe supply chain would be safer and better for all involved than lower use of tainted drugs.  As mentioned earlier, many overdoses are not because the user injected too much based on what they thought was in it, but street drugs are often contaminated with more toxic drugs that are easier to overdose on.  So, even if giving people free drugs increases their consumption, it could still reduce over doses and related costs and deaths.

Further, if you give someone drugs, they are less likely to mug you on the street to fund their habit, which you should appreciate since you identified this as a concern. 

I dont know if I would support free drug programs, but I also wouldn't rule them out.  I suppose the devil is in the details.  In the end, we should support programs that have a positive impact on public health.   

[marshwiggle]

Ok, I am all for paramedics having Narcan and using it to save the lives of ODing junkies.  But giving the junkies dope a/o needles will certainly increase their usage of junk, and this is, in the long run, not going to save their lives, and even in the short-/mid-term, it is going to mess up those lives, *and* the lives of their loved ones, and hurt society in general.  What exactly is hard to understand about this, and who thinks it is a good thing?  And why?

Giving dope away free is not a good idea at all. Cheaper drug, more consumption. Like alcohol and McMansions and Higher Ed.

What is useful in the extreme is making sure that the supply of drugs available is not compromised in quality and dose. Legalization does that. At the moment, doctors are scared out of their brains to prescribe this stuff on account the DEA is after them, insurance or no insurance.

Not all druggies are suicidal. Many live normal lives. Legalization would help them. Narcan is for the others.

The needle exchanges help us! Fewer dangerous needles lying around to hurt non-addicts.

If only.

Is Vancouver becoming 'syringe city'?

The number of needles being left on city streets is on the rise, but the problem with drugs goes deeper.
The number of needles showing up in parks, on sidewalks and elsewhere is on the rise. It's prompted complaints and concerns in neighbourhoods near the Downtown Eastside.
"There are more needles being distributed to make sure that [drug users are] using clean needles and not reusing dirty needles, which leads to infectious diseases and other problems," said Jang. "Unfortunately a lot of [the needles] are showing up in our parks and waterways, for example," he said.

This is in Vancouver, where Insite (A "safe injection" site) is famous.

This sounds like municipal incompetence to me.

The US CDC likes so called Syringe Services Programs and claims they reduce needles lying around. But there have been flops of individual county programs. One gave out a lot more needles than were collected, e.g. Not hard to guess what happened then.

From the article:

According to George McPhee, who supervises the OPS site, more than 1,000 needles will be used at the clinic each day, but many users also take a handful of syringes home with them to use later.

"A lot of people, they'll use, they'll sit for a bit and then once they're ready to go, they'll take some to go," said McPhee.

OPS is far from the only group distributing free, clean needles to the drug user community. Many local organizations have syringes available for drug users.

Just like after dinner mints at a restaurant. Grab a handful on your way out!

McPhee says the staff at OPS will give users sharps containers to take home, and they do regular needle sweeps in the alley and on the sidewalk in front of the site.

No problem then. Users will always use the sharps containers, or at least drop their used needles right in front of the site.

[ciao_yall]

Back to homelessness, this article was in the LA Times about the right to sleep outside.

If someone is tired and has nowhere to go, the authorities would have to take them someplace. If the person is unwilling for whatever reason, how much force should they be allowed to use? How much disturbance of the peace should they allow?

[marshwiggle]

Back to homelessness, this article was in the LA Times about the right to sleep outside.

If someone is tired and has nowhere to go, the authorities would have to take them someplace. If the person is unwilling for whatever reason, how much force should they be allowed to use? How much disturbance of the peace should they allow?

From the article:

"There are stretches of the city where one cannot help but think the government has shirked its most basic responsibilities under the social contract: providing public safety and ensuring that public spaces remain open to all," Smith wrote. "One-time public spaces like parks — many of which provide scarce outdoor space in dense, working-class neighborhoods — are filled with thousands of tents and makeshift structures, and are no longer welcoming to the broader community."

Lower income people, including working class people and recent immigrants often rely on places like parks as they have little or no backyard space like wealthier people do, so wealthy elites favoring letting these spaces be taken over by homeless encampments show disregard if not complete contempt for the working class.

[ciao_yall]

Back to homelessness, this article was in the LA Times about the right to sleep outside.

If someone is tired and has nowhere to go, the authorities would have to take them someplace. If the person is unwilling for whatever reason, how much force should they be allowed to use? How much disturbance of the peace should they allow?

From the article:

"There are stretches of the city where one cannot help but think the government has shirked its most basic responsibilities under the social contract: providing public safety and ensuring that public spaces remain open to all," Smith wrote. "One-time public spaces like parks — many of which provide scarce outdoor space in dense, working-class neighborhoods — are filled with thousands of tents and makeshift structures, and are no longer welcoming to the broader community."

Lower income people, including working class people and recent immigrants often rely on places like parks as they have little or no backyard space like wealthier people do, so wealthy elites favoring letting these spaces be taken over by homeless encampments show disregard if not complete contempt for the working class.

So, in your mind, what is worse?

• "Wealthy elites" not being willing to pay their fair share of taxes to ensure affordable housing, healthcare and drug treatment?
• "Wealthy elites" going on and on about the "right to sleep outside" but of course, not in their own backyard. Public parks and freeway overpasses? Not their problem.

[dismalist]

How it came to be that a perfectly well functioning heroin dispensing system, the so-called "British System", was destroyed by American pressure long predating the War on Drugs. A fascinating bit of history that is in danger of being forgotten:

When Boots Prescribed Heroin

The British System could be implemented anywhere for numerous drugs, including synthetic opioids.

[marshwiggle]

Lower income people, including working class people and recent immigrants often rely on places like parks as they have little or no backyard space like wealthier people do, so wealthy elites favoring letting these spaces be taken over by homeless encampments show disregard if not complete contempt for the working class.

So, in your mind, what is worse?

• "Wealthy elites" not being willing to pay their fair share of taxes to ensure affordable housing, healthcare and drug treatment?
• "Wealthy elites" going on and on about the "right to sleep outside" but of course, not in their own backyard. Public parks and freeway overpasses? Not their problem.

From what I see in the news, the cities in the US with the worst homeless problems are in states with the highest taxes, i.e. where the wealthy elites are paying a higher share of taxes. So the "right to sleep outside" seems to be the bigger problem.

[ciao_yall]

Lower income people, including working class people and recent immigrants often rely on places like parks as they have little or no backyard space like wealthier people do, so wealthy elites favoring letting these spaces be taken over by homeless encampments show disregard if not complete contempt for the working class.

So, in your mind, what is worse?

• "Wealthy elites" not being willing to pay their fair share of taxes to ensure affordable housing, healthcare and drug treatment?
• "Wealthy elites" going on and on about the "right to sleep outside" but of course, not in their own backyard. Public parks and freeway overpasses? Not their problem.

From what I see in the news, the cities in the US with the worst homeless problems are in states with the highest taxes, i.e. where the wealthy elites are paying a higher share of taxes. So the "right to sleep outside" seems to be the bigger problem.

Are you sure about that?

[marshwiggle]

Lower income people, including working class people and recent immigrants often rely on places like parks as they have little or no backyard space like wealthier people do, so wealthy elites favoring letting these spaces be taken over by homeless encampments show disregard if not complete contempt for the working class.

So, in your mind, what is worse?

• "Wealthy elites" not being willing to pay their fair share of taxes to ensure affordable housing, healthcare and drug treatment?
• "Wealthy elites" going on and on about the "right to sleep outside" but of course, not in their own backyard. Public parks and freeway overpasses? Not their problem.

From what I see in the news, the cities in the US with the worst homeless problems are in states with the highest taxes, i.e. where the wealthy elites are paying a higher share of taxes. So the "right to sleep outside" seems to be the bigger problem.

Are you sure about that?

Which cities in the US have the most homelessness?

Los Angeles City & County   65,111
New York City   61,840
Seattle/King County   13,368
San Jose/Santa Clara City & County   10,028
Oakland, Berkeley/Alameda County   9,747
Sacramento City & County   9,278
Phoenix, Mesa/Maricopa County   9,026
San Diego City and County   8,427
San Francisco   7,754
Metropolitan Denver   6,884

Almost all of those are, as far as I know, in "blue" states.

[marshwiggle]

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%

[dismalist]

Now we get to homelessness as a result of drug addiction! I guess drug addiction is the source of all evils!

For an individual, any of many characteristics -- no cash, onset of mental illness, whatever -- can lead to homelessness.

Aggregating across individuals, these individual causes are subsumed into the overarching cause

Homelessness is a Housing Problem

It cannot be otherwise.

I mentioned bits of the book earlier. More homeless where more housing is absent. The link above is an interview of the authors. Well worth understanding.

[MarathonRunner]

Now we get to homelessness as a result of drug addiction! I guess drug addiction is the source of all evils!

For an individual, any of many characteristics -- no cash, onset of mental illness, whatever -- can lead to homelessness.

Aggregating across individuals, these individual causes are subsumed into the overarching cause

Homelessness is a Housing Problem

It cannot be otherwise.

I mentioned bits of the book earlier. More homeless where more housing is absent. The link above is an interview of the authors. Well worth understanding.

Absolutely. Homelessness occurs due to many factors. If you read the Canadian news, there are plenty of homeless individuals with no substance or alcohol use issues. There's an article on the CBC website, today, about a guy who earns $75,000 CDN/year in Vancouver, but can't find a place to live, so he'll be homeless at the end of the month. Vancouver is insane (a TT job that my background addresses perfectly was advertised at UBC, but I could never afford to live there, so didn't apply), but not all who are homeless are unemployed or use substances (please don't use outdated terms like "junkies" - that only increases stigma and impedes recovery. I would think academics could educate themselves, but I guess not.)

[Wahoo Redux]

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. 

Many other people are the chronically homeless, and these are the folks with the severe mental health issues or debilitating substance abuse illnesses.  And yes, Big-D, people are often homeless because they become so ill they cannot function well enough to even pay rent or the mortgage; it is a real thing.

The challenges facing these two groups overlap but are different.  They each require different options.

I found this helpful.

Based on the most recent data , on any given night there are roughly 86,962 chronically homeless individuals in the U.S., representing 24% of the total homeless population. Typically, these individuals are older, have complex, long-term health issues and often live on the street, in a car, park, or other location that is not suitable for human habitation.

Episodic homelessness refers to individuals who are currently homeless and have experienced at least three periods of homelessness in the previous year. These individuals are often younger and suffer from some type of disabling condition, such as substance abuse, mental illness, and/or medical problems.

Transitional homelessness is actually the most common type of homelessness. These individuals are also likely to be younger and generally enter a shelter or temporary housing system for only one brief stay. This situation could be the result of a catastrophic event or sudden life change.

There is also a fourth type of homelessness that often goes unreported and undocumented. These individuals are known as 'provisionally occupied' and are experiencing what is known as 'hidden homelessness.' This specifically refers to individuals temporarily living with others (or 'couch-surfing') without a guarantee that they will be able to stay long-term and without immediate prospects for acquiring permanent housing. This often describes people staying with friends or relatives because they lack other housing opportunities.