Drug addiction leads to homelessness, as the addict's priority is always getting the drugs. Things like jobs, friends, family, sense, are all sacrificed for the drugs. Everything is sacrificed, and so they wind up on the street.
Treating a homeless drug addict as a victim of poverty is like giving cough medicine to a person with lung cancer. It does not work.
The replies from several homeless and articulate folks on this thread, who are both working and homeless appear to contradict your assertion. Once you are homeless for some time, I assume you will automatically fall to drug-addiction as a means to mentally escape your situation. Especially when the way out looks so hopeless and difficult.
Most drug addicts lose their housing after some time, so housed drug addicts are temporary and in the way to being homeless. Addicts don’t work reliably enough to pay monthly expenses. They also steal and vandalize from people offering them housing, so again, very temporary until they wear out their welcome.
Drug addicts are amazingly adept at lying and manipulation.
Responsible people don't subject their kids to life on the streets. Addicts do. I've worked in homeless shelters in DC, Denver, and even Arkansas. My mother died a homeless drug addict. She and her husband were very adept at moving from city to city, usually at the urging of social workers who would tell them what city they could move to after they had exhausted the temporary benefits of the current city. They never were willing to hold a job.
When rents get too high, normal functional humans move to another place, or take a roommate. My father had 5 kids to raise by himself when my mother bailed on us, and we had to do this.
Addicts like my mom fooled dozens of social workers into thinking they were just normal people who couldn't get work. She could keep the act up for 8 hours or even longer. But a 2 day period was all it took to see through the bullshit. I think you got fooled as well. Talk to any drug treatment specialist and they can explain to you the reality.
Temporary homeless vs chronically homeless are two different problems with 2 different causes. California is filled with chronically homeless people. If you think they want to work, you don't understand drug addicts and their generally high intelligence and ability to manipulate.
The three main causes of homelessness in America are sudden economic misfortune, mental illness, and addiction.
People in the first category are actively looking for a way to get back on their feet. Giving them money is better than giving them a meal, a ticket, or a bit of clothing. They know what they need most, and will spend their money accordingly. Insisting that they choose from my list of pre-approved spending options does more harm than good, from a utility standpoint. From an emotional standpoint, it's condescending and demeaning.
In the second case, the person has few employment options and a weak support network, otherwise they would not be out on the street. They won't use the money I give them as well as people in the first category, but who am I to say what they want or need? I'm not trying to solve a social problem. I'm trying to ease the suffering of an individual.
It's difficult to distinguish people in the third group from the people in the second group, since mental illness and addiction often work in tandem. I don't bother to try. Anyway, the addict's hierarchy of needs is roughly: Food > Drugs > Shelter. If I buy them a sandwich, they can spend the remainder of their money on drugs. If they're a serious addict, a lack of charity won't stand between them and the drugs they need. If they can't scrounge up enough money through legitimate means, petty crime is the next step. Overcoming addiction is a complicated process that comes from within. You can't starve the addict into going clean. If I give a homeless person a dollar and that money goes towards drugs, that's a shame, but at least it eases their suffering for a moment.
Again, giving money to a homeless person isn't a long-term solution to social problems. It's a small gesture from one individual to another. They have a cut, so I give them a band-aid. Homelessness is a difficult and complicated problem. Withholding charity won't suddenly result in homeless people straightening up and flying right. The reality is that many of them, at least in the short term, are unemployable. Withholding charity just increases their suffering.
They're not homeless because they were mentally ill drug addicts. They're mentally ill drug addicts because they're homeless.
People without a stable living condition experience severe stress and mental illness as a result. People without necessities to live turn to drugs to alleviate the pain and suffering they experience.
This study is one example of how giving money to people to alleviate their conditions can improve their lives and enable them to further engage in self improvement.
More generally, any low-difficulty, low-stressful task or source of enjoyment is probably a cure for most homeless people. Especially if you give them a shelter and food and access to shower and safety other stuff you don’t get being homeless.
Homelessness and drug-addiction are a vicious cycle. Imagine yourself, but homeless on the streets, dirty and with a headache. Would you be able to sober up, re-learn software engineering or some other trade on your own, and re-aquire a living space and job? Maybe, but it would be incredibly tough and would take at least a few months. Meanwhile you have to find food, avoid the elements, avoid thieves and police. find spaces to clean, spaces to sleep. And also whatever job you take, you have to compete with people who aren’t homeless and don’t have to do those things. And this is ignoring the temptation and withdrawals from drugs.
But let’s say someone gives you a basic job and basic necessities. Now it’s a lot easier to get back on your feet, because you only have to deal with the drug withdrawals. The work also helps serve as a distraction and alternate source of happiness, which is extremely important.
You gave these people a clear and reasonable way to succeed and enjoy life without drugs, effectively breaking the cycle.
> For those who are addicted (and let's repeat that not everyone who is homeless is an addict, at least not yet) their addiction won't magickally vanish if you don't give them money to spend on drugs. They'll find their drugs anyway. Maybe not with your money, but they won't get any better because you didn't give them money. And they'll probably do something desperate to get it if they don't have money so you're probably protecting them from the worse if you do give them money.
I agree but you need to account for both parties involved. Giving money opposed to asking them for what they need and supplying it increases the risk area for harm and it's inevitably a moral burden as well if someone thinks they are fueling addiction when they might not be, it's hard to know. Addiction is a complex problem which can't be solved by a passway. The best they can do is focus on supplies for improvement in qualify of life for the homeless within a reasonable timeframe. Not only improvement in what you eat and self caring products lead to distraction from addiction but helps you stand up. It opens up opportunity to ask about them and give emotional fulfillment as well. Throwing money in a bin or putting it on their hand doesn't which is what most people would do if they were to just give out money.
> I sometimes ask people what they need, if they're sitting outside a store. A guy once asked me for a Cadbury's and a bottle of Gatorade. I thought, yech, on both counts and the chocolate is defo unhealthy, but maybe it was a way to combat the cold or get a quick hit of energy? How would I know? I've never sat on my arse on a cold dirty pavement for days. If the folks who do that don't know best what they need, then I certainly don't so I might as well go with what they say.
Sure that's a good point and I didn't imply to act like you know what they need. That is more of a quality issue. Giving money is unknowingly restricting and letting their mindset dictate short term benefit over long term. They may try to get a cheaper unhealthy chocolate due to dollar difference or thought of saving up.
Well, when there is a high probability they will use the money to buy drugs - substance abuse is one of the primary reasons for homelessness in the US - then it does in fact matter what they do with it. Giving money to beggars is virtually synonymous with supporting the corner dealer in many cases.
Could you be a bit more specific? People end up homeless because they are cut from society, have no social support to fall back to, no way of supporting themselves. Most commonly they get to that situation due to mental illness and addiction/substance abuse is an ever-present comorbidity with that.
But the fact is, not having a shelter, running water, a way to cover their basic needs is what amplifies their suffering and dispairs to level where they simply can't get back on their feet. They can't get a job if you smell, your clothes are dirty and you're desperate and hungry. A shelter is a necessary condition I think for getting out of that cycle, and thus a very important first step.
This is nothing more than a "Rules for thee and not for me" attitude towards the poor. Homeless and doing drugs? OK, you are an addict, you have to get help, you have to get cleaned up, you're ruining your life, etc. Nothing more than a parasite on society.
Wealthy and able to have a "doctor" prescribe you drugs? OK it's fine. You aren't one of those dirty "addicts" because a guy with two letters in front of his name says it OK.
Drug dealing is different, though. It's not necessarily a choice between homelessness and drug dealing; it might be between living in an SRO, barely getting by, and drug dealing. At some point, there's a threshold where drug dealing has the better outcome, but the situation you're coming from wasn't that bad.
I have never met a homeless person that wanted to get work, have a steady income and pay for housing that didn't eventually make it. (I lived on the streets)
Those that were overcome by drugs and mental issues would either destroy the housing or simply leave it or never take free housing.
(yes, there are many homeless that actually do _not_ want an apartment/house to take care of)
That’s my experience as well. The path all the homeless and couch surfers I’ve known was drug abuse and dependence leading to loss of job then eventual homelessness due to not paying rent, roommates getting fed up, or parents getting fed up. I know that some homeless are different and became homeless first and then became addicted to substances, but I have not known them.
As another poster, Sean, points out most homeless advocates are loath to admit to this for obvious reasons.
You can't really compare the category of homeless drug users in Liberia with homeless drug users in NYC without adequate controls for the resources available to these people as well what kinds of addiction are prevalent and perhaps certain background characteristics that could influence decision making. Here's a very crude hypothesis to illustrate my point:
In Liberia I can't imagine that there are many soup kitchens or organizations like the NYC Rescue Mission. Thus, when an individual receives cash they will spend it on items such as food and clothing because these are basic neccessities. Perhaps the disutility of not having anything to eat or to wear is greater than the utility gained from using drugs. This also depends on the type of addiction.
Now imagine that you're homeless in NYC. Being homeless your standard of living is relatively poor, however you can still scour the bins for pizza leftovers or go to a place like the NYC Rescue Mission and get a meal. Homeless people might not be adequately dressed to withstand winter, but they do have something. So now when you get money, you spend it on your addiction because while life is painful, it's not painful enough to give up drugs.
I haven't read through the 19+ studies implicitly mentioned in the article, but this is definitely something that should be taken into consideration.
I was homeless for a year in my late teens. But I also felt it didn't hurt me because I was young enough to still feel that it was a choice of my own, and I did go to school.
As the article points out, only a third of homeless are addicted, so the problem is not really about the homelessness itself. It's about losing hope and being alienated by your own community. I always wondered why so many homeless people like to flock around where it's crowded.
It can refer to a person living in a car, a person living in a shelter, a person living a tent, a person living in a homeless camp, a person living under a piece of cardboard, etc.
Some people become homeless at a point and manage their way out, others stay homeless.
If you are an alcoholic, or a drug addict, and want to get drunk or high or both in a regular basis, you don't like the rules at the shelter... what place is best for you? a shelter with strict rules where you can't drink or get high, or a homeless camp? The homeless camp.
The problem with people like the article author is that they try to monopolize common sense.
A person working at Walmart, earning minimum wage while living in their car, has a very different reality to a drug junkie living in a homeless camp. The term "homeless" refers to both. I would not try to begin a serious analysis by mixing such different things.
Treating a homeless drug addict as a victim of poverty is like giving cough medicine to a person with lung cancer. It does not work.
reply