It's kind of ironic that Shellenberger admits that there isn't enough mental health treatment available and also advocates locking them up for forced treatment.
"And America lacks a functioning mental health care system capable of providing people with untreated mental illness and addiction the psychiatric and rehabilitation they need."
"But by enforcing our laws against public drug use, we can give Diane the choice of rehab or jail."
If we don't have enough mental health professionals to even treat all the people who volunteer for treatment, how can we possibly treat those who will be forceable treated? I guess we could charitably say that he implicitly supports more mental health spending but I think he should spell that out. It is not clear where the money for this is going to come from.
As a matter of political beliefs and also experience, I don't have a lot of faith in using the power of government to help people. Sometimes it works but usually it doesn't. Last time we locked up mentally ill people we had the abuses of the state hospital system, at least in California. It's probably true that this was better for society than the open air mental wards we see now in our cities. What's not really clear to me at least, is if it was better for those incarcerated for the "crime" of being mentally ill. I can hope that with modern medicine and a big government investment in treating the mentally ill we could have better outcomes. It's a pretty big if though. I do support forced treatment for the worse offenders.
Shellenberger continues on the claim that high rents don't have anything to do with homelessness. Google "Homelessness Rises Faster Where Rent Exceeds a Third of Income" to see what research has to show on this. Also, use your common sense. If rents are $400/mo someone on SSI or making minimum wage can afford rent. Poor people cannot afford $1000/mo. I used to be homeless, living in my car, and working minimum wage at $3.35/hr. I lived in a small town with a depressed economy during a recession, so I could not get full time work. I didn't use drugs, I was just poor. I don't know how many more there are like I was but its a significant numbers. Of course there are many interrelated causes to homelessness, including mental illness and drug addiction. But completely discounting the cost of housing does not make sense. California and NYC lead the country in homelessness and high housing costs are part of the impact. Cities with low rents have far fewer homeless. Granted, there are many cofounding variables so it is hard to unwind them all.
I have a sister who is mentally ill (not a drug addict) and pays for the rent on her $400/month trailer in 29 Palms. She cannot afford to live in SF so she does the logical thing. I am paying her rent right now because she is in jail and doesn't get SSI, but that's another story.
I agree 100% with Micheal that something does need to be done about the disorder on our streets. While violent crime is not really up, there is a sense of public disorder and fear that makes our cities less habitable. We have a right to expect a standard of behavior, at least a minimal one. This should include not threatening people, no violent crimes and no stealing. But people don't poop on the streets because they think it's a great idea at least generally. They poop because they have no choice and it is a biological imperative. Providing enough housing for minimal shelter will make our cities better, though there is no political will to spend the money required. It is not fair to expect only cities to fund this. Drug addiction and mental illness are a nationwide problem and it is true that those suffering tend to end up in our cities for many reasons.
As usual, lots of points of agreement and some disagreement. Thanks for making me think about this in a different light. Your positions are always intelligent and well thought out.
I just found out my brother overdosed on fent so this piece really hits home.
Any ideology that puts addicts on a pedestal cannot produce positive outcomes. Addictive behavior has to be met with a carrot and stick approach. My brother had many weak but well meaning people in his life who couldn’t bear wielding the stick. He’s dead because of his choices but those in his orbit let their fear of having an uncomfortable conversation or being disliked trump being a positive influence.
It's kind of ironic that Shellenberger admits that there isn't enough mental health treatment available and also advocates locking them up for forced treatment.
"And America lacks a functioning mental health care system capable of providing people with untreated mental illness and addiction the psychiatric and rehabilitation they need."
"But by enforcing our laws against public drug use, we can give Diane the choice of rehab or jail."
If we don't have enough mental health professionals to even treat all the people who volunteer for treatment, how can we possibly treat those who will be forceable treated? I guess we could charitably say that he implicitly supports more mental health spending but I think he should spell that out. It is not clear where the money for this is going to come from.
As a matter of political beliefs and also experience, I don't have a lot of faith in using the power of government to help people. Sometimes it works but usually it doesn't. Last time we locked up mentally ill people we had the abuses of the state hospital system, at least in California. It's probably true that this was better for society than the open air mental wards we see now in our cities. What's not really clear to me at least, is if it was better for those incarcerated for the "crime" of being mentally ill. I can hope that with modern medicine and a big government investment in treating the mentally ill we could have better outcomes. It's a pretty big if though. I do support forced treatment for the worse offenders.
Shellenberger continues on the claim that high rents don't have anything to do with homelessness. Google "Homelessness Rises Faster Where Rent Exceeds a Third of Income" to see what research has to show on this. Also, use your common sense. If rents are $400/mo someone on SSI or making minimum wage can afford rent. Poor people cannot afford $1000/mo. I used to be homeless, living in my car, and working minimum wage at $3.35/hr. I lived in a small town with a depressed economy during a recession, so I could not get full time work. I didn't use drugs, I was just poor. I don't know how many more there are like I was but its a significant numbers. Of course there are many interrelated causes to homelessness, including mental illness and drug addiction. But completely discounting the cost of housing does not make sense. California and NYC lead the country in homelessness and high housing costs are part of the impact. Cities with low rents have far fewer homeless. Granted, there are many cofounding variables so it is hard to unwind them all.
I have a sister who is mentally ill (not a drug addict) and pays for the rent on her $400/month trailer in 29 Palms. She cannot afford to live in SF so she does the logical thing. I am paying her rent right now because she is in jail and doesn't get SSI, but that's another story.
I agree 100% with Micheal that something does need to be done about the disorder on our streets. While violent crime is not really up, there is a sense of public disorder and fear that makes our cities less habitable. We have a right to expect a standard of behavior, at least a minimal one. This should include not threatening people, no violent crimes and no stealing. But people don't poop on the streets because they think it's a great idea at least generally. They poop because they have no choice and it is a biological imperative. Providing enough housing for minimal shelter will make our cities better, though there is no political will to spend the money required. It is not fair to expect only cities to fund this. Drug addiction and mental illness are a nationwide problem and it is true that those suffering tend to end up in our cities for many reasons.
As usual, lots of points of agreement and some disagreement. Thanks for making me think about this in a different light. Your positions are always intelligent and well thought out.
I just found out my brother overdosed on fent so this piece really hits home.
Any ideology that puts addicts on a pedestal cannot produce positive outcomes. Addictive behavior has to be met with a carrot and stick approach. My brother had many weak but well meaning people in his life who couldn’t bear wielding the stick. He’s dead because of his choices but those in his orbit let their fear of having an uncomfortable conversation or being disliked trump being a positive influence.