# In keeping with the "What do we do about the homeless" discussions



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

TV this morning reported that a subdivision in Calfornia had a ravine not visible to its residents. A group of "homeless" built a camp in that ravine, and the county found it and cleared them out, leaving a real mess.

The county then billed the 75 homeowners in that subdivision $20,000 for cleaning up the mess left behind. Came to about $300 per homeowner. One of these owners appeared on TV.

I almost lost it. The imbecile spent his time telling that in his youth he had worked with the poor and that these (he implied) were just poor, unfortunate human beings for whom we should find pity., and maybe the COUNTY (meaning the taxpayer) should pick up this bill.

Not a word about the individual choices these "homeless" made, nothing about drugs or liquor, nothig about illegals and criminals, nothing about a cure or interdiction BEFORE homelessness. Not a word about the governmental choices that cause dopers to MOVE to California, or the choices that the government makes to cause workers to move OUT of California. 

Of course, the reason that Cal state lawmakers don't do something about this is that they want to gentrify the state. By making it almost impossible for a middle class person to hold property or work in California they can buy property, get all the coastline and property worth having, THEN they will drive out the dopers and homeless. Have you read of any really rich people being bothered by the addicts or homeless? Hell no, they live behind walls.


----------



## georger (Sep 15, 2003)

I wish our stupid Canadian government would wake up and realize their hedonistic policies are leading this province down a similar path. It seems the brain-dead hippies got themselves voted into power so issues with meth addicts sprawled all over the sidewalk have become the norm, and you can't say "Boo" to these little darlings, it seems the law protects their right to destroy themselves.


----------



## anniew (Dec 12, 2002)

Go tell it to your local politicians. They could maybe do something about it, but the rest of us who don't live there can't.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

georger said:


> I wish our stupid Canadian government would wake up and realize their hedonistic policies are leading this province down a similar path. It seems the brain-dead hippies got themselves voted into power so issues with meth addicts sprawled all over the sidewalk have become the norm, and you can't say "Boo" to these little darlings, it seems the law protects their right to destroy themselves.


Do you have some suggestion on how they should be dealt with? Municipal homeless issues are not the responsibility of our federal government and never have been. 

Perhaps you should consider taking your concerns to more regional forms of government rather than blaming the federal government for something your city is not interested in dealing with.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Oxankle said:


> Have you read of any really rich people being bothered by the addicts or homeless? Hell no, they live behind walls.


They also have armed guards for protection.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Oxankle said:


> One of these owners appeared on TV.
> 
> I almost lost it. The imbecile spent his time telling that in his youth he had worked with the poor and that these (he implied) were just poor, unfortunate human beings for whom we should find pity., and maybe the COUNTY (meaning the taxpayer) should pick up this bill.
> 
> ...


 Really you feel the need to call the man an imbecile?
You have no idea what the man said !
All you know of is what the editors wanted to be seen And heard.
I suspect the local TV station chose what they figured would be the most inflammatory statements edited them tightly to amplify that feeling and then gave it to the national news feed. 

To me it seems just plain weird that the county would cause a problem and then bill the subdivision owners for the problem they caused.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

American Stand; the fellow was on TV. I heard what he said. It IS California, after all. The interviewer let him have his head, and I reported what I saw and heard.

The plain fact is that too many Americans are mush-headed enough to think that it is somehow their fault that others are stupidly weak enough to suck on a bottle of alcohol, or ingest drugs. Now they think that they must pay for the stupidity of others. What saps these people are!!!!

We are bound by charity to try to help, but that does not obligate us to enable these suckers to continue their destructive, costly, habits. Interdict, criminalize, institutionalize, put them to work, make recidivism costly, get something for the taxpayer's money and get rid of the problem. 

I'm almost ready to try the Philippine cure. Just try taking a little smack into Hong Kong.


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

anniew said:


> Go tell it to your local politicians. They could maybe do something about it, but the rest of us who don't live there can't.


Just letting you know what is coming to a town or city near you eventually. Californication spreads out across the country like a virus. It starts in California but it doesn't stay there.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

The fly-over states object, and we will resist.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Hey the greedy tore down the transient motels, the flop houses, anything low rent, and restricted anybody from building anything that isnt an approved McMansion, usually with a HOA. Where do you expect people that cant afford obscene rent or housing prices to live? Would you rather spend $90k a year keeping them in prison? Cause I think you could build each and every one of them a house meeting code for that kind of money.

Do you want to bring back the German concentration camps with the "Arbeit Macht Frei" logo over the entrance? And the lovely gas shower buildings? 

Seriously if you dont give people a legit place to occupy, you are going to have problems. They dont just do menial jobs and go poof at 5pm into some magical nether world and then reappear poof at 8am again. You cant just outlaw poverty unless you are ready for the Nazi Death Camps. The "final solution".


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

HermitJohn said:


> Hey the greedy tore down the transient motels, the flop houses, anything low rent, and restricted anybody from building anything that isnt an approved McMansion, usually with a HOA. Where do you expect people that cant afford obscene rent or housing prices to live? Would you rather spend $90k a year keeping them in prison? Cause I think you could build each and every one of them a house meeting code for that kind of money.
> 
> *Do you want to bring back the German concentration camps with the "Arbeit Macht Frei" logo over the entrance? And the lovely gas shower buildings? *
> 
> Seriously if you dont give people a legit place to occupy, you are going to have problems. They dont just do menial jobs and go poof at 5pm into some magical nether world and then reappear poof at 8am again. *You cant just outlaw poverty unless you are ready for the Nazi Death Camps. The "final solution".*


Those national socialist seem to go there quickly.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Seriously if you dont give people a legit place to occupy, you are going to have problems.


The vast majority have no problem finding a place to live.



HermitJohn said:


> Do you want to bring back the German concentration camps with the "Arbeit Macht Frei" logo over the entrance? And the lovely gas shower buildings?
> 
> You cant just outlaw poverty unless you are ready for the Nazi Death Camps. The "final solution".


Being irrational isn't a "solution".


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

Just what I was a thinking what would you have done? Maybe forget the gas showers and stand them againest a wall and shoot them?

Better yet just shoot them with expermintal drugs to see how the drug will work on people with health issues and even dogs and cats.

I have seen the editing first hand. My brother granted a interview with a TV station and just about every thing they showed on TV was a complete opposite of what was. He took them to court and they paid a good chunk of money in a out of court settlement since it was recorded by several peoiple on their cell phones.

It is really sad some people are just weak and not as strong willed as the OP and willing to work for minum wage enough to get a little food and a grate where they can crash for the night. They feel they need to drown their sorrows in booze and take drugs.

*"You can’t understand someone until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes.”
The person who first uttered this American saying is lost to history. The fact that it’s so well known is a good indication of the importance of empathy in living a meaningful life.*


Also maybe the home owners should have cleaned the mess up instead of letting the over priced goverment agency do it in the first place.

Probably all who can not show a valid drivers licence should be rounded up and put in camps so every Tax paying American can pay for their care.

 Al


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The vast majority have no problem finding a place to live.
> 
> 
> Being irrational isn't a "solution".


Forced to sleep rough ISNT a place. Hey even in South America, they got the idea the poor need place to live so you get the patched together slums from salvaged materials surrounding the big cities. Here we tear them down and force them back onto the sidewalks and under the bridges. 

Talk about irrational. You got to allow somebody space they can build actual shelter without having it continually torn down and hauled away along with all their earthly possessions. Making somebody live on sidewalk or in shelters where their personal saftey is more in doubt than on the sidewalk isnt going to make them suddenly become middle/upper class citizens that can pay some obscene amount rent. And it isnt going to make them move to streets of cold climate city in winter to get away from the harassment in the warm climate cities. You sleep rough, you at least want somewhere Mother Nature isnt too harsh.

The poor, they shall always be with you! Learn to accept that and make some kind of official space for them. I understand the wealthy want to monetize every molecule of the planet and try to profit from it, but that is losing battle. Eventually Madame Guillotine gets thirsty for the rich man's blood who have no sympathy for the poor.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

@HermitJohn Minus your Nazi crap, for the most part you are right. Low wage people have been priced out of house and home. They simply cannot afford to live where they are.

Some are addled by nature, or by substance abuse, but a great many don't make enough money to pay their way.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> *Forced* to sleep rough ISNT a place.


Who's being "forced"?
Most manage to find a real place to live.



HermitJohn said:


> *Making* somebody live on sidewalk or in shelters where their personal saftey is more in doubt than on the sidewalk isnt going to make them suddenly become middle/upper class citizens that can pay some obscene amount rent.


Who is "making" them live that way?



HermitJohn said:


> I understand the wealthy want to monetize every molecule of the planet and try to profit from it, but that is losing battle. Eventually Madame Guillotine gets thirsty for the rich man's blood who have no sympathy for the poor.


I keep hearing the rhetoric and the complaining, but I'm not seeing any useful answers.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Who's being "forced"?
> Most manage to find a real place to live.
> 
> 
> ...


 In this country most would mean just over 150 million that means there could be almost 150,000,000 that couldn’t

But let’s say there’s only a tiny portion of Americans that are homeless maybe 1 out of 300 that still adds up to 1 million or perhaps One homeless person how to 3000 that still adds up to 100,000 people homeless.
That would mean one homeless person in a small town ever been to a town of 3000 people do you suppose there was one or less people homeless there?
Maybe there was because of others have noticed when you’re living like that you tend to move towards easier living conditions.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Oxankle said:


> American Stand; the fellow was on TV. I heard what he said. It IS California, after all. The interviewer let him have his head, and I reported what I saw and heard.
> 
> The plain fact is that too many Americans are mush-headed enough to think that it is somehow their fault that others are stupidly weak enough to suck on a bottle of alcohol, or ingest drugs. Now they think that they must pay for the stupidity of others. What saps these people are!!!!
> 
> ...


If you’re going to believe everything you see on TV you were going to be a sadly disappointed person.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> But let’s say


Let's not.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Because commonsense offends you?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Let's not.


OK let’s take a number from Wikipedia what you are so fond of quoting. 
They quote a number of over half a million people on any particular night.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Who's being "forced"?
> Most manage to find a real place to live.
> 
> 
> Who is "making" them live that way?


Those that wanted the land and tore down the transient motels and flop houses and any cheap rental out there???? In real world they dont lower rent for inability to pay. So nasty old greed is "making them live that way". Or perhaps they do in your community, maybe California should bus them there?





Bearfootfarm said:


> I keep hearing the rhetoric and the complaining, but I'm not seeing any useful answers.


I see you missed my pointing out that many places in South America allow the poor to build shanties in areas around the city. Perhaps land should be set aside around cities here unrestricted for homeless to build their shacks or pitch their tents unmolested, since the wealthy dont want to fund anything? Course some rich guy see that land, just drooling over the luxury apartments he could build.... mine, mine, mine, mine.....


----------



## CKelly78z (Jul 16, 2017)

Almost makes the homeowners want to take things into their own hands the next time this happens...that will be reported heavily !


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Simple solution to the homeless problem... Go pick them up, bring them home. Feed them, get them cleaned up and teach them how to take care of themselves. Problem solved.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

georger said:


> I wish our stupid Canadian government would wake up and realize their hedonistic policies are leading this province down a similar path. It seems the brain-dead hippies got themselves voted into power so issues with meth addicts sprawled all over the sidewalk have become the norm, and you can't say "Boo" to these little darlings, it seems the law protects their right to destroy themselves.



Actually alot of that would fall to the provincial government or local governments


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

I have a question for everyone on here about the homeless. Having lived in the Portland Oregon area for a great number of years and having a big hearted lady that runs a couple of non profits. I have personally talked with hundreds and hundreds of the homeless. The number of misplaced people because of things beyond their control, rent, wages, ect, is a lot less than you think. Maybe 1 out of 150-200 are do to that. The rest are there because of their own choices for drugs, drink, or other. About 1/4 of those I have spoke to are from out of state and came to PDX because of the programs offered by the city for them. Free phones, food, ect. The city wants them there because they get gov funding for it. The more homeless the more funding. My Ladies food pantry helps a lot of mothers that really need help. Her other is called Hand Up. It helps get people back on their feet. Not a hand out but a hand up. A large number of homeless dont want the help they just want a hand out. 

Back to my question. Have you talked to any of the homeless to see what their situtation is? Why are they homeless? The reasons will surprise you.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> In this country most would mean just over 150 million that means there could be almost 150,000,000 that couldn’t
> 
> But let’s say there’s only a tiny portion of Americans that are homeless maybe 1 out of 300 that still adds up to 1 million or perhaps One homeless person how to 3000 that still adds up to 100,000 people homeless.
> That would mean one homeless person in a small town ever been to a town of 3000 people do you suppose there was one or less people homeless there?
> Maybe there was because of others have noticed when you’re living like that you tend to move towards easier living conditions.


US Department of Housing and Urban Development's Annual Homeless Assessment Report, as of 2018 there were around 553,000 homeless people in the United States on a given night, or 0.17% of the population.

Arrest reviews in Seattle (per the video posted "Seattle is Dying") of most homeless shows multiple arrests, with almost all being immediately released, and all being related to drug use and possession. Over 50% of those arrested suffered from some form of mental illness.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Those that wanted the land and tore down the transient motels and flop houses and any cheap rental out there???? In real world they dont lower rent for inability to pay. So *nasty old greed* is "making them live that way".


You say that about everything. 
It's like crying "Wolf". 
After the first few times no one listens.



HermitJohn said:


> I see you missed my pointing out that many places in South America allow the poor to build shanties in areas around the city.


Then they should move to South America.
It's warmer there too.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

HermitJohn said:


> I see you missed my pointing out that many places in South America allow the poor to build shanties in areas around the city. Perhaps land should be set aside around cities here unrestricted for homeless to build their shacks or pitch their tents unmolested, since the wealthy dont want to fund anything? Course some rich guy see that land, just drooling over the luxury apartments he could build.... mine, mine, mine, mine.....


What would be your plan for sewage and clean water for said shanty town? Do we fence it off so that the residence don't harass tax payers for money? Would laws be enforced within said communities, or, would it be a free-for-all?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

How about a part of town where they don’t charge $5000 each for water and sewer connection, where they don’t require 3000 square feet 3 bedroom homes etc?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> How about a part of town where they don’t charge $5000 each for water and sewer connection, where they don’t require 3000 square feet 3 bedroom homes etc?


Many cannot afford that. They should loo elsewhere


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

But they might be able to afford the $100 a month shared flops that could be built.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> But they might be able to afford the $100 a month shared flops that could be built.


So we should set aside a person's private land, in a prime development location for flop houses?

You do maintain a reputation for absurd ideas.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> But they might be able to afford the $100 a month shared flops that could be built.


Then you should build them.
You were looking for a good investment project.
There you go!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then you should build them.
> You were looking for a good investment project.
> There you go!


I can’t build them nobody can build them that’s the problem the cities have created places where nobody can afford to build something that would be cheap to live in
More so people can’t afford to keep the inexpensive buildings that are already there that people could afford to live in
Honestly I have to agree with HD there are some places where poor people should not live.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

HDRider said:


> So we should set aside a person's private land, in a prime development location for flop houses?
> 
> You do maintain a reputation for absurd ideas.


And even if they get the land, the people around them will kick up a fuss. Our city bought an old grocery store on the edge of town near Spokane Valley, with the intention of making it yet another shelter. The city of SV and all of the nearby merchants had conniptions till the plan was scrapped.
The merchants and business owners near the “shelter district” downtown have already been driven out or are constantly fighting with the city to get help cleaning up the trash and excrement on the sidewalks and around their businesses.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Obviously those who support Shanty town have never seen/smelled one. 
Better think this through before you go any further....


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> But they might be able to afford the $100 a month shared flops that could be built.


Where would you like these built and who would maintain them and supply the power and water for them? I am open to ideas but please be realalistic with them. Like I said in an earlier reply/post have you spent time with them or even been in their area? I can garanty you would more than likely not want that in your area or near your home. The drugs and filth is beyond ok. In a"home" or not they will destroy it to get more drugs and just dont care about things.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

54metalman said:


> Where would you like these built and who would maintain them and supply the power and water for them? I am open to ideas but please be realalistic with them. Like I said in an earlier reply/post have you spent time with them or even been in their area? I can garanty you would more than likely not want that in your area or near your home. The drugs and filth is beyond ok. In a"home" or not they will destroy it to get more drugs and just dont care about things.


What would you do if you were King?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

What o don’t really get is why people think it’s humane to allow them to live, drugged out or mentally incapacitated on the streets or parks or front lawns, in the cold or heat, snow and rain, urinating and defecating in public like animals. I don’t see that as humane.
My son in law walked out of his downtown office building last week to see a woman with her skirts hiked up over her head, leaning against the building wall urinating all over herself. Allowing people to “live” like that is inhumane in my opinion.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

LOL I like you hit the product right there!
And that’s the thing nobody wants them around. 
The ghetto shacks that they would’ve lived in in time is gone by are now condemned and destroyed because nobody wants them around. 
Since they can’t do the permanent structure thing anymore that’s lead to the tent ghettos that we have now. 
And of course the big concentrations of homeless lead to lots of problems. 
Perhaps if you could build inexpensive shelters for a few people scattered widely to help disperse the problems that might make it a little more palatable


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Lisa in WA said:


> What o don’t really get is why people think it’s humane to allow them to live, drugged out or mentally incapacitated on the streets or parks or front lawns, in the cold or heat, snow and rain, urinating and defecating in public like animals. I don’t see that as humane.
> My son in law walked out of his downtown office building last week to see a woman with her skirts hiked up over her head, leaning against the building wall urinating all over herself. Allowing people to “live” like that is inhumane in my opinion.


You would have to lock them up. They will not stay in. They want to be free too. They are sick. They need help forced on them.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

HDRider said:


> You would have to lock them up. They will not stay in. They want to be free too. They are sick. They need help forced on them.


I agree.


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

HDRider said:


> What would you do if you were King?


I only want or need to be "King" of my own domain. What would you do? 

All I can say for sure.... I have and will continue to help those that truly want help to get out of the place they are in. I will continue to give a hand up not a hand out. I will also fight in having any and all others from being on my property and business. My family means more to me than the homeless having a place to crap or shoot up!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> But they might be able to afford the $100 a month shared flops that could be built.


Yup, by recycling the copper wiring and brass water fixtures.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

54metalman said:


> I only want or need to be "King" of my own domain. What would you do?
> 
> All I can say for sure.... I have and will continue to help those that truly want help to get out of the place they are in. I will continue to give a hand up not a hand out. I will also fight in having any and all others from being on my property and business. My family means more to me than the homeless having a place to crap or shoot up!


I'd put them on a forced rehab. If they get a job and hold it, I'd let them out. If not, I'd keep them locked away in some remote wilderness prison. Have them do farm work to raise their food. Reward good behavior, and curb poor behavior. 

Maybe they can kick their bad habits by the time they are 40 or 50.

Put the mental cases in a mental hospital. Make them comfortable.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

I see that the people who actually have experience with this are willing to take some authoritarian action to solve the problem. Allowing people to live like animals is not charity; tend the mentally ill, force the rest to live hike human beings or live in a work camp under guard.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

So many stories, problem solved in 5 minutes and 52 seconds


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yup, by recycling the copper wiring and brass water fixtures.


 So it might be wise not to use brass and put any wiring where it would be hard to steal ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> So it might be wise not to use brass and put any wiring where it would be hard to steal ?


Sure. No water, no power. But they will "recycle" anything else too. Metal roofing, framing lumber, anything they can sell for any price. When those shakes set in they will do anything.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> So it might be wise not to use brass and put any wiring where it would be hard to steal ?


Meth heads are industrious and really, really fast


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> Meth heads are industrious and really, really fast


Sounds like good workers.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Sure. No water, no power. But they will "recycle" anything else too. Metal roofing, framing lumber, anything they can sell for any price. When those shakes set in they will do anything.


 No not no water or power , carefully chosen installations.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> So it might be wise not to use brass and *put any wiring where it would be hard to steal* ?





AmericanStand said:


> No not no water or power ,* carefully chosen installations*.


You're describing a prison or a mental hospital.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yes they might offer guidance in useful construction techniques.
Unfortunately like the flophouses of old they depended on lots of 24/7 staff


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're describing a prison or a mental hospital.


not an entirely bad idea.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Do people have a right to be nuts ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Do people have a right to be nuts ?


Yup, but they do not have the right to harm others or destroy people's property.


----------



## flewism (Apr 2, 2007)

I read this last month and thought it might be relevant 
Seattle is investing 110 million dollars to build nearly 2000 affordable housing units for low income and the homeless. Those buildings will include childcare and healthcare centers for seniors.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/rea...arly-2000-affordable-housing-units/ar-BBY0QnA.

This sounds wonderful, at about $55k a unit it seams promising, building units isn't the hard part. 
The success of these projects is if the city of Seattle can afford the annual appropriations required to maintain these low rents, with spaces for childcare and healthcare centers for seniors for the long term and provide adequate protection to the residents. 100+ unit apartment buildings are a breeding grounds for gangs and crime and they are going to build 13 more of them.

* Every one of them needs a Seattle PD substation otherwise it is lambs to the slaughter. *


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Sounds like good workers.


Sure, if you could harness that one hour burst that evaporates for a week or two after. They are not so great at detailed labor, but they excel at demolition type work.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

You guy are just arguing nonsense. The fact is that "projects" for the poor have been buit before and they turn out to be gang-infested slums for welfare-dependent generational slackers who don't want jobs.

Building such facilities for dopers and drunks is futile--in months they would be in shambles and the very few down-on-their-luck and willing to work ordinary people there would just be victims waiting to happen. 

The only solutions are some of the authoritarian measures proposed. Considerate but firm and inflexible. Drug addicts and drunks and the mentally ill do not operate on the same wave length as ordinry working folk.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Your post argues for out of the B OX thinking....


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Your post argues for out of the B OX thinking....


It is all about being woke

Honestly, I cannot come up with any reason why San Fran, Seattle, etc let this go


----------



## IlliniosGal (Jun 3, 2019)

Here is an interesting article out of Oregon, regarding a homeless village. Law enforcement says it doesn't work but the village and residents say it does.

https://www.wpr.org/law-enforcement...NHpvziPMAtu03EeCNG9n730YSzUuf5Qm7B7Pt546OaB6M

Here is a business owner in North Carolina that is helping as much as he can in his own way, he stats that the shelters there are full and there is no where for people to go.

https://www.wbtv.com/2020/01/27/cha...eSEWnbxJsjNR6uF-lxRMmjvIiPT-wrqru-NZyMJ2E1EQQ


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

Like I said before. You can not help them all. Most dont want help. I will and do help all I can that truly want help. They are trying and just need a hand up not a hand out. Those I will help. The rest of them..... I have no answers at this time.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

54metalman said:


> Like I said before. You can not help them all. Most dont want help. I will and do help all I can that truly want help. They are trying and just need a hand up not a hand out. Those I will help. The rest of them..... I have no answers at this time.


I agree. Calgary has worked hard for solutions for the homeless. They have soup kitchens, shelters, transitional housing, homeless housing in place for those working to clean up and find their way off the streets, programs to help prostitutes clean up and move forward, numerous programs for substance abusers and a volunteer program for doctors and nurses to bring medical care to those living on the streets. 

Even with programs and safe havens in place, there are still those who insist on living on the streets and when things get super cold, police and volunteers will make the rounds trying to convince them to come out of the cold at least until the temperatures improve and continue to check on them throughout the extreme weather. 

It's unfortunate but we will see a certain number freeze to death each year and countless more end up in ER for extreme frostbite.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Do people have a right to be nuts ?


There is no "right" to be ill.
It just happens.

They have a right to *act* stupid though, as long as they don't hurt anyone, including themselves.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is no "right" to be ill.
> It just happens.
> 
> They have a right to *act* stupid though, as long as they don't hurt anyone, including themselves.


I was confused by your post till I realized, you must be responding to the “ignored member”!


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

wr said:


> I agree. Calgary has worked hard for solutions for the homeless. They have soup kitchens, shelters, transitional housing, homeless housing in place for those working to clean up and find their way off the streets, programs to help prostitutes clean up and move forward, numerous programs for substance abusers and a volunteer program for doctors and nurses to bring medical care to those living on the streets.
> 
> Even with programs and safe havens in place, there are still those who insist on living on the streets and when things get super cold, police and volunteers will make the rounds trying to convince them to come out of the cold at least until the temperatures improve and continue to check on them throughout the extreme weather.
> 
> It's unfortunate but we will see a certain number freeze to death each year and countless more end up in ER for extreme frostbite.


Quite a few homeless from the colder parts of the country take the bus to BC. This article suggests that half of new to BC welfare recipients are from Alberta, and seems to me a few years ago other provinces were handing homeless people one way bus tickets to BC. 
https://theprovince.com/news/local-...ts-in-b-c-last-year-were-from-out-of-province


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Lisa in WA said:


> you must be responding to the “ignored member”!


BINGO!!


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

fireweed farm said:


> Quite a few homeless from the colder parts of the country take the bus to BC. This article suggests that half of new to BC welfare recipients are from Alberta, and seems to me a few years ago other provinces were handing homeless people one way bus tickets to BC.
> https://theprovince.com/news/local-...ts-in-b-c-last-year-were-from-out-of-province


The down inner city homeless tend to stay where they are but I do know there is a certain amount of migration of poor looking for warmer weather. I've also been told that hookers move west when it gets colder in Alberta. 

I'm not sure about other provinces but I do know there was a time when Alberta would give welfare recipients a bus ticket back to their province of origin but I don't recall it happening since Ralph Klien was premier although I do know that Rachel Notley told us that if we couldn't find jobs in Alberta, we should go to BC.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wr said:


> I agree. Calgary has worked hard for solutions for the homeless. They have soup kitchens, shelters, transitional housing, homeless housing in place for those working to clean up and find their way off the streets, programs to help prostitutes clean up and move forward, numerous programs for substance abusers and a volunteer program for doctors and nurses to bring medical care to those living on the streets.
> 
> Even with programs and safe havens in place, there are still those who insist on living on the streets and when things get super cold, police and volunteers will make the rounds trying to convince them to come out of the cold at least until the temperatures improve and continue to check on them throughout the extreme weather.
> 
> It's unfortunate but we will see a certain number freeze to death each year and countless more end up in ER for extreme frostbite.


Are they mostly drugged?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is no "right" to be ill.
> It just happens.
> 
> They have a right to *act* stupid though, as long as they don't hurt anyone, including themselves.


 Sometimes being mentally ill doesn’t just happen it simply is not conforming to the agreed standards. 
So let me ask the question in this way, do people have a right not to act like every else ?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Sometimes being mentally ill doesn’t just happen it simply is not conforming to the agreed standards.
> So let me ask the question in this way, do people have a right not to act like every else ?


As long as I don't have to foot the bill, or step in their crap, or watch them take a piss, and a few other less than normal standards


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Has anyone looked into why they gather where they do ?
My first inclination if homeless would be to head for the wild places.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Has anyone looked into why they gather where they do ?
> My first inclination if homeless would be to head for the wild places.


You mean a place that does not give them food and spare change, and maybe has bears?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Sometimes being mentally ill doesn’t just happen it simply is not conforming to the agreed standards.
> So let me ask the question in this way, do people have a right not to act like every else ?


Yep, but again they don't have a right to steal from or endanger others.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> You mean a place that does give them food and spare change, and maybe has bears?


I’m not sure what you mean?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I’m not sure what you mean?


I think he meant does "not" give them spare change.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I head for the hills *Because of the food and security.* The spare change is just a bonus.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

HDRider said:


> Are they mostly drugged?


Those that refuse shelters? Not always but there are some that simply feel that shelters are unsafe and they may be right. The shelters are supervised but women have claimed that they have been sexually assaulted in them and it does seem there is a certain amount of violence. 

I used to visit with a homeless man when I worked in the area and while he travelled with a shopping cart equipped with a bowling ball and skiis, he took great pride in taking care of himself but he flatly refused to go to shelters because he claimed that the shelters sober policy made people with addictions crazy and crazy people became crazier. 

When things got really cold, he'd camp in the heated ATM areas of banks and risk being arrested before he'd go to a shelter. 

Another that used to hang out was schizophrenic and refused to take meds and he scared the crap out of me because he always carried a bat and if he felt cornered, I'm very sure he wasn't afraid to use it. It would have been tough to get him into anyplace with people because of his level of paranoia. 

Substance abuse does play a huge part in the homeless problem and there isn't a lot that can be done for them as long as they can feed their addictions.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

People have a right to be poor, to be mentally ill and have care, but no man has a right to camp on other people's property, to defile and damage public places, to cause extra expense and health hazards for and danger to his neighbor.

I say give the mentally ill care if you have to lock them up---find jobs for the down-on-their luck. The dopers, fugitives and drunks need to go into a place where they detox, work to support themselves or die.

"Those that refuse shelters? Not always but there are some that simply feel that shelters are unsafe and they may be right." Some years ago in Ok there was such a man; he stayed in a hole dug into a dirt bank in bad weather. That is where he was found dead,.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Has anyone looked into why they gather where they do ?
> My first inclination if homeless would be to head for the wild places.


I don't think that requires much independent studies. Wild places don't have many liqour stores, drug dealers, a steady stream of people who will hand them change or offer them free meals.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> I don't think that requires much independent studies. Wild places don't have many liqour stores, drug dealers, a steady stream of people who will hand them change or offer them free meals.


 It can’t be that simple can it ?
Even small towns would have those.


----------



## IlliniosGal (Jun 3, 2019)

Here is a news story out of Colorado about the problem some students have with homelessness. Not a druggie or drunk in the bunch, just people trying to get an education.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/ne...bnl2Fno_TimoWIZVgS4y-VxWNKYwUamumy_S2NfW43EfY


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Are now a country molded by Marie Antoinette?


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

Ultimately, there are people who chose to be homeless, people who didn't and often one that started out one way will at some point lean towards the other. We can't allow them to build shanty towns because of the liability issues that come with it. Low cost housing can turn ugly real quick. Not much will lower property values quicker than a homeless shelter so people don't want them in their neighborhoods, not too mention they are extremely expensive to run.

It's always some sort of catch 22. See a group of hungry people, go make pb&j's for them.... get ticketed for vending without a permit. Leave scarfs wrapped around the trees for the homeless to take.... get ticketed for littering. Round them up and institutionalize them, get voted out of office. The truth of the matter is that the more pleasant you make it for the homeless, the more homeless you will have, the more homeless you have, the more problems you will have. 

There are states that will provide homeless a one way ticket--as long as they can prove they have family on the other end willing to take them in. Of course that's under scrutiny too because who knows what happens once they get there and the majority think it's just an example of making it someone elses problem. 

Is homelessness a problem, yes. Should something be done about it? Of course. Will we ever solve the issue? Nope, I don't think we will.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

If you want to see what homeless say, search YouTube for "soft white underbelly homeless"


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)




----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Oxankle said:


> People have a right to be poor, to be mentally ill and have care, but no man has a right to camp on other people's property, to defile and damage public places, to cause extra expense and health hazards for and danger to his neighbor.
> 
> I say give the mentally ill care if you have to lock them up---find jobs for the down-on-their luck. The dopers, fugitives and drunks need to go into a place where they detox, work to support themselves or die.
> 
> "Those that refuse shelters? Not always but there are some that simply feel that shelters are unsafe and they may be right." Some years ago in Ok there was such a man; he stayed in a hole dug into a dirt bank in bad weather. That is where he was found dead,.


And we are back to my point that "its ALL somebody else's property!" If you dont give them a space to live, then you either need to put them in jail for whole lot more than rent costs or you do the "Arbeit Macht Frei" method, like putting down stray puppies. They dont just magically disappear at 5pm every day into the ether and magically reappear at 8am. They dont magically no longer poop. If you hadnt heard, everybody poops, think somebody even wrote a book about it! No toilet available, then nature still takes its course whether you like the results or not. Humans need space to live and protect themselves from the elements and those that would do them harm. They need to eat and poop, facts of life. Whether you prefer otherwise or not.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Has anyone looked into why they gather where they do ?
> My first inclination if homeless would be to head for the wild places.


I would head for the woods too, but frankly people stay with environments where they are most comfortable. Most people are urban/suburban, some rarely see nature beyond stray dog or cat and dandelion forcing its way in some sidewalk crack. Big tough guys from city are scared poopless at sight of a bear. Be like setting me down in some city gangland slum, not something I am set up to deal with. I can deal with wilderness.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

HJ; We are not advocating doing away with anyone. We do, however, insist that the incompetent and self destructive people among us have no right to disrupt our lives.
If they cannot or will not live the ordinary life they I say lock them up in work camps. otherwise our society will self-destruct, If we do not find leaders with the guts to take this on we may as well invite the dope-heads and loafers into our homes. 

As I said earlier; treat the mentally ill, find jobs for those down-on-their-luck and send the pot-heads, meth-heads, crack-heads to the desert work farms. Let them earn their keep. This mush-headed pity-party for the rejects of society is pointless. Let them turn the desert green.


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

Crack, crank, or meth, the lady in the video above is on at least one of those. 

Then the questions are:
Is she mentally ill because she's on drugs?
Is she on drugs because she's mentally ill?
All of the above?
None of the above?

Mon


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Oxankle said:


> HJ; We are not advocating doing away with anyone. We do, however, insist that the incompetent and self destructive people among us have no right to disrupt our lives.
> If they cannot or will not live the ordinary life they I say lock them up in work camps. otherwise our society will self-destruct, If we do not find leaders with the guts to take this on we may as well invite the dope-heads and loafers into our homes.
> 
> As I said earlier; treat the mentally ill, find jobs for those down-on-their-luck and send the pot-heads, meth-heads, crack-heads to the desert work farms. Let them earn their keep. This mush-headed pity-party for the rejects of society is pointless. Let them turn the desert green.


Doesn't every American have the same rights? Who gets to decide those that are the rejects of society, and if they get treatment or the desert farm? Who will pay for the treatment and the desert work farm?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> If you dont give them a space


Nobody "gave" me a space.



Irish Pixie said:


> *Doesn't every American have the same rights?
> 
> Who gets to decide* those that are the rejects of society, and if they get treatment or the desert farm?
> *
> Who will pay* for the treatment and the desert work farm?


We have Constitutional rights.

They seem to be deciding for themselves. They could get "treatment" now if they wanted it.

Who pays now?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Oxankle said:


> If they cannot or will not live the ordinary life they I say lock them up in work camps. otherwise our society will self-destruct,


 All Heil King Ox !
That is some of the scariest and most evil thinking I have ever heard in this country.
With the way you decide who will go to work camp. 
didn’t Stalin do something like that or was it Lennon ?

Funny thing is I think most people would say you don’t have an ordinary life style


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> With the way you decide who will go to work camp.
> didn’t Stalin do something like that or *was it Lennon* ?


Lennon said "Give peace a chance".



AmericanStand said:


> didn’t *Stalin* do something like that or was it Lennon ?


He did things like gun confiscations and red flag laws.
Lenin did too.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nobody "gave" me a space.
> 
> 
> We have Constitutional rights.
> ...


The poor were given space in times past. Always some hardscrabble farm with very cheap rent. Ever heard term "bought the farm"? Refers back to a time with people selling hardscrabble properties with a balloon payment. The only way to make that balloon payment was to die with a life insurance policy. It was in fact just cheap rent with no expectation anybody actually come up with the balloon payment, and you either started over every few years on that property or another. But it was an option, especially for those too old to hold actual job.

There were also flop houses and boarding houses and cold water flats and all sorts of cheap rentals. Those are all gone because of gentrification and urban renewal projects. Heck they are even tearing down old govt slum housing.

Only wealthy and those determined by a court are provided with mental health care. Reagan tore down the mental institutions cause govt didnt want to pay for them.

And last of all their used to be the govt "poor farms". Basically a work house for those who couldnt manage any other way. They sort of transitioned into "county homes" mostly for the destitute elderly and those of limited mental capacity.

Those things just dont exist in our current gentrified society. Anymore the wealthy want all the land and just want the poor to disappear. Cause to effectively deal with the problem would mean higher taxes. Nothing is free, not even the "desert work farms". Remember the FDR Japanese interment camps? They werent free, though they were out back of beyond. It costs money to inter anybody.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

There are no 1 size fits all solution. There are some homeless who are there because the fell on hard times and desperately want to get out of said situation. I have no problem helping them. I am against using force of government to force my neighbors to help them. 
There are, unfortunately others who are mentally ill. I have no problem helping them either. 
Yet others made poor choices when it comes to chemical recreation. I have no sympathy for them. Let em rot. 
There is another group who prefer to live homeless. If that is what they want, and they do no harm to others, have at it. 

None of the above groups should get free reign to crap in the streets, steal, harass, damage property, etc..


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> There are no 1 size fits all solution. There are some homeless who are there because the fell on hard times and desperately want to get out of said situation. I have no problem helping them. I am against using force of government to force my neighbors to help them.
> There are, unfortunately others who are mentally ill. I have no problem helping them either.
> *Yet others made poor choices when it comes to chemical recreation. I have no sympathy for them. Let em rot. *
> There is another group who prefer to live homeless. If that is what they want, and they do no harm to others, have at it.
> ...


They are rotting now. They rot there in those videos on Seattle, San Francisco and many other places. 

WHERE do you want them to rot?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I am reading a book about a man that would have become a homeless addict had he not found strength from his faith in God, and the support of his family.

I suggest you read it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> They are rotting now. They rot there in those videos on Seattle, San Francisco and many other places.
> 
> WHERE do you want them to rot?


In a desert work farm perhaps. Or.... Feel free to take a few nome with you?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> The poor were given space in times past.


There is cheap housing available now for those who make the effort.

I've heard all your excuses about the rich and the Govt causing all the problems in the world.
There's no point it repeating them.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> In a desert work farm perhaps. Or.... Feel free to take a few nome with you?


Your answer does give one a sense of your humanity.


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

HDRider said:


> What would you do if you were King?


Make me the supreme ruler of the known universe and I could solve a lot of it. I think that there isn't much can be done for the homeless by choice, but others can be dealt with.

The big problem is that you can't deal with the homeless issue without hurting someone's feelings and that is the ultimate sin in the USA now: hurting someone's feelings.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is cheap housing available now for those who make the effort.
> 
> I've heard all your excuses about the rich and the Govt causing all the problems in the world.
> There's no point it repeating them.


* 



Roger Miller

Click to expand...





– King Of The Road Lyrics

Click to expand...

*


> Trailer for sale or rent
> Rooms to let fifty cents
> No phone no pool no pets
> I ain't got no cigarettes
> ...


Ok, where is the "two hours of pushing broom... buys an eight by twelve four bit room" ????? Sure any homeless can rent a room in a Trump hotel, assuming their fairy godmother pops in with a magic wand and turns rock into gold.

But since you say a low buck room still exists, and minimum wage is $7.25. where is this mythical $14.50 room? I wont get into taxes withheld from such. Just give you that since it complicates something that should be obvious. Heck late as 80s you could still get clean motel room under $10. Not common even then, but they did exist. Just laughable in 2020. If you can find room under $50 a night, be kinda surprised.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> In a desert work farm perhaps. Or.... Feel free to take a few nome with you?


Sorry, but holding society together is government's responsibility, thus taxpayers responsibility. I think at this point you would have constitutional legal problem with remote internment camps for those you dont want to step over. And its not free, you have to build them, staff them, and provide water, toilets, heat, security, food, etc. It might be cheaper than a supermax prison, but it wouldnt be cheap. And since these people havent broken any laws other than being poor, you would need a constitutional amendment to agree that being poor is a federal crime since such otherwise would be unconstitutional.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

oregon woodsmok said:


> Make me the supreme ruler of the known universe and I could solve a lot of it. I think that there isn't much can be done for the homeless by choice, but others can be dealt with.
> 
> The big problem is that you can't deal with the homeless issue without hurting someone's feelings and that is the ultimate sin in the USA now: hurting someone's feelings.


I can't agree with you. It's not about hurting someone's feelings in my opinion, it's about treating people with basic human rights. The homeless, addicted, and mentally ill (many are all three) are human beings and need to be treated as such. They aren't vermin to be gotten rid of or garbage to be taken away. 

There are ways of treating the homeless, addicted, and mentally ill that preserve their rights as Americans and human beings, but it's not cheap nor easy. And, yes, there will be some that can never be helped.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I can't agree with you. It's not about hurting someone's feelings in my opinion, it's about treating people with basic human rights. The homeless, addicted, and mentally ill (many are all three) are human beings and need to be treated as such. They aren't vermin to be gotten rid of or garbage to be taken away.
> 
> There are ways of treating the homeless, addicted, and mentally ill that preserve their rights as Americans and human beings, but it's not cheap nor easy. And, yes, there will be some that can never be helped.


So why does San Fran, Seattle and so many others let the problem fester, and grow when places like Providence RI are dealing with the problem very effectively?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> So why does San Fran, Seattle and so many others let the problem fester, and grow when places like Providence RI are dealing with the problem very effectively?


I don't know.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HermitJohn said:


> Ok, where is the "two hours of pushing broom... buys an eight by twelve four bit room" ????? Sure any homeless can rent a room in a Trump hotel, assuming their fairy godmother pops in with a magic wand and turns rock into gold.
> 
> But since you say a low buck room still exists, and minimum wage is $7.25. where is this mythical $14.50 room? I wont get into taxes withheld from such. Just give you that since it complicates something that should be obvious. Heck late as 80s you could still get clean motel room under $10. Not common even then, but they did exist. Just laughable in 2020. If you can find room under $50 a night, be kinda surprised.


I find lots of rooms under $50 a night


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Sure any homeless can rent a room in a Trump hotel, assuming their *fairy godmother pops in with a magic wand* and turns rock into gold.


There are shelters and housing available for those who want to make the effort.
Your irrational arguments are always the same.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> There are ways of treating the homeless, addicted, and mentally ill that preserve their rights as Americans and human beings, but it's not cheap nor easy.


No one said it was any of those things.
Leaving them free to wander the streets and pretending they don't create problems for many others is delusional.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

There is a young man who does odd jobs around the small town where I pick up my mail. He has never shown any sign of being high, or drunk. He camps on the BLM Land just outside town. Doesn't have a tent, just a good bed roll, and a brush lean to. I talked to him last month at the post office. It had snowed six inches the night before, and was eighteen degrees that morning. I asked him why he didn't use a tent. He replied,"Oh, I never use a tent unless the weather gets bad." 

I figure it is none of my business how he chooses to live.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> I find lots of rooms under $50 a night


Or is it by the hour? I'm sure there is an app for that.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

So; let the mush-headed liberals go live among the potheads and crack smokers. Let the resrt of us live in a clean environment free from thieves, and don't try to claim that these dopers are not also thieves, filthy and disrespectful of their neighbors.


* r *
Messages:
1,477
Joined:
Oct 7, 2007
Location:
New Mexico
*New* There is a young man who does odd jobs around the small town where I pick up my mail. He has never shown any sign of being high, or drunk.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol if I could get eight hours for 1/3 of the all day rate I’d be good with it.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

It just realized that I might be homeless. My land is paid for, but the cabin I am living in is built inside a twenty foot shipping container. The Container is sitting on four blocks I cut from railroad ties, so it has no real foundation. Thus, according to local zoning law is not a building. This "not a building" has a twin bed, hot and cold water, kitchen sink, regular size closet, flat screen TV, composting toilet, and a shower. 

The floor is 2x6 T&G pine over four inches of insulation, the walls and ceiling is 1x6 T&G pine over four inches of insulation. It is very well insulated, and a small electric heater set at the lowest setting keeps it at 70 degrees when it is below zero outside. I consider it to be a pretty good "camp".

So, am I homeless?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Oxankle said:


> So; let the mush-headed liberals go live among the potheads and crack smokers. Let the resrt of us live in a clean environment free from thieves, and don't try to claim that these dopers are not also thieves, filthy and disrespectful of their neighbors.


 Really ?
I have known more than a few dopers that we’re not thieves filthy or disrespectful. 
Do you really believe that all Homeless or dopers are that bad?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Oxankle said:


> So; let the mush-headed liberals go live among the potheads and crack smokers. Let the resrt of us live in a clean environment free from thieves, and don't try to claim that these dopers are not also thieves, filthy and disrespectful of their neighbors.


Not nice. 

What do you suggest we do with the potheads (pot smokers are usually employed, or at least the ones I know are) crack smoking dopers? Remember, they have rights as Americans and human rights as well.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't know.


Me either


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Me either


You seem familiar with the homeless situation in each of the cities, was it a specific article?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

muleskinner2 said:


> It just realized that I might be homeless. My land is paid for, but the cabin I am living in is built inside a twenty foot shipping container. The Container is sitting on four blocks I cut from railroad ties, so it has no real foundation. Thus, according to local zoning law is not a building. This "not a building" has a twin bed, hot and cold water, kitchen sink, regular size closet, flat screen TV, composting toilet, and a shower. It is very well insulated, and a small electric heater set at the lowest setting keeps it at 70 degrees when it is below zero outside. I consider it to be a pretty good "camp".
> 
> So, am I homeless?


No. You are a Spartan


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> You seem familiar with the homeless situation in each of the cities, was it a specific article?


This video, among others. I have watched a ton of them. This vid is mostly about Seattle, but it spends a lot of time on Providence


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> This video, among others. I have watched a ton of them. This vid is mostly about Seattle, but it spends a lot of time on Providence


I watched part of that video, I'll finish it as soon as I can.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I watched part of that video, I'll finish it as soon as I can.


That station did an excellent job.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There are shelters and housing available for those who want to make the effort.
> Your irrational arguments are always the same.


So you dont believe in free enterprise providing needs of all???? You said cheap rooms are still available, not charity. And I said personal safety. You dont get that in "shelters". 

Again I ask where are those rooms you can honorably rent with two hours pushing a broom??????


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> I find lots of rooms under $50 a night


$49.95?


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

muleskinner2 said:


> It just realized that I might be homeless.........So, am I homeless?


According to the government's definition, I am homeless. I'm in a large expensive house, but it doesn't belong to me. A relative is putting me up. Legally, I can be counted as a homeless person. No matter that I own two nice cars, three nice houses, and have income. I am living in a relative's house and not paying rent, so Uncle Sam says I am legally homeless. 

Which makes me suspicious of the figures that the government throws around about the homeless population. The higher the head count, the more money the feds hand over to the locals. I volunteered at a food bank and they got federal money based upon how many homeless were in the area, so they were urging all the clients to go and get counted. Never mind that no homeless (except for me) ever came into that food bank.

Anyone who went in and got counted as homeless, received some great gifts, a hot lunch, blankets, large bags full of good food, large bags of dog kibble. it was a great haul. Just go in, get counted, get your swag, and nobody even asked you where you were living or even what your name was.

I know that there are a lot of homeless, but I seriously doubt that there are nearly as many as the government is claiming. Let me qualify that: id you use my definition of homeless and not the government's definition of homeless, there aren't quite as many as are claimed.


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

HermitJohn said:


> Sorry, but holding society together is government's responsibility, thus taxpayers responsibility. I think at this point you would have constitutional legal problem with remote internment camps for those you dont want to step over. And its not free, you have to build them, staff them, and provide water, toilets, heat, security, food, etc. It might be cheaper than a supermax prison, but it wouldnt be cheap. And since these people havent broken any laws other than being poor, you would need a constitutional amendment to agree that being poor is a federal crime since such otherwise would be unconstitutional.


I think I understand what you are trying to say but not sure I agree. The BIG problem is that society has been conditioned to believe that it is the governments job to take care of us. That we must work for the gov and pay our taxes to the king. In reality the gov is to work for us. The roles have been reversed and too many rely on the gov to take care of them. Welfare, handouts, etc.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)




----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> Not nice.
> 
> What do you suggest we do with the potheads (pot smokers are usually employed, or at least the ones I know are) crack smoking dopers? Remember, they have rights as Americans and human rights as well.


I used to deal with potheads and crack smoking dopers all the time. What I did with them was, read them their rights just after I put the handcuffs on them.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)




----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

muleskinner2 said:


> I used to deal with potheads and crack smoking dopers all the time. What I did with them was, read them their rights just after I put the handcuffs on them.


 Ever feel bad about that ?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Ever feel bad about that ?


Why should he?

LEO's job is to enforce the law, not decide who to apply it to.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Where would you get such a idea?
SCOTUS has ruled otherwise.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

AmericanStand said:


> Ever feel bad about that ?


Of the hundred plus I have arrested, I felt bad two or three times. As I sat waiting for Child Protective Services to show up and take the kids.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Where would you get such a idea?
> SCOTUS has ruled otherwise.


The SC ruled that cops are not supposed to enforce the law? BS


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

muleskinner2 said:


> I used to deal with potheads and crack smoking dopers all the time. What I did with them was, read them their rights just after I put the handcuffs on them.


Times have changed. In many states it's legal to smoke pot, and even if not completely legal you can't be charge with a crime unless it's over a certain weight. 



HDRider said:


> Why should he?
> 
> LEO's job is to enforce the law, not decide who to apply it to.


I agree. Do you also agree that if there are red flag laws the LEOs should enforce them as well?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Times have changed. In many states it's legal to smoke pot, and even if not completely legal you can't be charge with a crime unless it's over a certain weight.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Do you also agree that if there are red flag laws the LEOs should enforce them as well?


Their job is to enforce the law. Ours is to vote to repeal bad laws.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> Times have changed. In many states it's legal to smoke pot, and even if not completely legal you can't be charge with a crime unless it's over a certain weight.


Where I worked you could have three ounces for personal use. I once had a pot smoker who I had arrested three or four times, flag me down on the street. He proudly showed me his state issued pot card, and the three ounce baggie of pot. 

I asked him what he used to smoke the pot. He pulled out a pack of papers, and a small glass pipe. As I was putting the handcuffs on him, I read him his rights and explained that I was charging him with Class Six Felony possession of drug paraphernalia.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HermitJohn said:


> So you dont believe in free enterprise providing needs of all???? You said cheap rooms are still available, not charity. And I said personal safety. You dont get that in "shelters".
> 
> Again I ask where are those rooms you can honorably rent with two hours pushing a broom??????


No one ever gets "personal safety". That is one thing a feller must provide for himself.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you also agree that if there are red flag laws the LEOs should enforce them as well?


Smoking pot is not a right protected by the constitution. If I were still in law enforcement, I would resign before I would enforce a unconstitutional law. And then go home and hide all of my guns.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

muleskinner2 said:


> Smoking pot is not a right protected by the constitution. If I were still in law enforcement, I would resign before I would enforce a unconstitutional law. And then go home and hide all of my guns.


 Seems like it is a right protected. By the the constitution. 
just not by the government. 
After all it was perfectly legal up till around the 50s.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> The SC ruled that cops are not supposed to enforce the law? BS


I know you’re gonna have a hard time believing this believe me I had a hard time believing that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police are under no obligation to enforce the law and they are perfectly within their duties to decide who to enforce it against.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

muleskinner2 said:


> Where I worked you could have three ounces for personal use. I once had a pot smoker who I had arrested three or four times, flag me down on the street. He proudly showed me his state issued pot card, and the three ounce baggie of pot.
> 
> I asked him what he used to smoke the pot. He pulled out a pack of papers, and a small glass pipe. As I was putting the handcuffs on him, I read him his rights and explained that I was charging him with Class Six Felony possession of drug paraphernalia.


Was that a state law that you were enforcing or a federal?
Were you a town county state or federal marshal seems like I remember you being a county marshal
And I honestly want to know did you feel dirty doing that?
It’s like the entire state machine set him up for that arrest.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Just a personal anecdote.
A homeless guy was seen on camera slashing my son in law’s bed cover on his pick up truck while it was parked at his office this afternoon. He was apparently trying to see if anything was in there. Office is near a bridge they hang out under.
It’s pretty frustrating to live or work in a city with a lot of homeless.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

AmericanStand said:


> Was that a state law that you were enforcing or a federal?
> Were you a town county state or federal marshal seems like I remember you being a county marshal
> And I honestly want to know did you feel dirty doing that?
> It’s like the entire state machine set him up for that arrest.


I was a Deputy Sheriff, a county officer. And I enforced state laws. Possession of drug paraphernalia that has been used with drugs, is a felony. This means that the possession of alligator clips used to smoke pot,"roach clips" is a felony if they have residue on them. Also used pipes, and used needles. Even if no usable quantity of drugs are present.

And I honestly never felt dirty for putting a junky in jail. I have worked fatal accidents caused by drivers impaired by pot, meth, cocaine, and alcohol. Putting any or all of them in jail has never bothered me. Users of any sort don't get any sympathy from me.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

So the state made marijuana legal but kept the laws making the items it takes to use it a felony ? that sound right to you?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lisa in WA said:


> Just a personal anecdote.
> A homeless guy was seen on camera slashing my son in law’s bed cover on his pick up truck while it was parked at his office this afternoon. He was apparently trying to see if anything was in there. Office is near a bridge they hang out under.
> It’s pretty frustrating to live or work in a city with a lot of homeless.


 Why do they stay ?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

AmericanStand said:


> So the state made marijuana legal but kept the laws making the items it takes to use it a felony ? that sound right to you?


One of the first things I learned when I first became a Peace Officer back in 1979 was, right and wrong, and legal and illegal only occasionally have anything to do with each other. An officer is sometimes allowed to use personal discretion, when dealing with a misdemeanor. He is not allowed the use of discretion, when dealing with a felony.

Pot wasn't made legal because somebody thought it was a right. It was made legal because the states figured out they could make money by taxing it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> So you dont believe in free enterprise providing needs of all???? *You said cheap rooms are still available*, not charity.


Nope:



Bearfootfarm said:


> There is *cheap housing* available now for those who make the effort.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

muleskinner2 said:


> Pot wasn't made legal because somebody thought it was a right. It was made legal because the states figured out they could make money by taxing it.


Does it make sense with making marijuana legal and expect a tax it when you couldn’t smoke it because the paraphernalia was still a felony?
Again that .sounds like entrapment


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Does it make sense with making marijuana legal and expect a tax it when you couldn’t smoke it because the paraphernalia was still a felony?
> Again that .sounds like entrapment


Many of the laws surrounding legalizing marijuana don't make sense. No matter what your state says, Federal law still says it's illegal. Feds may be 'looking the other way' for now... but eventually they'll need that money and they can (and probably will) legally confiscate all of it. There's a reason dispensaries don't use the corner bank.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Can you imagine a alcohol paraphernalia law?


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

HDRider said:


> If you want to see what homeless say, search YouTube for "soft white underbelly homeless"


They just ain't makin' homeless folk like they used to.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Hobos, I think is the word.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Can you imagine a alcohol paraphernalia law?


That brought up a fond memory! Years ago when I was having radiation treatment on my throat I couldn't swallow. Everything had to be able to get through a small tube directly into my stomach. I rember driving down the highway with my "food" bag loaded with bourbon, set on very slow drip hanging on the hand grip of the rear seat right behind the drivers seat. Wonder what a cop would have thought about that "paraphernalia"?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

HDRider said:


> They are rotting now. They rot there in those videos on Seattle, San Francisco and many other places.
> 
> WHERE do you want them to rot?


Honestly, as long as they are out of the way of the lawful citizens, I couldn't care less. I support their right to do any stupid thing in the world as long as it harms them alone. They should be left to their stupidity unless and until it infringes upon the rights of others.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

HDRider said:


> I am reading a book about a man that would have become a homeless addict had he not found strength from his faith in God, and the support of his family.
> 
> I suggest you read it.


He took personal responsibility and brought himself out of a bad situation, good for him.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> I know you’re gonna have a hard time believing this believe me I had a hard time believing that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police are under no obligation to enforce the law and they are perfectly within their duties to decide who to enforce it against.


No, the SC ruled the police were under no obligation to PROTECT you. Two different things.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> Honestly, as long as they are out of the way of the lawful citizens, I couldn't care less. I support their right to do any stupid thing in the world as long as it harms them alone. They should be left to their stupidity unless and until it infringes upon the rights of others.


They will not stay hidden.

I don't disagree with you..


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

muleskinner2 said:


> Smoking pot is not a right protected by the constitution. If I were still in law enforcement, I would resign before I would enforce a unconstitutional law. And then go home and hide all of my guns.


As anyone should if they are unable to properly do their job.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> As anyone should if they are unable to properly do their job.


An LEO, refusing to enforce an obviously unconstitutional law, would be properly doing their job.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

muleskinner2 said:


> Smoking pot is not a right protected by the constitution. If I were still in law enforcement, I would resign before I would enforce a unconstitutional law. And then go home and hide all of my guns.


I don't know anything about you other than what you post here on HT. I sure like what I do know.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Pixie: Potheads are like any drinker. We jail drunks who kill--. Dopers are no different. So long as they do not draw attention to themselves by antisocial behavior they should have nothing to fear. When their habits begin to cause damage and concern to their communities they have gone too far. Mush headed liberals seem to think that nothing goes too far---I simply disagree and I suspect more will agree with me than disagree. 

In this community we are already arresting potheads and other addicts who drive while using. We also arrest any caught with the makings or with the tools of the trade.

Some dumbuss got high a couple of days ago and climbed a stranger's tree, fell 80 feet to his death when the police asked him to come down. Cost the city several thousand dollars in time, expense---and of course the hospital had to eat a loss. Taxpayers do not appreciate such behavior.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

LOL, Mileskinneer: You are far from homeless and not the first to make a home inside a shipping containeer. Some years ago there was a woman, a regular on on of our chaet sites, who had a job in SE Arkansas and a bit of land high on a mountain in bear country. She made her home as you have. Said she felt perfectly safe inside---with her rifles and all.

A brother who has a small farm in S. Texas has just take delivery on a 40 ft container--he intends to turn it into a shop---he has more blinking machinery than most, You can hardly walk thru his present workshop,.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> No, the SC ruled the police were under no obligation to PROTECT you. Two different things.


Correct and two different rulings.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Oxankle said:


> LOL, Mileskinneer: You are far from homeless and not the first to make a home inside a shipping containeer. Some years ago there was a woman, a regular on on of our chaet sites, who had a job in *SE Arkansas *and a bit of land *high on a mountain *in bear country. She made her home as you have. Said she felt perfectly safe inside---with her rifles and all.
> 
> A brother who has a small farm in S. Texas has just take delivery on a 40 ft container--he intends to turn it into a shop---he has more blinking machinery than most, You can hardly walk thru his present workshop,.


SE or NW?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Oxankle said:


> Pixie: Potheads are like any drinker. We jail drunks who kill--. Dopers are no different. So long as they do not draw attention to themselves by antisocial behavior they should have nothing to fear. When their habits begin to cause damage and concern to their communities they have gone too far. Mush headed liberals seem to think that nothing goes too far---I simply disagree and I suspect more will agree with me than disagree.
> 
> In this community we are already arresting potheads and other addicts who drive while using. We also arrest any caught with the makings or with the tools of the trade.
> 
> Some dumbuss got high a couple of days ago and climbed a stranger's tree, fell 80 feet to his death when the police asked him to come down. Cost the city several thousand dollars in time, expense---and of course the hospital had to eat a loss. Taxpayers do not appreciate such behavior.


I'm sure it cost the taxpayers less than the person that self inflicted cancer by smoking for 40 years and died on medicaid and medicare. Yet we rarely here of taxpayer money wasted on them. Addicts are addicts. And addicts need treatment.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> It is exactly what you said. Quit hitting the bong man


 Nope and nope dope. 
He must be pretty desperate today to change someone’s words when you could use them exactly


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

HD Rider; best I recall she was down somewhere near Ft Smith---that would be SW, my error.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> An LEO, refusing to enforce an obviously unconstitutional law, would be properly doing their job.


LEOs don't decide law, SCOTUS is the arbiter of the US Constitution. I haven't seen a decision ruling against red flag laws.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

But cops do get to decide enforcement. 
Think of speeders cops don’t necessarily get the fastest one or the first one in line.


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> But cops do get to decide enforcement.
> Think of speeders cops don’t necessarily get the fastest one or the first one in line.


Wasn't there an old joke that equated getting a speeding ticket with fishing... something along the lines of you can try, but you'll never catch them all...


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Pixie; you seem to forget that smokers, unless destitute, have to pay for their own treatment and they typically are working, taxpaying, law-abiding citizens who do not defecate in the streets, steal, sleep in other people's doorways or harass passers-by.

Where on earth do you get such logic that conflates tobacco with pot and hard drugs?


----------



## tripletmom (Feb 4, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm sure it cost the taxpayers less than the person that self inflicted cancer by smoking for 40 years and died on medicaid and medicare. Yet we rarely here of taxpayer money wasted on them.
> 
> Pixie, I so agree with you on this one!!


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> LEOs don't decide law, SCOTUS is the arbiter of the US Constitution. I haven't seen a decision ruling against red flag laws.


Let me give you a wild and crazy scenario to illustrate a point. Say a law was written that required all black folks to not drive on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Say your local Sheriff openly said that he wouldn't enforce such an obviously unconstitutional law. Would he be in the right? What if the SCOTUS was stacked in such a way to where they actually ruled it Constitutional? Would he still be in the right for not enforcing it?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Oxankle said:


> Pixie; you seem to forget that smokers, unless destitute, have to pay for their own treatment and they typically are working, taxpaying, law-abiding citizens who do not defecate in the streets, steal, sleep in other people's doorways or harass passers-by.
> 
> Where on earth do you get such logic that conflates tobacco with pot and hard drugs?


Self infliction is the common denominator. Addicts are addicts. Addicts need treatment. 

You seem to forget that human beings, and that include addicts, the homeless, and/or the mentally ill, have the same rights as you and I.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Oxankle said:


> Pixie; you seem to forget that smokers, unless destitute, have to pay for their own treatment and they typically are working, taxpaying, law-abiding citizens who do not defecate in the streets, steal, sleep in other people's doorways or harass passers-by.
> 
> Where on earth do you get such logic that conflates tobacco with pot and hard drugs?


Most pot and cocaine users for instance are highly functional in todays society.


----------



## tripletmom (Feb 4, 2005)

Oxankle said:


> Pixie; you seem to forget that smokers, unless destitute, have to pay for their own treatment and they typically are working, taxpaying, law-abiding citizens who do not defecate in the streets, steal, sleep in other people's doorways or harass passers-by.
> 
> Where on earth do you get such logic that conflates tobacco with pot and hard drugs?


My husband smokes like a chimney and we pay our own way. Also, I have a real issue with disability, i guess because we've always paid our own way.
I have seen many folks claiming disability, yacking and hacking on their cigarettes asking to pass the inhaler. Most could work if they took a notion to and their medical care is astronomical, mostly cigarette smoking related. None of my business, but it makes me mad anyway!
You can't lump the potheads with the junkies, they're not the same.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Oxankle said:


> Pixie; you seem to forget that smokers, unless destitute, have to pay for their own treatment and they typically are working, taxpaying, law-abiding citizens who do not defecate in the streets, steal, sleep in other people's doorways or harass passers-by.
> 
> Where on earth do you get such logic that conflates tobacco with pot and hard drugs?


 So we should arrest and harass anyone not living the perfectly healthy life?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

tripletmom said:


> My husband smokes like a chimney and we pay our own way. Also, I have a real issue with disability, i guess because we've always paid our own way.
> I have seen many folks claiming disability, yacking and hacking on their cigarettes asking to pass the inhaler. Most could work if they took a notion to and their medical care is astronomical, mostly cigarette smoking related. None of my business, but it makes me mad anyway!
> You can't lump the potheads with the junkies, they're not the same.


Why arnt they the same ? Most pay their own way.


----------



## tripletmom (Feb 4, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Why arnt they the same ? Most pay their own way.


Junkies v potheads? You think? Course, it would depend on your definition of junkie and pothead.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Most pot and cocaine users for instance are highly functional in todays society.


I know several perfectly functioning alcoholics as well. I've even been accused of it because I don't paint or drive a tractor without my beer...lol


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> So we should arrest and harass anyone not living the perfectly healthy life?


No, we should stop paying for other people's stupidity. This is why government has no business paying for healthcare. Charity, yes, government, no.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Nope and nope dope.
> He must be pretty desperate today to change someone’s words when you could use them exactly


I did NOT change a single word.


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

HermitJohn said:


> So you dont believe in free enterprise providing needs of all???? You said cheap rooms are still available, not charity. And I said personal safety. You dont get that in "shelters".
> 
> Again I ask where are those rooms you can honorably rent with two hours pushing a broom??????


Enough about the rooms. It was a SONG. Loosely based on things and times from the 30's. Times change. Milk was a quarter. Gas was .15. Cars were $800. And wages were about $5-$10 a day. Times change! Those rooms are still out there but not for 2 hrs work. Now its all day 8-10 hrs on a ranch WORKING 6 days week for months on end for room and board. 

Look and ye shall find
Nobody is just going to hand them to you.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

You're new here.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

9 days older than you I believe.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yet we rarely here of taxpayer money wasted on them.


Most of them worked all their lives and earned those benefits.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Most pot and cocaine *users* for instance are highly functional in todays society.


Most of them aren't homeless and causing problems for others.
You're wanting to compare "users" to addicts, or drinkers to drunks.
Words have meanings, and they aren't interchangeable.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

User seemed the more accurate word.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Self infliction is the common denominator. Addicts are addicts. Addicts need treatment.
> 
> *You seem to forget* that human beings, and that include addicts, the homeless, and/or the mentally ill, have the same rights as you and I.


*You seem to forget* you keep repeating that when no one has said otherwise.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> User seemed the more accurate word.


Not in the *context* of this discussion about the *homeless*.
In that context, it's just another word game.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

There are substances that the homeless use that are not technically addictive. 
And I know what sticklers for accuracy this group is.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I think you meant sticklers, and I don't think this group is at all.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol then how do you Explain the first and third of barefoot farms last three posts?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I have never been to Barefoot Farms so I have no idea about his posts.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

He likes used utility poles for corner Posts if that helps?


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

American Stamd, you cannot be so uninformed as to have not seen the pictures of the streets of California? What man of common sense would say that these people are highly functional? Sheer idiocy to make such a claim.

Pixie; right, they have the same rights and the same obligations. Neither you nor anyone else has the right to drive impaired, to defecate in the streets, to camp on property that is not yours, to harass passers-by, to impede traffic, to stagger around in puiblic places drunk or impaired on drugs, to steal to support a drug habit. To insist that these are rights demonstrates a lack of common sense.

(mod edit)


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> Self infliction is the common denominator. Addicts are addicts. Addicts need treatment.
> 
> You seem to forget that human beings, and that include addicts, the homeless, and/or the mentally ill, have the same rights as you and I.





Bearfootfarm said:


> *You seem to forget* you keep repeating that when no one has said otherwise.





Oxankle said:


> HJ; We are not advocating doing away with anyone. We do, however, insist that the incompetent and self destructive people among us have no right to disrupt our lives.
> *If they cannot or will not live the ordinary life they I say lock them up in work camps.* otherwise our society will self-destruct, If we do not find leaders with the guts to take this on we may as well invite the dope-heads and loafers into our homes.
> 
> As I said earlier; treat the mentally ill, find jobs for those down-on-their-luck and *send the pot-heads, meth-heads, crack-heads to the desert work farms. Let them earn their keep. * This mush-headed pity-party for the rejects of society is pointless. Let them turn the desert green.


To me, the boldened indicates that some Americans have more rights than others, unless the "incompetent and self destructive" "pot-heads, meth-heads, crackheads" willingly want to to work on desert work farms. Which I find highly unlikely.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> To me, the boldened indicates that some Americans have more rights than others, unless the "incompetent and self destructive" "pot-heads, meth-heads, crackheads" willingly want to to work on desert work farms. Which I find highly unlikely.


Ok then, how about just lock them up? When they commit a crime of course. Would you be good with that?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Oxankle said:


> American Stamd, you cannot be so uninformed as to have not seen the pictures of the streets of California? What man of common sense would say that these people are highly functional? Sheer idiocy to make such a claim.
> 
> Pixie; right, they have the same rights and the same obligations. Neither you nor anyone else has the right to drive impaired, to defecate in the streets, to camp on property that is not yours, to harass passers-by, to impede traffic, to stagger around in puiblic places drunk or impaired on drugs, to steal to support a drug habit. To insist that these are rights demonstrates a lack of common sense.



I never said that the homeless, addicted, and/or mentally ill have the constitutional right to to do any of things you indicate in the above post. I said, clearly and several times, the homeless, addicted, and/or mentally ill have the same rights as we do and can't be sent off to a desert work farm as you have indicated clearly and several times in this thread. They can be sent to a psychiatric facility for a 72 hour hold and evaluated if they are a thread to themselves or others, and they can be mandated for treatment if court ordered.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Oxankle said:


> American Stamd, you cannot be so uninformed as to have not seen the pictures of the streets of California? What man of common sense would say that these people are highly functional? Sheer idiocy to make such a claim.
> 
> Pixie; right, they have the same rights and the same obligations. Neither you nor anyone else has the right to drive impaired, to defecate in the streets, to camp on property that is not yours, to harass passers-by, to impede traffic, to stagger around in puiblic places drunk or impaired on drugs, to steal to support a drug habit. To insist that these are rights demonstrates a lack of common sense.
> 
> Moreover, your repeated insistence that such behavior is somehow a constitutional right convinces me that you are simply a troll. 30---


 Lol I have walked the streets you are talking about. 
Recently.
You can’t Take the worst of any group and say all are like that. 
Just as I never said that ALL pot smokers are highly functional. 
Everyone had the right to camp on property that IS theirs and public property is included. 
You seem to be making sweeping generalizations of the statements of others. 
Statements that are carefully Thought out and worded.
When you do that you don’t change the meaning of the statements you just argue against yourself.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Carefully thought out and worded. That's funny


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok then, how about just lock them up? When they commit a crime of course. Would you be good with that?


 Are you willing to be locked up in the desert camp? It would seem as if you brag quite often that you do not live an ordinary life.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> Carefully thought out and worded. That's funny


 Note I said carefully not perfectly.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Are you willing to be locked up in the desert camp? It would seem as if you brag quite often that you do not live an ordinary life.


True. My life has been extraordinary, "outside the box" and like that, but mostly within the limits of the law. That way I seldom put myself at risk of being hauled off to a desert work camp. Spent a weekend in jail once, didn't care for it. Noisy, smelly place it was.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Oh I’m sorry I thought you were endorsing OXs definition of
“*If they cannot or will not live the ordinary life they I say lock them up in work camps.* “

i’m pretty sure he includes those that use drugs in the list


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> To me, the boldened indicates that some Americans have more rights than others, unless the "incompetent and self destructive" "pot-heads, meth-heads, crackheads" willingly want to to work on desert work farms. Which I find highly unlikely.


They have no right to break the laws and live on someone else's property.



Irish Pixie said:


> I said, clearly and several times, the homeless, addicted, and/or mentally ill have the same rights as we do and *can't be sent off* *to a desert work farm* as you have indicated clearly and several times in this thread.


Sure they can.
It's called a "prison".


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Sure they can.
> It's called a "prison".


Don't they have to be charged, indicted, and convicted prior to prison? I'm sure I read that somewhere...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Don't they have to be charged, indicated, and convicted prior to prison? I'm sure I read that somewhere...


No one said that wouldn't be part of the process.


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

Whether you are talking about addiction or homelessness, through history there are always some people who end up as the flotsam and jetsam of our society, cast adrift. And there have always been people who see that as a moral failing, a lack of discipline, people trying to "get over" on they system. That is a hard-wired worldview, and hard to convince someone to change.

What is clear though, and objectively clear, is that punitive approaches (a) don't work and (b) are not cost effective. I refer people to George Orwell's Down and Out in Paris and London as an historical example. Railroad bulls couldn't stop hobos from riding the rails during the Depression, and Poorhouses didn't end poverty. Addicts who are incarcerated without treatment most often end up using again as soon as they are released.

Incarceration, whether you call it work camp or prison is ridiculously expensive. Homelessness, when measured by police calls, emergency room visits, drunk tank stays, etc. etc. is hugely expensive. The housing first philosophy, closely linked to harm reduction studies, not only have better results, they cost us as a society less. That's just math. So while the hardline, black-and-white tough love may feel like a satisfying moral pronouncement, it's bad public policy.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The Paw said:


> Whether you are talking about addiction or homelessness, through history there are always some people who end up as the flotsam and jetsam of our society, cast adrift. And there have always been people who see that as a moral failing, a lack of discipline, people trying to "get over" on they system. That is a hard-wired worldview, and hard to convince someone to change.
> 
> What is clear though, and objectively clear, is that punitive approaches (a) don't work and (b) are not cost effective. I refer people to George Orwell's Down and Out in Paris and London as an historical example. Railroad bulls couldn't stop hobos from riding the rails during the Depression, and Poorhouses didn't end poverty. Addicts who are incarcerated without treatment most often end up using again as soon as they are released.
> 
> Incarceration, whether you call it work camp or prison is ridiculously expensive. Homelessness, when measured by police calls, emergency room visits, drunk tank stays, etc. etc. is hugely expensive. The housing first philosophy, closely linked to harm reduction studies, not only have better results, they cost us as a society less. That's just math. So while the hardline, black-and-white tough love may feel like a satisfying moral pronouncement, it's bad public policy.


So, what do we do?


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

HDRider said:


> So, what do we do?


Provide housing for people, even if they aren't sober and clean. Look at harm reduction strategies like clean needle exchanges. Provide public restrooms that are designed to be safe for everybody, so people don't have to crap on your lawn. It's not free, but its actually cheaper than the punitive path.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

The Paw said:


> Provide housing for people, even if they aren't sober and clean. Look at harm reduction strategies like clean needle exchanges. Provide public restrooms that are designed to be safe for everybody, so people don't have to crap on your lawn. It's not free, but its actually cheaper than the punitive path.


And treatment for both addiction and mental health issues- absolutely not cheap but it's what has to be done.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The Paw said:


> Provide housing for people, even if they aren't sober and clean. Look at harm reduction strategies like clean needle exchanges. Provide public restrooms that are designed to be safe for everybody, so people don't have to crap on your lawn. It's not free, but its actually cheaper than the punitive path.


The clean needle exchange is being done today.

I agree we should house them, forcibly, with rehab being a priority, and put them in a situation where work, and self sufficiency is rewarded.

If they cannot rehab, keep them drugged up on their poison of choice until they expire.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> And treatment for both addiction and mental health issues- absolutely not cheap but it's what has to be done.


I would not commingle addicts and mentally ill, unless they are both, and then prioritize drug rehab, then commit them to possible permanent internment as mentally ill.


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> And treatment for both addiction and mental health issues- absolutely not cheap but it's what has to be done.


I've actually read about harm reduction programs for lifelong alcoholics. They live in a rooming house type of facility, and 3 times per day, they come down for a dose of medicinal alcohol. It keeps them from going into DTs, and it also keeps them from drinking anti-freeze, mouthwash and all the other truly desperate beverages. They are safer, they stay healthier, and easier find to do preventative care. All of which is cheaper than chasing them out from under bridges and taking them to ER in an ambulance.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I would not commingle addicts and mentally ill, unless they are both, and then prioritize drug rehab, then commit them to possible permanent internment as mentally ill.


Many addicts are mentally ill and self medicate with drugs and alcohol. Treat the mental illness, and the addiction may go away with minor treatment. 

There really isn't a permanent internment for a mentally ill person. Even those found incompetent in court due to a serious crime can be released after treatment, ie. John Hinckley. That's not to say there aren't mentally ill people that need to be permanently held, it's that there is ongoing court proceedings to keep them in.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Many addicts are mentally ill and self medicate with drugs and alcohol. Treat the mental illness, and the addiction may go away with minor treatment.
> 
> There really isn't a permanent internment for a mentally ill person. Even those found incompetent in court due to a serious crime can be released after treatment, ie. John Hinckley. That's not to say there aren't mentally ill people that need to be permanently held, it's that there is ongoing court proceedings to keep them in.


Whatever sequence works. 

There should be permanent internment, for both, addicts and chronic metal illness. If they stay on meds, they can stay out, three strikes your out or some way of determining if they get to stay out.

All I am saying is that ignoring it, and letting them crap in the garden needs to end.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Whatever sequence works.
> 
> There should be permanent internment, for both, addicts and chronic metal illness. If they stay on meds, they can stay out, three strikes your out or some way of determining if they get to stay out.
> 
> All I am saying is that ignoring it, and letting them crap in the garden needs to end.


The problem with mental illness is people take the meds, feel much better, think they don't need the meds and they stop taking them. The "cure" for this is on going treatment, not just "pump them full of drugs and send them on their way". Real treatment, with follow up care with a psychiatrist. It's expensive.

So, pay out via taxes or clean poop out of your garden.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm sure it cost the taxpayers less than the person that self inflicted cancer by smoking for 40 years and died on medicaid and medicare. Yet we rarely here of taxpayer money wasted on them. Addicts are addicts. And addicts need treatment.


If the smoker is smoking a legal substance and has paid their taxes and have earned their right to access Medicare and Medicaid then all is fine. 

Drug addicts are unlikely to have paid into the system to earn such treatment. Not to mention their problem is a result of criminal behavior. 
No problem with them getting treatment provided by those who wish to provide them a way to continue. 

Preferably with no access to narcan.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

The Paw said:


> I've actually read about harm reduction programs for lifelong alcoholics. They live in a rooming house type of facility, and 3 times per day, they come down for a dose of medicinal alcohol. It keeps them from going into DTs, and it also keeps them from drinking anti-freeze, mouthwash and all the other truly desperate beverages. They are safer, they stay healthier, and easier find to do preventative care. All of which is cheaper than chasing them out from under bridges and taking them to ER in an ambulance.


Why take them to the ER ? That’s a short term treatment at best.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> The problem with mental illness is people take the meds, feel much better, think they don't need the meds and they stop taking them. The "cure" for this is on going treatment, not just "pump them full of drugs and send them on their way". Real treatment, with follow up care with a psychiatrist. It's expensive.
> 
> So, pay out via taxes or clean poop out of your garden.


That's why I said three strikes... They don't take them, they get force fed and interned 

I think interning them would be less expensive in the long run


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> As anyone should if they are unable to properly do their job.


So, you are saying a peace officer should enforce a law that he knows to be unconstitutional? In the academy they taught us that we were the last line in the checks and balance system. And that if we thought that something was unconstitutional we should question it, and if necessary refuse to do it. It might get sorted out later. But, "I was just doing my job." would not be a defense if we carried out a unconstitutional order.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

AmericanStand said:


> But cops do get to decide enforcement.
> Think of speeders cops don’t necessarily get the fastest one or the first one in line.


Most traffic violations are misdemeanor, or a civil offence. A peace officer is allowed by law to use personal judgement when dealing with a misdemeanor or civil offence.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I got stopped for speeding once. I told the cop everyone was speeding. He said it was like fishing, you can't catch them all. I asked how he felt about catch and release.


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Don't they have to be charged, indicted, and convicted prior to prison? I'm sure I read that somewhere...


The not so funny thing is no they do not have to be CHARGED, INDICTED, and CONVICTED prior to prison. I have several friends that were held for over a yr awaiting charges brought against them. They were just held till the feds could figure out what to charge them with. Then another 6-12 months before trail. Remember the Bunkerville standup and the Bundy's? Talk to them about do- process. Or how about LaVoy Finicum being shot at and then shout in the back with his hands up before a warrant was even taken out for them. Dont put too much faith in the justice system or do-process personally.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

That unconstitutional thing is a tough one ,after all most of the time 4 of the supremes are wrong about it.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Applying rational thought to irrational choices to solve them are unlikely to succeed. Some people are temporarily homeless and want desperately to have safe, inexpensive housing. Some people are homeless by choices and continually make bad choices. Some people are mentally ill and likely are just existing. I am sure there are others that are homeless for other reasons. 

Which group of people are likely to be helped into a better situation by government/social group intervention. 

What about the other people in society that are negatively impacted by others poor lifestyle choices? 

I do not have a good solution. I do know providing cheap housing and free bathrooms has been tried and just attracts/incentivizes more homeless. I do know that having a zero tolerance policy punishes some innocent folks. I do know that just allowing people to camp wherever and crap wherever harms everyone including those doing it. 

In the end, this really is a local problem. We shall see what locality comes up with the best course of action. Hopefully, those results can be judged by best outcomes rather than emotion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

The Paw said:


> Provide housing for people, even if they aren't sober and clean. Look at harm reduction strategies like clean needle exchanges. Provide public restrooms that are designed to be safe for everybody, so people don't have to crap on your lawn. It's not free, but its actually cheaper than the punitive path.


All that has been tried and all that has failed to make a difference.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Many addicts are *mentally ill and self medicate* with drugs and alcohol. Treat the mental illness, and the addiction may go away with minor treatment.


I agree.
Lock them up as the *first* step in their "treatment".
Until that is done, they will just continue to self medicate and tell themselves they are victims.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

It seems like requiring places that sell food to provide bathrooms might be a good first step to stopping public eliminating.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> It seems like requiring places that sell food to provide bathrooms might be a good first step to stopping public eliminating.


That's already a law in most places.
It hasn't helped solve any problems and allowing the homeless to use them has created more problems for property owners.


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> It seems like requiring places that sell food to provide bathrooms might be a good first step to stopping public eliminating.


When I was working in retail, the companies insurance wouldn't cover it if a customer was injured in the bathroom or in an employee area.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's already a law in most places.
> It hasn't helped solve any problems and allowing the homeless to use them has created more problems for property owners.


 It hasn’t. ? It seems like if bathrooms were available where they have to go to anyway they would be used because they were
Convenient.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

gleepish said:


> When I was working in retail, the companies insurance wouldn't cover it if a customer was injured in the bathroom or in an employee area.


 I’m pretty sure there are plans that cover that after all most fast food joints gas station Walmart etc. have public bathrooms.


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> I’m pretty sure there are plans that cover that after all most fast food joints gas station Walmart etc. have public bathrooms.


I didn't say that it isn't available... I'm saying that:



gleepish said:


> When I was working in retail, the companies insurance wouldn't cover it if a customer was injured in the bathroom or in an employee area.


It was just another way to cut costs and I'm sure that there are still businesses out there that don't allow customers to use bathrooms due to the liability.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> It hasn’t. ? It seems like if bathrooms were available where they have to go to anyway they would be used because they were


No it hasn't, because they go inside to get high and bathe, which means the actual customers can't use them at all.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

gleepish said:


> I didn't say that it isn't available... I'm saying that:
> It was just another way to cut costs and I'm sure that there are still businesses out there that don't allow customers to use bathrooms due to the liability.


 I see ,obviously that’s their choice.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No it hasn't, because they go inside to get high and bathe, which means the actual customers can't use them at all.


Umm the homeless are actual customers.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Umm the homeless are actual customers.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> Umm the homeless are actual customers.


Can you define "customer" without asking anyone?


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> It hasn’t. ? It seems like if bathrooms were available where they have to go to anyway they would be used because they were
> Convenient.


In PDX there are open bathrooms in the city center parks where the majority of the homeless are. Rather than go into the rest room to use it they will just do their thing on the sidewalk infront of the door to it. Or at the business nextdoor under the restaurant window while people are eating. Business restrooms that have been open to the public had a huge drug use issue. Needles and other crap (literally) all over. I walked into one and a woman was in the mens room up on the counter pooping in the sink! No one else there. She told me to go F myself and started smearing poop on the mirror.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

54metalman said:


> In PDX there are open bathrooms in the city center parks where the majority of the homeless are. Rather than go into the rest room to use it they will just do their thing on the sidewalk infront of the door to it. Or at the business nextdoor under the restaurant window while people are eating. Business restrooms that have been open to the public had a huge drug use issue. Needles and other crap (literally) all over. I walked into one and a woman was in the mens room up on the counter pooping in the sink! No one else there. She told me to go F myself and started smearing poop on the mirror.


That is why they need to be locked up


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

That does sound like a legitimate reason to do something but is locking them up a deterrent or a reward ?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> That does sound like a legitimate reason to do something but is locking them up a deterrent or a reward ?


It rewards me.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> That does sound like a legitimate reason to do something but is locking them up a deterrent or a reward ?


The costs of keeping you out of the general public may differ from someone else, so it is subjective.
Would you consider it a reward for your behavior?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

54metalman said:


> In PDX there are open bathrooms in the city center parks where the majority of the homeless are. Rather than go into the rest room to use it they will just do their thing on the sidewalk infront of the door to it. Or at the business nextdoor under the restaurant window while people are eating. Business restrooms that have been open to the public had a huge drug use issue. Needles and other crap (literally) all over. I walked into one and a woman was in the mens room up on the counter pooping in the sink! No one else there. She told me to go F myself and started smearing poop on the mirror.


I was physically attacked by a mentally ill homeless person when I was young and lived in Boston. 
DH and I were eating at a sidewalk cafe and a homeless guy walking by grabbed the drink of a person at the table next to us and threw it on him. This kind of thing really affects local businesses.


----------



## 101pigs (Sep 18, 2018)

HermitJohn said:


> Hey the greedy tore down the transient motels, the flop houses, anything low rent, and restricted anybody from building anything that isnt an approved McMansion, usually with a HOA. Where do you expect people that cant afford obscene rent or housing prices to live? Would you rather spend $90k a year keeping them in prison? Cause I think you could build each and every one of them a house meeting code for that kind of money.
> 
> Do you want to bring back the German concentration camps with the "Arbeit Macht Frei" logo over the entrance? And the lovely gas shower buildings?
> 
> Seriously if you dont give people a legit place to occupy, you are going to have problems. They dont just do menial jobs and go poof at 5pm into some magical nether world and then reappear poof at 8am again. You cant just outlaw poverty unless you are ready for the Nazi Death Camps. The "final solution".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> That does sound like a legitimate reason to do something but is locking them up a deterrent or a reward ?


It's the only logical solution to get them the "treatment" some keep saying they need and to put an end to the problems they are causing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> It rewards me.


And deters them
Win Win


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

HDRider said:


> That is why they need to be locked up


Then you have to be willing to raise taxes to pay for expanding prisons. The magic fairy isnt just going to wave her magic wand and make it all taste like cotton candy free of charge. You arrest them for a specific crime, good luck on making being poor a crime, then you prove your case against them in a court of law with them getting realistic representation as any criminal defendant gets. 

You will find it costs far more to lock somebody up legally than it does to address the actual issues, but take your pick, nothing short of summary execution by a cop for any homeless person is going to make it cheap. And have fun if you lose your job and kicked out on the street. Cause the good fairy cop will no doubt have a bullet for you from his magic revolver.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Then you have to be willing to raise taxes to pay for expanding prisons.


That's better than paying for sex change surgery.



HermitJohn said:


> You will find it costs far more to lock somebody up legally than it does to address the actual issues


Yes, because locking them up is actually *doing* something other than spouting empty rhetoric about a need to "address the issues".

If the coronavirus reaches the homeless population in a major US city, what would be the solution then?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

HermitJohn said:


> Then you have to be willing to raise taxes to pay for expanding prisons. The magic fairy isnt just going to wave her magic wand and make it all taste like cotton candy free of charge. You arrest them for a specific crime, good luck on making being poor a crime, then you prove your case against them in a court of law with them getting realistic representation as any criminal defendant gets.
> 
> You will find it costs far more to lock somebody up legally than it does to address the actual issues, but take your pick, nothing short of summary execution by a cop for any homeless person is going to make it cheap. And have fun if you lose your job and kicked out on the street. Cause the good fairy cop will no doubt have a bullet for you from his magic revolver.


Maybe, maybe not.

No one can say for sure.

They should not be allowed to bring blight on a neighborhood.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's better than paying for sex change surgery.
> 
> 
> Yes, because locking them up is actually *doing* something other than spouting empty rhetoric about a need to "address the issues".
> ...


Far be it to me to point out thousands have already died of influenza in this country, not your feared Huwan virus but just regular old flu. People die, look back in history, it wipes out maybe 10% to 20% with least resistance. Enough have some resistance so they are the ones that breed and pass on that resistance. Sorry if you are somebody with no resistance to any disease. Maybe you can lock yourself in hotel room somewhere like Howard Hughes. He was deathly scared of disease.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's better than paying for sex change surgery.


Better write a letter to your congress critter explaining how you with PhD and extensive research have determined lack of sex change surgery is the cause of all homelessness. LOL


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Far be it to me to point out thousands have already died of influenza in this country, not your *feared* Huwan virus but just regular old flu.


I'm not afraid of it.
I'm 7 miles from the nearest 1 stoplight town.
I asked a simple question that you never answered, but I didn't expect one anyway.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GTX63 said:


> The costs of keeping you out of the general public may differ from someone else, so it is subjective.
> Would you consider it a reward for your behavior?


 No but I am warm dry and well fed with a fine place to poo.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Better write a letter to your congress critter explaining how you with PhD and extensive research have determined lack of sex change surgery is the cause of all homelessness. LOL


Have you ever seen the movie "War Games"?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Maybe, maybe not.
> 
> No one can say for sure.
> 
> They should not be allowed to bring blight on a neighborhood.


Thats fine, but wagging your finger isnt going to do diddly. Either legally lock them up for breaking the law and be willing to pay for prison space for them, or pay for dealing with causes. Not all homeless are insane or drug addicts. But there are no cheap private places to stay, only unsafe overnight shelters that wouldnt have close to capacity needed, if even significant number homeless decided to use them.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And deters them
> Win Win


 No that’s the point A warm dry place with meals and security is hardly a deterrent to the homeless.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Have you ever seen the movie "War Games"?


Some 80s movie about kid with computer that hacked into Pentagon?

So you are wanting to nuke the homeless? Now there is a novel approach.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> No that’s the point A warm dry place with meals and security is hardly a deterrent to the homeless.


It *deters* them as long as they are confined.
Read what I write.


----------



## 101pigs (Sep 18, 2018)

When growing up on the farm until 7 years of age i didn't know anything about homeless people. During the 2nd WW we moved to St. Louis. Most all the Hobos lived on the banks of the Mississippi River. The Hobos had shacks build along the river where they lived. A lot of them had a Horse and wagon. The ones with horses would spent their time driving their wagons down the alleys of mostly South St. Louis. Back then people had ash-pits and trash cans for throw-away stuff. Hobos would pick up old newspapers , rags, glass, etc. while going down the ally. They sold all that stuff to places that collected those things for recycling. A lot of the home owners would ask a Hobo in their house for dinner once a week for a good meal. Around 1960 St. Louis had all them people move out and build concrete walls along the river. That did leave a lot of people homeless and most moved on down the river and other places. Hobos worked for there meals.
Bums and others homeless would bum for money and live in ally or any were they could. They would not work except if they had to. 
Today is a bit different because there are a lot of places they can stay and also get food from a Church. We have a place in our small town that has lunch for all. Those without money don't have to pay. Also a lot of places to give food away. Some will work and some will not. When Reagan was President he had a lot of nursing homes shut down. That left a lot of people living on the street. There were sick people, crazy people all over town sleeping on benches and in the parks sure was a bad time for those people. People all over the streets day and night, all day begging for money to buy food and sleeping under bridges and anywhere else they could. Looks like the U.S. is gone backwards again. Most people in Canada are provided a place for homeless , etc. a lot better for the homeless and other people. I lived in Canada for two years on a job my company was working on there. They issue a card as soon as you moved
or work there that pays for your medical care and other things. Standard of living was just below the U.S. Now it is different standard of living. is quite a bit higher in Canada now then U.S. Lot of counties have pass the U.S. as far as the standard of living is concerned.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> So you are wanting to nuke the homeless?


You proved my point while managing to not see it at all.
I'll let you figure it out.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

HermitJohn said:


> Thats fine, but wagging your finger isnt going to do diddly. Either legally lock them up for breaking the law and be willing to pay for prison space for them, or pay for dealing with causes. Not all homeless are insane or drug addicts. But there are no cheap private places to stay, only unsafe overnight shelters that wouldnt have close to capacity needed, if even significant number homeless decided to use them.


Most of us have no say in it. We can wag our finger, or ignore it. But wishing for some socialist dream isn't going to have an effect either.


----------



## edjewcollins (Jun 20, 2003)

HermitJohn said:


> Hey the greedy tore down the transient motels, the flop houses, anything low rent, and restricted anybody from building anything that isnt an approved McMansion, usually with a HOA. Where do you expect people that cant afford obscene rent or housing prices to live? Would you rather spend $90k a year keeping them in prison? Cause I think you could build each and every one of them a house meeting code for that kind of money.
> 
> Do you want to bring back the German concentration camps with the "Arbeit Macht Frei" logo over the entrance? And the lovely gas shower buildings?
> 
> Seriously if you don't give people a legit place to occupy, you are going to have problems. They don't just do menial jobs and go poof at 5pm into some magical nether world and then reappear poof at 8am again. You can't just outlaw poverty unless you are ready for the Nazi Death Camps. The "final solution".


John, you're being dramatic. If this place was anything like Seattle, it is overwhelmingly drugs and alcohol. Don't trust me on that, listen to the documentaries featuring cops, community activists, citizens, and the homeless themselves verifying what I am saying. In these documentaries it shows how Seattle, Portland and like minded cities have given the homeless a COMPLETE PASS on their behavior, their criminality, and violations of local zoning ordinance. When the homeless are asked why they came to places like Seattle they all answer the same: because they can do what they, when they want, with no consequences. Beyond that, they actually get SUPPORTED and ENABLED by local government and do-gooders.

Are their people so mentally damaged that they cannot transcend homelessness? Yes. However, my guess would be that if you removed substance abuse from the equation, we would have 80-90% less homelessness.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I have concluded that the cities with the worst homeless problems are acting as a magnet for homeless purposely. They get federal aid on a per head basis. They want that federal money.

Just glad I do not live there.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

edjewcollins said:


> John, you're being dramatic. If this place was anything like Seattle, it is overwhelmingly drugs and alcohol. Don't trust me on that, listen to the documentaries featuring cops, community activists, citizens, and the homeless themselves verifying what I am saying. In these documentaries it shows how Seattle, Portland and like minded cities have given the homeless a COMPLETE PASS on their behavior, their criminality, and violations of local zoning ordinance. When the homeless are asked why they came to places like Seattle they all answer the same: because they can do what they, when they want, with no consequences. Beyond that, they actually get SUPPORTED and ENABLED by local government and do-gooders.
> 
> Are their people so mentally damaged that they cannot transcend homelessness? Yes. However, my guess would be that if you removed substance abuse from the equation, we would have 80-90% less homelessness.


So did the alcohol and drug addiction drive them to homelessness, or did homelessness drive them to using alcohol and drugs to numb themselves to homelessness.

You can go around in circles arguing this. But ok, first do like they do in Finnland, give them option of an apartment and addiction treatment, etc. If they refuse or are obviously mentally ill, you get choice of expanding mental health care or use the prisons as you dumping ground for the mentally ill. 

Look there are no easy choices, I cant imagine anybody with any other options chooses to sleep rough and be homeless. There is always a small hard core "hobo" population that choose this as a lifestyle. But anybody with real options, like job that actually rents an apartment in a safe part of town without a PhD in physics or something, will take it. Pretending all these low buck part time jobs somehow provide enough for decent housing plus food plus legal transportation, etc isnt serious. Its just right wing BS cause they hate all govt safety nets.

I remember era of good paying job for anybody with high school diploma that could show up on time every day. Jobs that would buy you a modest house in a reasonable neighborhood. Just fantasy that you can do that today. Part time at Walmart/McD/etc (few low end workers get full time there) is just fantasy. Also fantasy that somebody with marginal high school education is going to go get a PhD and compete for some CEO job. If you dont provide job opportunities for those at bottom, you get lot homeless who then self medicate their stress with alcohol and drugs and of course develop addictions. And once they get addicted, pretending they can just walk away from it is truly myopic. Have you ever historically seen significant number alcoholics reform themselves long term? Even back in the "good ole days"????


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

HJ... Why the jab at "Right Wing"? Do you believe that everyone should be on the gov tit? Everyone deserve a free cell phone? Free Healthcare? Free college? Free housing? Free Food? Tax the rich and give it to the poor? What do you think we should do?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Military style barracks or tent camps modeled from the late 1800’s and early 1900’s would house many at low cost. Basics provide. Relative low cost. 

After all we just need to provide a better and safer living space and nutrition source than what they have living rough. Mental care easy to have available. Many people seem to be confused in that they need regular new model homes and other high cost care.

Set them up in government ( public ) land in arid country and they would need limited supervision. Walk away and nature would take care of most problems. 

It’s been good enough for many of our soldiers for the last 100 plus years. Good enough for others also.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> You can go around in circles arguing this.


Only by choice.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Redlands Okie said:


> Set them up in government ( public ) land in arid country and they would need limited supervision. Walk away and nature would take care of most problems.


On another thread a sex change was deemed to be the solution for curing pedophiles.
Maybe that could work here too.


----------



## siberian (Aug 23, 2011)

alleyyooper said:


> Just what I was a thinking what would you have done? Maybe forget the gas showers and stand them againest a wall and shoot them?
> 
> Better yet just shoot them with expermintal drugs to see how the drug will work on people with health issues and even dogs and cats.
> 
> ...




Why should you, I or anyone else have to clean up after folks?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It *deters* them as long as they are confined.
> Read what I write.


Lol not what you said. 
Even your revision isnt true, it just changes who cleans up while rewarding them with three hots and a cot.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Redlands Okie said:


> Military style barracks or tent camps modeled from the late 1800’s and early 1900’s would house many at low cost. Basics provide. Relative low cost.
> 
> After all we just need to provide a better and safer living space and nutrition source than what they have living rough. Mental care easy to have available. Many people seem to be confused in that they need regular new model homes and other high cost care.
> 
> ...


Excellent illustration, and possible solution.

Use med students to treat them.

Let churches play a role.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol not what you said.
> Even your revision isnt true


I didn't revise my post.


----------

