In a bid to address the city's drug crisis — and the crime and homelessness that come with it — San Francisco voters shifted right in Tuesday's primary, approving ballot measures that aim to boost enforcement powers.
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.
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?
What would you say the proven tactics are that we could apply here, and where have they been proven?
Based upon the rat city experiments, improve quality of life, reduce stress, and increase social connection. All of which can be addressed by taking on wealth inequality and financial instability as well as reducing the average hours of work needed to afford necessities for living (or better, remove the requirement). Drug addiction is largely caused by the circumstances surrounding poverty and other high-stress situations.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Based upon the rat city experiments, improve quality of life, reduce stress, and increase social connection. All of which can be addressed by taking on wealth inequality and financial instability as well as reducing the average hours of work needed to afford necessities for living (or better, remove the requirement). Drug addiction is largely caused by the circumstances surrounding poverty and other high-stress situations.
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.
So they should be barred from buying anything with sugar in it because they might be diabetic.
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.
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.
You’re saying the opposite of what I’m saying.
I’m saying that if drug screening is a requirement for assistance, it should be a requirement for all paychecks as well.
Otherwise, you’re just punishing poor people for doing the same things people aren’t poor do- get addicted to drugs.
Yes. That’s literrally what the measure says. That’s what we voted for.
The measure puts that same restriction on employee paychecks on all businesses in the city? Really?
Uh, where are you seeing that? That’s not part of the measure, as far as I can tell.
https://voterguide.sfelections.org/local-ballot-measures/measure-f
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. 🤷♂️