Full Rights For Homeless and Starving people.

Harold Weiss

I was inspired by the LGBT thread to start this discussion because I see so many homeless / starving people in cities all over the world and thought it was a just cause.

As you know, walking along any major city street, we have homeless people and much of the time they're not on the street voluntarily so perhaps they don't have the same rights as the rest of us?

I know a child in the world dies every 10 seconds of starvation but let's spare a thought for the homeless of the world.

Remember people, priorities first.

newmug

The most sickening thing about starvation is that there's so much food in the world. Obesity is at epidemic levels in some countries. Why? Its all about money. Cheap fast food and sugar. Money. Set-aside is a wrong that history will judge this country on. And why do governments engage in set-aside? Again, money. Making rich right-wing degenerates even richer, while people starve to death. Its disgusting.

Harold Weiss

It's not about money, money's just a tool.

partyguinness

OP...how do they not have the same rights as the rest of us? They are not as fortunate for a variety of reasons, but 'rights'? That is a different argument.

Could you be more specific or elaborate?

RichardAnd

I've never understood why homeless people in Ireland can't get the dole.

quadrifoglio verde

RichardAnd wrote: »

I've never understood why homeless people in Ireland can't get the dole.

Something to do with needing an address I think.
As contentious an issue as it is, we should focus on sorting problems like homelessness before trying to fix Africa.

sin_city

How did they deal with homelessness in the US 150 years ago?

I knew that people that could not speak English went to that country in their millions.

Give everyone the freedom to work and stop taxing them in order for a big brother government(which would have all its employees sacked if it were a corporation for doing such a sh!tty job consistently) to help the needy.

Perfection doesn't exist in this life...Humans are part of nature...If you start redistributing and creating incentives to do nothing and punish hard work you fcuk things up.

A short look at history will reveal this and as soon as our unsustainable ponzi debt money scheme crashes helping the homeless will be the least of your worries.

Here's a bit of advice.....if you want to help the homeless....go out an do it...No one is stopping you....Are you suggesting the country should tax middle class people with families who may or may not be struggling in order to help homeless people?

It amazes me that people can come to a country with no understanding of English and climb the ladder despite visa barriers,etc.

I give to the homeless...I make a call on whether a person is genuinely struggling through bad luck or if they are a waster. I have the freedom to give them money....and you do too.....just don't force others to do it.

Lots of homeless cases are not bad luck stories.

corner of hells

RichardAnd wrote: »

I've never understood why homeless people in Ireland can't get the dole.

You can get welfare if you're homeless.

icecold1066

Special tightly controlled barracks should be built where the homeless can be fed and clothed and have a place to sleep. Those with alcohol and drug problems should be put through compulsory and intensive rehab programs. Anyone who is homeless should qualify for a basic skills and education program to help them get a basic job and help them reintegrate into society. Some people may end up permanently in this system but it is better for them to be off the streets. The majority could get out of their bad circumstances because most of them want to only they need someone to care and help them out. If they are clean for six months or a year they could be given jobs like weeding and cleaning the streets and other tasks and if they were paid to do it they would have some measure of dignity and hope before moving on to working and living independently.

corner of hells

icecold1066 wrote: »

Special tightly controlled barracks should be built where the homeless can be fed and clothed and have a place to sleep. Those with alcohol and drug problems should be put through compulsory and intensive rehab programs. Anyone who is homeless should qualify for a basic skills and education program to help them get a basic job and help them reintegrate into society. Some people may end up permanently in this system but it is better for them to be off the streets. The majority could get out of their bad circumstances because most of them want to only they need someone to care and help them out. If they are clean for six months or a year they could be given jobs like weeding and cleaning the streets and other tasks and if they were paid to do it they would have some measure of dignity and hope before moving on to working and living independently.

I work in homeless services , I wouldn't like to see homeless people treated this way.
Their lives are difficult enough without being forced to do what you suggest.

icecold1066

corner of hells wrote: »

I work in homeless services , I wouldn't like to see homeless people treated this way.
Their lives are difficult enough without being forced to do what you suggest.

Typical PC argument. Spare me.

jank

icecold1066 wrote: »

Special tightly controlled barracks should be built where the homeless can be fed and clothed and have a place to sleep. Those with alcohol and drug problems should be put through compulsory and intensive rehab programs. Anyone who is homeless should qualify for a basic skills and education program to help them get a basic job and help them reintegrate into society. Some people may end up permanently in this system but it is better for them to be off the streets. The majority could get out of their bad circumstances because most of them want to only they need someone to care and help them out. If they are clean for six months or a year they could be given jobs like weeding and cleaning the streets and other tasks and if they were paid to do it they would have some measure of dignity and hope before moving on to working and living independently.

So your solution is to lock them up if they don't 'reform'. Why do well meaning progressives believe so much in the authoritarian powers of the state?

icecold1066

jank wrote: »

So your solution is to lock them up if they don't 'reform'. Why do well meaning progressives believe so much in the authoritarian powers of the state?

So you want to leave them on the streets to fend for themselves?
These people are feckless, have personality defects, psychological illness and so on and should be in institutions.
If they have a roof over their head and are cared for and kept under control, wouldn't that be the best thing for them?
It would be for their own good and for the common good.

Annasopra

icecold1066 wrote: »

So you want to leave them on the streets to fend for themselves?
These people are feckless, have personality defects, psychological illness and so on and should be in institutions.
If they have a roof over their head and are cared for and kept under control, wouldn't that be the best thing for them?
It would be for their own good and for the common good.

What? Everyone who is homeless has mental illnesses?

jank

icecold1066 wrote: »

So you want to leave them on the streets to fend for themselves?
These people are feckless, have personality defects, psychological illness and so on and should be in institutions.
If they have a roof over their head and are cared for and kept under control, wouldn't that be the best thing for them?
It would be for their own good and for the common good.

Kept under control by locking them up for unknown period of time. Again, why is locking them up the defacto best solution for homelessness?

icecold1066

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What? Everyone who is homeless has mental illnesses?

I didn't say that. Read what I actually wrote. I said these people are feckless, have mental illnesses, have personality defects and so on. What that means are that the category of homeless people include people who are feckless, mentally ill, personality defects and so on. That does not mean all of them are mentally ill or feckless or have personality defects and other problems. That simply means some do and some don't. All of their circumstances are different but some commonalities are obvious such as fecklessness, mental illness, personality defects and so on.

icecold1066

jank wrote: »

Kept under control by locking them up for unknown period of time. Again, why is locking them up the defacto best solution for homelessness?

I said they should be housed in barracks where they have a place to sleep, are clothed and are compulsorily weaned off drugs and alcohol, take part in back to work schemes and if they can return to society they can. Those who cannot be rehabilitated or return to society can stay and have a place to live rather than live on the street.

Now what's wrong with that?

jank

icecold1066 wrote: »

I said they should be housed in barracks where they have a place to sleep, are clothed and are compulsorily weaned off drugs and alcohol, take part in back to work schemes and if they can return to society they can. Those who cannot be rehabilitated or return to society can stay and have a place to live rather than live on the street.

Now what's wrong with that?

So its a weird mix of 1984 with a dollop of Clockwork Orange. Got it.

walshb

icecold1066 wrote: »

I didn't say that. Read what I actually wrote. I said these people are feckless, have mental illnesses, have personality defects and so on. What that means are that the category of homeless people include people who are feckless, mentally ill, personality defects and so on. That does not mean all of them are mentally ill or feckless or have personality defects and other problems. That simply means some do and some don't. All of their circumstances are different but some commonalities are obvious such as fecklessness, mental illness, personality defects and so on.

Well you should have written it more clearly. Some homeless people have mental health issues. I guess anyone who is homeless who doesn't want to be homeless will have their mental health strained and tested!

BTW, I think your heart is in the right place. You seem to want to help them for the better.

Annasopra

walshb wrote: »

Well you should have written it more clearly. Some homeless people have mental health issues. I guess anyone who is homeless who doesn't want to be homeless will have their mental health strained and tested!

BTW, I think your heart is in the right place. You seem to want to help them for the better.

I dont agree. Locking them up in prisons does not seem like a desire to help them for the better to me.

walshb

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I dont agree. Locking them up in prisons does not seem like a desire to help them for the better to me.

That's in your view. In the poster's view he/she believes that it could help them. That was my point.

icecold1066

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I dont agree. Locking them up in prisons does not seem like a desire to help them for the better to me.

To wean them off alcohol and drugs they should be held against their will and forced to undergo rehabilitation.

Which is better - they get clean or they stay on the streets?

What's the problem here?

icecold1066

jank wrote: »

So its a weird mix of 1984 with a dollop of Clockwork Orange. Got it.

A. They stay living on the streets

B. They are forced to get clean and move on with their lives.

Which do you choose A or B?

I am amazed I even have to ask the question.

jank

icecold1066 wrote: »

A. They stay living on the streets

B. They are forced to get clean and move on with their lives.

Which do you choose A or B?

I am amazed I even have to ask the question.

I would prefer not to be forced by anyone or the state into anything. Forcing a person or an individual into something is authoritarian and naturally I am against that. You on the other hand have no issue in locking people up indefinitely until they reform into your image. And then you are amazed that this is even questioned?

seamus

icecold1066 wrote: »

To wean them off alcohol and drugs they should be held against their will and forced to undergo rehabilitation.

Which is better - they get clean or they stay on the streets?

What's the problem here?

Do you have any proof that forced rehabilitation actually works?

Substance addiction is more psychological than physical, so simply removing the substance and talking about it rarely works. The person needs to want to end their dependency on it and understand how to stay off it. Otherwise it's pretty likely that they'll be straight back on it. How many hollywood celebrities spend their lives in and out of rehab clinics for the same problems? And they apparently choose to go in. What makes you think forcing someone in will have any effect whatsoever?

Did you know that Alcoholics Anonymous does not appear to be any better at keeping people off alcohol than going cold turkey on your own? What that says is that the strength to beat addiction is 100% down to the individual, and cannot be "given" to you by others, forcefully or otherwise.

The reason so many with addictions live on the street is because shelters do not permit drugs or alcohol. So too would it be for your concentration camps. Those with substance abuse problems would simply make a better effort of hiding themselves on the streets and once "clean" and released, will go back to getting smashed.
Rather than actually help those with addiction, you've just criminalised them and forced them into hiding.

Brown Bomber

Harold Weiss wrote: »

I was inspired by the LGBT thread...homeless / starving people...Remember people, priorities first.

I think the point of this thread has gone over people's heads.

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think the point of this thread has gone over people's heads.

I think your assumption that this thread had a useful point could do with re-evaluation.

Brown Bomber

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think your assumption that this thread had a useful point could do with re-evaluation.

I don't understand what you mean.

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't understand what you mean.

What do you believe to be the point of the thread?

Brown Bomber

oscarBravo wrote: »

What do you believe to be the point of the thread?

That LGBT rights should be a lesser concern to people than starving children and the needs of homeless people.

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That LGBT rights should be a lesser concern to people than starving children and the needs of homeless people.

That's my interpretation also. Given that (a) there's no requirement that we serialise the world's problems for sequential solving, and (b) this isn't a civil rights issue so much as a public and social policy issue, I think it's fair to say that the thread has no useful point.

Now, if someone wanted to discuss the very real problems of homelessness and child poverty, but as a separate issue to the completely orthogonal one of full rights for LGBT people, it's somewhat more likely that a useful discussion might ensue.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

comongethappy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Which is to say: Never.

Zubeneschamali

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That LGBT rights should be a lesser concern to people than starving children and the needs of homeless people.

Helping homeless and starving people is important, but it is also difficult, needing the commitment of money and resources, co-ordination of services and lots of other long term work.

Granting full rights to gays is less urgent, but it is also really simple: stop discriminating, job done. Since it is so simple, there's no reason to delay it while we solve starvation, homelessness, world peace etc.

OldNotWIse

icecold1066 wrote: »

Typical PC argument. Spare me.

How is it PC? Poster has experience working with homeless people which I am assuming you do not, and expressed how he/she would feel if they were treated the way you suggested. I dont see any PC argument there.

We are not as distanced from the risk of homelessness as we like to think we are.

OldNotWIse

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That LGBT rights should be a lesser concern to people than starving children and the needs of homeless people.

Those rights are not mutually exclusive.

K-9

OldNotWIse wrote: »

How is it PC? Poster has experience working with homeless people which I am assuming you do not, and expressed how he/she would feel if they were treated the way you suggested. I dont see any PC argument there.

We are not as distanced from the risk of homelessness as we like to think we are.

Tbh I don't see how locking up those with addictions is in anyway pc. Nanny state yes, but some people have very strange ideas about what pc means!

seamus nailed it earlier on in the thread, it would be a pointless exercise anyway and probably do more harm than good.

conorh91

corner of hells wrote: »

I work in homeless services , I wouldn't like to see homeless people treated this way.
Their lives are difficult enough without being forced to do what you suggest.

Homeless services seem woefully unsuccessful at housing people. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that they are well-meaning but not sufficiently competent in addressing the myriad of problems that the homeless present with.

That's as much the state's fault as it is homeless services. But the bottom line is that given their apparent success rate, I'm not sure this is a policy question that homeless charities are qualified to speak on.

Interesting paper on this topic here by the late Eamon Leahy SC

http://www.lawlibrary.ie/docs/Crime_and_Punishment_Rehabilitation_or_Retribution_by_Eamon_/146.htm

I advance the concept of a limited form of civil detention as being a component of an anti drug strategy to illustrate the potential for non criminal law remedies to play a part in society’s response to crime. Social initiatives to promote education, foster employment and tackle social deprivation must be to the fore in addressing the ills of society – criminal solutions are expensive and ineffective substitutes for early intervention and the provision of genuine social opportunity.

The ultimate purpose of the criminal law – the prevention of crime - is often best achieved by non criminal initiatives. In this country we can point to the success of the civil remedies introduced by the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 in tackling crime. In 1996, in a decidedly un-cricket like manoeuvre, this State decided that the proceeds of crime could be frozen and ultimately confiscated in civil proceedings. Overnight the traditional rules changed – but not to the detriment of society.

The need for assessment and innovation in our thinking on crime is ever present. It exists in relation to the concept of crime. It exists in relation to the objects of our criminal justice policy. It also exists in relation to the operation of our criminal justice system.

RDM_83 again

jank wrote: »

I would prefer not to be forced by anyone or the state into anything. Forcing a person or an individual into something is authoritarian and naturally I am against that. You on the other hand have no issue in locking people up indefinitely until they reform into your image. And then you are amazed that this is even questioned?

I'm sure a hefty chunk of the 'problem' homeless would be in some part of the justice system if there was a more rigorous application of our existing laws (anybody thats lived in central Dublin for any length of time will have seen Garda walk by things a "normal" citizen would be arrested for).
If the choice is between enforced programs or incarceration, does the authoritarian argument still apply, after all it would simply be applying the same authoritarian structures we all live under?

People will talk glowingly of harm reduction programs such as those in place in Switzerland, they ignore the fact that at least initially these programs involve measures that are authoritarian in particular the forced relocation of addicts. It wasn't all carrot, there was a stick involved too!

seamus wrote: »

Those with substance abuse problems would simply make a better effort of hiding themselves on the streets and once "clean" and released, will go back to getting smashed.
Rather than actually help those with addiction, you've just criminalised them and forced them into hiding.

Ignoring the moral issues surrounding this, wouldn't this result be broadly positive for the wider population?

Personally I'd be in favour of many more "wet" hostels and massively increased drug rehab spaces, at least in that situation, intervention and harm reduction measures are available if desired. The issue being that they do have a serious negative impact on the areas they are located, this going of the two wet hostel llocations I know of (one outside Dublin AFAIK there is actually only the one in Dublin?). I'm not really sure what the solution to that issue is though.

I'm curious if there has ever been a study done of the economic cost of letting someone drink themselves to death in the streets, which unfortunately seems be the system we operate at the minute, its certainly not a zero cost having seen the amount of times ambulances are called and having had the joyous experience of a late night Dublin A&E .

corner of hells

conorh91 wrote: »

Homeless services seem woefully unsuccessful at housing people. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that they are well-meaning but not sufficiently competent in addressing the myriad of problems that the homeless present with.

That's as much the state's fault as it is homeless services. But the bottom line is that given their apparent success rate, I'm not sure this is a policy question that homeless charities are qualified to speak on.

Interesting paper on this topic here by the late Eamon Leahy SC

http://www.lawlibrary.ie/docs/Crime_and_Punishment_Rehabilitation_or_Retribution_by_Eamon_/146.htm

Defining homelessness with regard to Ireland situation might be worth looking at , at the moment in Ireland there are about 4000 people registered as homeless and of those
there are 150 roughsleepers.

With 90000 people on social housing lists would it not be fair to suggest addressing the issue of social housing first and then look at homelessness rather than suggesting that homeless services are incompetent.

Taking 150 or so rough sleepers , let alone the 4000 thousand registered as homeless , off the streets and detaining them till they reach what conforms as societies standards is hardly going to resolve the issue of homelessness , when housing doesn't actually exist.

The criteria to be regarded as being homeless in the state is broad and covers individuals sleeping rough , couch surfing , staying homeless hostels , refuges , b & bs and squats.

With regard to a homelessness how do you measure competency and success ? Obviously its ultimately getting someone into a home of their own , but if the homes don't exist whether through lack of social housing or unavailability of rental properties its hardly the fault of the charities working in the field of homeless.

Its worth looking at why people become homeless with housing and financial issues , addictions , mental ill health , domestic violence , release from hospitals and prison and young people moving on from children's services all contributing.Quite complex and challenging.Who do you prioritise ?should a young person moving from children's care get a bed before a victim of domestic violence or should we house a mentally ill person first.



Most groups working with homelessness have staff with a wide variety of skills varying from counselling both generic and addiction , settlement , mental health, education etc all encompassed in social care setting with very structured approaches not slipshod or haphazard.

conorh91

corner of hells wrote: »

With 90000 people on social housing lists would it not be fair to suggest addressing the issue of social housing first and then look at homelessness rather than suggesting that homeless services are incompetent.

No, because that implies a belief that putting homeless people who are drug addicts and those with psychiatric issues, including addictions, on a housing list, is going to mend their ways.

No mature adult in Ireland could hold that belief.

The problem, in terms of addicts and those with psychiatric disorders, isn't simply one of having no roof over their head.

Furthermore, when I say that the homeless service providers have no competence, I am not saying that they are incompetent in general.

But they don't necessarily have competence in devising policy on dealing with addicts, merely because they dish out food or even engage in counseling.

So when someone says "listen to me, because I feed the homeless", personally my eyes start to glaze over.

Taking 150 or so rough sleepers , let alone the 4000 thousand registered as homeless , off the streets and detaining them till they reach what conforms as societies standards is hardly going to resolve the issue of homelessness , when housing doesn't actually exist.

This is one of the most infuriating things that defenders of ineffective homelessness charities come out with.

"…what conforms to society's standards"

Er, yes. Because as a society we have a right to lay down public values, especially where a person is not in a position to make rational choices, e.g. drug addicts, the mentally unstable, children, incompetent parents, and so on.

Involuntary admission of individuals into the care of the State is nothing new. I don't see any rational reason why it shouldn't be extended to addicts, but I'm sure some good reasons do exist.

corner of hells

conorh91 wrote: »

No, because that implies a belief that putting homeless people who are drug addicts and those with psychiatric issues, including addictions, on a housing list, is going to mend their ways.

No mature adult in Ireland could hold that belief.

The problem, in terms of addicts and those with psychiatric disorders, isn't simply one of having no roof over their head.

Furthermore, when I say that the homeless service providers have no competence, I am not saying that they are incompetent in general.

But they don't necessarily have competence in devising policy on dealing with addicts, merely because they dish out food or even engage in counseling.

So when someone says "listen to me, because I feed the homeless", personally my eyes start to glaze over.

This is one of the most infuriating things that defenders of ineffective homelessness charities come out with.

"…what conforms to society's standards"

Er, yes. Because as a society we have a right to lay down public values, especially where a person is not in a position to make rational choices, e.g. drug addicts, the mentally unstable, children, incompetent parents, and so on.

Involuntary admission of individuals into the care of the State is nothing new. I don't see any rational reason why it shouldn't be extended to addicts, but I'm sure some good reasons do exist.

Good luck.

Zubeneschamali

conorh91 wrote: »

Involuntary admission of individuals into the care of the State is nothing new. I don't see any rational reason why it shouldn't be extended to addicts, but I'm sure some good reasons do exist.

Putting thousands more addicts into some sort of prison would be colossally expensive. Our existing prison population is only 4000, and many of them are only there because of drugs-related crime.

I'd just allow registered addicts to get heroin on prescription, and do away with drugs-related crime altogether.

OldNotWIse

conorh91 wrote: »

No, because that implies a belief that putting homeless people who are drug addicts and those with psychiatric issues, including addictions, on a housing list, is going to mend their ways.

No mature adult in Ireland could hold that belief.

The problem, in terms of addicts and those with psychiatric disorders, isn't simply one of having no roof over their head.

Furthermore, when I say that the homeless service providers have no competence, I am not saying that they are incompetent in general.

But they don't necessarily have competence in devising policy on dealing with addicts, merely because they dish out food or even engage in counseling.

So when someone says "listen to me, because I feed the homeless", personally my eyes start to glaze over.

This is one of the most infuriating things that defenders of ineffective homelessness charities come out with.

"…what conforms to society's standards"

Er, yes. Because as a society we have a right to lay down public values, especially where a person is not in a position to make rational choices, e.g. drug addicts, the mentally unstable, children, incompetent parents, and so on.

Involuntary admission of individuals into the care of the State is nothing new. I don't see any rational reason why it shouldn't be extended to addicts, but I'm sure some good reasons do exist.

Well at least you got that much right. You can't deprive someone of their right to liberty and incarcerate them just because they are an addict. You might think you have glossed over the issue by saying things like "a right to lay down public values" but your claim is quite glaring.

seamus

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Ignoring the moral issues surrounding this, wouldn't this result be broadly positive for the wider population?

I don't see how. It would result in increased pressure on social services and increased costs in policing, more pointless cases in the courts, etc etc. And for nothing, it won't result in less homelessness, if anything it will create a greater level of long-term homelessness because on top of an addiction problem, you've now given them a criminal record and taught them to be evasive of the authorities.

There's also the issue that while visually displeasing, homeless people out on the streets don't present any kind of great public danger. They're sometimes verbally abusive, but rarely involved in crimes against the individual.
If they're criminalised and forced into hiding, they will likely become far more paranoid and hostile and therefore a greater danger to the public at large, not to mention involved in greater levels of petty crime because they'll be less likely to reach out to public services for food and other assistance.

conorh91

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Putting thousands more addicts into some sort of prison would be colossally expensive. Our existing prison population is only 4000, and many of them are only there because of drugs-related crime.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

A lot of the prison population are addicted to heroin, alcohol, or other drugs. Almost half of the heroin users operating in our society were introduced to heroin in the prison system.

My point is that it may be a lot cheaper in the long term, and almost certainly more sensible, to tackle to prisoners' underlying problems through a process of civil detention.

In other words, instead of putting them in prison and sending them to home economics, or woodwork, classes, why don't we take them away and force them to engage with psychiatric and addiction counseling services to find what what the hell is really wrong with them, and wy are they behaving the way they are.

They have no business being left to themselves, or imposing themselves on innocent victims, when they are under the control of their addictions.

It's Prison 2.0.

I'd just allow registered addicts to get heroin on prescription, and do away with drugs-related crime altogether.

And here's an even crazier idea, we could call it "methadone" and it will be a miracle!

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Well at least you got that much right. You can't deprive someone of their right to liberty and incarcerate them just because they are an addict.

Why not?

Addiction is a physical and psychiatric illness, just like harmful and socially destructive forms of psychotic disease.

"You just can't" is not a compelling argument.

Zubeneschamali

conorh91 wrote: »

You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

A lot of the prison population are addicted to heroin, alcohol, or other drugs. Almost half of the heroin users operating in our society were introduced to heroin in the prison system.

No contradiction: heroin is illegal, so like alcohol during Prohibition in America, it is criminal to buy it, and it is sold by criminals. That's a whole class of criminal activity we could eliminate at the stroke of a pen by legalising heroin.

Plus, illegal heroin is often dearer than prescription heroin would be, so the addicts may have to steal to get it, increasing crime still more.

conorh91

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No contradiction: heroin is illegal, so like alcohol during Prohibition in America, it is criminal to buy it, and it is sold by criminals. That's a whole class of criminal activity we could eliminate at the stroke of a pen by legalising heroin.

Plus, illegal heroin is often dearer than prescription heroin would be, so the addicts may have to steal to get it, increasing crime still more.

What you are suggesting here is tackling crime rates by magically turning crimes into non-crimes.

That's just a statistical manipulation of the problem. Which is fine, but it doesn't effect real reform, which I assume is what most of us seek.

It's like eradicating the heroin problem by calling heroin "methadone".

I would rather get to a stage where we get better at helping people shake off their addictions. And if they are impossible to shake off, by all means, then condemn them to a life of dependence on the State and on methadone.

oscarBravo

conorh91 wrote: »

Addiction is a physical and psychiatric illness...

...and, as we all know, the hallmark of an enlightened society is the imprisonment of people with physical and psychological illnesses.

conorh91

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and, as we all know, the hallmark of an enlightened society is the imprisonment of people with physical and psychological illnesses.

I said detention.

And sometimes it is, yes.

I assume you don't object to involuntary admission to mental health institutions?

oscarBravo

conorh91 wrote: »

I assume you don't object to involuntary admission to mental health institutions?

I don't object to prison, either - but that doesn't mean I agree with internment.