home

Berkeley's New Homeless Plan: Arrest Them for Smoking

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:30:37 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Berkeley, CA, which has a reputation for being politically correct, is now engaging in the ridiculous.

It passed an ordinance criminalizing smoking on city streets. Why? To be able to arrest the homeless. They figure the homeless are most likely smokers, just like drug addicts and prostitutes.

As Mayor Tom Bates sees it, the alcoholics, meth addicts and the like who make up a good portion of the homeless population on Shattuck Avenue downtown and Telegraph Avenue on the south side of the UC Berkeley campus "almost always smoke." And because smoking bans are the hot ticket these days for California cities, why not meld the two as part of a "comprehensive package" for dealing with the street problem that Bates says "has gone over the top"?

In this case, vagrants could be cited for taking a drag on the town's main drags.

To finance the effort, the city will raise parking rates $.50 an hour.

< Jury Rejects Death Penalty for Man Who Killed Seven | Late Night: CSN "Immigration Man" >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


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

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Why not just arrest them for B.O.? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Dadler on Fri May 18, 2007 at 11:51:42 AM EST
    Since the danger from their cigarette smoke pales in comparison to that posed by the car exhaust belched out all day in every corner of the city.

    Sit in closed garage with car running: you die.  Sit in closed garage with tobacco smokers: you get headache.

    We're nuts.

    A little better than this... (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by desertswine on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:23:40 PM EST
    I think these people deserve a something a little better than getting thrown in the can for smoking.

    "Conservatively, one out of every three homeless men who is sleeping in a doorway, alley or box in our cities and rural communities has put on a uniform and served this country. According to the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients (U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness and the Urban Institute, 1999), veterans account for 23% of all homeless people in America."

    In a couple of years, it'll be many of the veterans of Iraq who will be arrested for "smoking."

    What I fear is that public smoking will become a (none / 0) (#47)
    by JSN on Sun May 20, 2007 at 11:33:21 AM EST
    felony and then we will put them in prison rather than cite an release them  for a first time violation and then jail them for failure to pay the fine.

    No doubt this will be proof by demonstration that this is a dumb idea.

    Parent

    How Disgusting (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:41:22 PM EST
    Jorn Barger would have been arrested, or forced out.

    It sounds Giuliani style.

    How much does all this law enforcement cost? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Maybenever on Fri May 18, 2007 at 08:48:10 AM EST
    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.


    Parent
    That's the answer (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Stewieeeee on Fri May 18, 2007 at 08:53:53 AM EST
    if you took the 50 cent hike in parking fees and re-established a network of group home environments where a percentage of these people might begin to feel they have something more to offer, then 90% of this problem goes away.

    there's more to it than that, but allowing it to continue is not an option.

    and putting these people in prison is equally unacceptable.

    Parent

    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
    This is a valid concern (none / 0) (#2)
    by Stewieeeee on Fri May 18, 2007 at 07:57:02 AM EST
    for any city.

    Over the top does actually mean over the top.  A fair discussion would be more like what to do about vagrants who are most likely people who have various disabilities and have been displaced from group home environments because of budget cuts by schwarzenegger and such.

    It happened in the 80s during Reagan.

    But you could be the most tolerant of Uber-Liberal progressives.  if you owned a business on shattuck ave., this would be a top priority for you ...

    Yeah (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Fri May 18, 2007 at 08:31:04 AM EST
    And if your business was panhandling you would be even more concerned.

    Parent
    i didn't know that was a business (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Stewieeeee on Fri May 18, 2007 at 08:49:01 AM EST
    what services are being rendered?

    trading what for what?

    Parent

    A Smile (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Fri May 18, 2007 at 09:07:26 AM EST
    And maybe a pencil?  Investment in past work, or future blogging?

    What was Barger selling? Information that he coined the term weblog. Not sure what else.

    Parent

    Lets put it this way (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Stewieeeee on Fri May 18, 2007 at 09:11:44 AM EST
    If a pop up appeared on my screen asking me for money every time i clicked on talkleft.com jeralyn would have a problem with that.

    all i'm saying is she'd be right to have a problem with that.

    i still want to know if edger is the site pit bull or not?

    Parent

    Equivalents? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by squeaky on Fri May 18, 2007 at 09:14:50 AM EST
    A pop up and a human on equal footing? Doesn't seem like a good comparison to me. Pop ups don't even have feet.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#10)
    by Stewieeeee on Fri May 18, 2007 at 09:25:22 AM EST
    There wouldn't be a pop up without a human putting it there.

    maybe it would help if the pop up gave you a smile when you donated money.

    again.  all i'm saying is that jeralyn would insist upon a mechanism by which the human who put that pop up there would be prohibitted from doing so.

    and, again, it is my opinion she'd be right to insist on that.

    Parent

    Absurd Argument (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Fri May 18, 2007 at 09:50:26 AM EST


    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Stewieeeee on Fri May 18, 2007 at 09:57:21 AM EST
    If you owned a business you'd protect access to that business.

    I know I would.

    Parent

    The businesses... (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by kdog on Fri May 18, 2007 at 11:27:04 AM EST
    don't own the street or the sidewalk.  Homeless people may not look so hot, but they are human beings none the less...and deserve basic human dignity.

    Arresting anybody for smoking OUTDOORS is tyranny in my book...pure tyranny.

    All of Berkley should be ashamed...what was once the center of freedom fighting in the 60's is now just another tyrannical municipality.

    Parent

    I take a different angle on that (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:44:08 PM EST
      I think it is more tyrannical for a government to tell a property owner he cannot allow smoking on his propertyii including inside his building than for government to ban smoking in areas it controls such as publc streets and parks that are outside.

      From a health perspective, sure, it's more dangerous to have smoke in a confined indoor area than outside, but from a "rights" standpoint I should be free to allow my patrons to smoke if I choose. No one is forced to come to my property. If I'm willing to forego the business of those who don't want the smoke that should be my choice.

      On the other hand, the street and sidewalk is "public" in the true sense of the word and if people want their government to ban smoking in truly public places that is representative government in action depriving no one of a right.

       We have the "legal" problem that we defined "public" extremely broadly for the purposes of civil rights legislation and now that gets carried over to "mommy-state" ordinances.

     

    Parent

    But... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Sat May 19, 2007 at 08:37:28 AM EST
    the individual is (supposedly) protected from the tyranny of the majority.

    The majority can't ban drinking coffee in public, I don't see how smoking is any different.  Or maybe the majority could ban whatever they damn well please and the protections I think the individual has really don't exist anymore.

    Parent

    why couldn't the majority ban coffee drinking (none / 0) (#46)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun May 20, 2007 at 11:03:10 AM EST
      in public? If the danger of second-hand smoke is sufficient to ban smoking then the danger od spilt hot coffee would seem alarming too. It takes just one burn to cause permanrent damage it takes a lot exposure to smoke. The "right" to drink coffee is no more compelling than the "right" to smoke. clearly at the point my exercise of that "right" effects others it is not even arguably absolute. (Many would also suggest it is a stretch to find such "rights" in organic or man-made law.)

      Joking aside, my point is that in PUBLIC the argument that the individual's freedom to do as he pleases must give way to public health concerns is more compelling than the argument that the individual must refrain in private places where no one need go unless he wants to go.

      I can't get to or from my office without walking down the sidewalk but I can simply stay out of Joe's Bar if Joe wants to let people smoke. Joe owns his bar. Smokers don't own the sidewalk.

    Parent

    Maybe there just shouldn't be (none / 0) (#29)
    by Stewieeeee on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:35:27 PM EST
    a sidewalk cafe on shattuck.

    i haven't been back down there in two years.  if the situation down there is the right and moral thing to do, ok, fine, it's a big world.

    i can figure out better places to spend my money.

    if it wasn't clear from the comment i posted above titled "right answer" i am not endorsing arresting people for smoking in public.


    Parent

    What would you arrest them for then? (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:46:35 PM EST
    i am not endorsing arresting people for smoking in public.
    Just as long as they dissapear....somehow.

    Dadler has the right idea, arrest them for BO. Do you endorse that plan? Or put them on a bus and drop them off in the nearest desert?

    Parent

    Oh well (none / 0) (#33)
    by Stewieeeee on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:15:49 PM EST
    Here's the funny thing.

    If the businesses there go out of business, who are the vangrants gonna ask for money?

    You ask me what to do about the problem.  I've offered a solution above.  And it's not arresting people.

    I'll ask you what you think should be done about businesses on that street that have started to lose money because people have simply decided to stop going to that street?

    Parent

    oK (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:24:12 PM EST
    And an equally relevant question is what about the homeless who are earning less because business is bad?

    Parent
    Hey (none / 0) (#37)
    by Stewieeeee on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:35:23 PM EST
    It's totally possible, in fact probably that some homeless people on shattuck will benefit from this.

    One's that don't smoke right next to an open air restaurant.  one's the don't spit on passersby if they are not given a dollar.

    most customers, especially in california, are not put off by a couple homeless people here and there and some give them the extra change.  some don't.  no biggy.

    one other thing that is not being acknowledged here is that, on shattuck avenue, the problem crossed a threshold of sorts.

    i think that has to be recognized.  so much so that i will bet a week's paycheck that SOME of the homeless on shattuck are celebrating the legislation described above.


    Parent

    Stewieeeee (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:07:16 PM EST
    Is edger the site pit bull?

    First of all, (none / 0) (#67)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:18:25 PM EST

    Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

    I report... You decide.

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC PERSONAL ATTACK (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Sailor on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:20:57 PM EST


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

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment