Hacker News Reader

Comment by esperent | Hacker News Reader

Here's my answer to the "but they'll spend it on drugs" point:

Well, the life of a person whose addiction (always stemming from spirals or depression, abuse, physical or mental illness) has driven them to homelessness is horrible. Why shouldn't I give them the means to a brief escape from the pain?

Yes, of course, escape from addiction and rehabilitation is the goal. But denying them temporary relief of the only kind they, in their addiction, are currently capable of, is just more cruelty. And nothing will drive them deeper into it than being ignored by everyone who walks past.

Of course, if you have time and means, volunteer, donate to a homeless shelter or charity. But if you, like most people, are not going to do that, and you just get the occasional pang of conscience when walking by, then by all means, give!

View on HN

>Well, the life of a person whose addiction (always stemming from spirals or depression, abuse, physical or mental illness) has driven them to homelessness is horrible. Why shouldn't I give them the means to a brief escape from the pain?

What a terrible line of reasoning. Enabling is also a component of how people remain addicts. There is such a thing as misdirected empathy.

Enablers refer to friends or family who continuously provide for their addictions.

You, a stranger, giving money one time do not swing the pendulum. They will do drugs with or without your five dollars, because you as a person have zero influence in their life. If you died right now, not only will the homeless not care, but they also wouldn't even notice. You're not, and can't be, an enabler.

Best case scenario your five bucks prevents them from stealing something.

If you make it a policy to give money to addicted strangers because they're addicts then you're taking part in a crowdfunded effort to enable their addition. Saying that it's not enabling because you don't know them personally is special pleading. There's no reason to accept that exception to the definition.

Since you have no personal influence over them, they will do the drugs regardless. I could easily argue by not giving them money you're actually enabling stealing or even murder. Certainly, a large part of why the homeless don't commit as many crimes as you'd expect is because they're able to self-medicate somewhat effectively. If you take that away, they're already in extremely desperate circumstances.

The issue is more complex than you give it credit. If everyone followed your solution it would backfire catastrophically.

Oh, never mind my other comment. It doesn't merely sound like you're blaming thefts and murders on people who don't give out free money, that is in fact what you're doing.

Sorry, but I have no pity to spare for criminals, certainly not murderers. People who will take what they can't get by other means are not fit to live in society.

This is harsh, I'm merely using your own logic and definition of "enabling". If you don't think that's fair, then you must agree with me - you're not enabling anything by giving them money.

> People who will take what they can't get by other means are not fit to live in society

How revolutionary, did you come up with that all by yourself? We are looking for solutions. "They're bad people" isn't a solution. You CAN systemically discourage theft and other crimes. However, you don't do that by simply demonizing those people. If anything, that actually causes MORE crime because you put already impoverished people into even more dire circumstances. This is why "tough on crime" simply doesn't work.

>This is harsh, I'm merely using your own logic and definition of "enabling". If you don't think that's fair, then you must agree with me - you're not enabling anything by giving them money.

I don't think it's not fair, I think it's a non sequitur. If I give money to someone who I know will use the money to buy drugs, I'm enabling them, because I know that they will buy drugs. If I don't give them money I'm not indirectly responsible for crimes they commit to get money, because I don't know if they will commit crimes. It's not a given, it's a decision they make.

If we go by your logic then crime is not punishable, because no one is responsible for their decisions; we're all just flesh automata animated by neurotransmitters. I am no more responsible for the decisions I make than a drug addict on withdrawal, a starving man, a horny rapist, or a bloodthirsty psychopath. All of us are equally enslaved to the physics of our brains.

>"They're bad people" isn't a solution.

Did I say they're bad people, or did I say they're not fit to live in society? Did I exclude the possibility of reformation? Hm...

> because I don't know if they will commit crimes. It's not a given, it's a decision they make

This ALSO applies to drugs.

You don't know if they'll use drugs, you just assume. And it's a fair assumption.

Symmetrically, you can't claim you don't know they'll turn to crime to fuel their addiction. It should be a fairly straight forward conclusion.

It's a matter of cause and effect. Your own personal moral code is irrelevant. We know, whether we want it to be this way or not, that it's extremely difficult for drug addicts to stop using, particularly those with zero resources like the homeless. It's just the reality, and we have to live and operate within that framework. Because any other framework is make believe.

> because no one is responsible for their decisions; we're all just flesh automata animated by neurotransmitters

I'm not claiming this, you're doing the typical thing where you take my argument to the furthest extreme and then claim that is actually my argument, so it's easier to disprove.

The truth is choice is tricky. It's not binary, it's continuous. There's infinite levels of influence we have in each and every aspect of our lives, even the smallest ones. I can choose to, for example, not brush my teeth this morning. Would it be easier, or harder, to choose to not do heroin, provided I'm an addict? You know the answer.

My main argument is that you're not an enabler by giving them money because ultimately your influence is minimal. You're also not an enabler by NOT giving them money. Their "choice" (loose) to use drugs is due to societal, biological, and economic factors, which you cannot control. If you simply do not provide them money, even if everyone did this, you would not rid the world of drug addiction. In addition, you have to understand there's a reason these people do drugs. They live very hard lives. It's pretty easy for us in comparison. I can't blame them for craving an escape from the reality they live in. It's hard to look to the future you can build when you have no present.

>You don't know if they'll use drugs, you just assume.

It was an assumption posed by then original commenter. "IF I know they'll use the money on drugs, THEN all the more reason to give it to them." That they'll commit crimes if they can't get the money is an additional assumption that needs to be justified.

>you're doing the typical thing where you take my argument to the furthest extreme and then claim that is actually my argument

No, what I'm doing is taking your argument and following it to its necessary implications. You say "X", I say "X implies Y, do you also hold Y?" Well, do you? If I'm causing a crime to happen by not giving money to a drug addict, because he is not in control of his actions, then it follows that no crime has a perpetrator, because no one is truly in control of their actions. Crime is merely a consequence of a complex system that has interactions beyond anyone's control. Therefore it's wrong to punish criminals beyond merely preventing them from doing crime, because ultimately they have no more control over it than a rock following its trajectory after it's been thrown. They've just been unlucky enough to be born into the life path of a criminal, instead of that of a law-abiding citizen.

So, is that what you think? Maybe you do, I don't know. Most people seem to feel uncomfortable thinking about themselves and other people in these terms.

I used to think that way, but I've recently gone though a series of personal experiences that led me learning a lot more about mental health,and tangentially, addiction, which encompasses a lot more than just drugs.

The book which shaped my thinking the most was In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts by the Canadian physician Gabor Maté, who spent years working as the house doctor in housing for addicts. It's a hard book to read, one of the most difficult books I've ever gone through. But if you genuinely think that giving an addict temporary access to their addictive substance is enabling them, I suggest you read it and challenge that perception.

Also, one important thing you will note reading this book is that even the people actively working with addicts will often help them by directly giving them drugs (especially methadone) or even money for drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes. Because often, that is a step on the path to recovery, or at least, the path to getting though just one more day.

Yes! I have never struggled with drug addition, but I have had personal experiences that showed me how sometimes in life "getting through today" takes a higher priority then "fixing the underlying problems". Looking back at my life, several unexpected highlights came from the kindness of random strangers who helped me out when I did not deserve it.

Giving a homeless person $5 will not fix any of their underlying issues, but it might be the thing that gets them through the day.

> Why shouldn't I give them the means to a brief escape from the pain?

Because they'll leave their Hep-C infected needle on the sidewalk when they're done with it?

The argument is this will be done regardless of if you give them money.

Therefore don't give them money. Both courses of action lead to effects contrary to your interests, but in one of them you get to keep the money.

Not necessarily, the implication is that if you don't give them money they may obtain money through nefarious means. Certainly, if you or I were pushed to homelessness and addicted to hard drugs stealing wouldn't be off the table.

>the implication is that if you don't give them money they may obtain money through nefarious means.

It sounds like you're saying that the fault of thefts is on the people who don't give money to panhandling addicts.

>Certainly, if you or I were pushed to homelessness and addicted to hard drugs stealing wouldn't be off the table.

"If you were different to the way you are, you would do things you wouldn't otherwise do" is a rather inane thing to say, don't you think? You don't need to argue for the fact that people steal; that's obvious.

that's not the argument I responded to. They asked "why shouldn't I (let them do the thing)". If they were going to do it regardless, there would be no need for them to ask for money.

On the one hand you can enable the addiction that likely caused this person to be homeless. On the other you could donate to a homeless non-profit that could actually help them. I wonder which would be more beneficial?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com