6 ms·

Well written, but it says nothing. No real breakdown of the problem, certainly no solution. Just generic hatred for the rich and empathy for the poor. Like most

Well written, but it says nothing. No real breakdown of the problem, certainly no solution. Just generic hatred for the rich and empathy for the poor. Like most people who use the word "unhoused," it's performative. If you want to help, volunteer. I have. It's heartbreaking. You realize how dehumanizing it is to try to help someone who is unstable. Mental health, addiction, and deep trauma cannot be solved with money, or shelter, or food. Real treatment is necessary. A modern asylum, crushing drug markets, and taking responsibility for those who cannot take responsibility for themselves needs to be seriously considered. We did this poorly in the past, but the current paradigm clearly is not working, and it might be time to try again. Hard problems need hard solutions, not soft words.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
lapcat 10mo ago
> No real breakdown of the problem, certainly no solution. The article appears to be an excerpt from a 300 page book.
- joshtbradley 10mo ago
  Big enough to keep someone warm.
anthem2025 10mo ago
[dead]
gexla 10mo ago
Right, it's an issue that requires intensive care to address mental health issues. The human resources required for this is always going to be a bottleneck. Much more so than housing shortages or funding for programs that are largely self service (if you can navigate the system, you may not be homeless for long.) Building, staffing, and funding such an institution seems like it would be extremely difficult.
- joshtbradley 10mo ago
  SF is currently spending $100K per homeless person. I agree, it will be extremely difficult, and that the human resources may be a bottleneck. But that's enough for an average person to live in SF, go out sometimes, and pay for therapy. There must be a way to deploy those funds effectively.
  - sharts 10mo ago
    $100K per homeless and yet each homeless person doesn’t receive anywhere close to $100K of services.
    - seanmcdirmid 10mo ago
      $100k/year, and ya, public orgs non-profits that get the money aren’t very efficient. What is worse is that much of that money goes to chronic cases with drug addiction and mental illness, the people who are just struggling to pay rent (much cheaper than $100k/year) and wind up living in their car often get ignored until they become chronic cases that are no longer easy to help.
      - joshtbradley 10mo ago
        As Buffett says “Show me an incentive and I’ll show you an outcome.” I’m not one to think in conspiracies. But here is a clear, structural issue. The reward to NGOs should be granted upon reintegration, not upon crises.
  - bix6 10mo ago
    I’ve heard that this is an over simplification and conflates a bunch of factors. The big question I have is how do you help people who refuse to be helped? That’s an ethical dilemma not necessarily a $ question.
    - joshtbradley 10mo ago
      I'm sure it is a conflation, but it is directionally correct. We are burning money and making zero progress. The ethical dilemma is deep. Is forcing someone into an asylum—where they can be sheltered, monitored, and treated—more ethical than giving someone the self-determination to self-destruct on the street? I don't have the answer, I'm not Kant. But it's a question we have been unwilling to face because it is deeply unsettling. It goes against our liberal instinct.
bofadeez 10mo ago
Prohibition drives black markets where normal price discovery, quality control, and dispute resolution vanish, producing high prices, inconsistent purity, and violence. It does nothing to reduce demand. Low-level dealers effectively stabilize these markets through competition and supply continuity. Enforcement intensifies instability and empowers predatory actors. Mental health care and treatment work better alongside regulated supply, which reduces violence and desperation while letting users seek help outside illicit markets. Real solutions require rethinking the structures causing the crisis, not doubling down on failed approaches.
- joshtbradley 10mo ago
  I agree with what you said; "mental health care and treatment work better alongside regulated supply." But open-air drug markets are not regulated supply. They are a scourge. America's problem with fentanyl is unique in it's scale and it is not something that can be solved with permissive policy. It must be systematically dismantled. I do think decriminalizing all drugs for use in clinical settings would be a healthy step forward. I don't think allowing illicit markets for the most dangerous substances helps anyone except criminals.
  - bofadeez 10mo ago
    If fentanyl were legalized, how much would you personally consume? News flash: nobody does/does not do drugs based on legality. The Rat Park experiment showed that rats in enriched, social environments consumed far less drugs than isolated rats, highlighting how environment strongly affects addiction. In Defending the Undefendable, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson’s chapter “The Pusher” argues that drug dealers, often vilified as destructive criminals, play a complex social role by supplying a demand that already exists. He suggests that punishing them does little to stop drug use and may actually exacerbate harm by driving the trade underground, increasing prices and danger. Since demand for illegal drugs is inelastic, higher prices directly leads to increase in petty crimes like theft that are often motivated by addiction. I.e. addicts wouldn't have to steal as many catalytic converters if drugs were pennies per day instead of hundreds of dollars. And it's only expensive because it's illegal. It's kind of ironic. Dark speculation here, but addiction may even be an evolutionary coping mechanism, providing just enough short-term reward to keep individuals alive when life feels unbearable. The alternative to addiction might be even worse given e.g. an unusually strong biological emotional response to a (possibly accurate) negative assessment of their personal reality.
fragmede 10mo ago
> Mental health, addiction, and deep trauma cannot be solved with money You use the money to pay for goods and services. Services like staff and therapists and psychologists and case workers. And yes, the occasional administrator as well. "Real treatment doesn't just happen. It's expensive, but under capitalism, you use the money to get it for the people that need it. The problem that I've seen volunteering is that money gets siphoned off, away from the people it's supposed to help, and it goes into pockets that part of the non-profit's stated mission.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

lapcat 10mo ago

> No real breakdown of the problem, certainly no solution. The article appears to be an excerpt from a 300 page book.

joshtbradley 10mo ago
Big enough to keep someone warm.

anthem2025 10mo ago

[dead]

gexla 10mo ago

Right, it's an issue that requires intensive care to address mental health issues. The human resources required for this is always going to be a bottleneck. Much more so than housing shortages or funding for programs that are largely self service (if you can navigate the system, you may not be homeless for long.) Building, staffing, and funding such an institution seems like it would be extremely difficult.

joshtbradley 10mo ago
SF is currently spending $100K per homeless person. I agree, it will be extremely difficult, and that the human resources may be a bottleneck. But that's enough for an average person to live in SF, go out sometimes, and pay for therapy. There must be a way to deploy those funds effectively.
- sharts 10mo ago
  $100K per homeless and yet each homeless person doesn’t receive anywhere close to $100K of services.
  - seanmcdirmid 10mo ago
    $100k/year, and ya, public orgs non-profits that get the money aren’t very efficient. What is worse is that much of that money goes to chronic cases with drug addiction and mental illness, the people who are just struggling to pay rent (much cheaper than $100k/year) and wind up living in their car often get ignored until they become chronic cases that are no longer easy to help.
    - joshtbradley 10mo ago
      As Buffett says “Show me an incentive and I’ll show you an outcome.” I’m not one to think in conspiracies. But here is a clear, structural issue. The reward to NGOs should be granted upon reintegration, not upon crises.
- bix6 10mo ago
  I’ve heard that this is an over simplification and conflates a bunch of factors. The big question I have is how do you help people who refuse to be helped? That’s an ethical dilemma not necessarily a $ question.
  - joshtbradley 10mo ago
    I'm sure it is a conflation, but it is directionally correct. We are burning money and making zero progress. The ethical dilemma is deep. Is forcing someone into an asylum—where they can be sheltered, monitored, and treated—more ethical than giving someone the self-determination to self-destruct on the street? I don't have the answer, I'm not Kant. But it's a question we have been unwilling to face because it is deeply unsettling. It goes against our liberal instinct.

bofadeez 10mo ago

Prohibition drives black markets where normal price discovery, quality control, and dispute resolution vanish, producing high prices, inconsistent purity, and violence. It does nothing to reduce demand. Low-level dealers effectively stabilize these markets through competition and supply continuity. Enforcement intensifies instability and empowers predatory actors. Mental health care and treatment work better alongside regulated supply, which reduces violence and desperation while letting users seek help outside illicit markets. Real solutions require rethinking the structures causing the crisis, not doubling down on failed approaches.

joshtbradley 10mo ago
I agree with what you said; "mental health care and treatment work better alongside regulated supply." But open-air drug markets are not regulated supply. They are a scourge. America's problem with fentanyl is unique in it's scale and it is not something that can be solved with permissive policy. It must be systematically dismantled. I do think decriminalizing all drugs for use in clinical settings would be a healthy step forward. I don't think allowing illicit markets for the most dangerous substances helps anyone except criminals.
- bofadeez 10mo ago
  If fentanyl were legalized, how much would you personally consume? News flash: nobody does/does not do drugs based on legality. The Rat Park experiment showed that rats in enriched, social environments consumed far less drugs than isolated rats, highlighting how environment strongly affects addiction. In Defending the Undefendable, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson’s chapter “The Pusher” argues that drug dealers, often vilified as destructive criminals, play a complex social role by supplying a demand that already exists. He suggests that punishing them does little to stop drug use and may actually exacerbate harm by driving the trade underground, increasing prices and danger. Since demand for illegal drugs is inelastic, higher prices directly leads to increase in petty crimes like theft that are often motivated by addiction. I.e. addicts wouldn't have to steal as many catalytic converters if drugs were pennies per day instead of hundreds of dollars. And it's only expensive because it's illegal. It's kind of ironic. Dark speculation here, but addiction may even be an evolutionary coping mechanism, providing just enough short-term reward to keep individuals alive when life feels unbearable. The alternative to addiction might be even worse given e.g. an unusually strong biological emotional response to a (possibly accurate) negative assessment of their personal reality.

fragmede 10mo ago

> Mental health, addiction, and deep trauma cannot be solved with money You use the money to pay for goods and services. Services like staff and therapists and psychologists and case workers. And yes, the occasional administrator as well. "Real treatment doesn't just happen. It's expensive, but under capitalism, you use the money to get it for the people that need it. The problem that I've seen volunteering is that money gets siphoned off, away from the people it's supposed to help, and it goes into pockets that part of the non-profit's stated mission.