Universal healthcare, harm reduction and rehab services, comprehensive welfare, affordable housing and a sufficient number of properly trained and resourced social workers.
To some degree, we have to get used to junkies existing in jurisdictions that aren't inclined to lock them up. However, we can't spend our way out of the problem. San Francisco spends ~$40k/yr/homeless [0] , if that's not enough to solve the problem, then it's just too great. We cannot throw money away on problems created by cities that abet $4k/mo rents for one-bedrooms.
In my opinion, that is a huge problem with the US in general, such as prisons "rehabilitation": high cost per prisoner and very low amounts of actual rehabilitation.
Junkies shooting up in public, homeless people shitting on the sidewalk, etc, etc is a problem confined to a handful of cities on the west coast.
Address the causes that lead people into homelessness and addiction and you end up with less of it. That isn't conjecture, its fact, proven by dozens of disparate cultures and countries adopting or rescinding preventative measures with statistically traceable results proving positive correlation.
My point was that substance abuse is (relatively) evenly distributed geographically and pretty much every city and state has more of it than they'd like. Homelessness to the point where it is a significant impact on the day to day lives of the non-homeless is a west coast problem (I've never had to step over human feces in DC, NY or Boston). I'm not saying anything about causes, effects or correlations.
When confronting homelessness, remember that landlords, aristocrats, and even upper middle income working class all don't want to actually improve the homeless situation. To them its a cost center, and they save more money exporting their homeless by force than trying to actually get them housed and healthy. The policies currently in place out west and across the country, in relation to not just homelessness but all "problems" in society are all intentional. Its key to remember that, because recognizing the hostile actors in resistance to societal improvement is often half the battle in knowing how to make meaningful change.
Homelessness and drug abuse are both symptomatic of livelihood instability, as can be proven by how European nations demonstrated marked reductions in both as more policies are enacted to keep people from falling into extreme poverty. But neither is simple enough to distill to being the consequence of one decision or policy - the frequency of homelessness is influenced by many factors, including... 1) The livability of the area exposed to the elements (homeless in Seattle and Boston are often lower not because of good social policy but because its life threatening in the winter). 2) Local policy relating to the homeless. Mostly due to the age of many of the cities there are more well established non-profits, charities, and churches operating to assist the homeless in the East than the West. 3) Housing prices, obviously, are a huge factor. Its much easier to be livelihood insecure when your rent is a larger and larger chunk of your income. This is why, despite often rampant poverty in the South, homelessness isn't nearly as endemic because property is much cheaper in Nowhere Kentucky than it is in the Bay Area.
This just isn't true. At all. This is a problem in cities all over the country. Some cities hide it away, but homelessness and the other problems that come with drug addiction exist all across this country.
I live in Portland so I'm well aware of the effects from a large homeless population, but I try to travel as often as I can and I make it a point to get out of tourist areas as much as possible, usually to concerts or something. I can tell you first hand, within the last 2 years Philadelphia seems to have the same issues, DC definitely has the same problems, Boston, NY, Chicago, Austin, and Denver all have visible homeless.
What I find strange is how every city tends to believe their city is unique with homeless, like they don't realize this is a problem across the entire country. Go to any of those city's subreddits and search "homeless" and you'll see how they've all deluded themselves into believing their city is somehow unique and magically the only place in the country with a homeless problem. It's bonkers. This is a massive problem across the entire country. I suspect small towns across the rust belt probably have their own problems, especially considering how their meth and opiate addictions on a per capita level are significantly higher than even major cities.
Did you forget the citation for this? If so, I'd appreciate it.
$300M / year is spent and there are 7,500 homeless in SF.
I believe a good chunk of the money is spent on housing formerly homeless though.
As to the subject, gas stations and fast food restaurants, etc, have always been effectively public bathrooms all through the US. Maybe San Francisco is an exception that people here confuse with a rule.
Criticism of this sentiment is verboten. What the hell?
(1): Does the city have homeless and drug addicts? If yes, go to (2). If no, go to (3).
(2): And where are the bathrooms? If 'in private businesses' go to (4). If public toilets, go to (5).
(4): The private businesses chase off the homeless, who shit in the street. SAN FRANCISCO IS HERE.
(5): They're probably going to have people passing out in them, then.
(3): OK, so where have the homeless drug addicts gone? If they've been cured, go to (6). If you've sent them to another city, go to (7)
(6): Now you've probably got a massive spending program. THIS IS WHERE THE PEOPLE YOU'RE TALKING TO ARE
(7): Eh, you aren't the first. THIS IS UNLIKELY TO EARN YOU UPVOTES ONLINE. It might earn you re-election if you get elected then do it by stealth though.
If you've got a solution that avoids every pitfall I'm sure people would be eager to hear it - but if your explanation skips over some of the problems, that's less helpful.
Why did you put the two together though? There are many drug addicts whose life circumstances are very different, and they are leading a successful life with their addiction, because addiction does not necessarily cause such psychosocial harm.
"Homeless drug addicts" would be more accurate, which you are using later on though. :P But then again, many homeless people defecate publicly despite having the option not to, AND are not drug addicts.
I guess when people refer to drug addicts, they are referring to people displaying a certain set of behaviors that we usually see from homeless or poor people, because they are less likely to be able to hide their addictions and whatnot, mostly because it affects them negatively more, and the consequences are more obvious. I also believe it is not actually due to drug addiction alone. Do not forget that there is a reason for why they started using drugs. It could have been merely because they ended up on the streets, and for totally unrelated reasons.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/addiction-and-choice...
The book explains it better than I ever could. It is very likely that I phrased myself incorrectly, the first two sections of this book should clear it all up. Cheers.
This is what I am talking about (posted it here to avoid confusion):
Relatedly, different life circumstances may protect people more or less well against impaired functioning (for a review, see Martin et al. 2014). For example, it is well known that addiction is associated with low socio-economic status alongside other mental health problems (Compton et al. 2007; Heyman 2009). But, in so far as addiction is diagnosed via negative consequences, wealth, alongside other forms of privilege, may offer a protective factor (cf. Matthews 2014; Schmidt et al. 2010). For example, a wealthy mother who drinks heavily but can afford a live-in nanny to ensure her children are adequately cared for is able to meet more of her role-related responsibilities than a poor woman who drinks equal amounts but whose children go hungry and miss school. The consequences are more serious by shared social standards in the latter case than the former, and so too, as a result, is the likelihood of a diagnosis.
The implication that individual differences in conceptions of how to live and life circumstances can affect the likelihood of a diagnosis may give pause. Indeed, Martin et al. (2014) have proposed that the negative consequences of use should be considered ancillary rather than core features of addiction for this very reason, namely, that they introduce significant individual and context specificity. However once we acknowledge that drug use in itself is not indicative of any form of disorder, but rather offers instrumental means to fulfilling valuable ends, the idea that negative consequences are fundamental to the pathological nature of addiction becomes evident.
Boils down to housing and social workers then?