Needles, Syringes, Feces, Bodies on our Streets

Oh nooo, we can't afford that, we have to send another trillion in weapons to Ukraine.

 

The only naivety is thinking it's 'problematic' to ensure laws are followed.

It's THIS which causes much of the harm. It's enabling BS (and so probably not actual naivety).

 

You wouldn't let them back in? Isn't that a bit authoritarian?

 

It's more than problematic. A majority of the people on the street have been in the criminal justice system already. They've been offered programs. They'd rather live on the street. They will not change. This is intolerable to me and to most normal taxpayers.

Obviously I don't mean that we should give up on every single one of them, but some are incorrigible, either due to vice or mental illness.

It is they and only they who deserve to be forcibly removed from those squalid camps and relocated.

 

What percentage of people on the street would accept an offer of free housing in exchange for their needles and drugs?

 

And the qualification for this privilege (and any free or discounted housing is a privilege) is being a bum? Not being a hard-working and clean-living person who's landed in circumstances beyond their control?

Meantime, you know that almost no one would take and/or keep that housing dontcha? Four walls is not going to magically fix these people. Lack of housing is not what's wrong with them. Talk about doing your level best to perpetuate homelessness and dissolution!

 

Less than 1%. That's the point.

 

Then we are either miscommunication or we have different values.

 

Yes, that's what making it illegal means. They will be removed, every time they set down for more than an hour. EVERY time. Just as we always were, until Progressives decided that loitering laws were 'problematic'.

 

It's entirely possible we have different values.

I am, after all, interested in providing MORE care for the genuinely needy. It's possible you would prefer those individuals are compromised, in order to favour the non-geniune?

 

Just what do you think outlawing street sleeping means?

 

That's a private joke between me and Pro Line Fl.

 

I share it. It's exactly my policy.

 

But that's no different to incarcerating them. It doesn't work.

 

It's never been tried to my knowledge.

Anyway what is your objection to incarceration? You seem to espouse zero tolerance for those who continue to erect tents on the streets when offered housing in exchange for going straight.

 

If there was a legal way to force a blood test then anyone with non prescription opiates or other illegal drugs in their system. If they do, they are forced into to treatment.
Rinse, repeat…

 

It won't work because unless there are conditions to be met in order to retain three square and a bed, it will just enable more of the same. Jail never deterred those determined to **** up. THAT'S my objection.

My proposal would be entirely voluntary. No one would be 'locked in/up'.

 

Again with the force thing, though. Why?

Why not just OFFER an alternative - the conditions of which (random testing for drugs/alcohol, good behaviour, neat and clean houses, etc etc) are known ahead and voluntarily agreed to. Far more civil - and ultimately a lot less expensive, given how few would accept it.

 

You acknowledge that few would accept it but you seem to suggest no sanction for turning it down. I really do not understand what you want.

 

I didn't say anything about what I would do, I simply said how Florida handles the situation.

 

You put "solution" in quotes, indicating that you thought letting them back in was a bad idea.

 

taking away welfare from those that need it is the part I disagreed with

 

Many are happy living on the street. The mentally ill are easy if they will stay on their meds.
Drug addicts area special problem. Even when brought into the ER after being revived a couple of times with Nalxone, then when not under the influence they will use as soon as they can and o.d. again - often fatally due to the Naxalone inhibiting their high, causing them to use more.
It is time to quit playing around.

 

Probably not a lot. I say give them both. It won't cost nearly what they cost now

 

Its in quotes because it is not a solution. It simply maintains the status quo. Even California has been using that 'solution'.

From what I read, California's new law takes a hard-line approach, which basically makes it a crime to live on the streets.