>but not unconditionally. Housing should be offered to everyone, but continued housing should be dependent on ongoing participation in drug rehab and mental health programs.
The problem with this is it attempt to fix too many problems at once. The US does not have robust drug rehab programs, and if you make this a stipulation for housing, then those people will end up on the streets again and tax payers will eviscerate you for building housing and still having homeless. Secondly, various interest groups will use your arbitrary lines to impose their brand of morality. The christians will come in and say no weed and alcohol, and now no one wants to live there, and you've effectively replicated 70% of the problems that cause the homeless to not live in homeless shelters.
I think a better question to ask is why you want to impose this drug law. Are you letting your morals get in the way of public policy or do you actually believe that the people who live on the street today will just unilaterally decide to stop living on the street and give up heroin? Refer back to my list. Once they have failed the drug test you have (1), (3), and (4). You can go with (3), but prisons, in the US today, do not rehabilitate people and are more expensive than just housing them.
>The problem with this is it attempt to fix too many problems at once.
Its the same problem.
>The US does not have robust drug rehab programs, and if you make this a stipulation for housing, then those people will end up on the streets again and tax payers will eviscerate you for building housing and still having homeless.
Creating robust drug rehab and mental counseling programs alongside building housing for the homeless must all be considered 3 legs of the same stool or each will fail.
>The christians will come in and say no weed and alcohol, and now no one wants to live there, and you've effectively replicated 70% of the problems that cause the homeless to not live in homeless shelters.
Shelters are a non starter. The biggest problem with shelters here in NY is the rampant violence that takes place. People are not going to stay where they don't feel (and aren't) safe. There are numerous other problems with shelters, but even if all of these were solved, most people just aren't interested in forced communal living.
>I think a better question to ask is why you want to impose this drug law. Are you letting your morals get in the way of public policy or do you actually believe that the people who live on the street today will just unilaterally decide to stop living on the street and give up heroin?
I don't want to pass a drug law, I want to offer housing to drug addicts who want to clean up their lives and get off the streets. Nobody should be forced to take up this offer, but if they refuse it, and continue to break the law by stealing and creating a public menace, then they should be locked up. If someone chooses to be homeless and live in their car and boot heroin all day, that's fine as far as I'm concerned - but they can't be camping on the sidewalks, or robbing stores, or harassing people just trying to walk down the street.
>prisons, in the US today, do not rehabilitate people and are more expensive than just housing them.
Our prisons are medieval dungeons that are desperately in need of a complete overhaul, just like our "system" of dealing with homelessness and the crime that results from it. The fact is that our society is very broken on many levels, and the rising drug-addicted homeless population just happens to be one of the most visible signs of it. To be honest, I don't think we have the competence or the capacity to solve any of these problems. Our government, on every level, is inefficient, corrupt and incompetent - and only getting worse. We can sit here and jawbone about potential solutions to our many problems, but my honest opinion is that none of these problems are going to be solved. They are all going to continue to get worse until we reach some sort of breaking point. It's impossible to know how this will manifest itself exactly but it won't be pretty.
The problem with this is it attempt to fix too many problems at once. The US does not have robust drug rehab programs, and if you make this a stipulation for housing, then those people will end up on the streets again and tax payers will eviscerate you for building housing and still having homeless. Secondly, various interest groups will use your arbitrary lines to impose their brand of morality. The christians will come in and say no weed and alcohol, and now no one wants to live there, and you've effectively replicated 70% of the problems that cause the homeless to not live in homeless shelters.
I think a better question to ask is why you want to impose this drug law. Are you letting your morals get in the way of public policy or do you actually believe that the people who live on the street today will just unilaterally decide to stop living on the street and give up heroin? Refer back to my list. Once they have failed the drug test you have (1), (3), and (4). You can go with (3), but prisons, in the US today, do not rehabilitate people and are more expensive than just housing them.