This is the real issue. If you “fall” to heroin it’s not economically viable to help you get up. The cost per success is in the millions of dollars and even success is a pretty degrading state of existence. It’s not like insurance people who fall never paid in, it happens too often for that or charity care. It’s just not possible to treat everyone
In many American states and the federal level, we execute murderers. The Bill of Rights plainly permits this. Executing drug dealers isn't over the line either if we consider the number of people killed by drugs and the drug trade, and if we make a regular habit of it.
As for flogging people, this is arguably less cruel than imprisonment and is a good option for the sort of criminals the public doesn't need to be protected from (not suitable for violent criminals who will likely reoffend.) It doesn't keep people away from their families for years, let's them stay current in their job training, etc. It is nevertheless a strong deterrent but it does less damage to the rest of society.
Singapore gets results and most of their policies don't violate the letter of Bill of Rights except in a purely subjective sense, but most people in America aren't ready to give real progressive reform serious consideration.
Kind of valid. In Portland "housing first" has been all the rage, but having lived with pretty severe addiction for some years, and spent lots of time around fellow addicts in considerably worse circumstances, it's pretty hard to imagine that a house on its own is some kind of solution. Especially when compared to a support network and high quality addiction treatment, medical care, and mental health services. In terms of sustainable recovery, the former is a luxury, while some combo of the latter are essential requirements. Of course, having all of them is by far the best.. man, addiction is a bitch.
"Housing first" isn't the belief that providing a house "on its own is some kind of solution". It's the belief and practice of not refusing to provide housing support until people meet certain criteria – which is often how governments approach the problem.
"We only help those who help themselves", etc.
You get people a safe place to sleep and then provide them with resources to become re-integrated into society, not the other way around.
If someone is very much not ready "to become re-integrated into society" then they can't be independently entrusted with a house (because they'll screw up life for others around them and the house itself with various asocial and illegal acts), that "safe place to sleep" has to be in an institution controlled by others with some enforced rules - until they become capable of following the rules on their own, which generally requires treating the addiction, and is the point when they can become re-integrated into society.
1. They can generally be "trusted" with a house. It's a house. You sleep there.
2. The idea they need constant monitoring comes from the same outdated approach that believes we shouldn't help people unless they deserve it and we can make sure they deserve it. That model has not proven effective and either reducing homelessness or reducing homelessness' external costs on society. It has proven even less effective at improving long term mental health and addiction issues.
3. We have not found a long-term solution to chronic mental health and addiction issues. No approach, yet, has shown outsized performance over any other. Housing First approaches, however, have shown an improvement in homelessness, medical services and criminality – which might be the best we can hope for.
An addict will tear a house apart to sell the electrical wire and possibly plumbing for scrap at a recycling center, rendering it a fire safety hazard to the rest of the neighborhood.
And a non-addict could leave the stove on. People do dumb shit. Keep in mind most "housing first" initiatives don't literally provide "homes". It's usually apartments.
How? Why? It seems like a reasonable question to me, so maybe I'm prejudiced too. That's entirely possible. What's the prejudice? How do I stop? Why is this a bad question? Does it have an answer?
Maybe some are, maybe some aren't. But it seems likely that the ones in the worst condition that need the most help probably skewed towards out of control. And they will probably be hardest to help. I'm in favor of helping those that need help that can be helped. But that will probably come with rules. There are comments all over this thread that shelters are under-utilized because of these rules. I don't know what the answer is.
That's not entirely true. Singapore definitely has very few drug problems, but there are still drugs (and violent addicts). Drug arrests make the news at least once a month.
To be clear, I'm 100% behind Singapore's drug laws. Not having to deal with psychotic methheads is my #1 thing about this place (compared with Australia).
But I do wonder if their laws would work elsewhere (i.e. some place that's not a tiny island with a culturally conservative population).
Not saying I agree with Singapore's methodology. But their calculus is that one drug trafficker will bring in enough drugs to kill 5 people. Therefore, the murder of one person is saving 5 others.
Once again, I'm not endorsing or condoning this, just trying to show you how they conceptualize their form of justice.
This is disgusting, dehumanizing, and when applied to any group at any scale will cause atrocity. Says incredibly much about this site that this comment is welcome here. Straight up eliminationist. How about I advocate for your death as a matter of policy?
I have been thinking about how I (and many others) go to work for a corporate job that has ultimately no meaning in life just to be able to get paid to provide for a family that i only get to hang with on saturday and sunday and if i'm lucky 2 weeks straight out of the year. am i alive?
Presumably you at lease derive meaning from your family; not all of us even have that.
I often hear “Had a wife in kids in Baltimore, Jack. I went out for a ride and I never went back” from “Hungry Heart” by Bruce Springsteen in my head when I think about mid-life discontent. That and “Office Space”; it seems to be the rule that we experience it rather than the exception.
If extreme penalties for illicit drug use were the part of the equation that worked, then why does Saudi Arabia's drug problem continue to get worse? They've had a marked increase in the abuse of amphetamines, cocaine, and opioids over the last two decades.
Maybe stop cherry picking the parts that you like and pretending like they're the parts that worked?
If Singapore's economic and social policies were successful, surely people would want to move there? Perhaps skepticism is warranted from teh evil republicanz - the subject of this submission, decriminalization of drug use, was touted largely by left-wingers based on a few similar, seemingly-successful, small-scale efforts in Europe. Now we know how that turned out.
No they didn’t because until the loan is repaid you can’t use whatever gold you put up for other purposes can you. What became tangible is what you used the loan for , that is what can be taxed.
Idk wtf architects optimize for. Some sort of truisms about what buyers want and builder cost I think because a lot of houses are designed really poorly.
No it’s not good. The lower the barrier to every the better. More ability to choose the level of quality work you desire. A handyman for bill gates is going to be a complete different class than one for the roach motel but it’s still good if the roach motel can get one.
Mhm. Here in Germany plumber, electrician, etc. are all “protected” jobs. You can’t call yourself a plumber or electrician if you haven’t learned the proper trade. I’d argue it’s good for safety, standards and liability.
Now when it comes to stuff like building a kitchen, you could go with proper carpenters or furniture folks or a handyman. It’s good to have those different categories and know what you would be getting.
Germany takes it too far. Every industry is regulated and licensed. It takes 2 years to call yourself a baker. It’s not a good system.
If you have to regulate industries institute a proficiency test and allow different levels of expertise. A plumber or electrician for home repair is a totally different level of complexity to one in industrial applications but it’s the same certification. The guy doing wiring in my house just does not need that level of education and I don’t really want to pay for it.
If there is a large risk when work is low quality, there is regulation. The more possible danger, the more regulation. This is OK.
But an argument for regulation that is just some hand waving and repeating "standards" is not a legitimate position. It is an attempt to build some little bureaucratic empire which will enrich a group via regulatory capture.
The government wins as they now have more employees and more power and the people already in the trade win. Everyone else loses.
