Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. V
I've sympathy for people who are homeless due to bad breaks, e.g. loss of job, divorce: but I've zero sympathy for those who are homeless due to addiction to hard drugs, e.g. meth and / or fentanyl.
Can we all agree that there is no real benefit, either to them or to society, while they are getting wasted and homeless?
If so...how to effectively address the problem?
The so-called "War on Drugs" didn't do it, and decriminalizing it has been an epic failure here in Portland, Oregon.
Ultimately the government will need to force these people into some form of involuntary treatment and rehab program, and I fear that our liberal interpretation of our "liberty interest" from the Constitution may prevent this.
Perhaps the right test case to the USSC would bear fruit?
|
We have always had that interpretation... it isn't considered liberal.
They don't even need to be addicted to ''hard'' drugs.
Someone that drinks obsessively... and that is a very low level of consumption... spends money toward something that puts their license and livelihood at risk. The number of people that I know that have lost their license astounds me.
The number of people addicted to nicotine... again astounds me.
And if you watch rental adds, no smokers and no pets are the number one restrictions.
Even with pets, I have watched people try to choose the pet over their own well being.
And how many homeowners with a large unexpected repair would be able to foot the bill and not start down the path to ruin?