Portland
Welcome to the lemmy.world community for Portland, Oregon!
This community has kind of been empty since it was created, I'm hoping to change that!
Unlike "other" Portland communities you may have seen "elsewhere", I believe in a "warts and all" approach. You are free to take off your Rose tinted glasses and talk about topics that are dragging our city down.
At the same time, sunset pics, snowmageddon, traffic monster, cones, that's all welcome as well. Let's collectively keep Portland weird!
2024 is going to be an interesting year politically with all the changes to city government, I will attempt to tag political threads with a [Politics] tag and encourage users to do so as well.
Other than the lemmy.world restrictions on spam, copyrighted material, and adult material (USE that NSFW tag!), there's only one real way to get in trouble here:
- Don't attack other users.
It's OK to go after Teargas Ted, it's OK to say Rene Gonzales is a fascist, ACAB, BLM, whatever floats your boat (WEFYB).
It's NOT OK to attack or diminish another user. Feel free to disagree, you can point out the many ways you think they're wrong, just don't start throwing perjoratives AT OTHER USERS.
Links to know!
Portland Trailblazers Schedule!
https://www.nba.com/blazers/schedule
Portland Winterhawks Home Game Schedule!
https://www.rosequarter.com/events/winterhawks
Portland Timbers Pre-Season Starts in February!
https://www.timbers.com/schedule/matches#competition=all&date=2024-02-10
view the rest of the comments
Again, you could try reading the sources already provided and quoted above. Here, I'll bold the important part just for you:
"Housing First forbids requiring beneficiaries, as a condition of receiving assistance, to attend drug rehabilitation programs, look for work, or even take their mental health medicines as directed by a doctor. They can accept services that might be—and often are—offered, but they are under no enforceable obligation to do so. If they take drugs, refuse work, or even are charged with crimes, housing is still available to them."
Under a housing first model, they legally cannot require prospective residents enter treatment as a condition of housing.
That's literally the definition of "Housing First" and why it's doomed to failure.
They can't turn away someone who is in treatment, which is great, but they can't demand someone enter treatment, which is the failure point.
If addicts are given a choice without consequence, they will choose to feed the addiction, they won't seek treatment. That's the nature of addiction. They aren't going to make the right choice of their own volition.
Oregon saw this with the utter failure of Measure 110... Let's legalize drugs, if someone gets caught with drugs, we'll give them a choice:
16,000 people ticketed. Care to guess how many people chose option #2?
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/politics/measure-110-secretary-of-state-audit-drug-decriminalization/283-a6fe5145-42ee-4007-8d19-fc92683436d3
"The agency did get the hotline set up, but had only received 119 calls related to the drug treatment program as of June 2022, at an estimated cost to the program of more than $7,000 per call.
Of those calls, only 27 people were interested in drug treatment resources."
It boggles my mind how you manage to dance around every request for science backed evidence focusing only on your preconceived notions. When you weirdly in the most internet way say I won't read the scientific article cited in the conservative think tank whose only purpose is to skewer housing first and misrepresent it's working. I read it and note that that they misuse the findings of the journal. Silence.
I ask for scientific studies to support your view. There is now several decades of systematic research to support it's role in addressing the homelessness crisis. Why? Is it just because you don't want to read a view that may complicate your prescription? Do you not feel comfortable reading scientific articles? What is going on?
Your definition never mentions the role of case worker in developing goals and creating buy in for compliance. Patience, even highly motivated ones, regularly lapse in compliance. Life changing transformations are not easy.
I provided a quote that we don't have understanding why people get clean. It's not because we force them, that's for sure.
Why do you now bring up 110? Does this have anything to do with Housing First? Or is it part of so opus that addicts are bad children who need to be forced to do what's good for them?
I don't think we're going to meet in a space of mutual understanding. I think your presumptions that there people get clean only if you force them. You just keep on shouting at me that this is true. Show me some evidence because everything I see from scientific studies to front line workers say, "On occasion or happens, but the harm it does to others is far worse."
It boggles my mind how you ignore repeated direct responses to your questions, almost like you aren't actually interested in the answers...
Here it is again, 3rd time on one source, 2nd time on the other. Do I need to use smaller words?
I saw it. I read it. I commented on it.
Do you realize that the Cicero Institute isn't a journal? I wrote elsewhere who they are. They are not a reliable source.
What is wrong with you? Do you not realize we are having a discussion elsewhere in this thread?