Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

frappeyourmom t1_j9h6wfv wrote

Reply to comment by TastesLike762 in Two-thirds of McPherson Square homeless remain on street, D.C. says by SnortingCoffee

Going from “slamming heroin” every day to sober overnight has numerous studies to back up that that’s not a way to be sober sustainably long term. The most long term sustainable sober option is medication assisted treatment, that people still clutch their pearls about.

Like if any of you who are hardcore against drugs and would do any amount of research to see why harm reduction is the model that helps more people get sober and healthy with the assistance of MAT and able to get into housing and jobs long term like many of you claim to want them to get into, perhaps the policy failures that keep plaguing DC would get somewhere.

15

TastesLike762 t1_j9hf8tp wrote

I’m not hardcore against drugs. I’m suggesting that maybe the “hey you’re not coming in if you’re actively using dope” rule isn’t without merit and that it’s ok for a place to create and enforce rules.

27

Tuymaadaa t1_j9hjntb wrote

I hear your point about harm reduction, but from a budgetary perspective the ‘no conditions housing’ won’t make sense. Right or wrong, these programs are funded by foundations, cities, donations, and other good will and these stakeholders are interested in helping the most people the most cost effective way. That means help the ones who want it, don’t help the ones that don’t. Moreover, you can’t force a lifestyle change on a person who doesn’t want it. Also- what about harm reduction for people trying to avoid drugs, alcohol, and unstable, untreated addicts? It’s also not like it’s possible to create addicts/mentally unwell only housing.

No matter how much time, patience, resources, therapy (assuming they want it), and money are given to some people it won’t bring them to a base level of functional in mainstream society. This isn’t to say they’re undeserving of sympathy and support, but to say that in a society with limited resources and money services are going to go to the ones who stand to gain the most benefit.

11

frappeyourmom t1_j9hlgdt wrote

So I volunteer with one of the harm reduction organizations and I personally have made inroads with drug users who want help and to get sober. The one thing that’s stopping them is DC’s requirement that they have to be sober first. They don’t have the health insurance to be able to get sober because the main reason they use is pain management and they got addicted because of the opioid crisis. They don’t have a reliable address for Medicaid and they can’t use mine because I live in Virginia.

There IS money for programs, but DC has used more of that money to do sweeps and evictions than they have to get people into housing. LA has way more of a population to house and has been successful with a housing first model. So count up how many policy failures DC has and estimate how much money they could potentially save on sweeps if they prioritized housing instead of abstinence sobriety?

−4

Tuymaadaa t1_j9hyz0w wrote

I hear you on that. I had multiple family members dealing with addiction. Some are doing extremely well, living their best clean life. Some are dead but while they were alive talked all about how they wanted to beat their addiction. The best support systems in the whole didn’t save them. So Im cynical when people say a lack of housing is their only barrier, especially when some people are primed to take what they can get. Addiction really is something that needs to be dealt with on an individual to individual basis.

More to your point though, I’m 100% in agreement that addiction is more of a health crisis and would be fine with methadone clinics being added to hospitals, which would be great harm reduction and a good use of city funds. Realistically though I don’t see that happening in downtown DC because what would people prefer- clearing of a tent city or establishment of a treatment center plus housing for addicts?

1