home
Berkeley's New Homeless Plan: Arrest Them for Smoking | 47 comments (47 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Well, (none / 0) (#13)
by Deconstructionist on Fri May 18, 2007 at 10:18:15 AM EST
a couple of million dollars a year  would not even begin to fund a "network" of group homes on a scale to serve even 10% let alone 90%. Second, there is no reason to think that many of these people would want to be housed in group homes even if sufficient funding did exist. There is also no reason to think that unless they were locked in these "homes" they would not come to the business district during the day and continue doing what they now do.

  Of course, a smoking ban will have no real effect either. Giving indigent people citations for lighting up will just create more paperwork and administrative costs. The threat of an uncollectable fine is no threat and mass incarceration of homeless people for smoking would be prohibitively expensive even if it wasn't absurdly disproportionate.

 

[ Parent ]

Money doesn't solve everything (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Peaches on Fri May 18, 2007 at 10:29:38 AM EST
but it sets priorities.

I don't know about the $0.50 hike in parking fees, but

It reminds me of the war in Iraq. If the same money used in deconstruction and destruction of the country were used to restore the nation, it could all end quickly.

This would be a bit more than a couple million, I think.

[ Parent ]

Sure, (1.00 / 1) (#15)
by Deconstructionist on Fri May 18, 2007 at 10:47:33 AM EST
 with enough money,  housing and care for these people could be provided. Then with enough forcible compulsion we could make them live in the housing and receive the care whether they want it or not.

[ Parent ]
I think your point is (none / 0) (#16)
by Peaches on Fri May 18, 2007 at 11:10:06 AM EST
that many of the homeless prefer to be homeless and living on the street versus being confined to an institution paid for with government money.

That some homeless fit this category is undoubtedly true, although I am unaware of the percentage.

I think that more homeless would fall under the category of mentally ill or substance abusers addicted to chemicals in some form. Many of these individuals would benefit from some form af treatment (forcibly or not).

I am also sure that a significant portion of homeless are living on the street due to economic conditions that are not a matter of choice.

But, my main point is that many of our societal ills can be treated if we set the priority to. What we have now is an economy that is stimulated by deficit spending that is Keynesian in nature. However, Classic Keynesian economics was debt financing focused on economic infrastructure that was meant to be short-term in nature. The stimulation in Aggregate Demand through debt financing was meant to stimulate an economy to operate on its own without government assistance (debt financing to stimulate Ag Demand) in the future. An added benefit was that this deficit spending would be used to build economic infrastructure that would have lasting effects on the economy. What we have today is Military Keynesian, whereby our Debt financing is long-term and the spending is not focused on infrastructure, but military instead. All, well and good, in keeping our economy's head above water, but it does little to build or even maintain the necessary infrastructure our economy needs leading to further increases in many of the ills tha plague our economy, in my opinion.

IOW, our emphasis upon the War in Iraq and our military expenditures in general has our priorities all screwed out of whack.

[ Parent ]

I totally gree abot priorities. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Deconstructionist on Fri May 18, 2007 at 11:24:21 AM EST
-- but not because I believe it will have much impact on the concerns of people who don't want the homeless living where THEY have to deal with them. I want more help for the needy simply because I think it is the right thing to do and will help some of the needy.

 

many of the homeless prefer to be homeless and living on the street versus being confined to an institution paid for with government money.
That some homeless fit this category is undoubtedly true, although I am unaware of the percentage.

I think that more homeless would fall under the category of mentally ill or substance abusers addicted to chemicals in some form. Many of these individuals would benefit from some form af treatment (forcibly or not).

  These are NOT mutually exclusive categories. One can be a mentally ill person (as we define it with our profoundly incomplete understanding)  who would benefit (as we define it) from treatment AND not want to live in an institution and be required to receive treatment. Is it sufficient to say that merely because one is ill --and we define them as such because they live and behave  in a manner we determine to be proof of illness, the ultimate tautology-- they have to succumb to our dictates of what will benefit them?

  If a person does not present an imminent danger of physical harm to himself or others is is just to compel him to live in a manner he would not choose to live? Can we say that the mere fact he chooses to live in a way WE consider abnormal he loses his freedom of choice?

I am also sure that a significant portion of homeless are living on the street due to economic conditions that are not a matter of choice.

  I'm sure too, and that is the population which simply providing  resources could change. It's the others who present the deeper and more complex issues.


[ Parent ]

We are in agreement, for the most part, then (none / 0) (#20)
by Peaches on Fri May 18, 2007 at 11:52:50 AM EST
Is it sufficient to say that merely because one is ill --and we define them as such because they live and behave  in a manner we determine to be proof of illness, the ultimate tautology-- they have to succumb to our dictates of what will benefit them?

In general, I would say, No. However, sometimes there are individuals who do pose dangers to society and their mental illness and their refusal or neglect in having it treated means society should step in.

If a person does not present an imminent danger of physical harm to himself or others is is just to compel him to live in a manner he would not choose to live?

Absolutely not. But a better option than putting these individuals in jail is to have assistance available to these individuals if and when it is needed.

Can we say that the mere fact he chooses to live in a way WE consider abnormal he loses his freedom of choice?

Again, Absolutely not. I totally agree with you that the definition of mental illness based upon what falls outside the range of normal is not only inadequate but quack science.

However, we should also acknowledge that many government institutions that were for mentally ill patients in the past (that were not necessarily humanely run) have been shut down due to inadequate funding from government sources. There was a corresponding increase in the number of homeless as the housing sources became more scarce and also an increase in the number of prison inmates diagnosed with a mental illness. All of this, I am sure you are aware of. I agree with your principals on freedom and choice and those falling outside the range of normal who are not necessarily mentally ill, but I think these are a minority of cases (I am unaware of any studies) and not the individuals society should be concerned with or that need to be addressed.

[ Parent ]

that's not quite accurate (none / 0) (#23)
by Deconstructionist on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:07:12 PM EST
However, we should also acknowledge that many government institutions that were for mentally ill patients in the past (that were not necessarily humanely run) have been shut down due to inadequate funding from government sources

 Actually, the large human warehouses which were shut down were the cheapest way of dealing with the "problem." If we were looking at this from a purely financial sense, large-scale institutions would be the way to go. It is FAR more expensive to provide community-based treatment. We spend FAR more money today on mental health treatment than we spent in the days of the days of "mental hospital" né "insane asylum."

  What we have is the reality that we --with good intentions-- abandoned the "cheap solution" but failed to consider the vastly larger amount of money which would be needed to implement a more humane approach and also the eventuality  that once we drastically reduced the use of  government enforced involuntary commitment, many people would choose to avoid the treatment-industry complex if given the choice.

  The warehouses were inhumane and they were mostly ineffective at everything beyond keeping people who present "problems" locked away from or consciousness.

   The real significant factor is that we abandoned a bad model without

[ Parent ]

Again, I agree (none / 0) (#25)
by Peaches on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:15:43 PM EST
Whole-heartedly with the above.

[ Parent ]
probably self-evident (none / 0) (#27)
by Deconstructionist on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:27:21 PM EST
 but the last setnence should conclude:

being prepared (and maybe without being willing) to deal with the complete array of consequences.

[ Parent ]

Didn't we used to have exactly that? (none / 0) (#21)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 18, 2007 at 11:55:36 AM EST
Then with enough forcible compulsion we could make them live in the housing and receive the care whether they want it or not.
I think they called them State Hospitals.

Somebody, maybe the ACLU?, got the whole shebang shut down.

[ Parent ]

Are you being serious? (none / 0) (#22)
by Peaches on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:01:37 PM EST
Somebody, maybe the ACLU?, got the whole shebang shut down.

Or was it Greenpeace? Amnesty?

I would not doubt that the ACLU filed complaints against institutions for the mentally ill, but these  State Hospitals were closed down because they were no longer given fundings in budgets and we went in a direction of privately run housing for the mentally ill that has been inadequate in providing enough safe housing for all of the individuals in need of care in this country.

[ Parent ]

Peaches, from wiki (none / 0) (#28)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:34:14 PM EST
In the 1960s, due largely to a series of class action lawsuits and the scrutiny of institutions through disability activism, the appalling conditions and the poor treatment of patients in these institutions were revealed.

This led to a debate about deinstitutionalizing those who are capable of living in the community and developing a more flexible service delivery system to serve them.

In the United States, in the late 1970s, the deinstitutionalisation of patients from state psychiatric hospitals was a precipitating factor which seeded the homeless population, especially in urban areas such as New York City.[44]

The Community Mental Health Act of 1963 was a pre-disposing factor in setting the stage for homelessness in the United States.[45] Long term psychiatric patients were released from state hospitals into SROs and sent to community health centers for treatment and follow-up. It never quite worked out properly and this population largely was found living in the streets soon thereafter with no sustainable support system

We can do a chicken and egg argument, but the combination of cost of state hospitals and activism against invuluntary committment of patients, among other things, led to a marked increase in homelessness.

[ Parent ]

OK (none / 0) (#31)
by Peaches on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:50:03 PM EST
I see your point, but your pointing to the ACLU as responsible for the current problem with homelessness is not born out by your quote.

As Decon poins out and as I fully agree with, the State hospitals were inhumane and our treatment of the mentally ill was in need of reform. However, rather than come up with a plan to address the need for improved treatment of the mentally ill, we ignored the problem. I would argue this was led by conservatives who did not want to fund new programs that would adequately address the care and housing for the displaced mentally ill. Blaming it on the ACLU just seemed a little spiteful, is all, and probably motivated by your distaste for this organization and not anything to do with this thread.

[ Parent ]

Well, I think you're overreacting, (none / 0) (#32)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:14:23 PM EST
and are probably motivated by your fondness for the organization.

[ Parent ]
heh! (none / 0) (#34)
by Peaches on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:18:22 PM EST
That made me laugh. :)

[ Parent ]
All good Peaches :-) (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:31:57 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Yep, All Good (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Peaches on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:39:51 PM EST


[ Parent ]
btw (none / 0) (#39)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:42:20 PM EST
My mom volunteered in a state hospital for many years when I was young.

It was only a few miles from our home and my brothers and I spent many hours on the grounds and in the buildings while my mom worked there.

While in some extreme instances patients were not well cared for, I think, in general, the mental picture may of us have of state psych institutions as "inhumane" is far overblown.

[ Parent ]

I'd bet..... (none / 0) (#41)
by kdog on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:01:27 PM EST
"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" had something to do with how we think about mental institutions.

Nurse Rathcet, shock therapy, and all that.

[ Parent ]

Yup (none / 0) (#42)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:11:16 PM EST
Actually deleted the title of that book and movie from my comment before I posted it.

Back in the day my great aunt had shock therapy, twice, and according to her it saved her life as she was suicidal. She ended up living to a ripe old age.

The irony is, as you know, my mom is now periodically homeless and would probably benefit from occasional involuntary stays in the very hospital she once volunteered at...

[ Parent ]

"Frances" (none / 0) (#44)
by Peaches on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:26:46 PM EST
Staring Jessica Lange about an actress institutionalized is another movie that is implanted in my memory.

[ Parent ]

Berkeley's New Homeless Plan: Arrest Them for Smoking | 47 comments (47 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft