End homelessness with this one weird trick!

I cannot upvote this enough. It also mirrors how Portugal is approaching illegal drug use - with dedicated teams of professionals providing free, compassionate care. "The commission assesses whether the individual is addicted and suggests treatment as needed. ‘Non-addicted’ individuals may receive a warning or a fine, but the commission can decide to suspend enforcement of these penalties for six months if the individual agrees to get help — an information session, motivational interview or brief intervention — targeted to their pattern of drug use. If the individual completes the program and doesn’t appear before the commission again for six months, their case is closed."
It's not perfect, but it is getting results: "According to a New York Times analysis, the number of heroin users in Portugal has dropped from 100,000 to just 25,000 today. The number of HIV diagnoses caused by injection drug use has plummeted by more than 90 per cent. Over the last 20 years, levels of drug use in Portugal are consistently under the European average, particularly with young people between the ages of 15-34."
Turns out when you treat people as valuable and give them real alternatives they'll more often than not start cooperating in improving their lives. Not all of them - the model isn't perfect and neither are all people - but it seems to work way better than a "war on drugs/drug users" approach.
- But if you treat drug users as human beings, where will the police get their justification for fuckmassive budgets to buy surplus military equipment painted scawwy black (because blue is SO civil servant, and olive drab just isn't COOL enough) and pay grifters to tell them how hard their pp will get when they kill another human being????
  
  Antifa. and, uh, you know. all those progressives that riot everywhere. and stuff. Collumbia State is a warzone!! a WARZONE!
  (excuse me while I go vomit. /s)
- In Oregon, we attempted to model Portugal's drug policy. The roll out was a mess and treatment centers weren't funded for several years. Additionally, following the advice of people in the field, the measure didn't include the mandatory meeting with the inter-disciplinary local commission like in Portugal. Instead, there was a hotline set up and possession became a citation. Unfortunately, the citation didn't have the number to the hotline. In places like Portland, the cops at least gave out a business card with hotline number on it in addition to the citation.
  Several years later, we have a roll back of the citations to making drug use illegal again. It's not as bad as 2019, but it isn't Portugal either. The biggest strike against it was the public use of drugs in downtown areas and in small encampments. Sadly, this was happening nation wide, but Measure 510 was blamed. And this roll back seems to have taken drug decriminalization off the table in other states altogether. I hope someone braves these waters again, but the advocates who helped design the program have seemingly shuttered their legislative pushes elsewhere.
  I wonder if things would have been slightly different if we hewed closer to the Portugal model. Sad that the worst off of us will suffer.
  
  There are definitely a lot of moving parts, and it's hard to know which are essential until their absence causes failures. Learning how to deal with addiction is not an undertaking the world is anywhere near finishing. It hurts to hear about Oregon's failure because a) suffering sucks and b) it may impede future efforts by way of being a bad example.
  
  It's a "tactical deployment"
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpUFph-1zy4
  
  Intentional sabotage
- I’m not sure if this is going to work with our current system because 1) I don’t see enough punishment for their moral failures, 2) not enough profit/investment opportunities to capitalize on their vulnerable position and lastly 3) half of our two ruling parties fundamentally disagrees with the concept of a better future.
  It’s a good start, but I think if you underline how we can make big money while maintaining the status quo, then we could arrive at something doable.
  
  People in withdrawal famously work poorly, but the forced slavery model is otherwise popular?
  Drug rehab with indentured servitude and thought control?
  Maybe you could tack an inflated medical bill on top of an AA protocol, to reuse some established concepts, and rebrand it as NA or something?
  /s
  
  Half?
- I heard about the Portuguese program in a Ted talk. Well done!
  
  Can you please link to it?

It's almost as if actually trying to solve problems is the best way to solve problems. The US doesn't try to solve problems, we just criminalize them.
- This! Best treatment against homelessness is:
  Give them a home!
- Solves the problem of too many empty beds in a for profit jail
- As a country, we've barely moved beyond nuns smacking you with a ruler and telling you to stop being left handed.
  
  My teacher at a Catholic school tried that on me in the early 90s. Didn't work, I just became ambidextrous and a little more damaged.

UBH!
(Universal Basic Housing)
All these Universal Basic * programs seem to work, and the only things holding them back are rich people not wanting to be taxed, and the people they have brainwashed into supporting them.
- idk, America seems to push Universal Basic Gun Owning pretty hard. Can't say that it's helping anyone tho.
  
  Hah! I almost wish that were true, just so more poor leftists would arm themselves. Guns (and ammo) are fucking expensive and there are no subsidies.
- But people might be lazy without the constant looming threat of exposure and humiliation.
  
  It might be interesting to see. Let's try giving people the basic necessities for once, and see how things work out!

We have a similar system in Sweden, strong social safety nets etc. Some years ago I volunteered in a soup kitchen giving free food to anyone, and saw some homeless people. We can offer apartments etc, but some people are not able to handle it due to mental illness and/or substance abuse. It's quite sad, but ending homelessness completely is very difficult, and requires health care efforts on many levels.
- In Sweden and Denmark, where I am from, it’s technically illegal to not be provided with a roof over your head. But as you say, some people just can’t live in a home, for various reasons. Some even choose to be homeless or more precisely; be a vagabond.
  
  In Sweden, there are cracks in the system, especially if you are homeless but an illegal immigrant or from Romania (a common example). There are services but a big hurdle is having to have a legal personnummer or coordination number (though I'm told that doesn't work for everything). In student towns, lots of homelessness is also among students. It's even more difficult if you are a drug user. A lot of times the only shelters in the area are offered by churches and non profits which don't have a large capacity and serve on a first-come-first-get basis.
  I wish they would expand this to cover more vulnerable groups. I would love to see Housing First applied in Sweden. Since the recent inflation crisis, I notice more homeless people.
- Some people also want to be homeless, as weird as that sounds. In a proper system, those would be the only people who are.
  
  i think it's more accurate to say that a tiny percentage want to be homeless, and a slightly larger percentage only want to be homeless when their chronic mental illness or serious addiction is particularly elevated; they will need support to stabilize their lives more than once.
  and typically, even the tiny percentage actively choosing it likely also have chronic mental health issues but have created a functional life for themselves. example - i knew a former vet some years ago who chose to remain unhoused. he had a lot of skills and worked off and on as needed. he also had some paranoia/delusions. he had autonomy over his life and felt safer the way he lived.
  i think part of the problem is that the process of seeking services can be so slow and brutal, so it's just easier not to bother. while my city has nationally recognized support for people experiencing homelessness, it also involves as much as a month of sleeping outside with others who may not be safe or stable yet, and being certain places and certain times every day during that wait. some feel safer and better able to meet their needs on the street; honestly, for some they're right.

Why end the homelessness crisis when you can criminalize homelessness and have an endless supply of slaves to produce "proudly made in america" things for 15cts an hour ? If you think the bourgeoisie isn't that cynical, I have a bridge to sell you. It's the people who caused the fentanyl epidemic by getting regular folks hooked on opioids for profits we're talking about. Who do you think's causing the homelessness crisis in the first place ?
- Why end the homelessness crisis when you can criminalize homelessness and have an endless supply of slaves to produce “proudly made in america” things for 15cts an hour ?
  Because slave labor is notoriously inefficient relative to precarious industrial labor (particularly as your prison population ages), the cost of incarceration eclipses the savings (especially as housing/energy costs climb), and the cruelty inflicted on the populous undermines the health and well-being of the overall population in a way that stunts technological and cultural development.
  States like Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma are case studies in economic mismanagement through mass incarceration. Four of the highest incarceration rates in the country and some of the worst economic growth in the nation.
  Trying to treat homelessness through incarceration is a bit like trying to treat malnutrition through cannibalism. The policy is inherently wasteful and destructive, sacrificing far more than one might hope to create.
  If you think the bourgeoisie isn’t that cynical, I have a bridge to sell you.
  The real value of mass incarceration is not in the people you incarcerate but in the submissive atmosphere you cultivate outside the incarcerated group. Mass arrests create a functional economic blacklist of racial cohorts and social dissidents. Associating with these people can be as poisonous for your welfare as being one of them. And "high crime" neighborhoods can be targeted for "economic redevelopment" which often means mass displacement of residents through state seizure of property and other "slum clearance" measures.
  I don't doubt there's cynicism in the modern incarceration system. But it goes a lot deeper than just "arrest a guy and press gang them". An enormous component of the War on Crime was busting up minority social welfare groups (The Black Panthers, most famously, but ACORN and BLM in more recent iterations) and scattering their non-incarcerated members.
  We're seeing the same thing play out on college campuses. Organizers and leaders are targeted for arrest and expulsion in order to break up cliches of students focused on that individual leadership.
  
  Short term profit is all that’s considered, longevity is disregarded.
- Fucking sacklers
- Why end homelessness when we can hire our political friends high salaries to hold meetings and surveys to try to think of a possible solution? In America, it is an industry in itself.

The "no preconditions" part is surprisingly important to solving lots of social issues.
- Half of the system exists to prevent people from exploiting the system. Most likely at a net loss. As in, it costs more to prevent people from exploiting the system, than would be lost by people exploiting the system.
  
  You shouldn't think of it that way. It's not about saving money, it's about punishing, dehumanizing and marginalizing people in need and sadly, in the eyes of some people it's worth it
  
  Definitely at a net loss. It always costs more to police the system than is ever recovered or saved. The benefits given to any single person are insignificant to a government budget.
  The fraud occurs on the service provider side. Medicare/Medicaid providers are a big one but anyone that collects the dispersement of these services since those create literal billionaires and aka support the exploiter class.

It's important to note that this is a two fold application. Counseling is just as important as the home.
Mental health is vital.
- While I agree that the mental health is vital, I disagree that it's of equal importance. Housing first has a winning track record, and bundling services can deter people from using either.
  Someone might be just one restful night's sleep away from deciding that counseling isn't a trap.
  
  It's worth noting that this is true for the vast majority of homeless, but the most visible contingent of homeless have severe mental issues that preclude a "housing first" approach.
- The mental health needs to be optional to the rehomed or it won't work.
  As Americans, we desperately need a mental health services for all program.

It’s those preconditions that hurt the most. Gotta get clean to get help. Gotta get help to get clean.

But how will such a classist society survive if the privileged cannot judge,extort and feel better for it?
- Won't someone think of the capitalists!
  
  Correct! If someone cannot profit from it, it can't be done in the US.

I really wish things like this can happen in the US. With the amount of money we spend on stupid shit, we could more than end homelessness and then some.
- We could end it many times over.

Note that the "homeless" people in Finland are mainly people who refuse to accept support from the social welfare, this is because they prefer to get drunk instead of spending it on food and rent. The social welfare eventually suggests a different system for such people: pay the rent for them and give a special card that can be used for anything except alcohol and cigarette. If the people keep refusing that other option, then they went homeless on their own accord and keep spending the welfare on alcohol and living on the streets. Such people are very rare in Finland in reality however, but they do exist.
- Buy food abd stuff, trade for alcohol. That's what similiar folk do here.
- If you work part time in Finland, and spend that pay on booze and drugs, can you still collect to social welfare for home and food?

It’s not about solving homelessness. It’s about class warfare. The haves and have nots. It was never about a better society. It never will be.
- Can you please explain?
  
  If you're serious, sure. For there to be a top class, a rich class, some winners, there must necessarily be a bottom class, a poor class, some losers. Some people feel like enriching these people will be default destroy their position.
  They don't seem to realize or care that their level of have can fix so many people's have-not, and it can be done quickly and efficiently and without actually significantly altering their own lifestyle. They're worried that if the have-nots suddenly have something, they will become part of the haves, the winners, and well... If there are no losers, what's the point of being a WINNER right?

Here in the UK we just pretend it's not a problem by calling it a lifestyle choice.
- I see that more and more in the US, people saying things like "what can we do to help them, most homeless people want to live that way" like wtf?
  
  Because of the way media seems to work these days.
  There is no denying that a small percentage of homeless people are too far gone to help and would rather live that way for whatever reason.
  Any person with some critical thought should be able to remove them from the discussion and focus on the vast majority of homeless people that can be helped, where the media will just show this one person and be like see there isn’t any point.
  The same can be seen for peaceful protests. We have 10,000 people protesting peacefully and one lunatic being violent. We all know what the news will show the next day.
- I read an interview with Bezos once a while ago, and he was asked why he didn’t use his wealth to help end homelessness. I’m paraphrasing here, but he said they did a study and they concluded poverty and homelessness was a moral issue and couldn’t be solved. Not that I believe for a second he actually did a study, and that a valid, science backed study would conclude that. What a total and complete piece of shit.

I get what you’re saying, but what if cruelty is the point?

Yeah but the rich have to pay taxes!
- Do they? I believe such solutions are surprisingly cost effective
  
  Not if you're exploiting them for cheap labor.
  
  When Milwaukee implemented a housing-first homeless policy, they actually saved money.
  Turns out that, by almost completely eliminating homelessness, you can save a lot of money on the legal system, policing, healthcare, and other costs associated with homelessness.
  Housing-first homeless policy is the obvious solution: it's humane, it's effective, and it saves us money.

If everyone voted for a wealth tax we could have small apartments and counseling for the homeless. No more homeless in our streets. :) the surplus of cash could also improve our infrastructure. More public transportation and bullet trains 😉
- US only has 650k homeless people. With its budget it doesn't even need to tax the wealthy.
- We already spend more dealing with homelessness issues than we would need to spend to house them.
  As a country, we need to understand our puritanical roots and eject them from our collective conscious.
- Why stop there? We should provide free housing for everyone. I would gladly stop working so hard and accept a free house.

Thats because they wanted to solve the problem.
America doesnt want to solve problems.
It just wants cruelty. Cruelty isnt a byproduct. Its the end product.

Where profits?

Homelessness is a tactic in social marketing. America needs homelessness to stay America.

Not in my backyard. Also; not in my town; not in my city; not in my district; not in my county; not in my state; not in my country.
This whole place is going to hell.

Please slap Canada too Finland.
- I live next to Hastings and Main, the fuck are you talking about saying Canada has dealt with homelessness? We have a ho... Oh, wait, I misread your statement, its the US being slapped, which means you're acknowledging Canada has a homelessness crisis as well...

We have a similar program in my city, but unfortunately the scale of the problem is just too big at this point, and too wrapped up in a parallel mental health crisis to be solved by housing alone. A lot of these people basically need something closer to assisted living or a halfway to get back into any kind of normal routine. The US needed these programs 40 years ago.
- People need to get comfortable with the knowledge that large problems take decades to actually solve and won’t be fixed in a single election cycle.
  
  Yes I’ll never understand this weird mentality that thinks the moment whomever they vote in all their promises will be fulfilled immediately like a fast meal though a McDonald’s drive through.

The problem with making an addict choose between a roof an heroin, is they already know they can live without the roof.
- Don't know how Finland does it exactly. But here in Germany the rent would be paid directly by the city to the landlord. The addict would not have any real way to get to the money, because he is not involved in this process. But there aren't enough appartments, so despite that we also have homlesness here (not at a USA level though).
- That's the thing, in Finland they can't, they'd freeze to death otherwise.

Now if only we could solve the problem of self righteousness, there would be peace on earth.

Who am I going to throw quarters at? Who's going to help me find drugs? Who am I going to blame all my problems on?!?! These are the tough questions you need to start asking before you start your homelessness genocide folks..

Nice. Hope it works out.
- there's still some homeless people but very little. it's hard to make sure absolutely no one ends up homeless

You mean we could do something that helps? I don't believe you. /s

"Hey I've got homelessness... but I want homelessness. " Murica goes to the Mayor starring Tim Hidecker and Eric Wareheim.

thanks for the meme sounds good love bart simson

Channel 5 has been making great documentaries on YouTube about this. No preconditions isn’t true. No drugs, need Id. Housing programs exist aswell as shelters (no Id required) but you can’t be on drugs. They exist in canada heavily. It’s not the full solution.
- Vancouver, and I imagine most of Canada's major cities are experiencing a massive homelessness crisis, I dont know of these housing programs you speak of. There certainly isnt enough provided housing to go around
- It's not just a no drugs rule. Addicts get free addiction treatments and the money they receive is unable to be spent on alcohol or nicotine products.

Isn't that what Los Angeles is currently doing? Anyway solving problem of homeless that just got unlucky and ended up on the street is the easy part. You provide support which they will use it to get back on their feet.
The hard part is that they are not the only people that are homeless. The more difficult ones are addicts, who first need to be cleaned and not all of them wants to. And the most difficult ones are mentally ill. Those should be committed to a mental institution, unfortunately during Reagan they must agree for this to happen and they obviously won't.

"Solved homelessness"
Hardworking people got more shitty neigbours...... Thats not a solution, its just moving the problem inside.
We have this shit in sweden and I have observed it up close. Fucker didn't want to work nor get clean. He was comfortable with his daycare for adults...... They have this thing called work training - building products that no one buys to practice working...
Had a contact that could get him a job, he just said thats for idiots and I'm not and an idiot. Rather do his work training than get a real job and a real salary...
He's dead now, killed him self with an overdoze from the anxiety medicine they prescribed to him.
So these things looks good on paper, but in real life not so much. Hope he's and exception and not the rule.
I personally dont believe in it, I was on the same path once. Some hard truths got me on the right path again, worked hard, took alot of shit and today cant recognize my old self.
- They solved his immediate problem of being homeless. I'd rather have a few shitty neighbors than to have people living and dying because they lack shelter.
  
  I wouldn't take this comment as anything but an anecdote. This is how some homeless people can be, so the take away is that the homelessness problem cannot be completely solved with housing. Some people are just cripplingly dysfunctional. They need more than housing, they need care takers. Just handing out keys to an apartment next to families to a dysfunctional drug addict who will smoke, vandalize and play loud music at night is not fair to the neighbors. These are normal middle-class people complaining, not some billionaire who can't stand the sight of a peasant lol.
- I can see how a single case you experienced delegitimize the whole system.
  To be fair, we have the same system and I never had someone like that as a neighbor. So it is a flawless system.
- Avoiding having shitty neighbors is definitely a good reason to have people piss, shit and die in the streets. Good point there.
  
  I would say "Avoiding having shitty neighbors is definitely a good reason to keep people shitty and in shitty conditions resulting in shitty deaths".
- I'd rather have any one of these people as my neighbor than one of those "hard working" nepobabies.
- You seem like a temporarily embarrassed millionaire.
- And his life would have been even worse if he was on the street. I honestly don't see the problem in this story. Someone with mental health issues had a place to live? Ended up dying to suicide? It's a sad story but also the housing doesn't seem at fault at all?
  
  Just saying its a waste of time and money. And he took someone elses spot in a crowded housing market.
- i'm genuinely happy you were able to get yourself together.
  just know that there are any number of reasons someone else might not have your strength or capacity for change, or might not yet have reached a readiness for change like you did.
  edit grammar