[StarryKnight1]

Originally Posted by kyle19125

As someone who is LGBTQ I could stomp my feet in indignation that my taxes go toward educating your children, but that's not what good citizenship is all about. Perhaps consider revisiting that..

I don’t have any children, thanks.

The point was that sending homeless to jail isn’t free, either, and, ironically enough, jailing the homeless in many cases only makes the homeless problem worse.

[Ghaati]

Originally Posted by gypsychic

No, the new law is prohibiting homeless camps on public property, not making it "illegal to be homeless." Those that are homeless because of circumstances have alternatives, and those people usually seek them.

And yes, I have personal experience with the homeless; on both my husband's and my side of the family. Do you?

Yes I do. I've slept in a graveyard with a bunch of homeless friends, woke up in a sleeping bag on the edge of the Harvard University campus when the morning sprinklers engaged, spent many nights with some squatters in a condemned house. No electricity, no plumbing, no fireplace, where the rain poured in from a hole in the roof onto the top bunk of a bunk bed. They peed in soda bottles that had the tops cut open.

I wasn't homeless, but they all were. Huge sub-culture of homeless in Boston/Cambridge. They found places to sleep, but none of them were homes, or shelters - shelters were where you went when you were so far gone in your mind that you stopped caring about being molested by the three other people sleeping on the cots next to you, or you'd wake up in the morning and your only pair of shoes and any possessions that you weren't physically holding in your hands while asleep, were missing.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

1 million syringes unaccounted for... once again, given the choice, I'd rather the addicts infect each other vs the addicts infecting the general public. I believe the law should apply to everyone.

Why would you wish such a thing? No matter how much you hate them, they are entitled to free emergency medical care through EMTALA (a federal program) and if they got HIV or another transmittable disease the cost of treating them would make the money spent on syringes look like chump change

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Why would you wish such a thing? No matter how much you hate them, they are entitled to free emergency medical care through EMTALA (a federal program) and if they got HIV or another transmittable disease the cost of treating them would make the money spent on syringes look like chump change

When you have millions of unaccounted syringes, you are putting the general public at risk.

You essentially have to choose who is put at risk of getting infected because the collection rate is NOT 100%. Even in Utah there are more than 1 million unaccounted for needles. I remember almost stepping on a needle in San Francisco at the beach. When you are giving away millions of needles and you aren't getting them all back... you are risking children and the general public getting infected. So given these TWO options, I'd rather let addicts choose to do the responsible thing or risk infecting each other than putting everyone else at risk. That is the better option then having a child step on a used needle in a park. However, as always, you seem to always choose the criminal over the general public or in this case the addict over the general public.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by kyle19125

As someone who is LGBTQ I could stomp my feet in indignation that my taxes go toward educating your children, but that's not what good citizenship is all about. Perhaps consider revisiting that..

Many same sex couples have children. You being gay has nothing to do with it.

[gentlearts]

Most homeless people could go to existing shelters, but they can’t, or wont, conform to the rules for staying there.

If they are either addicted or mentally ill, there is no place for them to go. This is thanks to the liberals who were afraid that institutionalizing the mentally ill was a violation of their civil rights. How’s it working?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

When you have millions of unaccounted syringes, you are putting the general public at risk.

You essentially have to choose who is put at risk of getting infected because the collection rate is NOT 100%. Even in Utah there are more than 1 million unaccounted for needles. I remember almost stepping on a needle in San Francisco at the beach. When you are giving away millions of needles and you aren't getting them all back... you are risking children and the general public getting infected. So given these TWO options, I'd rather let addicts choose to do the responsible thing or risk infecting each other than putting everyone else at risk. That is the better option then having a child step on a used needle in a park. However, as always, you seem to always choose the criminal over the general public or in this case the addict over the general public.

They would still get needles they can be purchased over the counter, you are not cutting off their access to needles by ending needle exchanges.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by gentlearts

Most homeless people could go to existing shelters, but they can’t, or wont, conform to the rules for staying there.

If they are either addicted or mentally ill, there is no place for them to go. This is thanks to the liberals who were afraid that institutionalizing the mentally ill was a violation of their civil rights. How’s it working?

Thanks to "liberals"?

Gov. Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act in 1967, all but ending the practice of institutionalizing patients against their will.

And regarding forced incarceration of addicts, you might want to read: Scotus Decision Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962) "It is unconstitutional for a state to punish a defendant for drug addiction, which is a status rather than an act, when the defendant has not engaged in any illegal conduct involving drugs in the state"

[HeartofFlorida]

Originally Posted by beach43ofus

https://www.wusf.org/politics-issues...%20governments.

It also requires local jurisdictions to provide places for them to go.

Issues like this do not help either: Lakeland homeless shelter faces crisis as hospitals dump patients on its doorstep: 'They lied to me'

[GiGi603]

Originally Posted by gentlearts

This is thanks to the liberals who were afraid that institutionalizing the mentally ill was a violation of their civil rights. How’s it working?

Looks like the Republican President Reagan started it.

Which president shut down mental institutions?
In 1981 President Ronald Reagan, who had made major efforts during his Governorship to reduce funding and enlistment for California mental institutions, pushed a political effort through the Democratically controlled House of Representatives and a Republican controlled Senate to repeal most of MHSA.