Careful when in a Hotel

[nickaluch]

.
I live on Long island NY and my youngest daughter goes to Marist. I was up there for parents weekend and at the hotel. My wife and I left early around 7am to go to the diner for breakfast then straight to Marist to pickup my daughter for a day at the mall to shop. No issues that night seemed like a nice place no issues. Thank God I wasn't there for the shooting. Prayers for the family and I will say Marist campus is safe and beautiful. The city of Poughkeepsie is a dump but really trying to turn it around.

 

[bbhero]

This isn't just exclusive to the USA, we have the same problem here in Canada. There was a shift from housing those with crippling addiction and mental health issues to making them all outpatients, which itself, appears to demonstrate some mental health issues with those in charge, as clearly people who are unable to self-govern aren't going to be well-suited to free-roaming. They don't take their medication, or start self-medicating with street drugs and boom, they are a total train wreck.

We've got the same issue here locally, we've become a "destination" for addicts and homeless because of our facilities. The problem is that few on council or in control want to take that next step to re-introduce institutionalization, they want to just keep handing them needles and drugs and having hundreds of paramedic calls a month to revive them and claim this is "working". The few that have suggested bringing back dedicated treatment and care facilities get chastised for not being "progressive" enough. Yet it would seem that those self-describing under the progressive umbrella, are oblivious to the fact that doubling down on what hasn't been working, continues to make the problem worse.

The problem is the "proper care" part, at least around here, never comes. I'm sure most are familiar with the 'ol "If you build it, they will come" and oh, they have. But they are not receiving proper care, and eventually, they OD and die because no amount of clean needles, untainted drugs or safe injection sites solve the problem. I heard a horror story yesterday from a councillor candidate that they don't take the tainted drugs away with them, so these people just take the clean drugs and sell the deadly ones to somebody else, who dies on the church steps or in an entranceway.

And of course that doesn't get into the danger of people who should be institutionalized and are wildly unpredictable, roaming around unsupervised and resulting in issues such as those described in the OP. Is it truly compassionate to allow people to self destruct, giving them all the tools to do so, then calling this "no harm"?

Ain't this the truth in my opinion ^^^^^^^^^

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

There was also a change in the interpretation of the law, and rights of the individuals involved. It made it impossible to institutionalize these folks unless you could prove they were a danger to others, or themselves. So, unless they voluntarily were committed, or they committed a violent act, you couldn't and still can't get them off the streets.
One thing I notice whenever a homeless person is interviewed by a reporter in Las Vegas. They all seem to have recently arrived from somewhere else. As Overkill mentioned above, if you treat homeless well, you become a destination location. I personally don't mind helping locals down on their luck, but I'll be darned to heck if I'll ever pay for drug addicts that travel to my town from elsewhere.

Aren't the majority of LV residents from somewhere else? (joking)

I can understand why people become homeless in LV but I can't understand why so many stay in LV because the climate is so unforgiving. I'd never imagine that homeless would actually travel to LV. It must be that tent city in the storm water culverts that's are inviting.

In any case after two decades of constant travel to LV I'm still amazed at the number of homeless I see on the strip sleeping on the sidewalks/pedestrian bridges or bathing near water feature (ex, Caesars).

 

[zzyzzx]

Spot on! We used to have vagrancy laws that were enforced too.

Fixed:
We used to have laws that were enforced too.

 

[4WD]

My findings are less expensive lodging like the type you would use for travel sports team you get less desirable people staying there. Sometime including the travel sports teams with younger kids who have poor parents modulating them.

The few times I have run across offenders I was stuck at inexpensive motels. You just have to be extra vilgant with odd men staring at your kids. They don't seem to be in the mid range and up places.

In my case I selected a place with suites - I’m a long stay Diamond level and can get them for a good price. I carry a computer spread and like the big desk and other space. Well, when they send large groups - they also want suites.
I‘m working alone - they are not so the hours and noise don’t mesh well …

 

[K.Aoi]

Drug abuse is a choice. And not a good one at that.

Most people that get addicted to drugs are either already mentally ill, or are vulnerable and turn to drugs because they feel like they have nowhere else to turn. Drug addicts don't stay drug addicts because they enjoy it. There's a lot of great videos and documentaries on this topic, interviewing them. They are stuck in an endless cycle, homeless, addicted to drugs, can't get jobs because of those. There is little help for those people to help them break the cycle. Drug addiction is and should be treated like any other disease, and we shouldn't be victim blaming. If you want to blame anyone, blame the drug sellers that prey on those people.

 

[K.Aoi]

Meanwhile, veterans of foreign wars walk the streets looking for reason,help,and so much more yet we piss on them. Sorry, just so disgusting to see what's happened to the ones that have had to give the most. If I'm wrong for saying it oh well it's common sense to see what's happening. I pray my daughter, a Marine doesn't get dragged into this global snafu that they are running just to get votes.

A lot of drug addicts that are on the street are veterans that were abandoned by the system. Just like other homeless and drug addicts, we should be trying to remediate the problem and treat it as a disease and failing of the system, not as a "personal responsibility" problem. Imagine if smallpox or polio had been treated as "personal responsibility" questions.

Ain't this the truth in my opinion ^^^^^^^^^

The problem with this way of thinking is that it basically defaults to "we can't immediately solve every possible challenge or problem so we might as well do nothing at all" which is how nothing ever changes. Just telling homeless people to not be homeless, or telling drug addicts to not be addicted are not solutions. Is providing injection sites, clean drugs and needles a fix to the problem? No, but it is an attempt at harm reduction which is at least doing something. Are there additional steps that need to happen to actually help these people get better? Yes, of course. But that's hard so people prefer to just complain about homeless people and drug addicts while simultaneously doing nothing to fix it. As I said, it's pretty much impossible to get a job if you're a drug addict or homeless. I'm not sure exactly how these folks are expected to "take personal responsibility".

 

[K.Aoi]

Interesting

So what you're telling me is everyone jumped to conclusions about why they were there?

 

[OVERKILL]

The problem with this way of thinking is that it basically defaults to "we can't immediately solve every possible challenge or problem so we might as well do nothing at all" which is how nothing ever changes. Just telling homeless people to not be homeless, or telling drug addicts to not be addicted are not solutions. Is providing injection sites, clean drugs and needles a fix to the problem? No, but it is an attempt at harm reduction which is at least doing something. Are there additional steps that need to happen to actually help these people get better? Yes, of course. But that's hard so people prefer to just complain about homeless people and drug addicts while simultaneously doing nothing to fix it. As I said, it's pretty much impossible to get a job if you're a drug addict or homeless. I'm not sure exactly how these folks are expected to "take personal responsibility".

Did you actually READ my post that he was endorsing?

 

[K.Aoi]

Did you actually READ my post that he was endorsing?

I did, and as I said, at least it's doing *something*. If it even saves one or two people it's worth it. We need to stop with the "We can't immediately solve every challenge and problem so do nothing instead". And I absolutely agree that re-institutionalization needs to happen, but these are all things that nobody wants to pay for. Is the better alternative really just do nothing instead of what you can with harm reduction? It's absolutely frustrating if that's the only thing that happens, but I don't see how doing nothing is a superior alternative. Because if states/provinces/fed don't want to take responsibility for paying for and providing treatment like before de-institutionalization, I don't see how anything will ever get better.

 

[Astro14]

I did, and as I said, at least it's doing *something*. If it even saves one or two people it's worth it. We need to stop with the "We can't immediately solve every challenge and problem so do nothing instead". And I absolutely agree that re-institutionalization needs to happen, but these are all things that nobody wants to pay for. Is the better alternative really just do nothing instead of what you can with harm reduction? It's absolutely frustrating if that's the only thing that happens, but I don't see how doing nothing is a superior alternative.

So, doing something, even if it’s a colossal misallocation of resources, even if it’s expensive, even if it’s ineffective, is better than doing nothing?

Doctors say, “First, do no harm”

The problem with doing something, even if it doesn’t work, is that you used up resources (time, effort, money) that you can’t get back, and built institutions that have to be unbuilt to do something different.

As I’ve counseled at least once on car maintenance: Doing the wrong thing is always more expensive than doing nothing.

The problem with the logic of “even if it saves one or two people” is this: those resources (time, effort, money) could be used to save hundreds of people if they were applied more effectively. Resources are not (ever) unlimited.

You cannot fix everything, or everyone, and spending millions on one problem is millions that were not spent on another problem.

 

[Trav]

I think you might be surprised that bad things happen in rural areas also. Local university student employees of mine tell me about all the meth labs/traffic in their very rural towns. I never realized it was such a problem away from the metro areas.

Shielding your kids from life's realities can back fire also. Some enter the real world and lack the responsibility and tools to deal with it.

Rural and Urban Substance Use Rates(ages 12 and older, unless noted)

	Non-metro	Small metro	Large metro
Alcohol use by youths aged 12-20	33.2%	30.3%	28.5%
Binge alcohol use by youths aged 12 to 17 (in the past month)	6.0%	3.0%	4.3%
Cigarette smoking	22.9%	20.1%	16.2%
Smokeless tobacco use	6.4%	3.9%	2.1%
Marijuana	14.7%	18.5%	18.5%
Illicit drug use	18.2%	21.8%	22.0%
Misuse of Opioids	3.5%	3.8%	3.2%
Cocaine	1.0%	1.8%	2.1%
Hallucinogens	1.7%	2.6%	2.8%
Methamphetamine	0.9%	1.6%	0.6%
Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Results from the 2020 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed Tables.

Take tobacco use off that list and its not bad. Come on, back in the day eveyone smoked even doctors and in hospitals. Cigarettes never caused auto accidents and the abusiveness like alcohol or push people into crime to get a fix. Not a nice habit for sure but certainly not the demon it has been made out to be by a minority with an agenda (read $$$$ grab).

 

[OVERKILL]

I did, and as I said, at least it's doing *something*. If it even saves one or two people it's worth it. We need to stop with the "We can't immediately solve every challenge and problem so do nothing instead". And I absolutely agree that re-institutionalization needs to happen, but these are all things that nobody wants to pay for. Is the better alternative really just do nothing instead of what you can with harm reduction? It's absolutely frustrating if that's the only thing that happens, but I don't see how doing nothing is a superior alternative. Because if states/provinces/fed don't want to take responsibility for paying for and providing treatment like before de-institutionalization, I don't see how anything will ever get better.

I'm not saying, nor did my post endorse doing nothing. I was pointing out that we clearly need to bring back institutionalization but that those who are trying to do so are experiencing significant opposition by the folks that have brought in the safe injection sites, clean needle dispensaries and "no harm" programs, which, if we are being honest, are not truly no harm.

Giving people the tools to continue feeding their addiction is allowing them to harm themselves; is essentially making it "OK" to harm themselves because they are doing it with "approved" product. If it helps postpone their death while we get the appropriate facilities built to help them get on with their lives, absolutely, that's of net benefit, but just continuing these programs without doing that; without providing them a hand-up instead of a hand-out just kicks the can and eventually they run out of road and end up dead, and, as @Astro14 pointed out, these things all tie up significant resources that could be directed into facilities that actually work. I learned that my city, of 100,000 people, spends millions of dollars, per program, on these various programs, money that, if directed at a specific facility, could easily pay for it and actually start to deal with the problem.

 

[K.Aoi]

So, doing something, even if it’s a colossal misallocation of resources, even if it’s expensive, even if it’s ineffective, is better than doing nothing?

Doctors say, “First, do no harm”

The problem with doing something, even if it doesn’t work, is that you used up resources (time, effort, money) that yiu can’t get back, and built institutions that have to be unbuilt to do something different.

As I’ve counseled at least once on car maintenance: Doing the wrong thing is always more expensive than doing nothing.

The problem with the logic of “even if it saves one or two people” is this: those resources (time, effort, money) could be used to save hundreds of people if they were applied more effectively. Resources are not (ever) unlimited.

You cannot fix everything, or everyone, and spending millions on one problem is millions that were not spent on another problem.

When there's political (sorry, trying to keep politics out) will to do something about it, let me know. I'll be the first person to cheer proper mental illness, homelessness, and drug addiction treatment and housing. Yeah, maybe the money is being largely wasted but it's for some reason politically unpopular to actually do anything substantial about it. States don't want to start footing the bill again for institutionalization. If there is one solid action that would probably lead to improvements, it would be to get rid of the medicaid loophole that prevents medicaid money being spent on long-term inpatient mental institutional care, and just results in revolving doors for mentally ill in ERs, prisons, and the streets.

 

[PimTac]

I did, and as I said, at least it's doing *something*. If it even saves one or two people it's worth it. We need to stop with the "We can't immediately solve every challenge and problem so do nothing instead". And I absolutely agree that re-institutionalization needs to happen, but these are all things that nobody wants to pay for. Is the better alternative really just do nothing instead of what you can with harm reduction? It's absolutely frustrating if that's the only thing that happens, but I don't see how doing nothing is a superior alternative. Because if states/provinces/fed don't want to take responsibility for paying for and providing treatment like before de-institutionalization, I don't see how anything will ever get better.

There are a lot of options out there for these people both public and private. The issue is that they don’t want to take their offers.

One local example here, an old school was volunteered as a place for homeless to stay in the colder months. The authorities cleaned it up and stocked it with the necessities. Up to 50 persons could stay at any one time. After just one month the bathrooms were destroyed. Walls were damaged, windows broken.

A good deed became a nightmare. The school was closed and boarded up. This example is repeated all over the country.

 

[Pew]

A lot of drug addicts that are on the street are veterans that were abandoned by the system. Just like other homeless and drug addicts, we should be trying to remediate the problem and treat it as a disease and failing of the system, not as a "personal responsibility" problem. Imagine if smallpox or polio had been treated as "personal responsibility" questions.

Smallpox and polio are actual diseases. Turning to drugs as an answer to "my life sucks" is not a disease, it's often an excuse. Nobody ever does drugs because they hate doing drugs. From my experiences, most people doing drugs know exactly what they're doing "cause why not, I'll only try it this one time." It's not rocket science knowing that 1. smoking 2. snorting or 3. injecting things into your body does not have consequences. Taking personal accountability for drug abuse should have started before the abuse.

Now I will agree that there are occasions where somebody will truly feel lost in their purpose in life and will resort to drugs, ie: like a close family member passing away. Those I understand but I still won't take them as an excuse to do drugs because of the above paragraph and because you realize that most hard drugs come from one source/person, which are often laced with much deadlier substances.

 

[Barkleymut]

It's not sustainable. Eventually, those family members will pass away or cut you off before that. Then what?

I have a friend that is testing your theory....19 years now - no end in sight. It is painful to watch

 

[K.Aoi]

There are a lot of options out there for these people both public and private. The issue is that they don’t want to take their offers.

One local example here, an old school was volunteered as a place for homeless to stay in the colder months. The authorities cleaned it up and stocked it with the necessities. Up to 50 persons could stay at any one time. After just one month the bathrooms were destroyed. Walls were damaged, windows broken.

A good deed became a nightmare. The school was closed and boarded up. This example is repeated all over the country.

Clearly this wasn't the right solution. Or not a full solution. For the same reason that mental institutions had different levels of care depending on the type and severity of illness they suffered from. Just throwing a bunch of likely mentally ill, addicted homeless people unsupervised into a school is not actually doing what is required. Most of these people required supervised rehabilitation or monitoring, which is why proper institutionalization that can perform that duty as it did in the past is critical to solving the problem long-term.

 

[K.Aoi]

Smallpox and polio are actual diseases. Turning to drugs as an answer to "my life sucks" is not a disease, it's often an excuse. Nobody ever does drugs because they hate doing drugs. From my experiences, most people doing drugs know exactly what they're doing "cause why not, I'll only try it this one time." It's not rocket science knowing that 1. smoking 2. snorting or 3. injecting things into your body does not have consequences. Taking personal accountability for drug abuse should have started before the abuse.

Now I will agree that there are occasions where somebody will truly feel lost in their purpose in life and will resort to drugs, ie: like a close family member passing away. Those I understand but I still won't take them as an excuse to do drugs because of the above paragraph and because you realize that most hard drugs come from one source/person, which are often laced with much deadlier substances.

I personally know several people who suffered from actual drug addiction and empathize with them. None of the people I know that used to be addicted started doing drugs "for fun". And just saying they should have taken personal accountability beforehand is just bypassing the issue, which is what do we do about the people that are out there NOW. Yes, prevention is important, but you also have to have solutions for the current problem. And as I said before, drug dealers are the ones who should be doing hard prison time, not people who use them. The proper way to look at this is to treat it as a disease like any other that requires treatment and monitoring. Health sciences all refer to substance abuse as a true brain disorder/disease like any other. And as someone who personally suffered from untreated major depression in the past, it's easy to understand how people fall into the pit if they have no one to fall back on and no support.

Drug Misuse and Addiction | National Institute on Drug Abuse

What is drug addiction? Addiction is defined as a chronic, relapsing disorder characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use despite adverse consequences.† It is considered a brain disorder, because it involves functional changes to brain circuits involved in reward, stress, and self-control...

nida.nih.gov

 

[nickaluch]

So what you're telling me is everyone jumped to conclusions about why they were there?

Exactly they were not roomed there by any social services.