Comment by NeedMoreTea | Hacker News Reader

Comment by NeedMoreTea | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You also have to question why they're addicted.

If I flee from my abusive parent, end up on the streets, with nothing to do and no hope and eventually turn to drink to blot out the deep untreated depression, should I be housed or vilified?

"so she probably doesn't want to work or get better"

Wow. Or doesn't know how whilst sunk in depression, or without losing the demons of 20 years of abuse or PTSD. Just as seen with ex services people who fight PTSD for years.

The trouble with "common sense" restrictions and limits is people often don't magically fix from depression, addiction, PTSD in neat allotted time windows. I would far rather have the world return to the British System (1900-1960s drug policy: "treat, discourage, but prescribe". Prior to the adoption of a US style war on drugs around 1970 we effectively had no drug problem. No policeman believed there was a link between drugs and crime.).

You may not be aware of this but many people in gainful employment are drinking or taking drugs, and addicted. Should they be thrown out of their mortgaged properties?

I contend it's cheaper and better for society to offer solutions unconditionally. Offer help for addiction, rough sleeping, PTSD, depression. Less crime, less violence, fewer police needed, fewer health emergencies etc.

I think you may not have read my comment properly.

I said I support the fact that people should get housing if they need it.

However what I said was that they should help them get off the drugs, help them with their depression and help them get better and do some training so that they can actually get out of the state housing and move into their own place once they have saved enough money.

The problem I have is that in the article, the lady is an alcoholic, she does not want to get better. She says it herself, she is happy to go to her room and get hammered. Does that sound like somebody who is trying to turn their life around?

So yes I stand by what I said in my previous comment, if addicts get free housing, in exchange they should at least try to get clean. They should at least try to get some kind of job, training, whatever. Because doing something is always better than not. And it certainly is better than getting drunk every day.

If they are not willing to do that even though they, as the article said, have access to staff and carers that can help them, then yes, in this case, I do believe that priority should be given to single mom and kids, or teenagers.

As for this: `You may not be aware of this but many people in gainful employment are drinking or taking drugs, and addicted. Should they be thrown out of their mortgaged properties?`

What does that have to do with anything??? Did I say that anywhere in my comment?

`I contend it's cheaper and better for society to offer solutions unconditionally. Offer help for addiction, rough sleeping, PTSD, depression.`

That's exactly what I said with one small caveat, which is that given the fact that housing is a finite resource, if somebody is living in a free room/apartment and do not want to even try to change/get clean, then this room should be given to somebody who actually wants to get out of this awful situation.

Otherwise, you end up with a lot of people using up a lot of resources when those resources could be spent on people who actually want to turn around their life and get better.

To me, that doesn't sound fair that the first group gets housing and not the second.

It should not be conditional though. Both the single mum and the ageing alcoholic should get provision, not either/or.

Provide everyone with a room, it need not be luxurious, just basic enough to allow needs to be met. To be clean, warm and dry. Realistically a 64 year old isn't going to get much chance of a job. A couple of sentences in the article give no insight into the background. Who knows the history or cause of that addiction. Though I still feel it irrelevant to housing, while very relevant to a working treatment. No amount of "turning around" is going to see her getting housed without some level of outside assistance, just a year or two before retirement.

What's the alternative, leave her to age and die, and probably suffer worse health outcomes, with more cost to the state, on the streets?

I briefly alluded to the British System[1], it was once globally famous. Addicts were offered treatment, but prescribed free heroin or whatever. They could be an addict and hold down a job, perhaps support a family. There was literally no need to push drugs, or commit crime to support a habit - that came after their outlawing.

To imagine it in combination with this housing first policy, I would expect it to see everyone housed. Then everyone offered help (counselling for abuse or PTSD, addiction treatment, AA, anti-depressants, mental conditions or whatever's needed and just as would be offered to the population at large). Then allow them to choose, with encouragement rather than compulsion to take up those treatments.

I made the comment about people in gainful employment being addicted as you seemed, and still seem, to be suggesting that the housing be conditional. Which is then not housing first, but housing maybe if deserving enough.

Housing is indeed finite, but it's not so rare or expensive that Helsinki (or London, or NYC etc) can't provide enough single apartments to ensure that sleeping on a park bench or in a tent under a bridge is a memory of an unimaginable former time. Like child labour, workhouses, corn laws or rickets. There aren't so many homeless that it's remote and unachievable, or unaffordable. Then we can try and help resolve some of the issues that might have landed them homeless in the first place.

With that all said, either variation would be a huge step forward from ignoring the problem. :)

[1] https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/yw4nnk/when-boots-prescri...

>I contend it's cheaper and better for society to offer solutions unconditionally.

>That's exactly what I said with one small caveat

unconditionally means no caveats....

Reply on news.ycombinator.com