Are people homeless by choice or circumstance?

[SeekWithYourI's]

Are people homeless by choice or circumstance?

1.I have been homeless and it wasn't my choice. I believe nobody wants to be homeless they just are.
2. How can you help the homeless?

[Propter W.]

Some are homeless by choice, others aren't.

How can we help them? First of all, they need to accept help. Some homeless people I know don't accept help. Most of them, however, will appreciate it. There are, however, specialised organisations and government departments that deal with homelessness. They are better equipped to provide help for these people. In my country homeless people are entitled to housing, financial aid (provisions), urgent medical care and they can even get help with managing debt. So it's very important to inform them of their rights.

Addiction and psychological problems are not uncommon in homeless people. There's little the average Joe or Jane can do to help them with these problems. Perhaps, you can direct them to professionals but again, I think it's best to contact those specialised organisations or departments. They can help you help them.

Finally, you can't do much wrong with giving them food and shelter.

[The Atheist]

Are people homeless by choice or circumstance?

1.I have been homeless and it wasn't my choice. I believe nobody wants to be homeless they just are.
2. How can you help the homeless?

Depends on what social services exist in your country.

In New Zealand, and I'm pretty sure Australia, it is impossible to become homeless* without making a decision that you would rather spend your welfare payments on booze, cigarettes, drugs, gambling, or other unnecessary items in preference to food & shelter.

I can't speak for USA.

Obviously, if your country does not provide a safety net for the bottom strata of socio-economic status, then it's not a choice, but an inevitability for some people.

*There are [seemingly] rare occasions where bureaucratic mess-ups leave people homeless for short periods, but it's usually fixed pretty smartly.

___________________________


Can you explain the circumstances that you're talking about in terms of fixing the problem/helping the homeless?

Clearly, an addict needs to seek help before they can be helped, but others who are placed in the position by inadequate welfare systems would need money. And not $2 coins.

[Janine]

In the US yes and no. Some become homeless from their own carelessness or issues. Others become homeless from no fault of their own, which is very sad indeed. All homeless need help.

[Delta40]

People become homeless emotionally. That is what puts them on the street. A man's marriage breaks down, he loses his business -everything. He doesn't know how nor even wants to go on. These are not 'free' choices he makes but he might lose all sense of belonging and purpose. A housing project could give him a residence but it will be a challenge for him to sustain it while he feels absolutely, totally worthless inside. He may seek shelter in his own displacement which after a while becomes familiar to him. He may flock with others in the same strait as him. The more familiar it becomes, the more likely he will follow that familiar road. It is human to do this - no matter what the situation. It is naive to think a physical structure alone will address homelessness completely.

[Emil Miller]

The answer is that some are and some aren't but often the problem is one of loss of self-respect, where the homeless person simply feels worthless and drifts downwards. I know this because I had a colleague who told me that he had been homeless until a woman, whom he subsequently married, rescued him from his predicament. He didn't reveal the circumstances that led to his homelessness, but he was an intelligent man and could be very amusing.
I still think about him sometimes and the laughs we had in the laboratory where we worked.

[Propter W.]

Depends on what social services exist in your country.

In New Zealand, and I'm pretty sure Australia, it is impossible to become homeless* without making a decision that you would rather spend your welfare payments on booze, cigarettes, drugs, gambling, or other unnecessary items in preference to food & shelter.I can't speak for USA.

Obviously, if your country does not provide a safety net for the bottom strata of socio-economic status, then it's not a choice, but an inevitability for some people.

*There are [seemingly] rare occasions where bureaucratic mess-ups leave people homeless for short periods, but it's usually fixed pretty smartly.
___________________________

Can you explain the circumstances that you're talking about in terms of fixing the problem/helping the homeless?

Clearly, an addict needs to seek help before they can be helped, but others who are placed in the position by inadequate welfare systems would need money. And not $2 coins.

Booze, cigarettes, drugs and gambling are all addictive. Addiction is a very complex problem and I think it's not entirely right to say addiction is a choice. I've been living with an addict for over a decade and I can tell you it's not simply a matter of deciding to buy drugs (which includes alcohol and cigs) over buying food and paying for shelter.

Addicted homeless people don't have the same incentives to get sober as "regular" people. They are at the margin of society. They often have no one that cares about them and will confront them with their problem (their only friends might even be fellow addicts). They are not at risk of losing their job, home, family... So they are not as likely to seek help as others.

[The Atheist]

Booze, cigarettes, drugs and gambling are all addictive.

Correct!


Addiction is a very complex problem and I think it's not entirely right to say addiction is a choice.

Having spent a lot of time with and around alcoholics, compulsive gamblers, drug addicts and dealers, I can only disagree with you.

Becoming addicted isn't necessarily a choice, staying addicted is.

An addict has a disease. If you have a disease, your choice is clear - seek help for a cure, or not. Addicts choose not to.


I've been living with an addict for over a decade and I can tell you it's not simply a matter of deciding to buy drugs (which includes alcohol and cigs) over buying food and paying for shelter.

No, that's exactly what it is.

Seriously, that is just acting as a spokesperson to allow people to allow addictions to rule their lives. A normal person will look at his money and pay for the essentials. (Deva vu; I was talking to my 11 yo daughter about Maslow last night) Some addicts will buy whatever fuels their addiction and ignore everything else.

Freedom of choice must have limits.


Addicted homeless people don't have the same incentives to get sober as "regular" people.

Utter nonsense. Aside from the dear old homophobic Salvation Army and their legions of derelict-helpers, there are dozens of organisations which cater for derelicts' living needs and genuinely try to help them get off the ........ and into a life.

Many years ago, I used to work in petrol station just down the road from the local Salvo HQ where those returning from detox would be given a fresh start in clean clothes. The old Salvos, ever the thoughtful, used to provide the men with a "brick" (200 cigs) of cigarettes as part of their starter.

I couldn't count the number of times a freshly-dressed derelict would come in and swap his 200 fags for as much money as I felt like giving him. Then straight to the pub. (They were all alkies in those days)

It always amuses me that in discussions about homeless, those who are saying "it ain't their fault" and bemoan the plight of them, often seem to ignore that there's an entire industry based on keeping alive colonies of people who just don't want to be helped.

Maybe if we didn't provide a bed and mean when they needed it, the homeless would have more incentive.


They are at the margin of society. They often have no one that cares about them and will confront them with their problem (their only friends might even be fellow addicts). They are not at risk of losing their job, home, family... So they are not as likely to seek help as others.

Sure. Treat 'em like some people do the feral cat populations? Keep them alive and let them do their own thing as adding colour to a community? Showing that if you really don't want to be part of normal society, that even at the very bottom, someone will come and feed you?

Keeps do-gooders in work, I guess, so it can't be all bad. Otherwise, they'd be out among us!

:D

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

As someone who truly has a disease, I find it offensive when someone claims any form of addiction as a disease. A disease is something one receives out of their control. Addiction is something one chooses to do. Simple as that.

[Vonny]

I agree with M-M, as I'm someone who truly has a habit as opposed to a disease. I've struggled with anorexia for a number of years, and I've found that I can only recover when I view this problem as something that I have control over. If I don't eat, I'm making that choice, and I am free to make a different choice. It may be difficult, but I don't allow myself to say, "I feel stressed, so I can't help myself."

Eating disorders are now considered a disease, which, to me, is preposterous. There's a huge industry concerned with making habits into diseases and treating these diseases. And this makes recovery impossible, in my mind, because you're fighting this "disease" that you can't understand and that leaves you powerless and hopeless, as though worms are eating up your brain or something.

I saw this clearly after reading one of my favorite authors, Frank McCourt, who said, "A person can not walk away from cancer. He can walk away from alcohol."

[Propter W.]

Correct!

At least I got one right...

Having spent a lot of time with and around alcoholics, compulsive gamblers, drug addicts and dealers, I can only disagree with you.

Becoming addicted isn't necessarily a choice, staying addicted is.

An addict has a disease. If you have a disease, your choice is clear - seek help for a cure, or not. Addicts choose not to.

Choice is an illusion. Addiction wires your brain differently. You are your brain.

No, that's exactly what it is.

Well, if you say so...

Seriously, that is just acting as a spokesperson to allow people to allow addictions to rule their lives. A normal person will look at his money and pay for the essentials. (Deva vu; I was talking to my 11 yo daughter about Maslow last night) Some addicts will buy whatever fuels their addiction and ignore everything else.

Again, it seems you don't understand at all what addiction is. You totally underestimate the power of addiction.

It always amuses me that in discussions about homeless, those who are saying "it ain't their fault" and bemoan the plight of them, often seem to ignore that there's an entire industry based on keeping alive colonies of people who just don't want to be helped.

Maybe if we didn't provide a bed and mean when they needed it, the homeless would have more incentive.

Do you simplify everything? A great number of homeless people has a history of psychological problems and has been the victim of physical and/or sexual abuse. Many of them are simply mentally ill.

These people are not "colonies of people who just don't want to be helped", they are usually people who fell through the cracks of our social system (if there's one in place). They deserve our help. Not because we signed the universal declaration of human rights or because we vowed to help them in our constitutions but because more often than not it is not their choice. Free will is an illusion.

Sure. Treat 'em like some people do the feral cat populations? Keep them alive and let them do their own thing as adding colour to a community? Showing that if you really don't want to be part of normal society, that even at the very bottom, someone will come and feed you?

Who feeds feral cats?

[Propter W.]

As someone who truly has a disease, I find it offensive when someone claims any form of addiction as a disease. A disease is something one receives out of their control. Addiction is something one chooses to do. Simple as that.

I'd say that's quite an arrogant view, one the medical and scientific community will generally dismiss.

[Vonny]

arrogant? Sometimes people are so blunt (or is it rude?) that my heart pounds.

[Lokasenna]

Again, it seems you don't understand at all what addiction is. You totally underestimate the power of addiction.


Actually, the tendency these days is to massively overestimate the power of addicition. It takes a lot of effort to get physically addicted to a substance, and the withdrawl effects of many of the most serious drugs (including heroin) are on a par with a mild case of the flu.

Have a read of this article (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-poppycock.htm). Though I don't always agree with the man, Dalrymple is one of my favourite social commentators. I should point out that he is a fully trained medical doctor and psychiatrist who has spent most of his career working in British prisons.

[Vonny]

Nobody else can say it quite like Lokasenna :smile5:

[Propter W.]

Actually, the tendency these days is to massively overestimate the power of addicition. It takes a lot of effort to get physically addicted to a substance, and the withdrawl effects of many of the most serious drugs (including heroin) are on a par with a mild case of the flu.

Have a read of this article (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-poppycock.htm). Though I don't always agree with the man, Dalrymple is one of my favourite social commentators. I should point out that he is a fully trained medical doctor and psychiatrist who has spent most of his career working in British prisons.

Not a very convincing article. Take a look at this site (especially the first four titles).

[Propter W.]

arrogant? Sometimes people are so blunt (or is it rude?) that my heart pounds.

Arrogant may not be the right word. How about callous or narrow-minded?

[Brock]

Actually, the tendency these days is to massively overestimate the power of addicition. It takes a lot of effort to get physically addicted to a substance, and the withdrawl effects of many of the most serious drugs (including heroin) are on a par with a mild case of the flu.

Have a read of this article (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-poppycock.htm). Though I don't always agree with the man, Dalrymple is one of my favourite social commentators. I should point out that he is a fully trained medical doctor and psychiatrist who has spent most of his career working in British prisons.

This is a very interesting article and raises some insightful points. But I really cannot agree with its argument. Credentials do not necesarily validate something as a fact. Very often, respected, well-qualified and experienced scientists sometimes just get things plain wrong.

For example, Dalrymple claims the following:

When, unbeknown to them, I have observed addicts before they entered my office, they were cheerful; in my office, they doubled up in pain and claimed never to have experienced suffering like it, threatening suicide unless I gave them what they wanted. When refused, they often turned abusive, but a few laughed and confessed that it had been worth a try. Somehow, doctors—most of whom have had similar experiences— never draw the appropriate conclusion from all of this. Insofar as there is a causative relation between criminality and opiate addiction, it is more likely that a criminal tendency causes addiction than that addiction causes criminality.

I can hardly believe this. This isn't a tube of smarties we're talking about.

I actually work for the Salvation Army and spend a lot of my time with heroin addicts. You really have to speak to these people personally and try to understand them for yourself. 'Addiction' is definitely one way of describing many peoples' use of heroin. Think of a 'typical' heroin users' life. (I know 'typical' is wrong: everyone is different, but for the purpose of argument...) Many have absolutely no interest in life. They only feel capable of living when they've shot up. Why? Because their withdrawal effects are so acute. There are many physical effects, but psychologically it is practically depression. They live for the needle. I've formed a pretty close relationship with one particular individual who had actually been on heroin for over 20 years. He would be devestated to find out that someone would even hint that heroin isn't addictive. It's completely ruined his life. It's amazing he's even alive. A relative of my own family became addicted to heroin; he didn't survive. Addiction is real. Just because you're not shaking and sweating in a corner after 10 hours, like a scene from trainspotting, it doesn't mean that the urge to shoot up doesn't exist. When you having nothing else to live for, when all those who you werre close to have abandoned you, why wouldn't you shoot up again? That is what addiction is. Choice doesn't even come into it.

As for heroin addiction being a disease, I don't really think it is.


Aside from the dear old homophobic Salvation Army

What?

[Propter W.]

What?

I was also a bit surprised when I read that. But then I did a quick search on the interweb and found this (http://news.change.org/stories/are-anti-gay-policies-hurting-the-salvation-armys-coffers) article that may shed some light on The Atheist's statement.

[Lokasenna]

This is a very interesting article and raises some insightful points. But I really cannot agree with its argument. Credentials do not necesarily validate something as a fact. Very often, respected, well-qualified and experienced scientists sometimes just get things plain wrong.


Well, fair enough. Dalrymple would be (and usually is) the first person to admit that he has a generally negative view of humanity, though he would argue that this borne out by his experience.

Nonetheless, given how prolific and respected an author he is, it would not behoove him to print anything he did not think was true or defendable. I have a friend who works for social service who has said many things that agree with his pronouncements, including things on the nature of addiction.

[The Atheist]

As someone who truly has a disease, I find it offensive when someone claims any form of addiction as a disease. A disease is something one receives out of their control. Addiction is something one chooses to do. Simple as that.

Nope, that completely wrong, sorry. I'm sure some people choose to become addicts, but in most cases, it happens all by itself. Taking drugs is a choice, becoming addicted isn't. Staying addicted is.


Choice is an illusion. Addiction wires your brain differently. You are your brain.

See above. While addiction is physiological, it is treatable, as shown by millions of ex-addicts around the world. Staying addicted is clearly a choice.



Again, it seems you don't understand at all what addiction is. You totally underestimate the power of addiction.

No. I didn't say anywhere it was easy.



Do you simplify everything? A great number of homeless people has a history of psychological problems and has been the victim of physical and/or sexual abuse. Many of them are simply mentally ill.

And a great deal more mentally ill and abused people do not become street people, so I don't get your point. History isn't an excuse and mental illnesses are usually at least somewhat treatable - to the extent that the sufferers manage to live near-normal lives.


These people are not "colonies of people who just don't want to be helped", they are usually people who fell through the cracks of our social system (if there's one in place).

And this is plain nonsense, as evinced by the fact that the street people still collect their welfare payments, they just choose to spend the money on their addiction. I've already commented on the legions of helpers they have, so "falling through the cracks" is clearly wrong.


Who feeds feral cats?

Old ladies mostly.


It takes a lot of effort to get physically addicted to a substance,....

That's surprisingly inaccurate. It's been fairly well documented that crystal methamphetamine can be addictive very quickly.


What?

Salvation Army is homophobic by actions, publications and attitude:


I was also a bit surprised when I read that. But then I did a quick search on the interweb and found this (http://news.change.org/stories/are-anti-gay-policies-hurting-the-salvation-armys-coffers) article that may shed some light on The Atheist's statement.

Bingo!

Also, the Salvation Army spent an immense amount of money and time running a petition to our Parliament to keep sodomy illegal.

Fortunately failed.

[Brock]

Salvation Army is homophobic by actions, publications and attitude:

[...]

Bingo!

Also, the Salvation Army spent an immense amount of money and time running a petition to our Parliament to keep sodomy illegal.

Fortunately failed.

I am slightly embarrased to admit that I was completely - and blissfully - unaware of this. What a shame! Thanks for info, The Atheist. This news has really affected me, and I might ask a few questions about this to my manager and co-workers. I guess this is another example of how religious teachings can simultaneously cause breathtaking charity and astounding inequality. Although an atheist myself, I naturally handle their religious conduct with the respect and reverence that I feel it deserves, and the good it does to some people (I generally believe that Christianity is often the fundamental thing that helps some homeless addicts to recovery). But homophobia is something I cannot respect, even if it does go hand in hand with charity and good will. Still shocked.

Lokasenna: you've made me intrigued; I'll find some of Dalrymple's stuff now (sounds like something I'd like!). I can understand your friend's experiences and views. The homeless come in all shapes and sizes and every person is different. Heroin aside, one can expect to encounter some people who do 'fake' addictions or - more common - exaggerate the gravity of their habits for effect. It's a useful tool for excuses: 'it's not my fault: all I've known is booze'. Not that I'm saying alcohol is a bowl of coco-pops. In fact, I'd say alcohol is the most harmful and addictive drug out of everything. But exaggeration of addiction can still be seen. I find this the cause, in particular, for cannabis. Cannabis, in my view, is radically exagerrated in terms of its addictiveness and its harm, and I believe that politics and societal attitudes generally are much to blame for this alarming misconception.

[Vonny]

This other view is very firmly entrenched in our society. But I think that just as in Nazi Germany, the majority have it wrong.

I was pretty much run off the anorexia recovery forum over this same issue. If you suggest that anorexia is not a disease, you get this same outpouring.

Lastly, I'd just like to ask: What kind of idiot ever puts methamphetamine into his/her body for the first time? It would take a lot of effort for me to put meth into my body. I know of a woman who says she began as a teenager before she knew better, (and she is now clean, supposedly), but still I don't get it. I was as dumb and messed up as any other kid, and I knew better than to touch methamphetamine.

If I couldn't pay my rent, I would choose to be homeless rather than live in the community where they house these meth people. To me, there is nothing more loathsome than methamphetamine users.

These people always have children, and the abuse and neglect of the children is something that I psychologically could not deal with, so I wouldn't want them for neighbors, I'd rather be in a tent.

[Brock]

Lastly, I'd just like to ask: What kind of idiot ever puts methamphetamine into his/her body for the first time? It would take a lot of effort for me to put meth into my body. I know of a woman who says she began as a teenager before she knew better, (and she is now clean, supposedly), but still I don't get it. I was as dumb and messed up as any other kid, and I knew better than to touch methamphetamine.

Idiots or no, it is interesting to consider whether we, the tax paying citizen, should still charitably offer them a bed and food. In my opinion, we cannot allow ourselves to subject any individual to starvation and cold.


If I couldn't pay my rent, I would choose to be homeless rather than live in the community where they house these meth people. To me, there is nothing more loathsome than methamphetamine users.

I would suggest that there possibly is one thing more loathsome: dying of hyperthermia in an alleyway, knowing that no one in the world cares.


These people always have children, and the abuse and neglect of the children is something that I psychologically could not deal with, so I wouldn't want them for neighbors, I'd rather be in a tent.

A tent? Good idea. Until someone steals it/rips it down/ it breaks...

I'm not having a go at you, Vonny. I really understand your dislike for 'idiots' (you're quite right there) who take such an obviously destructive substance, and, in a lot of cases, do often allow their habits to be taken up by their children. But I wouldn't judge too harshly of anybody with any drug problem, especially collectively/plurally. No two stories are the same.

[Delta40]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions - so is the road to homelessness. One thing is certain. We are not all born at the same start line. When we start imposing our own capabilities on others who like Brock says have completely different stories, we become nothing less than hypocrites. Only wanting to take credit for the sunshine we bathe while disowning poor weather elsewhere, helps nobody, least of all ourselves.

[Vonny]

I've heard too much, and seen too much, of methamphetamine users, in particular.

In a town that neighbors mine, a baby burned to death while her mother left her alone to use meth with her boyfriend. That is a story that reached the newspaper, but I hear much, much more from my friend who is a social worker.

They put these people up in housing, and they burn it down with their children inside.

I think I'd rather sleep in a park and die of hypothermia than live next door to that.

Oh and Delta, I think you have the second cutest avatar on the site now.

[Delta40]

Sock Puppet wiggles its head @ vonny

[Vonny]

Delta, I need to get my own sock puppet :smile5:

I want to go back to one of Propter's statements:

"Choice is an illusion. Addiction wires your brain differently. You are your brain."

I think the last two sentences are true, but the first one is completely false.

Addiction (or habits) do wire your brain differently. But you can always re-wire your brain.

I'm passionate about this myself. I'm constantly working on rewiring my brain!

The idea that choice is illusion makes me shudder! Choice is not an illusion!

For me, it's a bit more complicated than to, for instance, stop drinking, because I have to do things in the right proportions. Sometimes I think if I could just quit smoking, or something, that would be much easier.

Anyway, there are all kinds of research being done now on how the brain's different structures interact and can be rewired through our conscious thought processes and behaviors.

You might google "Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz's Four Steps." This applies to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, which I have (I clean too much), but this approach for resisting urges can apply to any habit. You resist the urges, and after a while, they will recede. It just takes practice.

The book "Rational Recovery: the New Cure for Substance Addiction" is interesting, even for non-alcoholics. It addresses how to make our brains work for us and not against us.

But I've learned that I've had to really pick and choose among books, experts, and therapies. There is so much bogus stuff out there to lead people astray. Researchers want funding for their studies, and often they are irresponsible. I heard an addiction expert make this claim: "Every time I go to the movies, I have to have popcorn, and I don't even like popcorn." That's nonsense. That sends the message that even this supposedly brilliant scientist has no control over herself, so how can anyone else? Nonsense. As humans we all have the freedom to choose.

[Delta40]

we all have the RIGHT to choose, but are these choices made in free conditions?

[Brock]

Oh and Delta, I think you have the second cutest avatar on the site now.

:thumbsup: But who gets first place?


You might google "Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz's Four Steps." This applies to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, which I have (I clean too much), but this approach for resisting urges can apply to any habit. You resist the urges, and after a while, they will recede. It just takes practice.

Food for thought. And, overall, I see your point. If the person I know at work quit heroin after over 20 years of use, then 'choice' is definitely a reality. He chose to stop. No one else made him (indeed, no one else can make you). Of course, this requires immense strength. But the choice was always there.

As to whether they are made in free conditions: yes, in a way. But the level of difficulty to stop is obviously different for everybody and is contingent on an infinite amount of factors.

[The Atheist]

(I generally believe that Christianity is often the fundamental thing that helps some homeless addicts to recovery).

I'm not trying to pour too much cold water on you, but I think you'll find, if you research it properly, that divine assistance in handling addictions is no better than secular methods.

However, different things will work for different people, and divine inspiration is cited a lot. The reason there are so many is because so many are aided by programs set up by various religions. I don't argue that they're any better or worse than any other method - in reality, they're all much the same. Some wins, many losses.

(You should visit the blokes' thread as well, we have a few from not far off your way!)


But homophobia is something I cannot respect, even if it does go hand in hand with charity and good will. Still shocked.

I'll be interested in what your guys say. They are pretty hard line on it in my experience.


This other view is very firmly entrenched in our society. But I think that just as in Nazi Germany, the majority have it wrong.

Bit early to Godwin?


I was pretty much run off the anorexia recovery forum over this same issue. If you suggest that anorexia is not a disease, you get this same outpouring.

Good analogy too - quite similar, anorexia and addiction.



Addiction (or habits) do wire your brain differently. But you can always re-wire your brain.

If inly more people realised that.

We need to think of our thought processes as a gigantic railway station, with millions of connecting tracks and realise that we can build new links and railway lines by just thinking about it!

[Propter W.]

See above. While addiction is physiological, it is treatable, as shown by millions of ex-addicts around the world. Staying addicted is clearly a choice.
A lot of addicts decide to go sober every day but before they are able to act on their "choice," they're already getting their fix. That's how addiction works. How many millions of ex-addicts woke up one day and said 'today I choose to quit meth, booze, cigarettes...' and were able to pull it off? I'd say very little.

I might agree with you if you phrased it differently. Getting clean might be a choice but staying addicted is simply addiction. And trying to get clean is something very few addicts can do without any support.


And a great deal more mentally ill and abused people do not become street people, so I don't get your point. History isn't an excuse and mental illnesses are usually at least somewhat treatable - to the extent that the sufferers manage to live near-normal lives.

And this is plain nonsense, as evinced by the fact that the street people still collect their welfare payments, they just choose to spend the money on their addiction. I've already commented on the legions of helpers they have, so "falling through the cracks" is clearly wrong.
I'm not saying it's an excuse. I'm saying there's more to it than choice. I know quite a few kids who got beat up or who were abused sexually, kids whose parents were not around and who had no one to look after them. They lacked proper guidance, something a kid needs. Some of them basically lived on the streets before they were thirteen. Got hooked on hard drugs before they were fifteen. How much choice do you think they had?

Collecting a welfare payment is simply survival. Spending on money on drugs instead of food is, metaphorically speaking, a sympton of addiction.

They certainly did fell through the cracks. These legions of helpers help after the fact, after they've become homeless, after they were mistreated and neglected for years, after they got in touch with drugs and crime during their teen or even pre-teen years...

Perhaps your system in New Zealand is that much more advanced than in this little European country. Here, it certainly not always a matter of choice as you seem to say.


Old ladies mostly.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1391/801995839_73b9c5c449.jpg

?

[Propter W.]

Delta, I need to get my own sock puppet :smile5:

I want to go back to one of Propter's statements:

"Choice is an illusion. Addiction wires your brain differently. You are your brain."

I think the last two sentences are true, but the first one is completely false.

Addiction (or habits) do wire your brain differently. But you can always re-wire your brain.

I'm passionate about this myself. I'm constantly working on rewiring my brain!

The idea that choice is illusion makes me shudder! Choice is not an illusion!

For me, it's a bit more complicated than to, for instance, stop drinking, because I have to do things in the right proportions. Sometimes I think if I could just quit smoking, or something, that would be much easier.

Anyway, there are all kinds of research being done now on how the brain's different structures interact and can be rewired through our conscious thought processes and behaviors.

You might google "Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz's Four Steps." This applies to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, which I have (I clean too much), but this approach for resisting urges can apply to any habit. You resist the urges, and after a while, they will recede. It just takes practice.

The book "Rational Recovery: the New Cure for Substance Addiction" is interesting, even for non-alcoholics. It addresses how to make our brains work for us and not against us.

But I've learned that I've had to really pick and choose among books, experts, and therapies. There is so much bogus stuff out there to lead people astray. Researchers want funding for their studies, and often they are irresponsible. I heard an addiction expert make this claim: "Every time I go to the movies, I have to have popcorn, and I don't even like popcorn." That's nonsense. That sends the message that even this supposedly brilliant scientist has no control over herself, so how can anyone else? Nonsense. As humans we all have the freedom to choose.

Choice might not be an illusion, free choice most likely is. Researchers have already proven that your brain has actually made the choice 'long' before 'you' make the choice. Studies have also shown that when neurologists move a patient's arm or leg by stimulating parts of the brain, patients frequently insist it was their intention (choice) all along to move that limb. Sometimes they even invent ludicrous reason as to why they wanted to move that arm or leg. In other words, they are convinced they actively and personally made a choice, when clearly they didn't.

Check out D. (Daniel, I think) Wegner's book The Illusion of Conscious Will?

[The Atheist]

A lot of addicts decide to go sober every day but before they are able to act on their "choice," they're already getting their fix. That's how addiction works. How many millions of ex-addicts woke up one day and said 'today I choose to quit meth, booze, cigarettes...' and were able to pull it off? I'd say very little.

We're all agreed that quitting addiction isn't easy, but I think you'll find that every specialist and person who has worked with addicted people will tell you that the only step that matters is the addict wanting to quit. You can't force people to stop addictive behaviour, they must decide for themselves.

If that doesn't describe free choice, nothing does. Choosing to quit then not doing so is not a decision to quit, it's the exact opposite. Seeking help from the myriad of government departments and NGOs and acting on their programs would be choosing to quit.

I might agree with you if you phrased it differently. Getting clean might be a choice but staying addicted is simply addiction. And trying to get clean is something very few addicts can do without any support.



I'm not saying it's an excuse. I'm saying there's more to it than choice.

English is good like that!


I know quite a few kids who got beat up or who were abused sexually, kids whose parents were not around and who had no one to look after them. They lacked proper guidance, something a kid needs. Some of them basically lived on the streets before they were thirteen. Got hooked on hard drugs before they were fifteen. How much choice do you think they had?

The fact that most deprived and abused children don't turn into drug abusers pretty well proves that the fate isn't determined. We have a classic pair of abused children from the same family over here. One has just been released after 20-odd years for rape & double murder.

The other is a former Member of Parliament.

At some stage, even young street kids will come to the realisation that there is another choice. Like I keep saying, the Salvation Army, Auckland City Mission and many other organisations assist these people daily where I live. They know there's an alternative, they're encouraged to take the alternative, but they will not.


Collecting a welfare payment is simply survival. Spending on money on drugs instead of food is, metaphorically speaking, a sympton of addiction.

Correct. It ought to be pretty obvious at that stage that you have a problem. That only a small percentage of drug abusers and alcoholics end up on the streets is even more evidence that they choose that life. No responsibilities, just drugged haze.


They certainly did fell through the cracks. These legions of helpers help after the fact, after they've become homeless, after they were mistreated and neglected for years, after they got in touch with drugs and crime during their teen or even pre-teen years...

And they choose to continue the lifestyle.


Perhaps your system in New Zealand is that much more advanced than in this little European country. Here, it certainly not always a matter of choice as you seem to say.

Leaders in social justice, we are!

:D



?

Exactly that. You must have seen some of the crazy old cat women around your way? Every city has at least a couple of them - they live in houses with hundreds of cats.

They don't smell all that good.

[OrphanPip]

I'm in agreement with Propter, somewhat.

Addiction isn't so easy for people to kick. I have a coworker who used to do crack, this was when she used to work down East on a fishing boat with an abusive boyfriend. How was she able to get away? She moved to another province to live with her sister and she went to college and got a technical diploma. Is that an option for everyone though?

I also used to know a local crack head (worked for my brother and was dating a girl I went to high school with) who used to show off, at parties, his ability to hang his key-chain from his crack rotted teeth. How did he get addicted to crack? He was in a car accident at 17 and went to jail for manslaughter, where he became addicted. As far as I know he's still addicted to crack.

These people aren't without responsibility for their positions, but I have a hard time determining at what point does responsibility somehow negate compassion. If someone trips and breaks their hip because they weren't watching where they were walking, would you just step over them and ignore their pain?

[The Atheist]

If someone trips and breaks their hip because they weren't watching where they were walking, would you just step over them and ignore their pain?

The first 3 or 400 times they did it, I'd lend a hand.

After that, I'd be sceptical of the point.

[OrphanPip]

The first 3 or 400 times they did it, I'd lend a hand.

After that, I'd be sceptical of the point.

That's exactly the problem though, we don't really have all that effective a way to determine when something is pointless. Organizations that help the homeless and drug addicts do have successes. I don't think we can conclude that their methods and their resources are optimized, that they have reached a point where no extra expense will help anymore. Or that no changes to social programs could help reduce harm.

[Vonny]

Orphan Pip, someone told you, "I like your style." I do too. I've seen you around and although you often disagree, but you have such a gentle way of communicating that I don't have to approach your posts with trepidation. I'd like to emulate your style, but I don't know how. When I write, it doesn't come out that way. I think I sound more like the Atheist! Not to criticize the atheist too much, because I agree with a lot of what he says.

Propter, when I mentioned rewiring our brains, I intended that for the alcoholic/smoker that you've been with for a decade. That person is obviously not without support.

You said, "Collecting a welfare payment is simply survival. Spending on money on drugs instead of food is, metaphorically speaking, a sympton of addiction."

When I read this statement, I think of Frank McCourt's memoirs. The children were starving to death and any time they got a little money, his father would spend it on "the pint." An aunt gave them a little money for the new baby and he spent it on "pints," not only for himself but for other men at the pub. And even though Frank also struggled with alcoholism, he said towards the end (I'm not sure if it was near the end of his memoirs or in an interview of him) that a person can walk away from the pint.

I don't know, when I think of Angela's Ashes, all of my sympathy goes to little Frank and his little brothers.

I guess that most of my thinking, generally, is about how to fix myself, which I intend to do.

Regarding the chemically addicted/homeless - I live in an affluent, "conservative" area, which is not heavily populated. This is my only personal experience.

I realize there are kids huffing glue on the streets of Columbia, but I don't know what to do about that.

And finally, solving our own problems is very difficult. I'm the first to acknowledge that. Life is very difficult.

[Shalot]

I'm in agreement with Propter, somewhat.

Addiction isn't so easy for people to kick. I have a coworker who used to do crack, this was when she used to work down East on a fishing boat with an abusive boyfriend. How was she able to get away? She moved to another province to live with her sister and she went to college and got a technical diploma. Is that an option for everyone though?

I also used to know a local crack head (worked for my brother and was dating a girl I went to high school with) who used to show off, at parties, his ability to hang his key-chain from his crack rotted teeth. How did he get addicted to crack? He was in a car accident at 17 and went to jail for manslaughter, where he became addicted. As far as I know he's still addicted to crack.

These people aren't without responsibility for their positions, but I have a hard time determining at what point does responsibility somehow negate compassion. If someone trips and breaks their hip because they weren't watching where they were walking, would you just step over them and ignore their pain?

This isn't really in response to the subject of the thread, but I was just wondering about the girl who stopped using crack and got a technical diploma. Do you know how that's working out? The reason I ask is because a lot of the websites that have information about crack addiction seem to indicate that once people become addicted, it's almost hopeless. I found one Web site that was authored by someone who had stopped using it, but that was the only one. Everyone else, stopped, started stopped, started and so it goes. And actually from what I read and the one person I know who used/uses, some crack users live their lives like that. They can go for a long while and not use, and then go on a binge for a week or two and then start the cycle all over again after they've lost anything they managed to rebuild in the time they were "sober." The binge and the long stretch of sobriety followed by another binge and another long stretch of sobriety seems to be the end existence. I hate crack. :( Okay sorry to hijack the thread.

[motherhubbard]

Shalot

I know some people who quit. I know many, many more who stop and start or who will never be able to stop. There is something unusual about the people who quit. All three were friends who used together. They were regular users, but had not gone so far as to loose their teeth. I will say that they did loose plenty. Anyway, they did not quit together but did support each other through the difficulties of comming off of it. They also didn't participate in any kind of a cessation program. The first one quit about 18 years ago, the most recent was 9 years ago. The drug has no power over their lives. They quit, went to college and are now respected professionals.

It's funny to me how these people woke up one day with no emotional desire to use the drug. They had to beat the physical addiction but they had control over something more powerful than physical addiction. What thing do they have that others lack?

[Shalot]

Shalot



What thing do they have that others lack?

Do you know?

They had the support of each other I guess.

I can only guess though.

Anything I said would just be a guess.

[OrphanPip]

This isn't really in response to the subject of the thread, but I was just wondering about the girl who stopped using crack and got a technical diploma. Do you know how that's working out? The reason I ask is because a lot of the websites that have information about crack addiction seem to indicate that once people become addicted, it's almost hopeless. I found one Web site that was authored by someone who had stopped using it, but that was the only one. Everyone else, stopped, started stopped, started and so it goes. And actually from what I read and the one person I know who used/uses, some crack users live their lives like that. They can go for a long while and not use, and then go on a binge for a week or two and then start the cycle all over again after they've lost anything they managed to rebuild in the time they were "sober." The binge and the long stretch of sobriety followed by another binge and another long stretch of sobriety seems to be the end existence. I hate crack. :( Okay sorry to hijack the thread.

I've only known her two years, but I think she's a bit of a functional alcoholic, and she lives with her sister who probably helps to keep her clean. My brother gets a bad vibe off her, thinks she's a train wreck waiting to happen. And I know she's also a bit desperate for company, if you know what I mean. She lives in the same neighbourhood and word travels. She's also hit on me numerous times. Nonetheless, she's done a lot to improve her life and you have to give her credit, everybody has their demons.

[SeekWithYourI's]

[QUOTE=Lokasenna;1031347]Actually, the tendency these days is to massively overestimate the power of addiction. It takes a lot of effort to get physically addicted to a substance, and the with drawl effects of many of the most serious drugs (including heroin) are on a par with a mild case of the flu.

My case of the"flu" began in the hinter lands of Afghanistan watching my friend become a cloud of pink mist.


For longer than we can touch those that remember these terrible things cause homelessness.

[Vonny]

Lokasenna has a tender heart. He wouldn't want to see you without a home, all the help and compassion you could possibly receive.

[Vonny]

SeekWithYourI's,

I never thought I'd be saying this on a public forum, but I have the same problem as you. I have PTSD, or some form of it. Until I was 6 or 7, my father abused my family. He moved us out to the country where we lived in isolation. We could only breathe easily when he was at work. When he was at home he routinely beat my mother, once to unconsciousness. I was a 4 year-old screaming "Mommy, Mommy" beside my mother, unconscious, on the floor. He also tortured and killed our pets. He shot our dog, in the head - right on the porch outside of the dining area where we ate. That scene, that blood, is forever etched into my brain. My father didn't use drugs or alcohol, he was simply mean. When I was about 7, he disappeared and I haven't seen him since.

As I got older, my symptoms became more disabling. I would go to school and stand outside the classroom, afraid to go in. I'm usually afraid to go to sleep because I have "night terrors." I wake up feeling very terrified and lost, (well, it's a sensation that I can't describe.) I also feel that things will just blow up in front of me.

In terms of employment, I had to find my niche, because in many lines of work, I simply couldn't function in. I'm very lucky that I do well enough, and thankfully I have only myself to support.

I've come to an understanding that it doesn't correct any of the horrors of the past to continue abusing my body at this point. Every day I get up and make an effort to be healthy. If one approach doesn't work for me, I try another.

In answer to your question "How can you help the homeless?" - I have a friend who is a "case worker." It's her job to try to help people maintain their housing. Many people seem to work just as tirelessly to get thrown out of their housing as she works to keep them there. She constantly intervenes between landlords and state housing agencies. These people constantly break every aspect of their lease agreements. They do things such as move 10 of their friends in to live with them. They engage in domestic violence. The women have a different man every night. The police are constantly called. If you even drive through their apartment complexes, you see that the grounds are littered with cigarette butts and garbage that they just toss on the ground. The children are in the street so that you can't drive in without yelling out the car window for the kids to get out of the way. A lot of what my friend sees I'm sure she doesn't tell me, because it makes me too upset.... I'm just thankful everyday that that's not my job.

I'm not saying that this is the case across the board. I don't know about veterans such as yourself. I really do hope that veterans get the help they need... or anyone who is interested in living a respectable life.

But I think there are some people whom it is very difficult (or impossible) to keep in a comfortable and decent home.

[The Atheist]

My case of the"flu" began in the hinter lands of Afghanistan watching my friend become a cloud of pink mist.

Understandable then.

I hope we can discuss this without seeming to be giving you a hard time, because I am genuinely interested in what happened to you. I'm guessing from your custom title that you were disabled in the same country?

Can you tell us what your disability is?

I know PTSS is a huge problem for arny veterans, but at the bottom of it all, you must have volunteered to fight? I'm assuming you were in the US forces, which are all volunteers.



For longer than we can touch those that remember these terrible things cause homelessness.

I can understand how a drug addiction would cause you to become homeless, but what was the cause of the addiction? You say your drug use was originally to ease the pain mentally. What drug/s were you using? Was there any stage you realised you had become addicted and decided not to use the agencies which would have helped you, or was it just something that happened unconsciuosly?

[qimissung]

I'm not sure I understand your reference to SeekWithYourI's acquiring PTSS while in the army-voluntarily, Atheist. Would it be worse, and therefore more sympathetic, if he had been conscripted?

As to homelessness, it is, as has been pointed out, sometimes due to events beyond the control of people, and sometimes to poor life choices.

No one, interestingly, has made much mention of mental illness, which I think is sometimes a reason for people becoming homeless. My son has a friend, who, tragically, is schizophrenic. He had suffered from depression for awhile, but after the death of his mother when he was about 22, his stepfather kicked him out of his home. He traveled around the country and stayed with various people, including my family. When his presence was not welcomed, he sometimes tried to force people to let him in. His sister would not let him stay with her, nor would his father in Minnesota.

He became very unstable, and my sons who were in high school at the time, were uncomfortable with having him here. It was with a great deal of shock that we realized that he had become homeless.

At one point he went to visit another friend in Maryland. When he arrived he didn't recognize his friend, who promptly took him to a local hospital, where he was eventually diagnosed with schizophrenia.

He came to stay with us about two years ago, and I worked very hard to get him into the homeless shelter here. He could not manage it on his own. Even after I got him in and he was getting services, and medication, and seemed to understand that he would receive a small amount of money and an apartment-a home of his own-he has twice left the program and traveled across the country.

The last time we heard from him he was in Minnesota.

As to drug addiction. It is a little more serious than the flu, Lokasenna. Physically, maybe not so much, but psychologically, it is. The drug habit can be kicked, but that's not to say it's easy. A doctor once explained to me that someone who had been addicted to heroin could go back to the places where they had lived while using and simply the sight of places they'd been while using could trigger an overwhelming desire to do so again. In fact he almost made it seem like they would never be able to overcome this, so powerful it was, but we know that it can be done.

It is common knowledge that drugs change the way the brain works. Whether it is a disease or not, I don't know, but I do know that using drugs is taking a big risk.



"All drugs of abuse—nicotine, cocaine, marijuana, and others—affect the brain’s “reward” circuit, which is part of the limbic system. Normally, the reward circuit responds to pleasurable experiences by releasing the neurotransmitter dopamine, which creates feelings of pleasure, and tells the brain that this is something important—pay attention and remember it. Drugs hijack this system, causing unusually large amounts of dopamine to flood the system. Sometimes, this lasts for a long time compared to what happens when a natural reward stimulates dopamine. This flood of dopamine is what causes the “high” or euphoria associated with drug abuse."

http://teens.drugabuse.gov/facts/facts_brain1.php


http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/addiction/drugs/


How to treat the problems of addiction and mental illness is the question. I would hope that all societies would investigate the underlying causes and try to find ways to handle and treat those afflicted with compassion.

And I think, Lokasenna, that it is well known that addicts are very manipulative.

[The Atheist]

I'm not sure I understand your reference to SeekWithYourI's acquiring PTSS while in the army-voluntarily, Atheist. Would it be worse, and therefore more sympathetic, if he had been conscripted?

Absolutely.

When someone joins an armed force voluntarily, they are signing on to accept trauma, to be shot at, to kill and to be injured, for which they are paid and covered by armed forces health services. It is a willing choice made volutarily. Someone conscripted against their wishes is a vastly different proposition.

[OrphanPip]

The mentally ill do end up on the street disproportionately, but there are services in place for them as well. If they are in the system here in Quebec, the government pays their rent for them. One of my brother's buildings has 10 units payed for by the provincial government, mostly for people with intellectual disabilities, but also a handful of others with mental illnesses that have been judged to not be an immediate danger to society or themselves. There was a moment 15 years ago when the federal government tried to shift mental health facilities onto the provincial dime to cut the federal deficit, and this resulted in a lot of the mentally ill ending up on the streets with no support, it's taken them some time but they're mostly supported now as long as they have been seen by a mental health professional at least once. It's not perfect though, many of them only see their doctor and social worker once every few months. A few them probably shouldn't be living on their own either.

[qimissung]

Absolutely.

When someone joins an armed force voluntarily, they are signing on to accept trauma, to be shot at, to kill and to be injured, for which they are paid and covered by armed forces health services. It is a willing choice made volutarily. Someone conscripted against their wishes is a vastly different proposition.

I disagree.

[Alexander III]

I disagree.

I have to agree with the Atheist. Being in a war by choice or being forced into it makes a huge difference.

The men who died in Vietnam were robed of their lives, the men who died in Iraq and WWII (ironical both war's for Freedom and Liberty...but that is politics so I wont go in there) they sacrificed their lives, they were not robed of them.

When a man joins the army especially as a grunt (non-officer) he makes the conscious decision to serve as a tool to protect and serve his country, among his many responsibilities is if needs be to DIE for his country. When he signs up he knows that death and other consequences of war are a possibility, and he accepts them.

A conscript has no such choice, he is FORCED to die for his country, he has no freedom to decide, he does not die because of ideals or cash or boredom -(the three major reasons people join a war) he dies because he was forced to die.

That is why Vietnam has always been such a tragedy. A generation who's life's were FORCED into destruction.

It's the difference of pity one feel's between the youth who killed himself and the youth who was murdered. One ended it by his choice, the other was stolen from life without any consent.

Now im not saying joining the army is like suicide but when you join you KNOW there is the risk of death.

[qimissung]

I am aware of the nuances involved.

I mean that it doesn't matter on a personal level. For myself anyway. I guess men are colder that way. When I meet a person I am not going to ask him those kind of questions. My heart is going to break for him, either way.

[Alexander III]

I am aware of the nuances involved.

I mean that it doesn't matter on a personal level. For myself anyway. I guess men are colder that way. When I meet a person I am not going to ask him those kind of questions. My heart is going to break for him, either way.

Yes it may just be a penis thing. For instance I find it hard to particularly care for people who have fallen for drug or alcohol addiction. BUT I really do feel for the mentally ill. Once again it is a thing between choosing your faith and having no choice.

[qimissung]

I think my point is that our discussion is theoretical, which all goes out the window-for most people anyway- when you put a human face on it.

[tonywalt]

I think my point is that our discussion is theoretical, which all goes out the window-for most people anyway- when you put a human face on it.


The vast majority of the military who are there for non-economic reasons support certain administrations who tend to go to war very quickly. I have empathy yes, but family members in the military of mine - they are as gung ho as you can get. That's for what it's worth, and it's worth alot!