But if you treat drug users as human beings, where will the police get their justification for fuckmassive budgets to buy surplus military equipment painted scawwy black (because blue is SO civil servant, and olive drab just isn't COOL enough) and pay grifters to tell them how hard their pp will get when they kill another human being????

In Oregon, we attempted to model Portugal's drug policy. The roll out was a mess and treatment centers weren't funded for several years. Additionally, following the advice of people in the field, the measure didn't include the mandatory meeting with the inter-disciplinary local commission like in Portugal. Instead, there was a hotline set up and possession became a citation. Unfortunately, the citation didn't have the number to the hotline. In places like Portland, the cops at least gave out a business card with hotline number on it in addition to the citation.

Several years later, we have a roll back of the citations to making drug use illegal again. It's not as bad as 2019, but it isn't Portugal either. The biggest strike against it was the public use of drugs in downtown areas and in small encampments. Sadly, this was happening nation wide, but Measure 510 was blamed. And this roll back seems to have taken drug decriminalization off the table in other states altogether. I hope someone braves these waters again, but the advocates who helped design the program have seemingly shuttered their legislative pushes elsewhere.

I wonder if things would have been slightly different if we hewed closer to the Portugal model. Sad that the worst off of us will suffer.

I’m not sure if this is going to work with our current system because 1) I don’t see enough punishment for their moral failures, 2) not enough profit/investment opportunities to capitalize on their vulnerable position and lastly 3) half of our two ruling parties fundamentally disagrees with the concept of a better future.

It’s a good start, but I think if you underline how we can make big money while maintaining the status quo, then we could arrive at something doable.

This! Best treatment against homelessness is:

Give them a home!

Solves the problem of too many empty beds in a for profit jail

idk, America seems to push Universal Basic Gun Owning pretty hard. Can't say that it's helping anyone tho.

But people might be lazy without the constant looming threat of exposure and humiliation.

In Sweden and Denmark, where I am from, it’s technically illegal to not be provided with a roof over your head. But as you say, some people just can’t live in a home, for various reasons. Some even choose to be homeless or more precisely; be a vagabond.

Some people also want to be homeless, as weird as that sounds. In a proper system, those would be the only people who are.

Why end the homelessness crisis when you can criminalize homelessness and have an endless supply of slaves to produce “proudly made in america” things for 15cts an hour ?

Because slave labor is notoriously inefficient relative to precarious industrial labor (particularly as your prison population ages), the cost of incarceration eclipses the savings (especially as housing/energy costs climb), and the cruelty inflicted on the populous undermines the health and well-being of the overall population in a way that stunts technological and cultural development.

States like Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma are case studies in economic mismanagement through mass incarceration. Four of the highest incarceration rates in the country and some of the worst economic growth in the nation.

Trying to treat homelessness through incarceration is a bit like trying to treat malnutrition through cannibalism. The policy is inherently wasteful and destructive, sacrificing far more than one might hope to create.

If you think the bourgeoisie isn’t that cynical, I have a bridge to sell you.

The real value of mass incarceration is not in the people you incarcerate but in the submissive atmosphere you cultivate outside the incarcerated group. Mass arrests create a functional economic blacklist of racial cohorts and social dissidents. Associating with these people can be as poisonous for your welfare as being one of them. And "high crime" neighborhoods can be targeted for "economic redevelopment" which often means mass displacement of residents through state seizure of property and other "slum clearance" measures.

I don't doubt there's cynicism in the modern incarceration system. But it goes a lot deeper than just "arrest a guy and press gang them". An enormous component of the War on Crime was busting up minority social welfare groups (The Black Panthers, most famously, but ACORN and BLM in more recent iterations) and scattering their non-incarcerated members.

We're seeing the same thing play out on college campuses. Organizers and leaders are targeted for arrest and expulsion in order to break up cliches of students focused on that individual leadership.

While I agree that the mental health is vital, I disagree that it's of equal importance. Housing first has a winning track record, and bundling services can deter people from using either.

Someone might be just one restful night's sleep away from deciding that counseling isn't a trap.

The mental health needs to be optional to the rehomed or it won't work.

As Americans, we desperately need a mental health services for all program.

Half of the system exists to prevent people from exploiting the system. Most likely at a net loss. As in, it costs more to prevent people from exploiting the system, than would be lost by people exploiting the system.

Won't someone think of the capitalists!

I see that more and more in the US, people saying things like "what can we do to help them, most homeless people want to live that way" like wtf?