You're viewing part of a thread.
"Most research shows that around 1/3 of people who are homeless have problems with alcohol and/or drugs, and around 2/3 of these people have lifetime histories of drug or alcohol use disorders"
So most homeless habe jobs and most homeless dont have substance abuse issues. Lmao you must be a few crayons short of a full box.
You provided a source that says most of the homeless people are unemployed (53% of sheltered and 40% of sheltered have jobs). I provided a source that says 2/3 of homeless people have a history of drug and alcohol abuse. Do you not know what the words "most" and "majority" mean?
As someone who just read over these comments: Your reading comprehension sucks.
Your own source says 1/3 of homeless have problems with alcohol/drugs. So 2/3 don't.
Of those 1/3 with problems 2/3 have lifetime histories of drug or alcohol use disorders.
so they must likely fucked up with drug use, and are nearing the end of rehab now
You still don't get it? Your argument was most of them are druggies. But your own source says 2/3 of them have no drug problem at all.
No, my argument was that drug use lead them to being homeless. A lot of homeless people are in rehab programs, and it helps them a lot. The source i listed is one of those programs. You seem like the one with reading comprehension issuses.
Translations:
"If someone uses drugs, they deserve to be homeless."
"It's impossible that people would pick up a drug habit to cope with their homelessness problem."
"Anyone else who becomes homeless is just dumb or lazy. It's their fault they don't have my privilege and I'll ignore any amount of evidence to not rethink my shitty, self-entitled world view."
YOUR source said only 1/3 have a current substance abuse issue. And my source said that 53% of homeless folks in shelters have jobs while 40% of unsheltered folks have jobs. Most homeless folks start out using shelters and then transition to living on the street as they loss hope and ergo lose employment as their Material Conditions worsen. I am done arguing with your surface level understanding of a complex crisis. I pray you and yours never experience the crushing hopelessness that is living on the street and not knowing where you will rest your head.
we wont, because we know how to work for our bread
we wont because we know how to work for our bread
How many people become homeless while having full-time work? I'm sure they just didn't work hard enough to deserve a place to live.
Whatever you say little buddy.
Did you zone out during the part where it was explained over half of homeless people work?
No one chooses to be a drug addict or an alcoholic, you cretin.
So you proved yourself wrong. Congrats.
how? 2/3 of people fucking up their life with drugs is a majority
The statistic says 1/3 of homeless population has issues with drugs/alcohol, and 2/3 of that 1/3 (or 2/9) have lifetime histories of abuse...
oh fuck...
In my defense, English is not my first language
Your task is not to prove that drugs exist in the homeless community. For your point of them "fucking their lives up with drugs" to be true, you have to prove that their personal drug use was the catalyst for their living conditions. Do that or take the L.
And to check yourself, you might want to look up the prevalence of drug use in more affluent communities. Hint: it's a lot.
So even if you're right, you'd condemn the other 1/3rd to homelessness to spite the others? People that made bad decisions are still people. I hope you've never made any bad decisions...
Also, you're condemning entire communities. People in desperate situations often have to turn to crime. Paying for their incarceration (or healthcare for that matter) COSTS MORE THAN JUST PROVIDING FOR THEIR BASIC NEEDS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Your stance is stupid, cruel, and shortsighted.
Two major schools of thought:
We should help everyone, even if it means "bad people" can take some from the system.
We should not help anyone but a tiny fraction of people so that no "bad people" can benefit from the system.
Personally, I don't really favor making the world that much worse to avoid some spoilage. We can do better than hurting a lot of people so we get the "bad" ones, who in my view are responding to material conditions, neurology, and history.
I don't know that any particular person said it, but I agree with the notion that the first sign of civilization was a human corpse, with a femur that had been broken, and then healed. A human with a broken leg is pretty screwed on their own. Someone had to help that person get food and water long enough for it to heal. Civilization is when we help each other fulfill our needs, and that's beautiful.