The only thing that drug screening welfare applicants has ever done is shown that the percentage of welfare applicants that use drugs is much lower than the general population.
You fucking morons are literally adopting Florida’s failures from a decade ago.
Man I forgot about the Florida drug screening thing from like 10-15 years ago. Been a wild decade though
The only thing that drug screening welfare applicants has ever done is shown that the percentage of welfare applicants that use drugs is much lower than the general population.
But it makes sense that usage rates would be lower if they had to stop taking to keep their presumably much-needed benefits.
Does that make it OK to use the welfare money for drugs?
Did Florida’s system just cut them off when they found them using or did they offer them assistance options for getting clean? S.F.'s system plans to offer them assistance getting clean while they continue to receive the welfare.
Some of us see drug use as a health issue and not a moral imperative. Money is fungible, so if they’re using welfare dollars to buy drugs instead of smashing car windows to get their fix, that’s probably a net positive even if it isn’t ideal.
And if you’re just trying to get more people into treatment, I’m not sure piss testing the poor is remotely the most cost effective approach.
There were 627 OD deaths in San Francisco in 2022. 806 OD deaths in 2023. I’d call that a failed system that needs a new approach. I don’t know what exactly we need to do, but it seems that giving people free reign to go down the path of a synthetic opiate addiction is mostly giving them a slow painful death. This may not be everyone’s problem now, but if this is allowed to continue destroying people in this country it WILL become everyone’s problem at some point.
“Giving people a free rein”
Again addiction isn’t a moral failing and pushing people out of the system is not going to solve a surge in fent deaths. Sure there’s a very realistic chance you’ll lower the ODs in SF as you push people into other towns and cities, but you’re not saving lives just leaving the problem on someone else’s doorstep.
There’s not a silver bullet for this addiction issue, but depriving people of any semblance of economic security is going to be counter productive.
So basically keep doing what we’re doing then and hope that things magically change? Many of the people suffering from addiction here actually are from other towns and cities all over the country. They end up staying here because their addiction is supported, and they never escape the cycle.
One of the supervisors that endorsed this measure, Matt Dorsey, is a recovered addict himself. I’d think that he would have a better idea than myself of what works and what doesn’t.
Honestly, I think it should be a Federal Government issue at this point because it is affecting people and destroying lives all over this country.
No… use the resources that you’d waste on testing for actual proven tactics. And not to sound cold hearted, but it’s a lot more effective to prevent addiction than to “cure” it. All of which is ignoring that you’re going to waste a lot of money on lawyers as this has been struck down several time’s now.
I do strongly agree this is a state and federal issue as cities are shouldering the overwhelming majority of the burden. They are being forced to deal with the symptom (drugs/crime), but have virtually no means of addressing the root causes of a problem that usually start somewhere else.
Agree with preventing addiction being a much better option, when available. It really sucks to see these people being given this slow torturous death, or being otherwise irreversibly damaged, all while ruining the city and sense of safety for others.
What would you say the proven tactics are that we could apply here, and where have they been proven?
How many of the people who ODed were on welfare? Because otherwise your numbers are not relevant.
Yes. It does make it okay. Welfare should be given on no conditions. If they want to spend it on drugs and won’t be able to afford food because of it, that is their choice. Why should people who get assistance be told how to spend that money? Should they also be restricted from buying beer with that money? How about sugary sodas? How far are you willing to go to tell people how they should be allowed to spend the money given to them when that is not a requirement for anyone else’s money?
The system should also offer them assistance to break addictions regardless.
If there’s no way for them to hurt themselves or others, then yes, I say let them buy whatever they want. But what about when those drugs not only are hurting them, but are toxically hurting the same society that gave them the money in the first place? What if they are no longer able to make sound decisions for themselves due to severe mental illness?
If I’m a bartender and I see somebody getting way too intoxicated, to the point they are hurting themselves or others, should I keep serving them more drinks? Or even buy them more myself? Hey man, here’s your car keys and a drink! Have a good night!
FYI, there actually is a tax on sugary sodas in this city… because too much can be harmful for everyone.
If there’s no way for them to hurt themselves
So they should be barred from buying anything with sugar in it because they might be diabetic.
or others, then yes, I say let them buy whatever they want.
So they should be barred from buying beer at anywhere that sells it from a bar to a supermarket, right? Alcohol can make people violent.
What if they are no longer able to make sound decisions for themselves due to severe mental illness?
So they should be barred from buying anything sharp in case they have a psychotic break. No kitchen knives, no pencils.
Or… we just don’t put rules on giving people money since, believe it or not, people not on assistance can have major drug problems and serious mental illness and they can spend their money however they want.
I think the argument for whether it is morally acceptable to supply someone with drugs, substances, weapons, or whatever else it is that that can kill them or others is always going to be a tough call, and we can sit here on it until the cows come home and still be in the same place honestly.
If you read the article though, it says that the measure doesn’t even stop them from receiving the funds, even if they are still using. They can literally use and won’t stop receiving receiving the funds, as long as they are open to treatment options.
Fine, then people should be allowed to receive their paychecks if they use drugs as long as they are open to treatment options.
Fair, right?
They should be yes. The only time mandatory pre-screening should be acceptable is if your job requires zero intoxication to legally perform your job. Like operating machinery, driving, etc. Beyond that it should only come up if there is good reason to believe that you are using and it is affecting your performance. Then you should be given the option to go through treatment before being fired comes up as an option.
Yes. That’s literrally what the measure says. That’s what we voted for.
I love how you’re getting massive downvotes for this. Go Lemmy!
That’s what happens when you ask questions that people don’t want to answer I guess. 🤷♂️
Drug treatment is important, yes, but making it a precondition for benefits will absolutely hurt the most vulnerable. If there was actually enough affordable housing available for everyone that needs it, there would be far less of a need for this kind of policy. It is well documented that providing housing before anything else sets people up for success. If someone has been living on the streets and suddenly has housing available, their life will improve so drastically thanks to the job and social opportunities that will become available, also making it less likely that drug abuse will continue.
This seems like a cop out to me. Just build houses for fuck’s sake.
Breed has been on the wrong side of so many issues. Most recently she made an incredibly tone-deaf statement denouncing the city council’s vote against the genocide in Gaza. I’m done with her.
https://voterguide.sfelections.org/local-ballot-measures/measure-a
This affordable housing measure also passed in the same election, for what it’s worth.
Thanks for the heads up. Yeah, I’m cautiously hopeful, but still quite skeptical they’ll get it right. These measures often sound good, but implementation is key.
Yeah I feel the same, cautiously hopeful. It seems like the implementation always gets bogged down with corruption, red tape and fingerpointing in this city…
The thing is, they don’t want drug users to have houses. Sad but true
How would (forced) addiction treatment hurt the most vulnerable?
For one thing, it’s extremely difficult to force someone out of an addiction. You usually have to want to quit in order for that to be an option. Otherwise you have to do something like torture them by making them go through a possibly extremely painful cold turkey withdrawal.
So I’d say torturing the most vulnerable would hurt them.
But what makes you think that’s what they’ll do? Would helping someone with an addiction towards treatment really ‘torture’ them?
Breed’s office has said the measure was intentionally designed to be flexible on the treatment component. Treatment options could range from out-patient services to a prescription for buprenorphine, a medication used to treat addiction. They noted it doesn’t include a requirement for participants to remain sober, recognizing that people often lapse in recovery and shouldn’t be kicked out of the program for a slip-up.
Thank you! People here getting all riled up without even reading the damn article. What else is new?
I am SO TIRED of articles about SF ending up in a national or global forum where people start complaining about stuff that SF is light years ahead on.
You asked about forced addiction treatment. Not this specific program.
There are a lot of times people are forced to have addiction treatment, especially by judges. And it is a form of torture.
Ok, fair enough. But I don’t think many treatment programs still make them go cold turkey though. Of course it’s always ‘less fun’ than just continuing shooting fentanyl, even for those who freely make the change
What? You think fentanyl addicts use it for fun? They probably didn’t even start using opioids for fun. They probably started because they were in pain.
Also, if they stop using opioids they will be in a lot more pain and they will still be living in America, where a for-profit medical system to treat that pain is beyond their reach.
It’s not about fun at all. What an incredibly insensitive thing to say.
If they don’t get help to stop, they eventually progress to a point where they are definitely not using for fun. They have no choice anymore. They have one goal and that is to be high at any cost. I work in a part of SF where there are a lot of them and the things I see them go through are horrendous. It feels like watching state sanctioned torture. They are literally being left to rot. I know two people that have lost a loved one to fentanyl and it really is heartbreaking.
beyond that forced treatment is ethically questionable, conditioning other forms of help on sobriety puts people in a bind. it’s hard for people to get and stay sober when they’re suffering, physically and mentally.
housing/food/health care (to include mental health and psychiatric care) first means it’s more likely that efforts toward sobriety will even work.
conditioning other forms of help on sobriety puts people in a bind.
This bill explicitly does not do that.
Forced addiction treatment isn’t what’s happening. They drug test the poor and then cut them off from benefits if they fail. It is a punishment.
The only way to be eligible for benefits again is to join a treatment program, many of which in the US are just religious ministries that care more about proselytizing than human outcomes. Even cults like the Church of Scientology runs drug treatment programs, with obvious motivations…
These people are exploited by pretty much everyone, including those who are tasked to help them. If your solution is to force them into anything, recovery or otherwise, you’re just exploiting them further.
You really need to read the article
From the article:
Breed’s office has said the measure was intentionally designed to be flexible on the treatment component. Treatment options could range from out-patient services to a prescription for buprenorphine, a medication used to treat addiction. They noted it doesn’t include a requirement for participants to remain sober, recognizing that people often lapse in recovery and shouldn’t be kicked out of the program for a slip-up.
“tough on crime” is just a euphemism for authoritarian
This is the opposite of the advice in the book, The End of Policing. Book was so good that I bought copies for people close to me.
Just take care of people. We can afford to. It costs less than enforcement costs.
From the article:
Breed’s office has said the measure was intentionally designed to be flexible on the treatment component. Treatment options could range from out-patient services to a prescription for buprenorphine, a medication used to treat addiction. They noted it doesn’t include a requirement for participants to remain sober, recognizing that people often lapse in recovery and shouldn’t be kicked out of the program for a slip-up.
Just take care of people. We can afford to.
Sure we can, but we won’t, because to certain people in power the cruelty is the purpose.
I mean the book is spot on, but taking care of people is socialism and that’s a dirty word nowadays.
Plus scared and disconnected people buy more stuff so we suffer for the sake of capitalism.
It helps them to have an enemy to blame for… whatever. They move the target a lot, but the poor are in the worst position to fight back. And the powers that be don’t want a fair fight; they want to punch down and then brag about how right they were and that that’s why you should re-elect them. Because they’re sociopaths.
that’s why you should re-elect them. Because they’re sociopaths.
Care to go back and edit or nah?
Just take care of people. We can afford to
Debatable. San Francisco spends a billion dollars a year on homelessness. That’s unsustainable even for SF. Only 800,000 people live in SF.
Debatable. San Francisco spends a billion dollars a year on homelessness. That’s unsustainable even for SF. Only 800,000 people live in SF.
The costs for locking up homeless people is greater than the cost of providing housing. The following quote is from a slapdash search; I haven’t read the document because my original source is a book, The End of Policing, and that book had multiple citations that I’m not listing here.
As identified in the chart above, the total cost of incarceration is estimated to be 25% higher than the total cost of providing equivalent supportive services to prevent recidivism.
There’s a question of induced demand. We don’t have really good data, but anecdotally there’s a common belief that a lot of SFs homeless either migrated here from other parts of the country or were bussed here, because of SFs lenience.
During most surveys, most homeless people report being born here. Which is a useless fact, because if they report being from somewhere else, they’ll likely get sent back there.
In any case, San Francisco does not incarcerate the homeless. It allows them to live on the streets.
People vote left wing
Left wing policies make city better
Better city attracts more people
More people increases costs
Increased costs filter for rich people
Rich people vote authoritarian.
And to be clear, they vote authoritarian because they are the authoritarians. In a capitalistic society money is authority. Those with money rule.
People assume rich people are voting against their self interests somehow, but they’re not. Money serves them and allows them to be exempt from most of the laws and rules.
They vote on laws that let them keep and make more money, at the expense of you not making as much. Then they use that wealth and influence to do it more.
Which is why we’re past due to be eating the rich.
You skipped the essential NIMBY step between these two:
Better city attracts more people
More people increases costs
Costs scale way out of proportion with population because of artificial constraints imposed by those lucky enough to be here first.
Worth noting that constraints aren’t 100% artificial in SF, just mostly artificial. It, like Helsinki, is situated on a peninsula and is part of a metropolitan area, so expansion isn’t really an option. Intentional NIMBY constraints make it so much worse.
Suburban sprawl is terrible for the environment anyway.
The NIMBY class will always project its insecurity more greatly than the remainder of the populace.
Local tech billionares are recently dumping more money into the city politics to shift it ot the right. The CEO of Y combinator, a hugely influential silicon valley incubator is notoriously antagonist and recently drunkenly said the local city council should “die slow.”
Awwww I like hacker news why does ycombinator have to be evil
Measures supporting low income housing, more ethics laws for city officials, turning office space into residential space, and $6B for mental health care also passed in the election. Those definitely don’t seem like things that the right would support.
Hes right of San Fransisco progressive politics. Basically bog standard tech bro liberals, i.e “Yimby but not actually where I live, also don’t tax me in any real way and where are all my cops at?”
The 7 city council members he told to die were all progressives. He opposes actual progressive reforms, and is willing to spend his billions and his massive influence to fight them.
Yeah he definitely seems like a bit of a loose cannon that only has a platform due to his wealth. Not that it makes it excusable, but he did issue an apology for what thats worth. I definitely don’t think that the majority of voters agree with the remarks he made to the city council members.
However, I do think that due to the prominent quality of life crimes, homelessness and drug use in recent years, a lot of the voters in San Francisco have become disenfranchised with Progressive politics, viewing them as failed experiments.
I mean, I agree that the NIMBY bastards on the city council should be kicked out, but not to pave the way for a cop-loving bootlicker.
The SF City Council sucks donkey balls but at least they stand up to copaganda.
FUCKING CHRIST CAN SAN FRAN EVER RECOVER FROM FEINSTEIN
Please stop watching Fox News.
im an anarchist you stupid cunt read a history book
Same difference. Same IQ anyway.
christ are you a pathetic loser. get a life other than posting 24/7 you neolib cunt
I’d just like to point out to everyone watching that I’m not reporting this, because I firmly believe that this moron has the right to call me a pathetic cunt and I’m not so fragile that seeing it gives me a mental disorder.
For those of you who can’t handle being insulted by someone online, don’t participate in online discussions.
For any mods reading this, do better. Insulting someone is not a banworthy offense. Insults are a part of life and some people need to grow a damn spine.
Policing a certain demographic more always works
Depends on who it’s working for. It works quite well for the people who want to drive up real estate prices.
So if they test positive for drugs, that means you’ll set them up with support programs, right? Treat the underlying issue, correct? Not just write them off and let the problem grow even more… right???
Breed’s office has said the measure was intentionally designed to be flexible on the treatment component. Treatment options could range from out-patient services to a prescription for buprenorphine, a medication used to treat addiction. They noted it doesn’t include a requirement for participants to remain sober, recognizing that people often lapse in recovery and shouldn’t be kicked out of the program for a slip-up.
Yes?
Holy shit I’m glad to be wrong. Honestly surprised. That’s what I get for not reading the article and just assuming.
Thanks for the correction
San Francisco is fairly groovy about these sort of things. Even when SF goes authoritarian it does so with some compassion. The SF city council has issued declarations of support for Palestine and calling for the end of genocide, and it’s a hotbed of protests against the genocide, and against fascism and religious authoritarianism in general. It was the center of the hippie movement, the gay rights movement, etc etc
Frisco is a good city.
Agreed. It is a revolutionary city. It’s where some of the world’s best free thinkers go to, well, change the world. This is what the natural process of societal evolution looks like at the forefront. Some things stick, some don’t. Compromise and understanding are critical in a functioning democracy, and no one side is going to get everything they want, even here.
This is what happens when less than 25% of the population comes out to vote.
Turnout in the last election in SF was 44.4%. Not fantastic, but much better than the rest of the state.
That’s why they pushed these referendums this election cycle, they knew it would be low turnout
That is a pretty sad turnout. The votes reflect the choices of about 92K registered democrats, vs. roughly 13K registered rebublicans though, so it’s not like this is some right wing takeover.
Oh good, I would hate to see a vulnerable struggling poor person get support that they don’t “deserve” because they didn’t fix their life yet.
Sincerely, 1/3 of this country. :/
From what I understand, drug screening usually ends up costing more than it saves because, unlike what the propagandists would have you believe, the vast majority of people on welfare aren’t on drugs.
Read the article:
Breed’s office has said the measure was intentionally designed to be flexible on the treatment component. Treatment options could range from out-patient services to a prescription for buprenorphine, a medication used to treat addiction. They noted it doesn’t include a requirement for participants to remain sober, recognizing that people often lapse in recovery and shouldn’t be kicked out of the program for a slip-up.
These Trump areas need to just fall into the ocean. It is sick what they want to do to poor people.
San Francisco, California is now a Trump area? What the fuck are you talking about?
And why does your gibberish have so many upvotes??
Seriously. Who the fuck is up voting this completely detached from reality shit? This is honestly a really bad look for Lemmy. It reminds me of “The_Donald” subreddit from back in the day. Different end of the political spectrum but behaving pretty similar.
Ah so the real estate developers are finally ready to finish their gentrification efforts. They must’ve forced out the last remaining owners in the area so now they can crack down and turn it into overpriced bullshit
The individual homeowners in California have developers over a barrel lol
Prop 13 gives all the power to home owners, as does the glut of local regulations and permits.
It’s why we have a housing crisis. Can’t build any more homes.
Removed by mod
Can we start with addiction to Fox News?
Removed by mod
