• 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!

More Cities Are Making It Illegal To Hand Out Food To The Homeless

Anyone Feeding The Homeless Should Be A Crime


  • Total voters
    55
Are you seriously offering taxpayer funded recreational drugs to be given to the "mentally ill"?

Two separate issues: People addicted to drugs, and people who are mentally ill.

It would be cheaper in the long run to provide meth to the tweakers under medical supervision along with an offer to help get them off of the stuff than it is to put up with their stealing and spend time and money raiding meth labs.
 
It is a sad commentary on our times that simple charity has to be so regulated and dictated instead of what it once was, ie an expression of a giving heart.

I support entirely an ordinance restricting people from setting up soup kitchens and the such near schools, residential areas, and most commercial areas. It takes nothing away from our compassion for the less fortunate to recognize and acknowledge that some of the less fortunate have the potential to be antisocial or even dangerous, and intentional exposure to that should always be voluntary and never forced on anybody.

But I can't accept the Orwellian silliness that such regulation sometimes impose. I have had food poisoning three times in my life and every time it was because of restaurant food. I have eaten at many many potluck dinners at home, church, family reunions, and other places and have never been poisoned a single time at any of those. So to assume that restaurant food will always be more wholesome or safe than home cooked food is just silly. To regulate the home or church cook before he/she is allowed to feed the homeless is just silly.

In years past, before we became such a opportunistic litigious society and were not plagued with so much government goody two shoes-ism, feeding the hungry was a joyous experience. Some made huge pots of beans or gravy at home to be served with homemade cornbread or biscuits. A dozen batches of stew cooked on home stoves and combined in a common pot at the soup kitchen made an invariably satisfying meal with who knows how many or what ingredients in it. Restaurants furnished us their leftover side dishes, desserts, or meats that were approaching their expiration dates--day old bread was forthcoming from bakeries etc. The homeless ate well, it cost us all very little, and it was fun and satisfying to do.

And we never poisoned anybody. But if somebody had become ill, we would have taken care of that too. The risk is quite small and not worthy of government interference or dictates.
 
It is a sad commentary on our times that simple charity has to be so regulated and dictated instead of what it once was, ie an expression of a giving heart.

I support entirely an ordinance restricting people from setting up soup kitchens and the such near schools, residential areas, and most commercial areas. It takes nothing away from our compassion for the less fortunate to recognize and acknowledge that some of the less fortunate have the potential to be antisocial or even dangerous, and intentional exposure to that should always be voluntary and never forced on anybody.

But I can't accept the Orwellian silliness that such regulation sometimes impose. I have had food poisoning three times in my life and every time it was because of restaurant food. I have eaten at many many potluck dinners at home, church, family reunions, and other places and have never been poisoned a single time at any of those. So to assume that restaurant food will always be more wholesome or safe than home cooked food is just silly. To regulate the home or church cook before he/she is allowed to feed the homeless is just silly.

In years past, before we became such a opportunistic litigious society and were not plagued with so much government goody two shoes-ism, feeding the hungry was a joyous experience. Some made huge pots of beans or gravy at home to be served with homemade cornbread or biscuits. A dozen batches of stew cooked on home stoves and combined in a common pot at the soup kitchen made an invariably satisfying meal with who knows how many or what ingredients in it. Restaurants furnished us their leftover side dishes, desserts, or meats that were approaching their expiration dates--day old bread was forthcoming from bakeries etc. The homeless ate well, it cost us all very little, and it was fun and satisfying to do.

And we never poisoned anybody. But if somebody had become ill, we would have taken care of that too. The risk is quite small and not worthy of government interference or dictates.
Excellent post.

Sometimes I think the food health aspect is primarily more an excuse to the desired end result. It's not the real reason, but at the same time it's hard to effectively argue against.
 
Two separate issues: People addicted to drugs, and people who are mentally ill.

It would be cheaper in the long run to provide meth to the tweakers under medical supervision along with an offer to help get them off of the stuff than it is to put up with their stealing and spend time and money raiding meth labs.

It may well be cheaper but paying criminals (with drugs or money) not to commit crime is simply insane. How would "under medical supervision" not be expensive both in direct and indirect costs?
 
Excellent post.

Sometimes I think the food health aspect is primarily more an excuse to the desired end result. It's not the real reason, but at the same time it's hard to effectively argue against.

Yes, anybody who thinks it through understands the rationale behind the regulations. Its just that sometimes we focus so hard on trying to eliminate all risk that we lose sight of what we want to accomplish.
 
It may well be cheaper but paying criminals (with drugs or money) not to commit crime is simply insane. How would "under medical supervision" not be expensive both in direct and indirect costs?

It would cost, no doubt, but I think it would cost less than what we're doing now. Moreover, we would have a chance of rehabilitating some of the addicts. What we're doing now, the war on drugs, is not only not rehabilitating anyone, it is making it more difficult for addicts to seek treatment and is creating an incentive to get more people hooked in order to keep the market going.

Would it work? We won't know unless we try it. Is the war on drugs working? You be the judge.
 
It is a sad commentary on our times that simple charity has to be so regulated and dictated instead of what it once was, ie an expression of a giving heart.

I support entirely an ordinance restricting people from setting up soup kitchens and the such near schools, residential areas, and most commercial areas. It takes nothing away from our compassion for the less fortunate to recognize and acknowledge that some of the less fortunate have the potential to be antisocial or even dangerous, and intentional exposure to that should always be voluntary and never forced on anybody.

But I can't accept the Orwellian silliness that such regulation sometimes impose. I have had food poisoning three times in my life and every time it was because of restaurant food. I have eaten at many many potluck dinners at home, church, family reunions, and other places and have never been poisoned a single time at any of those. So to assume that restaurant food will always be more wholesome or safe than home cooked food is just silly. To regulate the home or church cook before he/she is allowed to feed the homeless is just silly.

In years past, before we became such a opportunistic litigious society and were not plagued with so much government goody two shoes-ism, feeding the hungry was a joyous experience. Some made huge pots of beans or gravy at home to be served with homemade cornbread or biscuits. A dozen batches of stew cooked on home stoves and combined in a common pot at the soup kitchen made an invariably satisfying meal with who knows how many or what ingredients in it. Restaurants furnished us their leftover side dishes, desserts, or meats that were approaching their expiration dates--day old bread was forthcoming from bakeries etc. The homeless ate well, it cost us all very little, and it was fun and satisfying to do.

And we never poisoned anybody. But if somebody had become ill, we would have taken care of that too. The risk is quite small and not worthy of government interference or dictates.

That (bolded above) restriction leaves farms, woods and other very rural areas as the only NIMBY alternatives. Use of normal zoning laws would include most commercial areas for food service locations. The biggest problem with the "homeless" is that they tend to stay close to their source of food and begging money.
 
:agree: If you also have the one where the man and woman are trying to get out of the empty town, where they take a train to escape but find themselves passing the same buildings in an endless loop, I'd love to rewatch that one too. I won't give away the ending here, in case there are some who haven't seen it!

I bought - at a cost of only an arm and leg :mrgreen: - the entire series (6 years) of the original Avengers with Diana Rigg as Mrs. Peel and Patrick Macnee as John Steed. God, I loved that TV series, and rewatch them often! Didn't enjoy the series much after Diana Rigg left - the chemistry between Peel and Steed was missing when Linda Thorson took over the part!

No, I don't. But like you I have bought complete series of old TV shows. Kung Fu, Bat Matterson, Barney Miller, In Search Of, Space 1999, the original Battlestar Galacitica with Loren Green, the Original Star Trek which ran in the 60's, all three years, Buck Rogers, Dragnet, Sherlock Holmes, and more. I have a lot of old movies, horror flicks with Bella Lagosi, Lon Cheney, Boris Karloff, a ton of westerns and sci-fi from the 40's, 50's. I just can't keep track of them all.

I also have all the episodes of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Doctor Who and some of the first, second, eighth, ninth and tenth. It's no wonder I haven't been writing much lately.

This is not counting
 
It would cost, no doubt, but I think it would cost less than what we're doing now. Moreover, we would have a chance of rehabilitating some of the addicts. What we're doing now, the war on drugs, is not only not rehabilitating anyone, it is making it more difficult for addicts to seek treatment and is creating an incentive to get more people hooked in order to keep the market going.

Would it work? We won't know unless we try it. Is the war on drugs working? You be the judge.

We could treat all recreational drugs like alcohol and tobacco - tax them, regulate their potency and limit their sales to adults only. The problem is that we are unlikely to find insurable, legitimate meth, cocaine or heroin manufacturers that would dare risk making and marketing those known to be highly addictive poisons. If you know of anyone that would advocate adding recreational meth, cocaine or heroin to their product line then let me know.
 
It may well be cheaper but paying criminals (with drugs or money) not to commit crime is simply insane. How would "under medical supervision" not be expensive both in direct and indirect costs?

I'm not suggesting paying them anything, just making it possible for them to get the substances they need without destroying their lives doing it, and at the same time, making it possible for them to get rid of their addictions.

Ending addiction without the active participation of the addict is not possible, nor is it possible in most cases for the addict to end the addiction without help.

Offering help is not only the humane thing to do, it is also the least costly thing to do.

Come here, we'll give you your fix without fear of arrest. Say, wouldn't you like to get off this stuff permanently and get your life back on track? We can help you if you want. Meanwhile, quit pulling copper wires out of the ground and selling the copper. That is costing us an arm and a leg, and disrupts traffic lights and street lights.
 
We could treat all recreational drugs like alcohol and tobacco - tax them, regulate their potency and limit their sales to adults only. The problem is that we are unlikely to find insurable, legitimate meth, cocaine or heroin manufacturers that would dare risk making and marketing those known to be highly addictive poisons. If you know of anyone that would advocate adding recreational meth, cocaine or heroin to their product line then let me know.
The tobacco industry has been marketing a highly addictive poison for a very long time now.

Yes, such as pot should be simply regulated the same as alcohol. Crack, meth, and heroin are highly addictive, which gives the drug dealers an incentive to get people hooked and keep them hooked. Meanwhile, the addicts have to live in the shadows, fearful of arrest. If they could come out and ask for help without fear, many of them would. Instead of ever increasing rates of addiction, we could actually start decreasing it.

But, alas, we have a moral imperative to point fingers of blame at addicts and to lock them up, along with their suppliers. It's not working, but then, we seem to think that blaming is the same as solving problems.

Now, back to feeding the homeless. I fear we've begun to derail this thread.
 
I'm not suggesting paying them anything, just making it possible for them to get the substances they need without destroying their lives doing it, and at the same time, making it possible for them to get rid of their addictions.

Ending addiction without the active participation of the addict is not possible, nor is it possible in most cases for the addict to end the addiction without help.

Offering help is not only the humane thing to do, it is also the least costly thing to do.

Come here, we'll give you your fix without fear of arrest. Say, wouldn't you like to get off this stuff permanently and get your life back on track? We can help you if you want. Meanwhile, quit pulling copper wires out of the ground and selling the copper. That is costing us an arm and a leg, and disrupts traffic lights and street lights.

As long as I can get my recreational drug of choice (cold beer) free at the local gov't watering hole then count me in. Why should only some people's recreational drugs be "free"?
 
As long as I can get my recreational drug of choice (cold beer) free at the local gov't watering hole then count me in. Why should only some people's recreational drugs be "free"?

Enjoying a cold beer from time to time is not the same thing as being addicted to meth or crack.
 
No, I don't. But like you I have bought complete series of old TV shows. Kung Fu, Bat Matterson, Barney Miller, In Search Of, Space 1999, the original Battlestar Galacitica with Loren Green, the Original Star Trek which ran in the 60's, all three years, Buck Rogers, Dragnet, Sherlock Holmes, and more. I have a lot of old movies, horror flicks with Bella Lagosi, Lon Cheney, Boris Karloff, a ton of westerns and sci-fi from the 40's, 50's. I just can't keep track of them all.

I also have all the episodes of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Doctor Who and some of the first, second, eighth, ninth and tenth. It's no wonder I haven't been writing much lately.

This is not counting

I think the title of the Twilight Zone one I'm thinking about was titled "Stopover in a quiet town" or something like that. Everything was fake, right down to the grass, and they were happy to see a train that could get them out of there. They were sure surprised....

I also have most of the Alfred Hitchcock movies, too, including "The Birds" which had me sitting on the edge of my chair the entire movie! :eek:
 
I think the title of the Twilight Zone one I'm thinking about was titled "Stopover in a quiet town" or something like that. Everything was fake, right down to the grass, and they were happy to see a train that could get them out of there. They were sure surprised....

I also have most of the Alfred Hitchcock movies, too, including "The Birds" which had me sitting on the edge of my chair the entire movie! :eek:

Wasn't the Birds the one with Robert Taylor.
 
Wasn't the Birds the one with Robert Taylor.[/QUOT

Yep! It also starred Tippi Hedren in one of the few roles she did well, IMO. Beautiful woman, but not much of an actress.
 
That (bolded above) restriction leaves farms, woods and other very rural areas as the only NIMBY alternatives. Use of normal zoning laws would include most commercial areas for food service locations. The biggest problem with the "homeless" is that they tend to stay close to their source of food and begging money.

Not at all. I live in a city with numerous food kitchens and they are located in areas accessible to the homeless without intruding on the peace, safety, or livelihood of their neighbors.
 
Pero, I found the movie I was looking for from Twilight Zone!. It's in Season 5, and I have ordered it from Amazon.com, and I'll have it in a few days. Maybe I'll watch it on Halloween! :mrgreen:! A whole season full of Twilight Zones for $16 - not a bad price! Happy, happy! :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Oh I agree, but that is not getting to the bottom of the real issue
I find the reasons for wanting to move the homeless rather superficial, and that is what is bothering me. Its a nicely worded attempt to kick the can down the road instead of finding real solutions.
Feeding them, by whatever means and wherever it may be won't solve the homelessness issue at all. As a nation, we have accomplished so much, so why can't we come up with a solution to treat our fellow citizens, many of which may be veterans, as the human beings they are instead of shoving them away? Moving them down the block may give the appearance that all is well, but it is not.
Lol, and no, I don't have a solution either, other than helping out as much as I can, and thanking you and your family for doing the same.

No veteran should be homeless. That's our lousy government that did that. Every vet should be entitled to housing when needed.
 
No veteran should be homeless. That's our lousy government that did that. Every vet should be entitled to housing when needed.

Perhaps that should extend beyond veterans:

It's cheaper to give homeless men and women a permanent place to live than to leave them on the streets.

That’s according to a study of an apartment complex for formerly homeless people in Charlotte, N.C., that found drastic savings on health care costs and incarceration.
 
Not all of them. Besides, that's why you give them food and not money. But, alas, giving them food is apparently illegal in many cities.

Giving the homeless food isn't illegal anywhere, Kitty. Not in any city or state. The headline of the NPR article was very misleading.
 
While I agree with you when it comes to a government handing out to the homeless, if individuals wish to feed the homeless, it is there right to do so. What kind of government restricts how their citizens can and cannot spend their surplus money and time?

Where is the government restricting how citizens spend their surplus money and time?:confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom