patrick.net

The first thing is to stop referring to these people as 'homeless' and accept the fact that they are vagrants. Homelessness is the least of their problems. Alcoholism/drug addiction and mental health issues are what these people need to address. But the ACLU will not allow these vagrants to be locked up if they are insane and a danger to others and to themselves. The addicts refuse to get clean.

Spending money on trying to house them is a waste of time energy and funds.

https://babylonbee.com/news/oakland-as-forced-to-move-after-another-homeless-camp-pops-up-on-first-base-line

https://notthebee.com/article/how-bad-is-the-homeless-problem-in-liberal-cities-bad-enough-to-map



Each marker is a homeless camp.

https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/yet-again-the-better-we-get-at-harm

Yet again, the better we get at "harm reduction," the more people overdose and die

Four years ago, the Canadian province of British Columbia gave addicts legal access to fentanyl and other opioids, hoping to reduce hospitalizations and deaths. The results have been catastrophic.

The US Supreme Court is finally reconsidering the infamous Martin v. Boise case that made it practically impossible to remove homeless from the streets.

https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local/idaho-press/supreme-court-ruling-prevents-homeless-people-ticketed-sleeping-outside-idaho-new-case-could-change-that/277-3566fd5f-37ae-4df1-b0d5-406ef1aca02c

I don't understand why spending money housing addicts and the poor in prison is a viable solution? Have we become that callous to homeless people that we can't even stand to see them in our world? Get used to it, because the way things are going, that population will keep getting bigger. In a central bank economy the weakest are pushed down until they wind up on the streets. Whatever happens to them on that journey, or once they find themselves destitute, I don't think that gives anyone a right to judge them. And certainly not to take away their God given right to freedom of movement(4th Amendment).

Obviously no one here has been in a 12 step. You don't force help on people who don't want it. It's pointless. If they want to over-dose, it's their life, leave them the fuck alone. Do you propose next to slap the bag of Big Mac's out of the hands of fat people? Maybe you want to force inject Vitamin C into everyone? Or other stuff..?

I'm a fan of 60 days in, never seen a jail that didn't have a HUGE drug problem. And the stuff in their is WAY worse. Look up what a roach is in jail, fucking nasty.

It's as if the people proposing this know nothing about the subject, and have put zero thought into the long-term repercussions.

You certainly have a lot more in common with the Scamdemic architects than you might want to admit...

Death penalty for hard drug use.

Look at NB pushing liberal propaganda wrt "homeless are just folks who don't have enough money because Capitalism and central bank hurr durr".

LOL

Even NPR admits that 1/3 of them are illegals. The rest are addicts and/or mental (which, most of the time, is the same thing). Because no normal person would stay in an expensive area like Ess Eff and sleep in the rough when there are much cheaper places to live in this enormous country, getting there is cheap and unemployment is at fucking 4%.

Alcohol prohibition worked out mightily well…

I do not know the solution but I do not see how complete prohibition or current attitude could work. Prohibition is enforced by the State and we know how efficient the State is in anything it does. BTW while a lot of druggies are losers/illegals/etc, in each recession I see on street corners the new homeless in relatively good clothes. Means that there is also an economic component to homelessness as @Nuttboxer says.

Many homeless have places or relatives they can stay with if they were sober and not needing to stay close to their connection to drugs. Some homeless interviewed in LA came from middle and upper middle class homes, but they were on the street to maintain availability of drugs for their habits (also the weird lifestyle appealed).

Boz Skaggs' son died in a cheap tenderloin room in SF of an overdose at 21, and he could waltz over to Pac Heights to live if he weren't chronically addicted.

A woman who was homeless in Santa Cruz, but not a drug addict (she was only homeless a short time) said that she didn't meet anybody amongst the homeless outside of herself who didn't have some kind of substance abuse problem.

Shelters have the requirement of not smoking or using, but homeless beat and steal from each other for drug resources, even alcohol and cigarettes. The police reports in Santa Cruz are often about 'bum fights' between homeless. The homeless come and go from shelters because they can't take the rules about not smoking, drinking or using.

However, as we have seen in unaudited California, the homeless and their ersatz services are an extremely handy tool for laundering billions of dollars of tax money. They serve a purpose for the politicians robbing the constituency.

Politicians are also routinely bribed by the dealer networks, and many politicians (can you say Cartel Katie in Arizona?) are directly linked to dealer support. Of course, we know how the Intels, Royals etc. are hooked into the dealing and distributing networks. Drugs corrupt everything and everybody involved with them.

I don’t know how I didn’t see this at the time…housing and services without enforcement do absolutely nothing. When combined with criminal enforcement, you can clear the streets.

Currently there’s zero enforcement in City of Los Angeles and it’s been that way since 2013 when that despicable asshole Eric Garcetti took office.

So the Dems keep more and more money running through the Gov and their “partnerships” while the homeless encampments continue on.

At this point, anyone who thinks that housing plus services will make a dent in the number of homeless is an absolute fucking moron. Completely naive. You can see the results of that visable and if you are one of the ostriches that refuses to see, I can drive you to a few hundred homeless encampments in and around City of LA and then drive you to bordering cities that have none.

SF cleaned up the homeless overnight for Emperor Xi's entourage. Some even speculate that they disposed of some of them with extreme prejudice (CCP style), but where they put the bodies is anybody's guess. It was a very strange operation and interlude, without a lot of publicity. It is speculated that Newsom was trying to sell California to Xi in some manner, and that a plan was somewhere afoot to remove California from the Republic to become an independent country (under Chinese auspices?). Main streets in downtown SF were lined with Chinese flags.

So, obviously homeless are allowed to proliferate both because they are good customers for the anointed drug dealers (and good provenders for bribed politicians) and they seriously demoralize and partially paralyze the larger society, which is an end in itself for the subversives.

Drug addiction and alcoholism tend to be 95 percent to 98 percent fatal, with a long intervening period of live deterioration and zombification, depending on how sturdy the victims are and how much access they have to effective medical care. Unfortunately, the extremely high recidivism rate makes any rehabilitation fantasy a very low yield process. Cost effectiveness of financed rehab is dubious, except to create another tax sucking, self promoting bureaucracy with virtue signaling handles.
Addicts and alkies can't be effectively marshaled as combatant units, so the subversives use them to profit from drug sales, as local crime squads and intermediaries when they are vertical and in more passive aggressive ways to undermine society (or, as we see, launder tax money).

Wife ran across this bc she reads the NY Times:

February 13, 2025
By Nicholas Kristof
Opinion Columnist

I’ve been thinking a lot about how liberals like me ended up perceived as out-of-touch elitists by voters who then went to the polls and voted for Donald Trump. I don’t doubt my core convictions, but I think it is worth acknowledging that it is not possible to walk today through some of the bluest cities in America, like San Francisco or Portland, Ore., and think: This is a triumph of good governance.

I wrote recently about one area where I’ve been forced to adjust my thinking. Like many on the left, I was appalled by the 50-year war on drugs, which shattered families, destroyed lives, devastated Black communities — and was still accompanied by a surge in overdose deaths. I thought people with addictions needed health care, not handcuffs.

And then to my surprise and dismay, I found myself praying that my old pal Drew Goff would be arrested. Drew, 40, was homeless, on the run from the police, using fentanyl and also selling it. His wife, who was with him, was pregnant and had overdosed 27 times. It seemed only a matter of time before Drew killed himself or one of his customers.

In the end, Drew agreed. He hit a low and realized that prison and treatment was the best path to save his life. He turned himself in, and a judge obligingly sentenced him to 15 months in prison. “Thank you, your honor,” Drew replied.

I detail what came next in my column, but suffice to say it’s left me with a more nuanced view of how to handle addiction. Here’s Drew’s story and how it changed my thinking.

(paywall)

Prison is the answer for hard-core drug users.

I respectfully disagree with many of your assessments on this. The homeless don't need prison, they need proportioned supervision to learn what being a person is in many cases. Sometimes people lose their way and just need the opportunity for redemption.
Our education system fails people, neighbors and friends fail each other. People that make it have a competency bias, people that never stumble don't truly know, I get it. Of course, in my model, the closer one is to troglodyte the stricter the supervision so yes, in those cases a prison may be possible until they graduate. But progress must be leaned into. I also support humane eugenics in cases where they are so far gone they lack coherent conscious, and no sponsors will step forward to help carry their burden.

The worst thing liberals do…and by liberals I me

A those who support Democrats…is to presume that things aren’t done that are in fact done, just because they aren’t readily visible.

For instance I’m sure many of us have heard the argument that someone shouldn’t serve prison time for drug use. This argument presumes individuals are sent to prison for posession charges. In California it’s one of the stupider arguments one can make since there been drug court for over 30 fucking years. That argument is part of why that evil asshole George Gascon got elected. I can’t begin to emphasize enough how incredibly ignorant Democrat voters in Los Angeles are.

Truth is that if someone is arrested for drug possession in Los Angeles…or even for drug sales..they will be diverted to drug court and be given multiple chances at rehab. If they successfully complete rehab then the court reversed the charges and the persons arrest record is sealed with the state DOJ.

Bottom line is drug arrests almost never result in prison time in California.

Oh and the public defender pricks are plenty guilty. They know this is what goes on but not a one of them makes any effort to have this information widely available to the public.

Another solution to the farm labor problem.

True addiction has a 98 percent chronic recidivism rate and is a generally terminal condition. The co-dependence sympathy network is a nice demonstration of altruism (addicts are brothers, sisters, parents, cousins, children etc. of SOMEBODY) and addicts should be given access to recovery resources to some extent, but most will continue to deteriorate and die dragging everybody around them down as well. It is why they wind up on the streets as generally homeless as they trigger society's auto immune reactions. They also become functionally sociopathic around their need to feed their addictions.

The question is, how much resources should be extended to recover one or two percent as they continue to gobble up those resources as a group?

That's why the homeless and the addicted are such great foils for money laundering and tax laundering. All that faux compassion for what amounts to dying zombies can be exploited. You can depend that the problem will never be solved, but can be used to process huge amounts of money through them.

I don’t think that’s true Ceffer.

What is true is that the homeless exist in certain cities in very high numbers while existing in neighboring cities in almost nonexistent numbers.

The city I live in has about 140,000 people and a little over 300 homeless. .21% of the population. This despite perhaps the best weather in the entire country outside of Hawai’i.

OTOH City of Los Angeles, which borders us, has 46,000 homeless and a population of 4,000,000, 1.2% of the population. 6x the homeless population if it’s neighboring city that is safer and has better weather.

Another stark contrast is Orange County, which also has better weather than City of Los Angeles and higher rents as well.

3.3 million population, 4,200 homeless .13%. City of Los Angeles has appx 10x the homeless population that Orange County does, with comparable populations.

That’s absolutely fucking nuts.

Ceffer says

That's why the homeless and the addicted are such great foils for money laundering and tax laundering. All that faux compassion for what amounts to dying zombies can be exploited. You can depend that the problem will never be solved, but can be used to process huge amounts of money through them.

Bingo. I think if people have one vice like low alcohol beers and weed, not both, they'll be fine till 80 no problem. In moderation of course. Start doing coke or heroin I wish you luck cause that escalates the others. All coke heads I know pound hard liquor.

Rehab facilities are no different than attorneys basically stealing from you. Private sector, not public.

It depends on whether the homeless are given care, comfort and agency aka deputized. Also, drugs and the money corrupt everything, including local politicians and police.

When we go to Monterey, no homeless to be seen because the public agencies and richfucks don't tolerate it. California does not audit the money that goes into 'public services' for the homeless, which means that the billion(s) are being laundered in the names of the homeless. In Santa Cruz, social services often are in league with the dealers delivering drugs to those homed but on social welfare. I had a friend who pointed this out with one woman in our neighborhood. Her 'care' person was here with a stolen car and fake license plates. When my friend documented and reported to the police, the 'care' person's relative in the police department called him and threatened him. Third world shit.

In places where the homeless are 'chased around', they exist but they operate to stay out of sight and out of mind. My office in Fremont had homeless campers all the time, but they were seldom seen because they came after hours and left early, leaving their garbage around. In places where the homeless are routed out, they will have several spots that they can rotate so they never have a conspicuous presence at any one location.

Places like Santa Cruz, the homeless are flagrant because of the Kommie and LibbyFuck ruse of 'compassion'.

Also, there are even corrupt homeowner's managements who install criminals and labs in mobile home parks with convicts who threaten the residents if they squeal. They use their management authority to harass and persecute complainers.

The homeless are also useful to lower real estate prices for pirates and generally demoralize the public as part of the KommieKunt agendas.

FuckTheMainstreamMedia says

I don’t think that’s true Ceffer.

What is true is that the homeless exist in certain cities in very high numbers while existing in neighboring cities in almost nonexistent numbers.

The city I live in has about 140,000 people and a little over 300 homeless. .21% of the population. This despite perhaps the best weather in the entire country outside of Hawai’i.

OTOH City of Los Angeles, which borders us, has 46,000 homeless and a population of 4,000,000, 1.2% of the population. 6x the homeless population if it’s neighboring city that is safer and has better weather.

Another stark contrast is Orange County, which also has better weather than City of Los Angeles and higher rents as well.

3.3 million population, 4,200 homeless .13%. City of Los Angeles has appx 10x the homeless population that Orange County does, with comparable populations.

That’s absolutely fucking nuts.

The 1st condo I lived at in SD (UTC) the homeless did a 'reverse commute' vs. my 2 mile drive into work. I'd be heading out of the neighborhood and they'd be coming out from underneath a bridge and elsewhere pushing shopping carts as they headed into my neighborhood - because they used the library there, I'm guessing for internet or whatevs. There are some stores and places to eat right next to it as well.

The 2nd condo wasn't in a neighborhood but along a long road of other condos. Every morning when I drove out of that road to work there were 10-100 illegal aliens lining the sidewalk and median waiting for work. Usually piling into the pack of pick up trucks to get to the work site they agreed to that day. More illegals than you'd typically see hanging around a HomeDepot parking lot in CA.

Does anybody really believe the 'census' posited for 'homeless' are accurate? There are a lot more than they claim.