I thought the series which began yesterday in the San Francisco Chronicle on homelessness was, if rather sensationalistic, also interesting and tragic. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/11/30/MNG263BHKR1.DTL
There are many people honestly "down on their luck." What do you do with the truly hard core minority described in this admittedly sensationalistic article. San Francisco does have a major problem-I've observed addicts hiking their skirts in the middle of the sidewalk and letting it flow.
I always tend to the libertarian when it comes to drug policy-but do people have the right to live like this? What do you do with people who refuse help-or is the newspaper merely soft-peddling the lack of services. I would honestly believe that both are true (hard core incorrigibility plus poorly funded services), but still-should a city "allow" people to live in this setting?
More personally-do you guys give money to beggars-or is that merely exacerbating the problem?
There are many people honestly "down on their luck." What do you do with the truly hard core minority described in this admittedly sensationalistic article. San Francisco does have a major problem-I've observed addicts hiking their skirts in the middle of the sidewalk and letting it flow.
I always tend to the libertarian when it comes to drug policy-but do people have the right to live like this? What do you do with people who refuse help-or is the newspaper merely soft-peddling the lack of services. I would honestly believe that both are true (hard core incorrigibility plus poorly funded services), but still-should a city "allow" people to live in this setting?
More personally-do you guys give money to beggars-or is that merely exacerbating the problem?