It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Homelessness and San Francisco.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 27 2018 @ 01:17 PM
a reply to: XAnarchistX

This line of logic follows the same as the gun grabber logic.

People are the problem. Not their labels.

posted on Dec, 27 2018 @ 01:23 PM
a reply to: crayzeed

This is what you get in your free market economy.

Uh, yea, this is what you get in a free market economy when you abrogate vagrancy laws and subsidize the homeless so they can stay drunk and drugged on the city streets.

Back in the day when I was a kid growing up in Texas we never saw homeless people. That's because there were laws on the books. For example, if you were caught on a public street by a cop without a minimum $5.00 in your wallet, you got picked up by the cops and sent to the P-Farm (Prison Farm) for 10 days, (if you were white, if not.......there were other solutions).

Now there's naught but hand wringing about the homeless and free handouts and free drugs and needles and people wonder why there's a problem.

posted on Dec, 27 2018 @ 01:46 PM
Having read the posting and the article, and the posts that followed, this is what can be stated:

Miners used to take canaries down into the mines, as an alarm when the air went toxic. And what is going on in San Francisco is not new, rather it is a culmination of many things, and here is how it breaks down:

This problem is not vindictive of San Francisco, but of a nationwide problem. Truth be told, the only reason why it is on the news, is that it was broad cast on a local new cast, and it got picked up, showing the country, stage 2 of an epidemic that is sweeping the nation. And San Francisco is not even at the top, but rather it is part of a wider and far reaching epidemic.

And as much as many would like to say this is a Democrat problem, finding fault with the democrats on anything, the reality is that this spans both political party. Many of the states, a majority of them, are republican ran and controlled. But should it matter which political party? Or are we ready for the truth.

This problem started in congress, which the congress persons wooed by the pharmaceutical lobby, passed laws protecting it. And thus, the pharmaceutical companies created more and more pain killers and then flooded the markets out. That made it to the various doctors offices, and they in turn, for a cut back from those companies turned around and handed out these prescriptions, with very little oversite, that got people hooked on these drugs.

Well then it came out that they created addicts, that would doctor shop, and go to get new prescriptions, and then by the time the government realized what was going on it was too late. Then the laws were changed at the state level, where it made it hard for the addicts to get new prescriptions so freely, and thus they had nowhere to turn to, and went to the only source to feed that addiction, and that was illegal drugs, and thus kicked this epidemic into high gear.

The first signs of trouble, about this came out in Indiana, while Mike Pence was in office. There was a spike in HIV in a town, after the closing of Planned Parenthood, where the clinic was trying to fight this outbreak, by providing clean needles and get help to those who needed it.

So if one looks, the biggest people who win with the cause of this problem were the politicians, who got millions, if not billions from the companies to prevent government oversite into their activities and the products that they produce, protected by both political parties.

After all where is the profit if they cure something? The business plan of most pharmaceutical, do not include coming up with cures, but just taking care of the symptoms.

And who is to blame, the people who are hooked on these drugs, or the companies that made these drugs, knowing full well how addictive they were and withheld that information from the doctors, and kept it secret until it came out in the news? Is it really just a democrat problem, or one across the line where the deaths from opioid overdoes in, 2016, in California was 5.4 per 100,000 people or is it a republican problem where in the state of Tennessee the rate of death is greater than 18.10 per 100,000? Where the main difference is population density. How much would it be noticed if there is a fewer population, versus a bigger population?

posted on Dec, 27 2018 @ 03:33 PM
a reply to: JinMI

Agreed, but they do hide behind their labels, even "radical" ones

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in