That’s because drugs are still illegal in those areas. California and Oregon have essentially legalized every drug. If you’re caught on the street smoking meth or fentanyl, it’s more than likely that a police officer walks right past you.
The claim isn’t “there aren’t large drug problems I. California/Oregon” which is what you are correctly stating is true, the claim is “drug problems are not the primary driver of homelessness, housing costs are”.
Saying “California and Oregon have effectively legalized drugs so that’s why there is homelessness” just isn’t an accurate statement. As noted in other parts of the thread, people who use drugs will happily rent a place of it is cheap.
Now is it a contributing factor? Probably a minor one, yes. But the primary driver of the size of the homeless population is housing costs, and for the unsheltered population it’s definitely weather. New York actually has a very sizeable homeless population, the difference with California is that people are much more likely to be living in shelters there.
You're flat out wrong here. It's drug addiction, alcoholism, mental illness and in some cases a complete lack of a social safety net. There is free housing, subsidized housing, shared housing, and more available to low/no income people all over California, Oregon and Washington. The majority of the homeless population does not take advantage of these programs because they require addiction therapy. They stay on the streets because drugs can be legally consumed and purchased without consequence. The sooner we listen to the police, fire fighters, and first responders who are on the ground dealing with these issues every single day, the better. Doing yet another study to prove it's housing costs and not the rampant out of control drug problem is worthless.
Listening to the police on this is why there are federal drug, alcohol, and criminal restrictions on federally funded public housing programs, and why most public housing authorities impose even stricter rules than the federal requirements, which serve as a bar for many of the people who need help.
But, sure, lie and claim its that homeless people with current or past drug problems choose not to avail themselves of programs they are banned by official policy from.
Also, the previous rebuttal makes no sense. If an area has a high amount of drug use, what does it matter whether if the law there are legal or illegal, with respect to how that affects homelessness? Was the GP claiming only the well-to-do housed are using drugs there?
The west coast is more lenient on drug use, im guessing that leads to fewer overdoses as a result.