ThreaderApp: [Michael Shellenberger]
People say high rent causes homelessness but Ben, who has been homeless in San Francisco for 7 years, says the “vast majority” are homeless due to addiction. Just 6-7% are from SF. Ben says he “boosts” (shoplifts) and breaks into cars to pay for his $60/day heroin habit.
Ben says 95% of people have switched from heroin to fentanyl, and that some dealers aren’t even selling it any more
He says the price came down from $200 to $60 a day over the last two years “Definitely addiction is the main driving force. After that, you’re stuck. Like you can’t really go back, it’s hard to go, ‘Oh, okay. I’m done being homeless. Now I’m going to just turn my life around.” – Ben Ben’s is a common story from honest homeless. Not everybody on the street is as honest. Many naive liberal journalists are hoodwinked by people who tell them what they want to hear, ie, that they’re just down on their luck, can’t afford the rent, that it’s not about the drugs etc. more
It’s the same with presumably normal people voting Democrat.
Prices for illegal drugs have fallen from $200 down to $60? I wonder why Biden doesn’t mention this wonderful item in his speeches.
I call them “feral people”, because that’s exactly what they are. And thank God they don’t breed like feral cats and dogs do.
The difference between ‘homeless due to high rent’ and ‘homeless due to addiction’ is that the former seeks assistance, which is available.
My heart goes out to those who are addicted to drugs. But building a home isn’t the solution, and there is already housing available. Outreach and connection is the solution, but that takes work and isn’t easy. But building homes is very profitable for those with the right connections, so it continues to be the solution of choice even as the homeless problem becomes worse and worse.
LCD;
“But building homes is very profitable for those with the right connections”
Correct. But there is also the “conveyor belt” system for these “homeless housing projects”. The “preferred” contractors get to build them, usually sub-standard, then in about 5 years gets to tear them down because they’ve become non-livable and build them again…and on and on all on the taxpayers dime. Nice work if you know the right(left) people.
You haven’t met a liar until you’ve met a heroin addict or a politician.
The only difference is one’s enslaved to opium, and the other’s addicted to the enslavement of others.
At least the heroin addict is happy and leaves people alone for awhile once he gets his high, and his habit will ultimately kill him so he has limits.
Politicians, Dems in particular, are NEVER satiated and will screw lives up on purpose generations AFTER they are dead, and steal from you on a level that would make even a heroin addict almost blush.
And Democrat cities like SF have droves of BOTH.
…good luck with that…
Bio-chemical additions like terrible. Best not to even start but unfortunately, millions, for a variety of reasons, do. I’d just as soon offer as much counseling and education as possible. But at the same time, provide all the fucking drugs they want to shoot up.
Either way the problem is solved, and the drug cartels are out of the picture.
See government intervention doesn’t work. The private industry is lowering drug prices while the government control pharmacy is skyrocketing their prices
Allocate $30,000 to each city to purchase bad meth and watch the addiction rate drop like a stone… Along with meth addicts. 😂
Stop calling vagrants “homeless.” Apply vagrancy laws. Drive the vagrants outside city limits and tell them you better not come back or you’re toast.
Vagrants are vagrants are vagrants.
Damn these hobos for turning their backs on opium and flocking like sheep to fentanyl.
It’s like anybody can be a junky nowadays.
The Homeless Industrial Complex drives this.
I think most people would consider fascist child raping democrats to be a bit lower on your imaginary level of filth.
hahahahahahahahahaha
They need to have a walled City to put all these drug users in, give water, some garden tools and seeds.
And all the drugs they want. It will fix it’s self.
I noticed anonymous never comes back for the rebuttal(s).
More proof libtards have a mile-wide yellow streak down their backs.
On the street there are three main groups. Insane people, addicts, and those who choose to be there. No one on the street for any length of time is ‘down on their luck’, there are numerous programs for that and they get used by those who can and will use them.
The state (we, the people) has an obligation to the insane, an obligation to provide care if they cannot provide care for themselves. The state has no obligation to the addict or the person who chooses to live on the street.
We have a mutual obligation to suppress the addict, to eliminate his supply, to coerce him into treatment or prison. The obligation to suppress the addict is an obligation to our own productive society.
Those who live on the street by choice simply need to be ‘moved along’. Go where you like as long as it isn’t here is a good policy for them. Most will rejoin society, some will go to prison and others will continue to ramble until they leave this life.