The only thing that drug screening welfare applicants has ever done is shown that the percentage of welfare applicants that use drugs is much lower than the general population.
You fucking morons are literally adopting Florida’s failures from a decade ago.
The only thing that drug screening welfare applicants has ever done is shown that the percentage of welfare applicants that use drugs is much lower than the general population.
But it makes sense that usage rates would be lower if they had to stop taking to keep their presumably much-needed benefits.
Does that make it OK to use the welfare money for drugs?
Did Florida’s system just cut them off when they found them using or did they offer them assistance options for getting clean? S.F.'s system plans to offer them assistance getting clean while they continue to receive the welfare.
Florida spent $200,000 on testing and found 100 people, 2% of the total, to be using drugs. They spent more money on testing than if they’d just given welfare benefits to those 100 people.
How do you consider that anything but a failure?
Yeah that does sound like a failure. But also different time different place. Was there a Fentanyl epidemic of this scale 10 years ago in Florida? If the treatment options save just one person’s life, is it still a failure? Should we just say “yep nothing works, there’s no solution to daily ODs on the streets of the city.”?
Some of us see drug use as a health issue and not a moral imperative. Money is fungible, so if they’re using welfare dollars to buy drugs instead of smashing car windows to get their fix, that’s probably a net positive even if it isn’t ideal.
And if you’re just trying to get more people into treatment, I’m not sure piss testing the poor is remotely the most cost effective approach.
There were 627 OD deaths in San Francisco in 2022. 806 OD deaths in 2023. I’d call that a failed system that needs a new approach. I don’t know what exactly we need to do, but it seems that giving people free reign to go down the path of a synthetic opiate addiction is mostly giving them a slow painful death. This may not be everyone’s problem now, but if this is allowed to continue destroying people in this country it WILL become everyone’s problem at some point.
Yes. It does make it okay. Welfare should be given on no conditions. If they want to spend it on drugs and won’t be able to afford food because of it, that is their choice. Why should people who get assistance be told how to spend that money? Should they also be restricted from buying beer with that money? How about sugary sodas? How far are you willing to go to tell people how they should be allowed to spend the money given to them when that is not a requirement for anyone else’s money?
The system should also offer them assistance to break addictions regardless.
If there’s no way for them to hurt themselves or others, then yes, I say let them buy whatever they want. But what about when those drugs not only are hurting them, but are toxically hurting the same society that gave them the money in the first place? What if they are no longer able to make sound decisions for themselves due to severe mental illness?
If I’m a bartender and I see somebody getting way too intoxicated, to the point they are hurting themselves or others, should I keep serving them more drinks? Or even buy them more myself? Hey man, here’s your car keys and a drink! Have a good night!
FYI, there actually is a tax on sugary sodas in this city… because too much can be harmful for everyone.
Drug treatment is important, yes, but making it a precondition for benefits will absolutely hurt the most vulnerable. If there was actually enough affordable housing available for everyone that needs it, there would be far less of a need for this kind of policy. It is well documented that providing housing before anything else sets people up for success. If someone has been living on the streets and suddenly has housing available, their life will improve so drastically thanks to the job and social opportunities that will become available, also making it less likely that drug abuse will continue.
This seems like a cop out to me. Just build houses for fuck’s sake.
Breed has been on the wrong side of so many issues. Most recently she made an incredibly tone-deaf statement denouncing the city council’s vote against the genocide in Gaza. I’m done with her.
https://voterguide.sfelections.org/local-ballot-measures/measure-a
This affordable housing measure also passed in the same election, for what it’s worth.
Thanks for the heads up. Yeah, I’m cautiously hopeful, but still quite skeptical they’ll get it right. These measures often sound good, but implementation is key.
For one thing, it’s extremely difficult to force someone out of an addiction. You usually have to want to quit in order for that to be an option. Otherwise you have to do something like torture them by making them go through a possibly extremely painful cold turkey withdrawal.
So I’d say torturing the most vulnerable would hurt them.
But what makes you think that’s what they’ll do? Would helping someone with an addiction towards treatment really ‘torture’ them?
Breed’s office has said the measure was intentionally designed to be flexible on the treatment component. Treatment options could range from out-patient services to a prescription for buprenorphine, a medication used to treat addiction. They noted it doesn’t include a requirement for participants to remain sober, recognizing that people often lapse in recovery and shouldn’t be kicked out of the program for a slip-up.
beyond that forced treatment is ethically questionable, conditioning other forms of help on sobriety puts people in a bind. it’s hard for people to get and stay sober when they’re suffering, physically and mentally.
housing/food/health care (to include mental health and psychiatric care) first means it’s more likely that efforts toward sobriety will even work.
Forced addiction treatment isn’t what’s happening. They drug test the poor and then cut them off from benefits if they fail. It is a punishment.
The only way to be eligible for benefits again is to join a treatment program, many of which in the US are just religious ministries that care more about proselytizing than human outcomes. Even cults like the Church of Scientology runs drug treatment programs, with obvious motivations…
These people are exploited by pretty much everyone, including those who are tasked to help them. If your solution is to force them into anything, recovery or otherwise, you’re just exploiting them further.
From the article:
Breed’s office has said the measure was intentionally designed to be flexible on the treatment component. Treatment options could range from out-patient services to a prescription for buprenorphine, a medication used to treat addiction. They noted it doesn’t include a requirement for participants to remain sober, recognizing that people often lapse in recovery and shouldn’t be kicked out of the program for a slip-up.
Given that neither her nor the council have anything to do with policy in Gaza and that both are going to be making statements purely to aim to appeal to chunks of the electorate, does it make sense to condition your vote on that?
If you were choosing a dentist, would you use their stated positions on the Levant to do so?
I’m not a San Francisco resident, so I don’t get a vote, I just have lots of connections to the region. She didn’t have to denounce the city council’s resolution against the genocide, she chose to, and that felt like a gut punch to me at the time. As for the relevance of it all, it was a non-binding (obviously) resolution taking a moral stand on an issue directly impacting hundreds if not thousands of residents in a pretty small city, so it matters.
I take your point, but if I asked my dentist if they thought it was okay to indiscriminately kill tens of thousands of children because they were born on the wrong side of a border, and they said yes? I’d absolutely find a different doctor.
One of the worst parts of this, and one that will get people killed, is they loosened the restrictions on police chases. Now police can chase cars for crimes where there’s no longer a threat of violence like robbery through the second densest city in the country. People are so indoctrinated by copaganda that they think police chases always end up with the cop catching the bad guy instead of how they usually end, with a fatal crash.
I occasionally get in the police dash cam rabbit hole. It’s crazy how most states have realized how dangerous car chases are and don’t chase at all. BOLO the car and go arrest them the next day.
Then there Arkansas and Georgia where all the cops are just itching to get into a 130mph chase through neighborhoods willing to pit at any speed risking their life, the suspects life, and the hundreds sometimes thousands of people they go screaming past during a chase.
I used to work for a local TV station and every year they did this thing called “Crimestoppers” where we’d ride along with a cop all night just in case something happened. This is not a huge city, but there’s enough crime that something ended up on camera. I didn’t hate doing it. I’m no cop-lover, but the guy they paired me with was a good enough conversationalist to talk to all night at least… but I was terrified of ending up in a car chase situation. Cars make me anxious as it is. Thankfully, that never happened.
This kind of opportunistic journalism really makes me skeptical of the value of a lot of our local TV news stations. You’re describing the local news using the same production tactics as COPS, a reality TV show…
Was there anything that the crimestoppers program covered that was of sigificant newsworthiness to the community that you remember?
The way I always hear it is that they are only ever chasing murderers and violent offenders and you should want them to catch those grandma-killers before they get you, too.
That’s how it was before, for the police to chase their had to be a reasonable suspicion that the criminal was in there way to commit another violent crime. So if a robbery happened and the police arrive and the criminal takes off the reasonable assumption is theyre heading back home, not off to commit another violent crime, so the police would not pursue them. Now they can pursue them and endanger all the people on the road just to protect the property of the store owner.
Cop shows and movies distort our perception of them but the reality is that most police chases end in a crash and serious injury if not death. This chance goes up even higher with dense cities with a lot of pedestrians around like San Francisco. So they should only be used if they’re preventing someone from murdering or seriously injuring someone else. A car at high speeds is just as , if not more dangerous than a gun and should be used as such.
“tough on crime” is just a euphemism for authoritarian
The NIMBY class will always project its insecurity more greatly than the remainder of the populace.
