What's good about a policy that turns an addict away from shelter because they succumbed to their addiction? What good does that do for anyone?
-
-
It’s more moral to discourage addiction than to create conditions that encourage it.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
How is one “creating conditions that encourage” addiction by sheltering the homeless, exactly?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
By sheltering them without stipulation. I provide the example of sheltering them with drug tests and some means of employment.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
What good does turning away an addict do? It just puts them back on the street, where they are more likely to succumb to their addiction even further, commit crimes, and harm themselves. Back to square one.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Give them a choice. Rehab or jail. If they choose rehab, then they are willing to be rehabilitated. If they choose jail, we still rehabilitate under more restrictive surroundings. Make them choose.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Is this assuming that a crime has been committed? Or is the scenario entertaining the idea jailing addicts for addicts?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Jail addicts who commit crimes like shitting in public.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
What's moral or even the point of jailing someone who is so desperate to use the bathroom that they have to shit in the street? And let's say we do jail them, then what? They're out in a week tops and they'll do it again. We can skip all of that by just housing them.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
You house them, they commit property crimes around the shelter.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Your claim is that sheltering them makes them want to commit more crime? What sense does that even make? Just think about it.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
