I'd like to point out that "homeless person" has been replaced with "person experiencing homelessness." Not supposed to say homeless person anymore.
For me, I'm fine with "homeless" as a term. I work with them a lot. It's a large mix of problems. Some are addicts, many of them are addicts or alcoholics. Huge addiction problem overall.
There are also the mental illness cases. Sometimes I believe that mental illnesses in street people can be a symptom of the substance abuse which can largely recede after sobriety, given a few years. They literally cannot take care of themselves anymore in many cases.
Then you have the medical problems and the minority of them who actively choose to live homeless lives.
I want to fix the problem for all of them. It seems like it would have to be somewhat strategically aggressive in almost every case. They would need to be broken down into categories, different destinations for each type. You probably have a dozen types of problems to sort out. Then you can get to work with healing them and let them rebuild. The drunks and the addicts would be the easiest for the short-term, and some of the hardest for the long-term I believe.
Guarantee if the US got serious about stopping the flow of drugs into this country and taking out the criminal cartels producing them, the “homelessness epidemic” would improve very quickly.
People choose drugs over comfort, safety, basic human needs, therefore they’re living in the streets because anything other than getting high doesn’t matter. It’s the power of addiction.
I recall seeing crackheads in Chicago missing limbs and being confused as to why this was so common. It was explained to me that in the BRUTAL Chicago winters they have shelters that will take them in, but they are not allowed to get high in them. So they choose to stay out in the deadly cold and get high and get frostbite and lose a foot, leg or arm.
That hit me hard. I decided to quit smoking pot that day.
I think that cutting the flow of drugs would help immensely. On the other hand, once the addiction exists already then just cutting off the flow won't solve it on an individual level.
I view it as a separate topic although one does affect the other. It's more of a distinction between "how the problem started" than "how we solve the problem" for me.
Yes, thank you. I agree. We need aggressive measures and research to help these people. Just throwing more money at this is not the solution, and a PC view of things just smothers any real attempts to treat it.
We have to remember that it is not humane or caring at all to just leave people outside on the streets when they are no longer capable of caring for themselves. Later, after healing is done, they can be able to reassert their will.
This is an approach which would be highly unpopular.
I'd like to point out that "homeless person" has been replaced with "person experiencing homelessness." Not supposed to say homeless person anymore.
For me, I'm fine with "homeless" as a term. I work with them a lot. It's a large mix of problems. Some are addicts, many of them are addicts or alcoholics. Huge addiction problem overall.
There are also the mental illness cases. Sometimes I believe that mental illnesses in street people can be a symptom of the substance abuse which can largely recede after sobriety, given a few years. They literally cannot take care of themselves anymore in many cases.
Then you have the medical problems and the minority of them who actively choose to live homeless lives.
I want to fix the problem for all of them. It seems like it would have to be somewhat strategically aggressive in almost every case. They would need to be broken down into categories, different destinations for each type. You probably have a dozen types of problems to sort out. Then you can get to work with healing them and let them rebuild. The drunks and the addicts would be the easiest for the short-term, and some of the hardest for the long-term I believe.
Guarantee if the US got serious about stopping the flow of drugs into this country and taking out the criminal cartels producing them, the “homelessness epidemic” would improve very quickly.
People choose drugs over comfort, safety, basic human needs, therefore they’re living in the streets because anything other than getting high doesn’t matter. It’s the power of addiction.
I recall seeing crackheads in Chicago missing limbs and being confused as to why this was so common. It was explained to me that in the BRUTAL Chicago winters they have shelters that will take them in, but they are not allowed to get high in them. So they choose to stay out in the deadly cold and get high and get frostbite and lose a foot, leg or arm.
That hit me hard. I decided to quit smoking pot that day.
That's a great decision for you!
I think that cutting the flow of drugs would help immensely. On the other hand, once the addiction exists already then just cutting off the flow won't solve it on an individual level.
I view it as a separate topic although one does affect the other. It's more of a distinction between "how the problem started" than "how we solve the problem" for me.
Yes, thank you. I agree. We need aggressive measures and research to help these people. Just throwing more money at this is not the solution, and a PC view of things just smothers any real attempts to treat it.
We have to remember that it is not humane or caring at all to just leave people outside on the streets when they are no longer capable of caring for themselves. Later, after healing is done, they can be able to reassert their will.
This is an approach which would be highly unpopular.