Democrat homeless disaster killing San Francisco, Los Angeles, & Seattle

President Trump's Administration is looking at relieving some of the misery Democrats created, and are ignoring, in cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Trump: We (the Feds) may intercede -- www.foxnews.com...

I wonder if California officials will help?

originally posted by: seagull
No, they've not. Nor would I count on them ever doing anything to address such things...other than supporting the Pharmaceutical Industry in their ongoing attempts to render us comatose.

Well, somebody has to fund their reelection campaigns.

a reply to: underwerks

Haven't read the entire thread yet, but I did want to address this. When you say all large cities have these issues, I want to be clear that you're referring to the United States only, correct? I've been to Japan, if they have these problems in their major cities, I'm not seeing it. Maybe they're just really good at hiding it?

Everywhere pot is legalized, homelessness problem will intensify. People with problems who turn to drugs as an escape end up in worse situations. That is a fact the liberals will not share although they know it to be true. Colorado (especially Denver) is also going the way of LA, San Fran, Portland and Seattle.

a reply to: Strate8

Alcohol has been legal for most of America's history. It is more addictive and has a larger cognitive effect than weed. I don't see cities and states that have leaned in to the craft beer boom seeing an increase in homelessness.

How do you rectify that with your claims?

originally posted by: Strate8
Everywhere pot is legalized, homelessness problem will intensify. People with problems who turn to drugs as an escape end up in worse situations. That is a fact the liberals will not share although they know it to be true. Colorado (especially Denver) is also going the way of LA, San Fran, Portland and Seattle.

Man what bunch of bunk, alcohol will remain the mind-altering substance of choice because it's easier to get and cheaper buzz, and it knocks you out. Reefer isn't physically addictive A hungry person isn't going to want smoke reefer anyway just gives you the munchies and a dry throat, sometimes with a touch of paranoia.

originally posted by: underwerks
My solution to this problem? Complete legalization of everything.

On this, as a recovered (some would say recovering) drug addict 30 years sober, I wholeheartedly agree.

Legalize it, regulate it like is done for alcohol now (keep it out of the hands of minors), tax it with all taxes going to provide rehab and treatment for addicts.

originally posted by: underwerks
Without you realizing that your way of thinking is fundamentally flawed, and with me refusing to accept anything other than total legalization and normalization of what you label "degeneracy".

I am fully supportive of total legalization of all drugs.

That said, there is nothing normal about hordes of drug addicted homeless people with mental health issues, and I am 100% opposed to any effort to 'normalize' that, if that is what you mean.

I think people should be able to do all the drugs they want, up to the point where it infringes on my Right to not have to have it shoved in my face.

That means no public drug use (including smoking pot, because I don't want to have to inhale it if I happen to be walking downwind of you), no driving under the influence of drugs, etc.

originally posted by: Strate8
Everywhere pot is legalized, homelessness problem will intensify. People with problems who turn to drugs as an escape end up in worse situations. That is a fact the liberals will not share although they know it to be true. Colorado (especially Denver) is also going the way of LA, San Fran, Portland and Seattle.

I think it's probably the other way around. Maybe these people are already in bad situations they can't get out of, and they turn to drugs because it makes them feel better for a little while. It doesn't help, but not everybody is the movie hero who faces their their problems stone cold sober and overcomes them. This is real life, not a movie or TV.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: underwerks

So your example of democrat success is republican-run cities.

Like Flynt?

Not so fast.

The Democratic government of a Democratic city destroys that city’s finances so thoroughly that it must go into state receivership; a Democratic emergency manager signs off on a consensus plan to use a temporary water source; the municipal authorities in that Democratic city responsible for treating and monitoring drinking water fail to do their job; a state agency whose employees work under the tender attention of SEIU Local 517 fails to do its job overseeing the local authorities; Barack Obama’s EPA, having been informed about the issue, keeps mum.

Michigan was a 'red' state at the time of the 2016 elections, at that time with a Republican governor who was at the core of the issues relating to their water supply and the government inaction on the ensuing health crisis.

Your excuse isn't valid.

State governments work similarly to our federal government. Civics my friend, learn it.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: underwerks
My solution to this problem? Complete legalization of everything.

On this, as a recovered (some would say recovering) drug addict 30 years sober, I wholeheartedly agree.

Legalize it, regulate it like is done for alcohol now (keep it out of the hands of minors), tax it with all taxes going to provide rehab and treatment for addicts.

And how do you keep it out of the hands of minors, when you can't even do that with the "most dangerous drug", being alcohol?

Good news!

Austin is out to join the party!

The city council just legalized outdoor camping, so expect the homeless problem there to become a thing pretty soon.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: underwerks

So your example of democrat success is republican-run cities.

Like Flynt?

Not so fast.

The Democratic government of a Democratic city destroys that city’s finances so thoroughly that it must go into state receivership; a Democratic emergency manager signs off on a consensus plan to use a temporary water source; the municipal authorities in that Democratic city responsible for treating and monitoring drinking water fail to do their job; a state agency whose employees work under the tender attention of SEIU Local 517 fails to do its job overseeing the local authorities; Barack Obama’s EPA, having been informed about the issue, keeps mum.

Michigan was a 'red' state at the time of the 2016 elections, at that time with a Republican governor who was at the core of the issues relating to their water supply and the government inaction on the ensuing health crisis.

Your excuse isn't valid.

State governments work similarly to our federal government. Civics my friend, learn it.

A Republican governed city, in a Republican governed state, in a Republican governed country.

Yet Democrat = bad?

Face it, both sides of politics suck at some things, and ignore some things, and mismanage the rest.

Homelessness is a problem you can't solve with money.

There are always just too many people who would gladly quit their jobs and live in a camper, if you offer them the chance to live like that.

These days a cell phone and some wifi is all it takes to stay entertained. Give a person internet access, enough food, and a place to sleep, and they'll be as happy as a teenager on eternal Summer break.

It's just the rest of us who are miserable, having to put up with the crime, when they occasionally come up short on food (which is not all that hard to get from charities in my town) or just want some spending money.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Strate8

Alcohol has been legal for most of America's history. It is more addictive and has a larger cognitive effect than weed. I don't see cities and states that have leaned in to the craft beer boom seeing an increase in homelessness.

How do you rectify that with your claims?

The problem isn't the addictiveness. The real addiction is psychological, not physical anyway. The problem is WHAT PSYCHOLOGICAL state, a person is getting addicted TO.

Alcohol users get addicted to depressing themselves, which doesn't make them want to quit their job, but rather makes them almost look forward to going to work, starting a new, more hopeful day.

Pot users get addicted to an unfocused euphoria. Lucky if they can even remember to go to work.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

It sounds like you've never drank or smoked marijuana. It also sounds like you've never experienced depression.

a reply to: ghaleon12

with the exceptions of Bush and Trump, I've supported the republicans for my entire adult life (I didn't become a democrat, i just didnt suppport these two republicans. i'd have prerfered another candidate). But I have to agree, their record on homelessness is terrible. tax cuts and the reduction of red tape don't help people who are ALREADY homeless. Neither does protection of the second amendment. Its usually the demorats who spend on things like housing and shelters.

A lot of these homeless aren't local people. They're from out of state and they come because its easier to be homeless in a state where the winters won't kill you.

Just look at how many homeless are veterans from red states who dropped through the cracks in republican lead social and veteran systems, and headed to a blue state just to survive.

If red states were doing things better the problem wouldn't be this bad.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
"Legalize it, regulate it like is done for alcohol now (keep it out of the hands of minors), tax it with all taxes going to provide rehab and treatment for addicts."

And how do you keep it out of the hands of minors, when you can't even do that with the "most dangerous drug", being alcohol?

You do the best you can, but, interestingly, if you really examine your question, it answers itself.

You can't.

There are three overriding main points I'll point out...

1. There is no - zero - delegated power/authority in the Constitution to the Federal Government to regulate what people put in their bodies. Period.

The same goes for many State Constitutions, but there may be certain State constitutions that do delegate this authority to the State Government, but the bottom line is, if this is a government issue at all, it is a State issue.

2. Outlawing it doesn't stop it. Period.

13 years of prohibition and 50+ years of the drug war has proven this.

The reality is, people who want to do drugs are going to do drugs. Period.

3. Making it illegal actually increases desirability among young people. Think about it. As children become teenagers, they - most of them at least - enter various stages and degrees of a rebellious nature. Telling them they can't do something ... well, how well does that usually work?

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

If they agree, put them into public works projects, pay them and have them build their own housing under professional guidance during the construction phase? I mean what else is there. They provide labor just by their presence in the 1000's, that's a lot of labor.

a reply to: Waterglass

Sweat equity.

If they have time, and work, even money invested in it, they're likely, or more so, to care for it.

a reply to: Waterglass
Some would do it and be happy to work for it, some would do it grudgingly, and some would not. But the some that would do it would be more then enough. Either way it does not matter, as it would get done. You can even give them an incentive to work for there own place for those that do it.

Either way problem solved, dont see how they can spend $600 million in LA alone a year, and not solve this issue already. A monkey with a stamp whos job was to just stamp laws regulations and projects papers, which are placed in front of it, would solve this issue, simply by stamping random things into action by now.

So ya! your not going to solve homelessness at its core, as most of them have other issues and maybe the loonie bins should have never been closed down. But to get them off the streets and in some sort of cohesive low budget system. Is not not that hard to do.

They had that down pat to a science, back in the 1900 with the great depression and the immigration on Ellis island. At one point at Ellis island they were doing tens of thousands per day then some of all kinds of people with all kinds of things and issues. And somehow in worse conditions and with worse technology, and well? All of you are here now arent you? So to say that they cant solve this issue.

Is just naking stupid.