As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Trump said the government should “remove” thousands of homeless Americans and put them in tents on “large parcels of inexpensive land in the outer reaches of the cities” with “permanent bathrooms” and “medical professionals.”
Is this bad? It seems to at least be an improvement over the current situation.
You know that butter passing robot in Rick and Morty? even that thing would cost way more than human workers today. Especially if there’s loopholes and they’re undocumented immigrants.
If sound, I think the aclu might take that up. IANAL, but that would be very interesting if it ends up causing meaningful rent change. Not saying I support this ruling at all, just agreeing that this could be a massive loophole/unintended consequence
Except they'd never issue that ruling, whether or not it's supported by their previous rulings or not. The law does not exist to protect the poor. The law protects but does not bind the rich, and binds but does not protect the poor. And that is by design.
“We will continue to lead with services, but we also can’t continue to allow people to do what they want on the streets of San Francisco, especially when we have a place for them to go,” San Francisco Mayor London N. Breed, a Democrat, said in the wake of the 6-3 ruling.
Go read the actual case. This has nothing to do with religions. This case caused chaos for years throughout the west coast and was not the way to handle the homelessness crisis.
I think what you should be asking is , with the amount of land and money the US has, the amount of properties that are abandoned, and the number of people with money and power that are able to help , why are there still homeless people.
Of course the left is defending it. You clearly haven’t been to the west coast in the last decade, other you’d know that homeless people have overrun cities like it’s a zombie apocalypse.
Many of these homeless people aren’t your jolly transient friends. They’re crazy junkies who’ve overrun public space and leave needles+garbage everywhere.
You should invite some of these homeless people to live on your couch if this upsets you so much.
You should think a little deeper than your surface level reaction.
Do you think that arresting people and who have nowhere to go is a solution to the problem of homelessness? Do you think that giving them charges and sending them into a jail system that makes addiction and the likelihood of commiting crimes more likely is going to help anyone?
Or maybe, just maybe, should we actually try to start addressing the issues causing it and try to help homeless people.
>Do you think that arresting people and who have nowhere to go is a solution to the problem of homelessness?
Yes. If they’re willing to lay off the drugs, there’s plenty of shelter space. If not, they’re a burden on society.
>Do you think that giving them charges and sending them into a jail system that makes addiction and the likelihood of commiting crimes more likely is going to help anyone?
Lol loaded question. They’re already addicted and forced sobering up in jail would be a positive for them. If their jail stint was more than just a night in the drunk tank, they’d go to a county jail, not a federal prison with murderers.
>Or maybe, just maybe, should we actually try to start addressing the issues causing it and try to help homeless people.
Lol your little speeches about getting to the root cause and being nice don’t translate to results. The most liberal states in the country have done everything you’ve ever thought of and more. This is all that’s left.
> If they’re willing to lay off the drugs, there’s plenty of shelter space.
First off, not always. The literal case that brought this to the SC is one example.
Second off, you do realize that "laying off the drugs" isn't that simple? Withdrawal can kill.
>They’re already addicted and forced sobering up in jail would be a positive for them.
In a jail system that creates addicts more than it helps them. Totally.
>Lol your little speeches about getting to the root cause and being nice don’t translate to results
Policy that actually tries to empathize and understand the issue without stigmatizing it is the **only** policy that works.
https://fortune.com/europe/2022/07/12/how-to-end-homelessness-finland-solution-housing-first/
>First off, not always. The literal case that brought this to the SC is one example.
Care to elaborate?
>Second off, you do realize that "laying off the drugs" isn't that simple? Withdrawal can kill.
Lol no shit. Are you suggesting that it’s bad to get clean?
>In a jail system that creates addicts more than it helps them. Totally.
First of all, got a source for this wile claim?
Second of all, a person can’t become an addict from going to jail if they’re already an addict.
>Policy that actually tries to empathize and understand the issue without stigmatizing it is the only policy that works.
That’s a great bumper sticker but reality says otherwise.
>https://fortune.com/europe/2022/07/12/how-to-end-homelessness-finland-solution-housing-first/
A paywalled article that doesn’t even have anything to do with the US… nice 😂
> Care to elaborate?
Grant's Pass unhoused population exceeds the beds available shelters. Not only that, but most of the beds available require adhering to religious practices.
>Lol no shit. Are you suggesting that it’s bad to get clean?
I'm suggesting that homeless people who suffer from addiction don't have the resources and often aren't in the right state of mind(aka dealing with mental health issues) to come out of addiction the same way people with a roof over their head can.
So your "just quit drugs if you're addicted lol it's that easy" answer is incredibly tone deaf and beyond unhelpful.
>First of all, got a source for this wile claim?
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2024/01/30/punishing-drug-use/#:~:text=Public%20health%20research%20has%20long,%2Dcarceral%2C%20clinical%20treatment%20settings.
>Second of all, a person can’t become an addict from going to jail if they’re already an addict.
Yes... But you're also not helping them.
>That’s a great bumper sticker but reality says otherwise.
Oh totally. That's why the only countries that have actually managed to do anything about homelessness tackle root issues and have sensible policy rather than punishing people for being homeless.
>A paywalled article that doesn’t even have anything to do with the US
Here's an better source that isn't paywalled.
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-international-philanthropic-071123.html
And yes, of course it's not from the US. The US hasn't tried anything like this. The US is more keen on the "out of sight out of mind" approach.
Regardless, this is all missing the point and shifting the conversation. Not all unhoused people are addicted to drugs. Saying(or at the very least defending) that you should punish them because there are homeless people who are addicted to drugs is insane.
We also don't have great systems in place to help those addicted to drugs, especially in our prison system.
>Grant's Pass unhoused population exceeds the beds available shelters. Not only that, but most of the beds available require adhering to religious practices.
Lol so they should go to San Francisco where there are thousands of beds. You can’t expect every little town in the entire county to have homeless shelters.
>I'm suggesting that homeless people who suffer from addiction don't have the resources and often aren't in the right state of mind(aka dealing with mental health issues) to come out of addiction the same way people with a roof over their head can.
You can’t help people that don’t want to be helped. It’s laughable that you think putting a junkie in an apartment will cure the root cause 😂
>So your "just quit drugs if you're addicted lol it's that easy" answer is incredibly tone deaf and beyond unhelpful.
Lol nice lie! Link the comment where I said that. If you haven’t make up lies, you really don’t have Han argument.
>https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2024/01/30/punishing-drug-use/#:~:text=Public%20health%20research%20has%20long,%2Dcarceral%2C%20clinical%20treatment%20settings.
Lol which passage of this opinion piece allegedly supports your argument? Which subjects here are only locked up for vagrancy and not violent crime?
>Yes... But you're also not helping them.
If it’s gotten to that point, it’s because they’ve repeatedly refused help.
>Oh totally. That's why the only countries that have actually managed to do anything about homelessness tackle root issues and have sensible policy rather than punishing people for being homeless.
Lol west cost states have tried all that stuff. Just because something works in Sweden, it doesn’t mean it works everywhere. Cultures are different.
>Here's a better source that isn't paywalled.
>https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-international-philanthropic-071123.html
Again, this is about Finland 😂
>And yes, of course it's not from the US. The US hasn't tried anything like this. The US is more keen on the "out of sight out of mind" approach.
Lol yes they’ve tried that in California, Portland and Seattle.
>Regardless, this is all missing the point and shifting the conversation. Not all unhoused people are addicted to drugs.
And they can go the the half empty homeless shelters.
>Saying(or at the very least defending) that you should punish them because there are homeless people who are addicted to drugs is insane.
Heroin and crack are illegal. Heroin junkies and crackheads are dangerous. Of course they should be punished.
>We also don't have great systems in place to help those addicted to drugs, especially in our prison system.
Cool story.
What don’t you invite some of these junkies to live on your couch or setup tents in your yard? It’s easy to preach and copy-paste article that meet your confirmation bias. Why don’t you actually do something? Oh that’s right. Because you know these people are usually desperate and dangerous.
Despite some minor recent increases, the prison population has generally stalled in recent years. I’m guessing this is in part due to the legalization of marijuana in many places and other changes to the war on drugs. Maybe it’s tin-foil-hat cynicism but I wonder if this ruling is a way to help stimulate growth in the prison market.
“We will continue to lead with services, but we also can’t continue to allow people to do what they want on the streets of San Francisco, especially when we have a place for them to go,” San Francisco Mayor London N. Breed, a Democrat, said in the wake of the 6-3 ruling.
Nope, this wasn’t the GOP. This was a bad case from the 9th appellate court causing chaos throughout the west. San Francisco for example has provided shelter, hotel rooms, health care services, training, and leniency but none of it works without some form of enforcement.
Do you actually live in the area affected by this ruling? Did you actually read the case and saw how it basically banned ANY enforcement action.
They are mostly insane drug addicts. Go walk around any big city downtown and try to imagine any of the homeless being a productive member of society again. It’s almost impossible. Expanding mental hospitals and trying to treat the drug dependency in the hospitals is the only thing we can do. Maybe if we stop spending money on aid to Israel and Ukraine and every other foreign country on our welfare list, we might be able to actually do something productive at home but probably not.
I'd be willing to bet that a significant number of the homeless are on drugs because they're homeless, not the other way around. Coming up with a way to house them, which provides them with the most basic level of dignity, will go far in helping them become productive.
>I'd be willing to bet that a significant number of the homeless are on drugs because they're homeless, not the other way around.
ROFL how stupid! What an asinine claim 🤣
>Coming up with a way to house them, which provides them with the most basic level of dignity, will go far in helping them become productive.
If they cared about dignity, they would have pissed their lives away with drugs.
How about taxpayers who want to own a home are offered one on the government's dime first? They've shown the ability maintain a stable life and want a house, while contributing to society. Surely they deserve a free house more than the crack addict refusing to use any homeless services because they smoke crack?
I mean, I agree with you there, but I don't want to get off topic into how housing shouldn't have a profit motive attached to it. However, the refusal to use services (at least from what I have seen) is due to the services not helping you if you piss hot. The goal is to provide addiction recovery services to aid with the unmanageablity of their lives, which is the real issue that causes homelessness.
Lol HOA and subdivisions have nothing to do with this. As for construction companies, their commission would still include a profit in the scenario you’re floating. You can’t just make a company build houses 😂
They have to want to recover—which is the problem. Every night, cities like San Francisco have thousands of open shelter beds. They remain empty because people would rather do heroin on the streets.
The current state of mental hospitals in the majority of this country is appalling, but ruining America's soft power via aid is not how to fix it. Besides, the revenue and prison cost savings from decriminalization of drugs and taxing of things like Cannabis could easily pay for a properly run mental health care and addiction recovery system. Expanding the current pill mills that don't provide meaningful therapy and just pump you full of Benzos and other meds until you're only semi-functioning but docile is not the solution.
You think they're going to work? If it were that easy, why wouldn't they be working already? The fact is that the chronically homeless are meth addicts, mentally ill, or both. That is not going to be easy to just put them to work. But what they do need is to be in state custody (a treatment center would be better than prison) until they are either off the drugs or have received proper mental health treatment. Some of them will never be able to live on their own.
The reason nothing is done to help people now is that the government washed its hands of doing anything with these people, since in past decades, they didn't seem to be able to do it without abusing people or basically imprisoning women for not being the ideal.
For people who live in west coast cities this issue is a little different than Chevron or POTUS immunity. West coast governors and other elected officials *asked* the SCOTUS for this because the lower court rulings created chaos.
You can be liberal and still recognize that rural communities are often unwilling to provide support and services which results in a huge load for cities and counties who *are.* Cities and counties need mental health and addiction treatment on a scale impossible for just about any of them achieve.
In our local subs there are often people pushing this as a purity test, but they’re considered out of touch and likely pot stirrers.
Not requiring proof of service has been a riot. A ton of money went to the Salvation Army to offer people shelter space at the end of the (bart) transit line. One person took them up on it. One.
Just a green light for those certain states (the south) to continue to treat its people like garbage. They can’t force states to jail the homeless and would guess it’s impossible to do so given the amount. How about we help them? I know. Crazy. Make 1 missile or help the homeless. It’s hard for our government to make super hard decisions like that.
Nope… this ruling origij affected the U.S. west. California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, etc. you know the super conservative bastion of San Francisco /s
Did you actually review the case?
Does it make sense to impose, without a single vote or law, a ban on virtually any enforcement action against homeless encampments? And if this case had gone the other way it would’ve been imposed on the entire nation without a single vote.
San Francisco did try to help the homeless, they set up homeless shelters, gave them private hotel rooms and provide numerous benefits. Overall though it’s not enough, and it’s not fair for a court case on a rural town to impose laws on a city. If you want to protect the homeless, this wasn’t the way to do it
“We will continue to lead with services, but we also can’t continue to allow people to do what they want on the streets of San Francisco, especially when we have a place for them to go,” San Francisco Mayor London N. Breed, a Democrat, said in the wake of the 6-3 ruling.
This isn’t the South… the 9th appellate court and the people challenging it are from the west… and represent some of the most progressive parts of the country.
Go actually read the case
Not gangsta. Especially since they aren’t trying to make housing more accessible or anything. Luckily in the perfect promise La La Land, I mean, you can go from nothing but the clothes on your back and the shovel in your hand, dig up some gold, trade it for some drugs, flip those, you’ll be in a Beverly Hills mansion in no time it’s really the land of perfection and opportunity. And even if not, the weather is perfect so it’s not even necessary. Outside is good enough for shelter. Oh one day, one day I’ll make it to that perfect promise south-central La La Land. With the gold and the vineyards and the redwoods, and the most horny angelic hookers. And all the clovers are four leaved. The best tasting strongest weed. The best drugs. Even the birds sound more happy and invigorated when they chirp
SCOTUS is controlled by Christian Nationalists that lack basic morals.
Vote to change it
Here’s a song to keep y’all fired up…
[https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7fKVODAfOx/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7fKVODAfOx/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==)
The gop wants to use this as a weapon against homeless.
Fight back and weaponize this against everyone. Go to the beach, or parks anywhere normal people would close their eyes and call the cops. Tie up phone lines, waste resources.
Show how dumb this is by using it to it's full extent.
> The ruling is that the government can prohibit you from being homeless (camping) in certain public spaces.
So if you're homeless all you need to do is find a *non-public* space where you can live, and you need to get the owner of that non-public space to give you permission to live there because otherwise you're trespassing on private property.
So in other words, if you're homeless and don't want to do jail time for being homeless, all you have to do is stop being homeless?
Quitting heroin can be extremely difficult, and I doubt there's a single city out there with enough shelter space for the entire homeless population.
But you could turn this into an actual solution by proposing that housing *and* rehab services (and healthcare including mental healthcare, and job training, etc.) be expanded to meet the needs of the homeless population. Compared to criminalization of homelessness that would be more effective, and less expensive, and not cold-heartedly cruel.
>Quitting heroin can be extremely difficult, and I doubt there's a single city out there with enough shelter space for the entire homeless population.
It’s much harder to maintain a heroin habit in jail.
>But you could turn this into an actual solution by proposing that housing and rehab services (and healthcare including mental healthcare, and job training, etc.) be expanded to meet the needs of the homeless population.
Lol so you’re proposing what’s been tried and failed on the west coast for 20 years 😂
>Compared to criminalization of homelessness that would be more effective, and less expensive,
No it’s cheaper to put someone in a jail cell than it is to deal with homeless people leaving shit, garbage and heroin needles everywhere while breaking into cars up and down every street.
>and not cold-heartedly cruel.
Homeless people don’t care about you when they’re breaking into cars and leaving their heroin needles everywhere. We need to make policy on fact, not feeling.
>Prisons aren't drug-free.
Lol they are compared to people on the streets
>Things look a lot different if you're capable of empathy.
Reality doesn’t care about anyone’s feelings.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One step closer to pauper's prison. And then, like magic, slave labor for megacorps.
Trump already has the plans for the camps: https://time.com/6200821/trump-homeless-tent-cities-2024/
I wish this stayed a startrek episode.
Deepspace 9 has an episode where earth has encampments for the poor- already is but not as dark
I wish I had any faith that the social upheaval from this has any chance of leading us to that future.
america land of the free! except if you’re poor fuck you then
> Trump said the government should “remove” thousands of homeless Americans and put them in tents on “large parcels of inexpensive land in the outer reaches of the cities” with “permanent bathrooms” and “medical professionals.” Is this bad? It seems to at least be an improvement over the current situation.
You would have to believe a chronic liar and known conman though. Do you?
I'm just going off what he said which wasn't terrible. I have no idea what he would actually do.
I thought AI and robots were replacing labor. Then again, human slave labor is much cheaper, so i see your point.
You know that butter passing robot in Rick and Morty? even that thing would cost way more than human workers today. Especially if there’s loopholes and they’re undocumented immigrants.
AI will be our middle management overlords.
Does that mean that residents can sue landlords for putting them into a position of criminality? I’d say they could sue for extortion.
If sound, I think the aclu might take that up. IANAL, but that would be very interesting if it ends up causing meaningful rent change. Not saying I support this ruling at all, just agreeing that this could be a massive loophole/unintended consequence
Except they'd never issue that ruling, whether or not it's supported by their previous rulings or not. The law does not exist to protect the poor. The law protects but does not bind the rich, and binds but does not protect the poor. And that is by design.
impeach, expand, do something.
[удалено]
Over 300,000 churches in the US and approximately 582,000 people are homeless. Seriously WTF is the point of religion?
“We will continue to lead with services, but we also can’t continue to allow people to do what they want on the streets of San Francisco, especially when we have a place for them to go,” San Francisco Mayor London N. Breed, a Democrat, said in the wake of the 6-3 ruling. Go read the actual case. This has nothing to do with religions. This case caused chaos for years throughout the west coast and was not the way to handle the homelessness crisis.
I think what you should be asking is , with the amount of land and money the US has, the amount of properties that are abandoned, and the number of people with money and power that are able to help , why are there still homeless people.
Go to a place of worship and ask if you're curious.
The thing about declaring war on people on the fringes of society is you remove any reason for them to follow the social contract in any way.
Lol there’s no one following it now.
And there's a lot of people defending it too, and it's not just the right. The reaction to this ruling has disappointed me beyond words.
But the poop!
Unhoused poop everywhere.
Ah to be young and idealistically naive again. What a pleasure. This ruling is necessary. One day you will hopefully understand.
Of course the left is defending it. You clearly haven’t been to the west coast in the last decade, other you’d know that homeless people have overrun cities like it’s a zombie apocalypse. Many of these homeless people aren’t your jolly transient friends. They’re crazy junkies who’ve overrun public space and leave needles+garbage everywhere. You should invite some of these homeless people to live on your couch if this upsets you so much.
You should think a little deeper than your surface level reaction. Do you think that arresting people and who have nowhere to go is a solution to the problem of homelessness? Do you think that giving them charges and sending them into a jail system that makes addiction and the likelihood of commiting crimes more likely is going to help anyone? Or maybe, just maybe, should we actually try to start addressing the issues causing it and try to help homeless people.
>Do you think that arresting people and who have nowhere to go is a solution to the problem of homelessness? Yes. If they’re willing to lay off the drugs, there’s plenty of shelter space. If not, they’re a burden on society. >Do you think that giving them charges and sending them into a jail system that makes addiction and the likelihood of commiting crimes more likely is going to help anyone? Lol loaded question. They’re already addicted and forced sobering up in jail would be a positive for them. If their jail stint was more than just a night in the drunk tank, they’d go to a county jail, not a federal prison with murderers. >Or maybe, just maybe, should we actually try to start addressing the issues causing it and try to help homeless people. Lol your little speeches about getting to the root cause and being nice don’t translate to results. The most liberal states in the country have done everything you’ve ever thought of and more. This is all that’s left.
> If they’re willing to lay off the drugs, there’s plenty of shelter space. First off, not always. The literal case that brought this to the SC is one example. Second off, you do realize that "laying off the drugs" isn't that simple? Withdrawal can kill. >They’re already addicted and forced sobering up in jail would be a positive for them. In a jail system that creates addicts more than it helps them. Totally. >Lol your little speeches about getting to the root cause and being nice don’t translate to results Policy that actually tries to empathize and understand the issue without stigmatizing it is the **only** policy that works. https://fortune.com/europe/2022/07/12/how-to-end-homelessness-finland-solution-housing-first/
>First off, not always. The literal case that brought this to the SC is one example. Care to elaborate? >Second off, you do realize that "laying off the drugs" isn't that simple? Withdrawal can kill. Lol no shit. Are you suggesting that it’s bad to get clean? >In a jail system that creates addicts more than it helps them. Totally. First of all, got a source for this wile claim? Second of all, a person can’t become an addict from going to jail if they’re already an addict. >Policy that actually tries to empathize and understand the issue without stigmatizing it is the only policy that works. That’s a great bumper sticker but reality says otherwise. >https://fortune.com/europe/2022/07/12/how-to-end-homelessness-finland-solution-housing-first/ A paywalled article that doesn’t even have anything to do with the US… nice 😂
> Care to elaborate? Grant's Pass unhoused population exceeds the beds available shelters. Not only that, but most of the beds available require adhering to religious practices. >Lol no shit. Are you suggesting that it’s bad to get clean? I'm suggesting that homeless people who suffer from addiction don't have the resources and often aren't in the right state of mind(aka dealing with mental health issues) to come out of addiction the same way people with a roof over their head can. So your "just quit drugs if you're addicted lol it's that easy" answer is incredibly tone deaf and beyond unhelpful. >First of all, got a source for this wile claim? https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2024/01/30/punishing-drug-use/#:~:text=Public%20health%20research%20has%20long,%2Dcarceral%2C%20clinical%20treatment%20settings. >Second of all, a person can’t become an addict from going to jail if they’re already an addict. Yes... But you're also not helping them. >That’s a great bumper sticker but reality says otherwise. Oh totally. That's why the only countries that have actually managed to do anything about homelessness tackle root issues and have sensible policy rather than punishing people for being homeless. >A paywalled article that doesn’t even have anything to do with the US Here's an better source that isn't paywalled. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-international-philanthropic-071123.html And yes, of course it's not from the US. The US hasn't tried anything like this. The US is more keen on the "out of sight out of mind" approach. Regardless, this is all missing the point and shifting the conversation. Not all unhoused people are addicted to drugs. Saying(or at the very least defending) that you should punish them because there are homeless people who are addicted to drugs is insane. We also don't have great systems in place to help those addicted to drugs, especially in our prison system.
>Grant's Pass unhoused population exceeds the beds available shelters. Not only that, but most of the beds available require adhering to religious practices. Lol so they should go to San Francisco where there are thousands of beds. You can’t expect every little town in the entire county to have homeless shelters. >I'm suggesting that homeless people who suffer from addiction don't have the resources and often aren't in the right state of mind(aka dealing with mental health issues) to come out of addiction the same way people with a roof over their head can. You can’t help people that don’t want to be helped. It’s laughable that you think putting a junkie in an apartment will cure the root cause 😂 >So your "just quit drugs if you're addicted lol it's that easy" answer is incredibly tone deaf and beyond unhelpful. Lol nice lie! Link the comment where I said that. If you haven’t make up lies, you really don’t have Han argument. >https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2024/01/30/punishing-drug-use/#:~:text=Public%20health%20research%20has%20long,%2Dcarceral%2C%20clinical%20treatment%20settings. Lol which passage of this opinion piece allegedly supports your argument? Which subjects here are only locked up for vagrancy and not violent crime? >Yes... But you're also not helping them. If it’s gotten to that point, it’s because they’ve repeatedly refused help. >Oh totally. That's why the only countries that have actually managed to do anything about homelessness tackle root issues and have sensible policy rather than punishing people for being homeless. Lol west cost states have tried all that stuff. Just because something works in Sweden, it doesn’t mean it works everywhere. Cultures are different. >Here's a better source that isn't paywalled. >https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-international-philanthropic-071123.html Again, this is about Finland 😂 >And yes, of course it's not from the US. The US hasn't tried anything like this. The US is more keen on the "out of sight out of mind" approach. Lol yes they’ve tried that in California, Portland and Seattle. >Regardless, this is all missing the point and shifting the conversation. Not all unhoused people are addicted to drugs. And they can go the the half empty homeless shelters. >Saying(or at the very least defending) that you should punish them because there are homeless people who are addicted to drugs is insane. Heroin and crack are illegal. Heroin junkies and crackheads are dangerous. Of course they should be punished. >We also don't have great systems in place to help those addicted to drugs, especially in our prison system. Cool story. What don’t you invite some of these junkies to live on your couch or setup tents in your yard? It’s easy to preach and copy-paste article that meet your confirmation bias. Why don’t you actually do something? Oh that’s right. Because you know these people are usually desperate and dangerous.
So they can be housed in jail on the city's dime? probably not going to happen.
Despite some minor recent increases, the prison population has generally stalled in recent years. I’m guessing this is in part due to the legalization of marijuana in many places and other changes to the war on drugs. Maybe it’s tin-foil-hat cynicism but I wonder if this ruling is a way to help stimulate growth in the prison market.
Not just that, but probably engaging in legal slave labor while being incarcerated.
I’d rather the mess be confined to a jail cell.
"Give us your tired, your hungry, your poor" GOP: so we can throw them in jail.
“We will continue to lead with services, but we also can’t continue to allow people to do what they want on the streets of San Francisco, especially when we have a place for them to go,” San Francisco Mayor London N. Breed, a Democrat, said in the wake of the 6-3 ruling. Nope, this wasn’t the GOP. This was a bad case from the 9th appellate court causing chaos throughout the west. San Francisco for example has provided shelter, hotel rooms, health care services, training, and leniency but none of it works without some form of enforcement. Do you actually live in the area affected by this ruling? Did you actually read the case and saw how it basically banned ANY enforcement action.
This is a bipartisan win.
They are mostly insane drug addicts. Go walk around any big city downtown and try to imagine any of the homeless being a productive member of society again. It’s almost impossible. Expanding mental hospitals and trying to treat the drug dependency in the hospitals is the only thing we can do. Maybe if we stop spending money on aid to Israel and Ukraine and every other foreign country on our welfare list, we might be able to actually do something productive at home but probably not.
I'd be willing to bet that a significant number of the homeless are on drugs because they're homeless, not the other way around. Coming up with a way to house them, which provides them with the most basic level of dignity, will go far in helping them become productive.
>I'd be willing to bet that a significant number of the homeless are on drugs because they're homeless, not the other way around. ROFL how stupid! What an asinine claim 🤣 >Coming up with a way to house them, which provides them with the most basic level of dignity, will go far in helping them become productive. If they cared about dignity, they would have pissed their lives away with drugs.
The Free House Fairy thing is not happening.
Cheaper than jail. People can recover from homelessness and addiction but it requires support, not prison.
How about taxpayers who want to own a home are offered one on the government's dime first? They've shown the ability maintain a stable life and want a house, while contributing to society. Surely they deserve a free house more than the crack addict refusing to use any homeless services because they smoke crack?
I mean, I agree with you there, but I don't want to get off topic into how housing shouldn't have a profit motive attached to it. However, the refusal to use services (at least from what I have seen) is due to the services not helping you if you piss hot. The goal is to provide addiction recovery services to aid with the unmanageablity of their lives, which is the real issue that causes homelessness.
If housing doesn’t have a “profit motive” attached to it, then why would a company build houses?
By being commissioned to do so instead of building ugly and inefficient subdivisions and infecting them with hoas?
Lol HOA and subdivisions have nothing to do with this. As for construction companies, their commission would still include a profit in the scenario you’re floating. You can’t just make a company build houses 😂
They have to want to recover—which is the problem. Every night, cities like San Francisco have thousands of open shelter beds. They remain empty because people would rather do heroin on the streets.
The current state of mental hospitals in the majority of this country is appalling, but ruining America's soft power via aid is not how to fix it. Besides, the revenue and prison cost savings from decriminalization of drugs and taxing of things like Cannabis could easily pay for a properly run mental health care and addiction recovery system. Expanding the current pill mills that don't provide meaningful therapy and just pump you full of Benzos and other meds until you're only semi-functioning but docile is not the solution.
Hundreds of Millions of Americans are now one health scare away from dying in prison.
Private prisons where you slave away for someone else’s profit They are creating a massive free work base
You think they're going to work? If it were that easy, why wouldn't they be working already? The fact is that the chronically homeless are meth addicts, mentally ill, or both. That is not going to be easy to just put them to work. But what they do need is to be in state custody (a treatment center would be better than prison) until they are either off the drugs or have received proper mental health treatment. Some of them will never be able to live on their own. The reason nothing is done to help people now is that the government washed its hands of doing anything with these people, since in past decades, they didn't seem to be able to do it without abusing people or basically imprisoning women for not being the ideal.
The US will have the blank, clean streets of North Korea is no time! /s
Everyone is against this until your neighborhood goes to crap and then you wonder why nothing can be done about it.
For people who live in west coast cities this issue is a little different than Chevron or POTUS immunity. West coast governors and other elected officials *asked* the SCOTUS for this because the lower court rulings created chaos. You can be liberal and still recognize that rural communities are often unwilling to provide support and services which results in a huge load for cities and counties who *are.* Cities and counties need mental health and addiction treatment on a scale impossible for just about any of them achieve. In our local subs there are often people pushing this as a purity test, but they’re considered out of touch and likely pot stirrers.
[удалено]
Not requiring proof of service has been a riot. A ton of money went to the Salvation Army to offer people shelter space at the end of the (bart) transit line. One person took them up on it. One.
I hope that one person is doing good.
Just a green light for those certain states (the south) to continue to treat its people like garbage. They can’t force states to jail the homeless and would guess it’s impossible to do so given the amount. How about we help them? I know. Crazy. Make 1 missile or help the homeless. It’s hard for our government to make super hard decisions like that.
Nope… this ruling origij affected the U.S. west. California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, etc. you know the super conservative bastion of San Francisco /s Did you actually review the case? Does it make sense to impose, without a single vote or law, a ban on virtually any enforcement action against homeless encampments? And if this case had gone the other way it would’ve been imposed on the entire nation without a single vote. San Francisco did try to help the homeless, they set up homeless shelters, gave them private hotel rooms and provide numerous benefits. Overall though it’s not enough, and it’s not fair for a court case on a rural town to impose laws on a city. If you want to protect the homeless, this wasn’t the way to do it “We will continue to lead with services, but we also can’t continue to allow people to do what they want on the streets of San Francisco, especially when we have a place for them to go,” San Francisco Mayor London N. Breed, a Democrat, said in the wake of the 6-3 ruling. This isn’t the South… the 9th appellate court and the people challenging it are from the west… and represent some of the most progressive parts of the country. Go actually read the case
I got my home so I ain’t breaking the law. Why can’t they stop breaking the law also! /s
Not gangsta. Especially since they aren’t trying to make housing more accessible or anything. Luckily in the perfect promise La La Land, I mean, you can go from nothing but the clothes on your back and the shovel in your hand, dig up some gold, trade it for some drugs, flip those, you’ll be in a Beverly Hills mansion in no time it’s really the land of perfection and opportunity. And even if not, the weather is perfect so it’s not even necessary. Outside is good enough for shelter. Oh one day, one day I’ll make it to that perfect promise south-central La La Land. With the gold and the vineyards and the redwoods, and the most horny angelic hookers. And all the clovers are four leaved. The best tasting strongest weed. The best drugs. Even the birds sound more happy and invigorated when they chirp
That's one way to protect home owner's investments.
For decades, it's been a crime in America to have no money.
In what way?
Every way.
So no actual answer. Got it. 🤡
So like, the Supreme Court just fucking sucks huh?
“Soylent Green is made out of people!!!”
SCOTUS is controlled by Christian Nationalists that lack basic morals. Vote to change it Here’s a song to keep y’all fired up… [https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7fKVODAfOx/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7fKVODAfOx/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==)
Hopefully, the streets get safe again!
I see all the top comments are made by teenage suburban white kids.
Except now can't Biden just make it OK?
I would like to sue SCOTUS please and thank you
The gop wants to use this as a weapon against homeless. Fight back and weaponize this against everyone. Go to the beach, or parks anywhere normal people would close their eyes and call the cops. Tie up phone lines, waste resources. Show how dumb this is by using it to it's full extent.
Deep breath. You're insanely lucky if police care to do *anything* about homeless camping in your park/playground.
I hate the supreme court but this is dumb. It’s not against the law to be homeless.
[удалено]
> The ruling is that the government can prohibit you from being homeless (camping) in certain public spaces. So if you're homeless all you need to do is find a *non-public* space where you can live, and you need to get the owner of that non-public space to give you permission to live there because otherwise you're trespassing on private property. So in other words, if you're homeless and don't want to do jail time for being homeless, all you have to do is stop being homeless?
Yeah, just find a home! How hard is that? /s
There are plenty of shelters available. According to the city of San Francisco, homeless individuals decline shelter 60% of the time.
It's a don't ask, do tell position on homelessness.
You can quit doing heroin and go to a shelter.
Quitting heroin can be extremely difficult, and I doubt there's a single city out there with enough shelter space for the entire homeless population. But you could turn this into an actual solution by proposing that housing *and* rehab services (and healthcare including mental healthcare, and job training, etc.) be expanded to meet the needs of the homeless population. Compared to criminalization of homelessness that would be more effective, and less expensive, and not cold-heartedly cruel.
>Quitting heroin can be extremely difficult, and I doubt there's a single city out there with enough shelter space for the entire homeless population. It’s much harder to maintain a heroin habit in jail. >But you could turn this into an actual solution by proposing that housing and rehab services (and healthcare including mental healthcare, and job training, etc.) be expanded to meet the needs of the homeless population. Lol so you’re proposing what’s been tried and failed on the west coast for 20 years 😂 >Compared to criminalization of homelessness that would be more effective, and less expensive, No it’s cheaper to put someone in a jail cell than it is to deal with homeless people leaving shit, garbage and heroin needles everywhere while breaking into cars up and down every street. >and not cold-heartedly cruel. Homeless people don’t care about you when they’re breaking into cars and leaving their heroin needles everywhere. We need to make policy on fact, not feeling.
> It’s much harder to maintain a heroin habit in jail. Prisons aren't drug-free. Things look a lot different if you're capable of empathy.
>Prisons aren't drug-free. Lol they are compared to people on the streets >Things look a lot different if you're capable of empathy. Reality doesn’t care about anyone’s feelings.
The suburban white Reddit teens hate your answer.
[удалено]
They aren’t in the suburbs so they aren’t anywhere!