• 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!

Camps for the Homeless?

Remember when the Right freaked out over the imagined Obama FEMA camps? Well, turns out there were not only imagining it; they were actually planning it themselves.
 
Oborosen said:
As a doctor, I think it's my duty of care to at least suggest that supporting, and enabling self destructive actions. Is possibly one of the worst things that you can do for someone.
Click to expand...

What kind of a doctor would object to a life-saving measure on ideological grounds? Do you also object to putting naloxone kits in high schools?
 
Lovebug said:
So it is ok to leave them in their filth, because of perceived motive? Well where are the humanitarians who care about kids in Obama built cages more than the people in their front yard?
Click to expand...

I am suspiscious of poor houses, debtors prisons, forced indenture.

The right only wants to beat behaviors they don't approve of out of people. All stick all the time.

AND they want the cost to be borne by said misbehavers.

And they want the systems to be for-profit. For efficiencies' sake.

If you can't see the moral hazard then there isn't anything for us to talk about.

Maybe you should do some reading on debtor's prisons, poor houses and company towns/stores.

With an emphasis on the reasons these things were implemented and how truly horrible they turned out to be.

Then get back to me with the smug.
 
calamity said:
Remember when the Right freaked out over the imagined Obama FEMA camps? Well, turns out there were not only imagining it; they were actually planning it themselves.
Click to expand...

I was always pretty sure that those were a contingency for a viral outbreak but they denied everything because they thought everybody would panic. Believing that the government knew something besides "a large scale viral outbreak is inevitable".
 
What if...? said:
Will this camp be for profit?
Click to expand...
Will you lit a finger regardless?
Your opinion is worthless. You literally dont give the first **** about those people or their situation. They can die in the ****ing street for all you care. To you they are just another 'thing' to **** yourself over TRUUUUUUUMMMPPP!!! about.
 
Grand Mal said:
What kind of a doctor would object to a life-saving measure on ideological grounds? Do you also object to putting naloxone kits in high schools?
Click to expand...

How in the hell is this a life saving measure? People, whether they're addicted or not, still make their own conscious decision to continue doing something that's harmful to them. Dr's, at least many of them, aren't in the business of harming their patients.

And why should a dr be held accountable for peoples irresponsible actions?

There's this thing called personal responsibility that drug addicts don't care about. When they seek help to get off of drugs, then great. Help them. But if they're continuing down the same path of doing drugs, NO ONE should make it easy or safe for them.
 
JohnnyDollar said:
How in the hell is this a life saving measure? People, whether they're addicted or not, still make their own conscious decision to continue doing something that's harmful to them. Dr's, at least many of them, aren't in the business of harming their patients.

And why should a dr be held accountable for peoples irresponsible actions?

There's this thing called personal responsibility that drug addicts don't care about. When they seek help to get off of drugs, then great. Help them. But if they're continuing down the same path of doing drugs, NO ONE should make it easy or safe for them.
Click to expand...

We ought to make it easy for addicts to get the drugs they're addicted to. You know what the problem with drugs is? It's not that some losers are ruining their lives with drugs. The problem is they're stealing from you and me to do it. And sometimes dying on sidewalks and in alleys. Safe injection sites, manned by people with naloxone kits, just makes sense. Makes the problem just a little bit less of a problem.
Or just keep on with what you're doing now. Might start working any day now, right?
 
The courts in California have ruled that the police can't arrest people for setting up tent camps in public spaces unless there is a place for them to go.

This fulfills the "somewhere to go" requirement. I don't much care if the bums, junkies and methheads want to go to these homeless camps. But since they exist it means they can't stay in the park and shoot up where my kids play anymore. Get the F out!
 
Grand Mal said:
We ought to make it easy for addicts to get the drugs they're addicted to. You know what the problem with drugs is? It's not that some losers are ruining their lives with drugs. The problem is they're stealing from you and me to do it. And sometimes dying on sidewalks and in alleys. Safe injection sites, manned by people with naloxone kits, just makes sense. Makes the problem just a little bit less of a problem.
Or just keep on with what you're doing now. Might start working any day now, right?
Click to expand...


I get the point of the program. But I don't agree that drs should be held accountable for the irresponsible actions of drug users.

Also, places like this sends the message that "it's ok." And its not. There's nothing about drug addiction that's OK.
 
VanceMack said:
Will you lit a finger regardless?
Your opinion is worthless. You literally dont give the first **** about those people or their situation. They can die in the ****ing street for all you care. To you they are just another 'thing' to **** yourself over TRUUUUUUUMMMPPP!!! about.
Click to expand...

How many have you brought into your own home?
 
JohnnyDollar said:
How many have you brought into your own home?
Click to expand...
Great question. Annually we provide meals to on average 45 families for Thanksgiving and Christmas through the organization that I am the director of. I work OCCASIONALLY...not often..at a shelter. I have taken in my wifes family members...including people with chronic illness. I have held the hand of a niece as she made the most important decision of her life and loved her before and after...even when I didnt agree with her decision. BUT...how many homeless people have a I brought into my home?

None.

But then...I'm not an idiot leftist ****ting myself because a politician I hate is looking at solutions to solve a humanitarian crisis...now am I?
 
VanceMack said:
Great question. Annually we provide meals to on average 45 families for Thanksgiving and Christmas through the organization that I am the director of. I work OCCASIONALLY...not often..at a shelter. I have taken in my wifes family members...including people with chronic illness. I have held the hand of a niece as she made the most important decision of her life and loved her before and after...even when I didnt agree with her decision. BUT...how many homeless people have a I brought into my home?

None.

But then...I'm not an idiot leftist ****ting myself because a politician I hate is looking at solutions to solve a humanitarian crisis...now am I?
Click to expand...

So then you really haven't done anything but talk about it.
 
What if...? said:
And of course their room and board will cost 110% of what they're paid.

Did we learn nothing from the poor houses, debtors prisons and company stores?
Click to expand...

Some people didn't learn that lesson.
 
Grand Mal said:
What kind of a doctor would object to a life-saving measure on ideological grounds? Do you also object to putting naloxone kits in high schools?
Click to expand...

That idea has worked in Europe and we need to try to here. Keep the addict's ion one place to stop the spread of disease and make it easier for them to get treatment. We don't know enough about the brain or addiction, so this is the best that we can do at the moment.
 
eman623 said:
The courts in California have ruled that the police can't arrest people for setting up tent camps in public spaces unless there is a place for them to go.

This fulfills the "somewhere to go" requirement. I don't much care if the bums, junkies and meth-heads want to go to these homeless camps. But since they exist it means they can't stay in the park and shoot up where my kids play anymore. Get the F out!
Click to expand...

Then provide them with a safe and secure place to go that doesn't trample their rights and they get effective care in the process.

I support the idea of creating a place for the homeless where they can get food, job training, and treatment but it has to be at no cost to them, they can come and leave at any time with no restrictions and they cannot have rights being taken away in the process.

I've thought about using 40' shipping containers to make individual housing units with a separate cafeteria and medical clinic on-site. I would put a restriction on having guns to cut down on violence. They would not be taken away but kept in a central area and returned when they leave. There would have to be people on-site to prevent the rights/dignity of these people aren't being violated because many of them are mentally ill and cannot protect themselves. We do a horrendous job of caring for the mentally ill in the US, many of which are veterans, and we must do better.
 
What if...? said:
I am suspiscious of poor houses, debtors prisons, forced indenture.

The right only wants to beat behaviors they don't approve of out of people. All stick all the time.

...Maybe you should do some reading on debtor's prisons, poor houses and company towns/stores.

With an emphasis on the reasons these things were implemented and how truly hrrible they turned out to be.

Then get back to me with the smug.
Click to expand...

The right is to "blame" for horrible work camps? LOL Perhaps you ought to be the one reading history and getting back to us:


CCC-Camp-Roosevelt.jpg


employement-conservation-corps.jpeg
 
Last edited:
JohnnyDollar said:
I get the point of the program. But I don't agree that drs should be held accountable for the irresponsible actions of drug users.

Also, places like this sends the message that "it's ok." And its not. There's nothing about drug addiction that's OK.
Click to expand...

Messages don't matter. The message now is its not okay and it doesn't make any difference.
Did someone say doctors are responsible for drug addiction? Well, maybe in a few rare cases but nobody holds a doctor responsible for the behaviour of drug addicts.
We give junkies methadone and its addictive. Why not just give them heroin? Might even be cheaper. And after all, heroin was invented to cure morphine addiction.
 
What if...? said:
I am suspiscious of poor houses, debtors prisons, forced indenture.

The right only wants to beat behaviors they don't approve of out of people. All stick all the time.

AND they want the cost to be borne by said misbehavers.

And they want the systems to be for-profit. For efficiencies' sake.

If you can't see the moral hazard then there isn't anything for us to talk about.

Maybe you should do some reading on debtor's prisons, poor houses and company towns/stores.

With an emphasis on the reasons these things were implemented and how truly horrible they turned out to be.

Then get back to me with the smug.
Click to expand...

The moral concerns I have is leaving human beings live like stray dogs on the street, living on garbage, in their own filth. I understand your concern about forcing them to places they may not want to go. By what standards? Please don't misunderstand what I am saying now. Not all homeless are drug addicts (street drugs, alcohol, whatnot), and not all are mentally ill. Yet are those who fall in those categories the best judge of their circumstances? Again, we aren't talking about people who temporarily fall on hard times. I don't see them sitting in their own filth.
I don't know, we rescue cats and dogs, but we leave human beings in dire straights. Perhaps there isn't a good answer, perhaps we let this go so far out of hand, we don't know where to begin.
This isn't about smug or pointing fingers at a party. It is about human beings.
https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...n/367671-camps-homeless-6.html#post1070591888
 
Lovebug said:
So it is ok to leave them in their filth, because of perceived motive? Well where are the humanitarians who care about kids in Obama built cages more than the people in their front yard?
Click to expand...

You might be surprised at how many americans live in fetid squalor inside of their homes and apartments. But, you don't have to see that. There's a world of difference between being filthy and being caged.
 
Lisa said:
Then provide them with a safe and secure place to go that doesn't trample their rights and they get effective care in the process.

I support the idea of creating a place for the homeless where they can get food, job training, and treatment but it has to be at no cost to them, they can come and leave at any time with no restrictions and they cannot have rights being taken away in the process.

I've thought about using 40' shipping containers to make individual housing units with a separate cafeteria and medical clinic on-site. I would put a restriction on having guns to cut down on violence. They would not be taken away but kept in a central area and returned when they leave. There would have to be people on-site to prevent the rights/dignity of these people aren't being violated because many of them are mentally ill and cannot protect themselves. We do a horrendous job of caring for the mentally ill in the US, many of which are veterans, and we must do better.
Click to expand...

Bravo, that is a start and it should be agreed on whether we are left or right. I would suggest keeping facilities clean and habitable, like an honor system of sorts, residents holding each other accountable as much as possible, giving them a sense of pride, responsibility. Not sure if that is possible though. What are your thoughts on that?
 
Grand Mal said:
Messages don't matter. The message now is its not okay and it doesn't make any difference.
Did someone say doctors are responsible for drug addiction? Well, maybe in a few rare cases but nobody holds a doctor responsible for the behaviour of drug addicts.
We give junkies methadone and its addictive. Why not just give them heroin? Might even be cheaper. And after all, heroin was invented to cure morphine addiction.
Click to expand...

Dude, this is just one of those problems that can't be solved. People are going to ruin their lives on their own. And you have to let them. You can't console those who know what they're doing is wrong, but continue to do it anyways.

As for those who really want help, I'm all for it. But the ones that don't want help, just a hand out, screw'm. They'll end up in jail where their needs will be met soon enough.
 
Grand Mal said:
What kind of a doctor would object to a life-saving measure on ideological grounds? Do you also object to putting naloxone kits in high schools?
Click to expand...
Dr. Mengele
 
d0gbreath said:
You might be surprised at how many americans live in fetid squalor inside of their homes and apartments. But, you don't have to see that. There's a world of difference between being filthy and being caged.
Click to expand...

You are correct. You'd be surprised what you come across when you travel about the country. It makes your head spin. When you drive by some places and see the trash in the front yard, animals running amok, you can't help but wonder what is going on inside the home. I have visited homes, seeing it first hand. BUT...it is their home, they have a roof over their heads and clothes on their backs.
 
What if...? said:
I am suspiscious of poor houses, debtors prisons, forced indenture.

The right only wants to beat behaviors they don't approve of out of people. All stick all the time.

AND they want the cost to be borne by said misbehavers.

And they want the systems to be for-profit. For efficiencies' sake.

If you can't see the moral hazard then there isn't anything for us to talk about.

Maybe you should do some reading on debtor's prisons, poor houses and company towns/stores.

With an emphasis on the reasons these things were implemented and how truly horrible they turned out to be.

Then get back to me with the smug.
Click to expand...

“do some reading” ... you forgot to add the essential sarcasm icon
 
justabubba said:
a better alternative than forced detention
Click to expand...

Nothing is going to be forced, talk to the ACLU.

The homeless will have a choice, but it won’t be tent cities on the sidewalk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom