Quote:
Originally Posted by stone hands
So we are on the same page, youre saying they once had a home pre addiction, got addicted to drugs and lost their home, so that's proof they dont need housing before addressing addiction? That's my understanding of your point anyways, please feel free to ecludiate me if I'm misinterpreting you
Can you answer the question in the original post that you quoted, ie how much harder would it be to get sober while homeless vs having a place to live
I dont get what's so hard to understand about the fact that trying to get clean when you live underneath a bridge by the river is exponentially harder than trying to get sober with a predictable living situation. If our goal is to get people clean,we need to give them a place to live as a baseline before anything else because that lifestyle naturally leads itself towards maintaining the drug addict status quo. If you have nothing to live for, no place to stay, why WOULDNT you just do drugs to numb yourself from your awful existence
|
Support from family is a major issue too.
I know of a few lawyers who've had major addiction issues. They all ended up broke. They had a career that provided them with counselling and various other programs. They also had family, that if it came down to it, would pay their rent.
Many of the people on the streets come from abusive and/or poor homes. It's also a totally different scenario, if you're, for example, a labourer who misses a few shifts or shows up intoxicated to work. In that scenario, they just boot you out the door.
To comment on your post, just giving addicts a place to live without other support measures in place comes with its own set of problems. Many addicts have severe sanitary, health, and behavioral issues. Just cramming a bunch of people into public housing can result in serious acts of violence, unsanitary conditions, people being preyed upon, etc...So just building housing in small towns that nobody else wants to live in is probably not a viable solution.