Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
The homeless problem in SF, and across the West Coast generally, is indeed getting much worse. And that's despite record numbers of overdose deaths that are an epidemic in that population.
The issue is also more front and center, as homeless people are now setting up semi-permanent camps in many streets. Historically, many cities would literally clean up the streets every morning with street sweepers, moving the problems to other areas. Parks would have enforced no loitering laws and curfews.
I'm not sure what the right answer. Those laws were totally draconian and a violation of all sorts of human rights. However, they also prevented the large scale congregation of people, which can act as a culture to draw more people in.
BC, starting January 31, 2023, will be decriminalizing personal amounts of most hard drugs. it'll be interesting to see what the effect of that is.
|
I don't support just sweeping people off the streets to get them out of the way, but I also think the strict adherence to the sanctity of human rights in situations where people are suffering from addiction actually borders on cruelty. People are quite visibly suffering and dying on the streets every day. What is the value in protecting a person's right to free choice when addiction has already made them unable to choose freely? Is it really more ethical to stand by and watch people spiral into suffering and death to protect an idea of their rights rather than getting involved to try and save their actual life? It's a health issue that a person is very unlikely to solve without direct intervention. It's one of the places where a paternalistic state is more ethical.