getting a little tired of the crack/meth heads

[blankall]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

blank-GPT most of the physical universe operates on a reward system. Probably why they are addicted to life disabling drugs.

Most people go to school; contribute to society; work hard for rewards which a primary driving force. Those channels create a society.

One of my thoughts was using the money to enforce or push people off the train could be used to help a demographic that wanted a way out. That would be my focus.

However, your suggestion of mandatory stays in drug facilities and how they do it in Portugal is a great addition to a solution. Especially, when some people are saying that criminality and criminal offence isn't the solution or locking people up.

It's the answer, especially those that know and need that hand that are so far gone.

The problem is that drug addiction really changes the way your reward system works. That's the nature of addiction. You forget about things like housing, family, professional accomplishments, and the only reward becomes drugs. In order break that addiction cycle, you have to be careful not to enable drug use. Basically, to be successful there's some element of doing what's best for people, even if it's not what they want.

[calgarywinning]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I'll tell you what's "Mad Max"- letting civilians get stabbed on public transportation or harassed by vagrants. That's what's "Mad Max".

The bolded part is the key part of the solution that we aren't doing. Do this, and watch things get better.

Again- Portugal model. That's basically what they did (somewhat differentiated in that they "de-criminalized" such acts), but ultimately the end result is quasi-similar and a step change improvement to the present. Detention, detox- then treatment. Not what we do, which is (short) detention, release, no detox, and rinse repeat.

Like, no, force treatment- AFTER detox... if this means they are in a prison or a house or a whatever the ####- that part is less important to me than the detox and treatment part, but still part of the solution. You have to have some kind of detention system. People on these drugs are not thinking rationally. You're not even talking to the person themself that is addicted to the substance, you're basically just talking to the substance / addiction. Have you ever talked to addicts? That's what it's like. Then when they sober up, whaddya know, rational minds emerge.

100% in agreement. Great post!

[Doctorfever]

I have to wonder what is causing people to go down the path that leads to drug addiction. Stresses of day to day living? Maybe go to get highland get trapped into harder drugs? I really don’t know, but I think quite a few of them are or were close to poverty.

How about instead of increasing taxes to pay for different programs or facilities we try decreasing taxes. If we were to decease taxes for the lowest income earners maybe they could try and stay off the streets, afford housing, and contribute to society.

We seem to have gotten so caught up in how to try and increase taxes to help people with homelessness, maybe we can decrease taxes for them and let them help themselves. Probably an unpopular opinion, and it would definitely be a tactic that would not yield instant results by any means, but I think it could help in the long run.

So we lose out on some tax dollars from the lowest earners, society would benefit more from less stress on courts / police. We would be further ahead having more people working, contributing to society even if it didn’t yield a lot of tax revenue rather than being a burden on the system, costing more tax dollars.

If we see homelessness decreased, hopefully drug addiction would decrease as well. Just a thought.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I have to wonder what is causing people to go down the path that leads to drug addiction. Stresses of day to day living? Maybe go to get highland get trapped into harder drugs? I really don’t know, but I think quite a few of them are or were close to poverty.

How about instead of increasing taxes to pay for different programs or facilities we try decreasing taxes. If we were to decease taxes for the lowest income earners maybe they could try and stay off the streets, afford housing, and contribute to society.

We seem to have gotten so caught up in how to try and increase taxes to help people with homelessness, maybe we can decrease taxes for them and let them help themselves. Probably an unpopular opinion, and it would definitely be a tactic that would not yield instant results by any means, but I think it could help in the long run.

So we lose out on some tax dollars from the lowest earners, society would benefit more from less stress on courts / police. We would be further ahead having more people working, contributing to society even if it didn’t yield a lot of tax revenue rather than being a burden on the system, costing more tax dollars.

If we see homelessness decreased, hopefully drug addiction would decrease as well. Just a thought.

They already have the lowest taxes. Some of them pay no taxes. You are literally describing the progressive taxation system we have right now.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

They already have the lowest taxes. Some of them pay no taxes. You are literally describing the progressive taxation system we have right now.

Increase the the amount you can earn tax free.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Increase the the amount you can earn tax free.

That’s just a tax break for everyone currently working. How does you paying less while comfortably in a home you own help an unhoused person without a job?

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Russic

This thread is an interesting example of (what I see as) the main problem. In order to solve this issue, people with severe problems need to be seen as legitimate people first. We don't do that though. This thread has floated the ideas like shipping them out and letting them Mad Max it alongside the citizens of Airdrie, or indefinitely incarcerating them. Hell, the word "people" was put in quotation marks.

Have to put yourself in their shoes. I'm fortunate to have never been sucked into such activities, nor been prone to addiction. But if I happened to be and it spiralled out of control, I would hope that the people in my life wouldn't cease to think of me as a person, friend, family member with a past and with hopes and dreams.

People who are addicted are stuck in a haze and need help & support. Like you say, their reward system has been hijacked and the quickest route to relief is through the substance. Not through constructive or (largely) innocent means like the rest of us. But they're still as human as you or I beneath that shroud.

We need to stop abandoning people or writing them off because they fell into a dark/difficult place, and essentially petitioning for them to get out of our way just so it doesn't inconvenience us or infringe on our lifestyle (with the exception of real dangerous situations), like they're clutter that we don't want to look at. It's a perspective that's devoid of humanity and we really need to reflect on that. That me & mine attitude is full of neuroticism and defensiveness and it's about building barriers instead of connecting, and it's low-vibe. People who live this way need to get outside of themselves and see the bigger picture and realize it's not all about them.

Everybody here is here for a reason. That includes the people who fall on hard times. We all do. Treat people how you'd wish to be treated if you fell into the same troubles.

We're nothing if we leave behind our humanity. We defeat the point of contributing to society with our talent, work and entrepreneurship, if we no longer even recognize nor try to protect our own kind.

Helping one another is ultimately the point. It isn't putting cars in your driveway and buying a plot of land. That's a checkpoint on the way to realizing the greater point, which is contributing to something greater than yourself.

Too bad many people will treat others coldly and refuse to give people in need the time of day until they get all their stuff, realize it isn't all that, and figure out that the point was just being a better, kinder, and more giving person all along.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That’s just a tax break for everyone currently working. How does you paying less while comfortably in a home you own help an unhoused person without a job?

Structure it in a way that only the low income earners get the tax break, and the mid to higher income earners taxes stay the same as they are now. Surely that can’t be too difficult to figure out

[jammies]

Do you think that homeless people are paying taxes now? Or that low income people think that living on the street is a solution to their tax problems?

Or is this just a ridiculous libertarian fantasy where every situation could be solved by just getting the government out of the way?

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

[SutterBrother]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Have to put yourself in their shoes. I'm fortunate to have never been sucked into such activities, nor been prone to addiction.

We need to stop abandoning people or writing them off because they fell into a dark/difficult place, and essentially petitioning for them to get out of our way just so it doesn't inconvenience us or infringe on our lifestyle (with the exception of real dangerous situations), like they're clutter that we don't want to look at.

Too bad many people will treat others coldly and refuse to give people in need the time of day until they get all their stuff, realize it isn't all that, and figure out that the point was just being a better, kinder, and more giving person all along.

Inconvenience us? Dude, transit is unusable downtown. That’s not infringing “lifestyle”.

The attitude that addicts are pure victims is problematic. They chose to use drugs. The dudes who partied in high school were super cool right up until they weren’t. That isn’t everyone… but its a lot.

If you can’t act rationally you need to be put away to keep the rest of us safe. There are mental health and recovery experts for that… but honestly most of the homeless guys i’ve known were pretty “free man on the land!” before they went full meth.

They need to be sequestered till they can get their poop in a group.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Structure it in a way that only the low income earners get the tax break, and the mid to higher income earners taxes stay the same as they are now. Surely that can’t be too difficult to figure out

Again, these types of tax breaks already exist, so you’re just talking about the current situation.

And it doesn’t address the fact that unhoused people are not working and therefore are paying no taxes to begin with, so you aren’t actually solving anything.

Instead of vaguely targeting “low income earners” who are not homeless or at risk of homelessness, target the people who actually need it. That’s the entire idea behind increasing funding programs and services for the homeless and those at risk of homelessness, which needs to be paid for, which means your taxes need to go up regardless how much people don’t want them to.

Adding further supports for low income earners is great, and I agree with it. It has nothing to do with addressing homelessness, though.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Have to put yourself in their shoes. I'm fortunate to have never been sucked into such activities, nor been prone to addiction. But if I happened to be and it spiralled out of control, I would hope that the people in my life wouldn't cease to think of me as a person, friend, family member with a past and with hopes and dreams.

People who are addicted are stuck in a haze and need help & support. Like you say, their reward system has been hijacked and the quickest route to relief is through the substance. Not through constructive or (largely) innocent means like the rest of us. But they're still as human as you or I beneath that shroud.

We need to stop abandoning people or writing them off because they fell into a dark/difficult place, and essentially petitioning for them to get out of our way just so it doesn't inconvenience us or infringe on our lifestyle (with the exception of real dangerous situations), like they're clutter that we don't want to look at. It's a perspective that's devoid of humanity and we really need to reflect on that. That me & mine attitude is full of neuroticism and defensiveness and it's about building barriers instead of connecting, and it's low-vibe. People who live this way need to get outside of themselves and see the bigger picture and realize it's not all about them.

Everybody here is here for a reason. That includes the people who fall on hard times. We all do. Treat people how you'd wish to be treated if you fell into the same troubles.

We're nothing if we leave behind our humanity. We defeat the point of contributing to society with our talent, work and entrepreneurship, if we no longer even recognize nor try to protect our own kind.

Helping one another is ultimately the point. It isn't putting cars in your driveway and buying a plot of land. That's a checkpoint on the way to realizing the greater point, which is contributing to something greater than yourself.

Too bad many people will treat others coldly and refuse to give people in need the time of day until they get all their stuff, realize it isn't all that, and figure out that the point was just being a better, kinder, and more giving person all along.

Most people have worked through their family and friends. You run out of people to go to after years of addiction and at some point family has enough, becuase they usually can't get a person help who isn't ready.

But even with support, there is, from what I have heard so little access to government supports that it's easy to blow past that early point in addiction. We need way more spent on mental health and early intervention.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Again, these types of tax breaks already exist, so you’re just talking about the current situation.

And it doesn’t address the fact that unhoused people are not working and therefore are paying no taxes to begin with, so you aren’t actually solving anything.

Instead of vaguely targeting “low income earners” who are not homeless or at risk of homelessness, target the people who actually need it. That’s the entire idea behind increasing funding programs and services for the homeless and those at risk of homelessness, which needs to be paid for, which means your taxes need to go up regardless how much people don’t want them to.

Adding further supports for low income earners is great, and I agree with it. It has nothing to do with addressing homelessness, though.

I understand that tax breaks don’t help the homeless. That is not what I said.

What I am talking about is trying to help people on the verge of homelessness, give them the opportunity to earn more without paying taxes. Hopefully it helps them keep the housing they currently have.

I don’t see how helping working people who are struggling to stay off the streets is a bad thing, if we can keep more people from becoming homeless we are moving in the right direction.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by jammies

Do you think that homeless people are paying taxes now? Or that low income people think that living on the street is a solution to their tax problems?

Or is this just a ridiculous libertarian fantasy where every situation could be solved by just getting the government out of the way?

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

No. That’s not what I said.

[Wormius]

People on the verge of homelessness don’t need a break on their taxes, they need services to help them through it.

[Doctorfever]

In the short term, yes. I am not against this.

In the long term, they need the ability to keep more money that they earn in their pockets.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

In the short term, yes. I am not against this.

In the long term, they need the ability to keep more money that they earn in their pockets.

Okay, but you understand that most taxes collected go towards things that help people like roads, police, hospitals and social services, right?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

In the short term, yes. I am not against this.

In the long term, they need the ability to keep more money that they earn in their pockets.

Why wouldn’t rents just go up to eat up the money returned through taxation?

What your suggesting doesn’t really seem like it will make a difference. The living wage of a single person in Calgary is around $22 per hour so about 45k a year. This person has about 15k in federal tax credits and 20k in Alberta so pays roughly about 7k in taxes. So if you reduced these taxes to zero the living wage would drop to 19.50 per hour.

Do you think that meaningfully moves the needle? How would you redistribute the taxes to other groups.

[TorqueDog]

I feel like this reply early on in the thread is due a revisit:

[Everything Doctorfever is posting]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Hey, sorry, but do you have any actual ideas?

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Sliver

This is a bad take and a bad interpretation of everything that has been said.

As for the bolded, how could you come to that conclusion? You don't think we're aware that it would be incredibly expensive to house and care for people during rehabilitation? I want to be taxed more to pay for this.

But Russic, many of these people have given up much of their humanity and are singularly focused on feeding their addictions. These aren't your buddies who maybe snorted a couple lines on a Friday and sobered up for work on Monday. We're talking about people jumping on cars, stabbing people on their lunch break, killing fathers, etc. I think you're portraying those of us who are actually looking at solutions - and are willing to pay for them - in way too negative of a light.

I also recognize that some people are beyond help. I've known them and been there when we've laid them to rest. For those, yes, let's get them out of Calgary and keep them out.

"Investment in families." Okay, to whom do I make out the cheque? What does that even mean? I respect you and your takes and I consider you a hero for real (that wolf thing was literally a selfless act of heroism and you're on a pedestal in my mind forever because of it), but I don't think you've really digested what some of us have been saying.

The claim of mine you bolded was that most people don't want to make the sacrifices (financial or otherwise) necessary to address this problem, and I'm going to stand by that. You and I are in total agreement that we'd be fine to be taxed more to handle this problem. Are we the majority though? I'm open to the possibility we are, but I can't say I'm confident. Just look at this thread... we aren't exactly all on the same page here about what the problem even is, let alone how to best address it.

I was too harsh in labelling people in this thread as uncaring. Some are (and I understand why), but not everybody, so I apologize if my umbrella was too big.

To me "investment in families" is a massive undertaking that goes far beyond finances. If there was a cheque to cash that would fix that, we'd likely have done so by now. What we likely require is a total societal shift around how we view people and problems.

I'm aware I'm leaving myself wide open to criticisms for not offering tangible solutions, and part of that is because I find the problem so damn complicated. People are here offering up tons of options that have been tried endlessly with very little success. I recall my wife's uncle (a cop) being put in charge of moving the homeless out of Kelowna 15 years ago. Anybody want an update on how that went? Turns out the neighbouring communities had some opinions of his plan.

Solutions I think that might move the needle (that conveniently align with my personal philosophies and life experience):

- A continued focus on quality affordable daycare for everybody
- An approach to mental healthcare in the same way we treat medical healthcare
- Early childhood resources similar to what's seen in some European countries where families with newborns are checked in on and given supplies they lack
- A trauma-informed recovery-based incarceration system

As for solutions to our current issue that won't take 20 years to bear fruit and won't cost 20 gajillion dollars, probably strict incarceration for people who are posing a violent risk. It won't work long-term and they'll likely emerge worse than before, but maybe that's just what has to happen while the long-term strategies can be shaped.