Homeless people abused and humilliated by the war on drugs

[Orchid_Suspiria]

http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue43/BMandell43.htm As if these poor people don't have a difficult existence as is.They don't need to be subjected to humiliation like this.Once again prohibition causes people more problems than it solves.

Reputation Comments on this post:

good one

[dr ACE]

why the hell are homeless individuals stigmatized for being junkies as if that is the only freaking reason that people become homeless. There are many factors that can cause a homeless situation: psychical/sexual/emotional abuse being the most common.

Their are sooo many ignorant blind fools in the world it make me feel down sometimes what happen to all the peace and love shit of the 60's ?. Ganja realy does need to be legalized before the whole world turns into evil power hunger bastards

[Shampoo]

A fascinating look at the structural causes of homelessness, though it seems the intelligent bulk of the paper focuses on catalysts for poverty, with little focus on the drug problem. I found this part to be particularly interesting, and happen to find it supports what seems like a reasonable claim/argument by Police Officer:

most [shelters] refuse people who are drunk or abusing drugs. Family shelters have eligibility criteria that vary from agency to agency, and from state to state.

Undocumented immigrants are allowed access to shelters only if a child was born in the U.S. and is therefore a citizen. For legal immigrants to be eligible, at least one family member must be a citizen or a legally present immigrant.

that some family shelters do not accept adolescent boys. The age limits they set vary from 12 to 18. Some accept women and children only. One shelter accepts women and children only, but no boys over age 9. The welfare department accepts men as part of the family only if the man is the father of the children. No boy friends allowed.

It seems a relatively well-accepted social-norm that charitable funding is not blind. Just as people are more willing to give to a red-cross-esque organization that they know will help people than they are an unknown ambiguous 'health-charity' for which they have less certainty, they are more likely to invest their time, shelter, and money in people that show potential for growth and rehabilitation, or a willingness to improve destructive habits and return to productivity, than they are to someone who shows up drunk and high with money in their pockets and a junkie boyfriend.

As PO said,

Originally Posted by Police Officer

Say you run a house like a shelter. You own it, you pay for it, its yours. Should you not have the right to set the ground rules? If the owner says that it dosent want junkies in their shelter then whats the problem? An alternative would be not to go to that shelter and beg for handouts.

What about shelters for battered women? If every shelter should be open any any person with any problem for whatever reason then we have to open up shelters for battered women to men.

Why should state funding offer shelter to people who openly choose to spend their money on drugs rather than housing and refuse to change this habit or show a stiff unwillingness to enter rehabilitation? Arbitrarily providing a home for every single homeless human being would be blatantly enabling, accepting, and reinforcing the habits that potentially put them in the situation to begin with.

Originally Posted by dr ACE

Their are sooo many ignorant blind fools in the world it make me feel down sometimes what happen to all the peace and love shit of the 60's?

1960: Lasers invented, Hitchcock's Psycho released '61: Bay of Pigs '62: Cuban Missile Crisis, Marilyn Monroe Dead, Man killed crossing Berlin Wall '63: JFK assassinated '64: Nelson Mandela sentenced to life in prison '65: Los Angeles riots, Malcom X assassinated, US enters Vietnam '66: Mao Zedong enters power, Black Panther party forms '67: Che Guevara assassinated, Six-Day War '68: Robert Kennedy assassinated, Martin Luther King Jr. assassinated, Tet offensive '69: Yasser Arrafat comes to power

just some points of reference. Though this is not the thread for this discussion, be careful about glorifying and romanticizing history. The power of grass-roots positive thinking only infected a small portion of the population, just as it does today, and will continue to do. The peace and love never left, it just changed masks. Woodstock never toppled Washington, most of the 'hippies' became stock-brokers, and tie-dye was replaced by another social-pseudo-revolution, which happened again, and again, and again.

[silentghost]

Unreliable and biased source if you ask me. Not any better then Limbaugh's blog in retrospection. Personally, homeless people are some of the most dangerous people. What is essential to run a safe and efficient society? Money. What do many homeless reject? Money.

I'm not gonna stop you from wasting YOUR time and money on these people, but these people should either have a job or be in a hospital. Lots can probably do both. Why do I know? Because I see people who live on minimum wage, especially if they are single and not paying rent (permanent shelters? wtf?). I do know homeless people who claim to be homeless purely from a philosophical rejection of money, but I don't see why whatever money they do get or save (via free housing) can be spent on recreational drugs. Besides, pissing in a cup is a small price to pay for a free place to sleep.

[stoneinfocus]

WTF?! Homeless peolpe are homeless, because the state, which should care, doesn´t pay them a home, which they themselves can´t afford. full-stop!

Cut the crap!

Look up Genrtification on wiki, or what and see what´s happenign world-wide.

I guess the shelters are all christian, arn´t they? Great!

Drug-test those bastards, for not having money... the state is the cause for the poverty, not drugs and psychiatric deseas and abuse (not, that all of teh latter is most likely to happen after a few months of being homeless).

Great, this board and some ´re still mistaking cause with symptoms, when it comes to money.

[Police Officer]

I do not believe that "The State" should provide a home for the homeless. That, in my opinion, is absolutely a horrible idea. There are places for people who cant care for themselves, like the mentally insane or mentally incmpetent. Other than that I believe that any other normal person has the personal responsiblity to care for themselves.

I do not understand why everyone is upset. I understand the arguments on the other side of the table, but I absolutely think that they are not objective and they're motivated by their own drug use and habits.

Say you run a house like a shelter. You own it, you pay for it, its yours. Should you not have the right to set the ground rules? If the owner says that it dosent want junkies in their shelter then whats the problem? An alternative would be not to go to that shelter and beg for handouts.

What about shelters for battered women? If every shelter should be open any any person with any problem for whatever reason then we have to open up shelters for battered women to men.

Although unpopular, I think Silentghost has hit the nail on the head.

[Coconut]

I have noticed in my country that getting a job is not that easy, especially if you are homeless or without an education. I am in my third year of university and come from a middle class family. I have many skills and am well suited to most of the jobs I have applied for. However, I was only hired by someone after over a year of job hunting. The entire process is fraught with criteria that have more to do with presentation and sucking up to disgustingly obese executives with BMWs than abilities.

I do not believe the state should provide a home for the homeless as I do not believe the state should exist at all, but it's very easy for people who have homes and a steady income to dismiss all homeless people as dangerous junkies or "mentally incmpetent" (now there's irony for you), as well as say "oh, they should just get a job!" It's not as easy as that. The streets of Dublin are full of homeless people and I have only ever come across one who was aggressive. This compares to the many hundreds of violent people I have witnessed who do have homes. If I had more money I would consider trying to help those who were forced into homelessness and didn't inflict it upon themselves onto their feet with food, showers, helping with CVs etc. but as it is I barely have enough to live off myself.

[stoneinfocus]

[quote=Police Officer;390244]I do not believe that "The State" should provide a home for the homeless. [qoute]
why not? swim has worked his ass off in a full shift for years building bankbuildings and housings and just when he faces some unforseen problems, that are not in the range or view of a normal person, he should get to be a criminal bump?

I would have rather built joyfully homes and alike if I knew, they were for everyone, no matter what one´s doing or what sickness he has.

What about shelters for battered women? If every shelter should be open any any person with any problem for whatever reason then we have to open up shelters for battered women to men.

A shelter is a hole, it´s not a home, it´s dishonouring.There´s so much money and so much space and working power, that it can be easily achieved, bút instead its spent on jails(p-o!), wars and Kyoto.

[stoneinfocus]

But we do consent, that one is only getting a home with the help of a society, which is directed by an institution in charge?

[Orchid_Suspiria]

The United States is a country whose leadership lacks compassion and all semebelance of real human values.I'm surprised homeless people and drug users aren't simply just executed.I can see that day coming if someone doesn't act and soon.

[fnord]

Personally, homeless people are some of the most dangerous people. What is essential to run a safe and efficient society? Money. What do many homeless reject? Money.

Homeless people are no more dangerous to you then anyone else,i have spent quite alot of time around the homeless,while i have seen them act violent its only been to each other,generally there drinking Buddy's. i think if you were to look at statistics of crimes committed by homeless vs non-homeless people you would see that the majority of arrests come from those that do indeed have homes. you also have to factor in the fact that most of these arrest could of been avoided if they had a home,for example grab your average homeless person with a criminal record you wont see hard crimes on his "rap sheet" you will see things like drinking in public,trespassing(this can be as little as trying to take a nap in a closed park at night. vagrancy, etc.

Your views on money/society bother/scare me...

Originally Posted by stoneinfocus

Look up Gentrification on wiki, or what and see what´s happening world-wide.

Did anyone look up that word? Heres a link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification

Originally Posted by Police Officer

I do not believe that "The State" should provide a home for the homeless. That, in my opinion, is absolutely a horrible idea. There are places for people who cant care for themselves, like the mentally insane or mentally incompetent. Other than that I believe that any other normal person has the personal responsiblity to care for themselves.

I agree and dissagre,the state should provide shelters but they should only be temporary and there should be conditions IE: person must apply for jobs housing assistance,medical checkups,psychiatric help etc. a shelter should be short term to get someone back on there feet,not a new home Ive seen people that have been staying at the same shelter for 4-6 years and have done nothing for there life. ~this is there fault and Ive confronted many of them when i see them sitting around a soup kitchen all day complaing about how much there life sucks yet they do nothing to change it.

Originally Posted by Orchid_Suspiria

The United States is a country whose leadership lacks compassion and all semebelance of real human values.I'm surprised homeless people and drug users aren't simply just executed.I can see that day coming if someone doesn't act and soon.

~arbeit macht frei?

[stoneinfocus]

Cut the oh-so "intellegctual-analytical" crap!!!

Build them homes and watch them nearly all become "sane" and selfresponsible again, with an ease never seen before.

Period!!

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by stoneinfocus

Cut the oh-so "intellegctual-analytical" crap!!!

Build them homes and watch them nearly all become "sane" and selfresponsible again, with an ease never seen before.

Period!!

Hmm...so what you are saying is don't think about it or analyse it just do what you say - are you sure you don't work for the government after all?

Providing homes for the homeless takes away responsibility from them, as well as some of the impetus for change. I do not believe that "housing" in the terms implied here is a right - shelter may be, but not housing.

There are some better ideas - I would support the provision of large dormitory style buildings in which basic bedding is provided in a large room - multiple bunk beds etc. 2 Basic meals to be provided a day in a large canteen, and a job office specifically tailored to finding and offering jobs which the homeless can perform. I would even agree with a tax break system for businesses which agree to take on a certain number of homeless a year. Help getting access to medical services should also be provided, as in Britain health care is already free. In America some form of basic provision may be necessary. If you stay for longer than a year (or whatever time period works best) in the centre without finding a job or making clear and obvious efforts to find employment then you are asked to leave to open up more space for other homeless people who are ready to take the opportunities being offered. In times of major job shortages these centres could be expanded, even using some of the inhabitants as paid labourers to do so. It may also be necessary to ban all drugs and certainly all weapons from these centres. The idea is to provide a half-way house - if you really want to get off the streets then we should do our best to help you, but we should only help those who are trying to help themselves.

Similar centres to the one I described above are up and working well in cities such as Washington DC, the problem is they rely almost entirely on charitable donations and receive little to no support from the government. If more money was provided they could be a lot more effective and, if you find the homeless as much of a public nuisance as I do, you would be happy for some of your tax money to go to these shelters rather than, say, ridiculous domes and subsidising French farmers.

[stoneinfocus]

Originally Posted by FuBai

Hmm...so what you are saying is don't think about it or analyse it just do what you say - are you sure you don't work for the government after all?

Yes, no, do what I say, as I have experienced it and the facts are all over the place, which prove it and the soluition is so simple(and are proven to be right in my 1. hand experience) that one doesnßt need to argue on short-fetched conclusion and facts like Shampoo´s and Police-Officer´s, it´s just that an opinion like your last one, FuBai, lead to means that simply just don´t work, like forced drug-therapy and a drug-free world(what a joke, even in milder forms -there´s no right in the wrong)and create more problems than are solvable, which wouldnßt even exist in the first hand, by simply doing th necerssary -what´s so hard, dioesn´t everyone wnat a home and every one want others to have a home? ( just live for a week in your car and by 14$ a day and see what you do to those people and try getting a home.)

It´s always the same mechanism, you take away the most important link which is responsible for all the problems of those people and the rat tail that´s to it, and then say, it´s not the missing link, it´s the fault of the individual and we can´t provide the missing link, because you see how these people are and back it up by pseudo-intellectual, hypocritical alternatives, therby sucking out official funds of society for your lies, manipulate, feed agenda of lies, which is -by the way- pure sadism as defined by the Brockhaus Encyclopaedia.

[stoneinfocus]

TZhe centers work well, but not the humans.

Where´s the problem in building and giving them homes?

The psychology is, by facing unbearable suffering by the homeless, these subjects will actually develop reason for facing this unbearable suffering as it´s unimaginalbe to any human being and thus needs making up an "excuse" for themselves to survive and justify the situation.

And you give them responsibility for a house, a lifestyle and there´d be no excuses for not providing the most possible society can do, to provide a selfdetermined life and a solid foundation, I can´t begin to list the things that could bloom from this substance, like culture, health, friendlyness, equanity and peace.

It´s just as simple, ad kaczynski was right, also, he´s constantly preaching a friendly fire and maybe this is the message: destroy the system, by making it a better to all, discourage the leftyism, by giving them no chance to argue for their inferiority.

It´s alsways the same, I feel inferior, so I put my Peer Pressure on humans, making them look inferior, like "I have a house, a car, a credit card, so you must be inferior to me, I don´t take drugs and respect the law so drug-users are a cancer to society and inferior" if not so I will make up a system, that will prove it and enterain my oh so intelctual superiority and humanity...may I have a problem, please?"

get the system and you can predict it!