• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"If I didn't help, I wouldn't be able to live with myself,"- Manchester Attack

William Rea said:
I believe that the drugs used by the homeless are a result of the homelessness, a symptom that maintains the disease for sure but, not a primary cause to start with.
Click to expand...

Most homeless addicts start off using drugs at home, exhaust their finances, lose whatever family ties they had to begin with, and then wind up on the street. Addiction is considered a disease, while homelessness isn't.

If parents have become involved in drugs, been useless with their kids and as a result their kids have ended up on the streets then yes but, that is also not the only reason that people end up homeless.
Click to expand...

True, there are other reasons as well, such as mental illness, loss of a job, personal tragedy. If we could solve the addiction part of homelessness, we'd be left with the much smaller segment of that group who suffer mental illness. Then hopefully resources could better be directed at helping them.

The war on drugs is a phony war anyway; all it has produced is a cartel for crime. It is an economics problem that governments are trying to solve with moralising and no real regard to the economics! The only way to stop the illicit trade in drugs is to break the cartels so, I support the nationalisation of the illicit drugs industry.
Click to expand...

I've gone through periods myself of believing that legalization is the answer. It wouldn't solve the homeless issue to just allow people to abuse drugs. It wouldn't keep people from rotting to death or overdosing. I now see no real benefits of legalization, besides the argument of generating tax revenues from it. But is that worth it? I don't think so, because then governments have an incentive to addict people to drugs.
 
truthatallcost said:
Most homeless addicts start off using drugs at home, exhaust their finances, lose whatever family ties they had to begin with, and then wind up on the street. Addiction is considered a disease, while homelessness isn't.



True, there are other reasons as well, such as mental illness, loss of a job, personal tragedy. If we could solve the addiction part of homelessness, we'd be left with the much smaller segment of that group who suffer mental illness. Then hopefully resources could better be directed at helping them.



I've gone through periods myself of believing that legalization is the answer. It wouldn't solve the homeless issue to just allow people to abuse drugs. It wouldn't keep people from rotting to death or overdosing. I now see no real benefits of legalization, besides the argument of generating tax revenues from it. But is that worth it? I don't think so, because then governments have an incentive to addict people to drugs.
Click to expand...

Do you have data on this?

It is my opinion that drugs are primarily part of the equation that are the effect of the desperation and vulnerability of being homeless. I don't think that we agree totally on the cause and effect here but, I will look for some data when I can.

Legalisation is an issue of economics that moralists want to solve with moral law. The moral approach hasn't worked for decades and we are allowing the moralists to set the agenda rather than try something that might solve two problems, organised crime and desperate addiction.
 
truthatallcost said:
Most homeless addicts ... people to drugs.
Click to expand...

OK, this is a real can of worms but, quite interesting so let's go for it.

Firstly, we might be talking at cultural cross purposes here so, I will declare that I am concerned with the UK when I am posting. It would appear that there are some specific issues in other regions that I don't want us to get bogged down in that, are you posting from a US perspective?

Secondly, I am specifically thinking of homeless addicts that have become addicts due to homelessness but, as long as we don't cross talk I am fine with posting about addicts becoming homeless.

One thing that I have found so far is that it is damned difficult to get clear data on this.
 
William Rea said:
Do you have data on this?

It is my opinion that drugs are primarily part of the equation that are the effect of the desperation and vulnerability of being homeless. I don't think that we agree totally on the cause and effect here but, I will look for some data when I can.
Click to expand...

Sure, no problem.

This article is about the homeless population of the USA, but I assume that its findings are universal, as root causes of homelessness should be similar in the UK.

Nearly all of the long-term homeless have tenuous family ties and some kind of disability, whether it is a drug or alcohol addiction, a mental illness, or a physical handicap.

Five myths about America's homeless
Click to expand...

The causes of addiction are varied, and I think this is what causes most chronic homelessness; that people who are traumatized in childhood, and/or suffer from poverty and lack of education, become hooked on substances, and their lives spiral out of control until they hit bottom.

Legalisation is an issue of economics that moralists want to solve with moral law. The moral approach hasn't worked for decades and we are allowing the moralists to set the agenda rather than try something that might solve two problems, organised crime and desperate addiction.
Click to expand...

Can you explain a little further what you mean by the boldened part? I understand the economics of the drug trade, not completely what your interpretation of this is. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
William Rea said:
OK, this is a real can of worms but, quite interesting so let's go for it.

Firstly, we might be talking at cultural cross purposes here so, I will declare that I am concerned with the UK when I am posting. It would appear that there are some specific issues in other regions that I don't want us to get bogged down in that, are you posting from a US perspective?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm from the US.

Secondly, I am specifically thinking of homeless addicts that have become addicts due to homelessness but, as long as we don't cross talk I am fine with posting about addicts becoming homeless.
Click to expand...

I definitely think you're right about some homeless being driven to addiction issues by the sheer level of depression about being homeless. It's a real temptation for a sober homeless person to dip into drugs, since the only people who still associate with them, are other homeless people, most of whom do drugs or drink heavily.

One thing that I have found so far is that it is damned difficult to get clear data on this.
Click to expand...

True, same results here.
 
William Rea said:
Do you have data on this?

It is my opinion that drugs are primarily part of the equation that are the effect of the desperation and vulnerability of being homeless. I don't think that we agree totally on the cause and effect here but, I will look for some data when I can.
Click to expand...
Doing a rewind to times when the homeless were traditionally associated more with alcohol addiction, the equally dated "parameter" comes to mind "not every bum is a lush but every lush is a bum".

As much of an oversimplification in its time as it is today, it nevertheless was designed to take some of the stigma off homelessness by encouraging at least some differentiation.

I'd surmise that addiction leading to homelessness (or not leading) is very much an issue of the fabric of social safety net that the thus afflicted enjoy or don't. For "net" insert financial means and then we can make the comparison of how many well-to-do celebs are prone to abuse and wind up not sleeping in the streets, in face of those less endowed that almost always do.
Legalisation is an issue of economics that moralists want to solve with moral law. The moral approach hasn't worked for decades and we are allowing the moralists to set the agenda rather than try something that might solve two problems, organised crime and desperate addiction.
Click to expand...
Only reason I support legalisation is to dry out the swamp of criminal industry that we're spending millions in combating when that money would find better (additional) use in addressing the dire consequences of addiction.

Be that addiction driven by a substance that is legal or by one illegal. With that distinction alone being pretty hypocritical.

Not to be misunderstood, I don't advocate the right of everyone to get high, I just don't see how the propensity of some to get high can be intelligently addressed by merely "warring" on it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom