Nice article. Hard to believe that it's taken this long to honestly face this problem. I don't think, though, that "moral hazard" means what you think it means.
You’re right. “Moral challenges” might have been a better fit. I was trying to convey that one is forced to decide as to what is the right course of action instead of spacing out and listening to podcasts.
I do not know how many times I’ve heard “housing first” repeated like some mantra from city activists and politicians. Having worked with addicts in both adult conservatorships and child protection cases for 13 years now, I find that mantra to be misguided and naive. It’s a public health issue, not housing. I think the authors quoted here put it beautifully. You wouldn’t let someone who is incapacitated to their own devices and call it respect or compassion. So why is that only true with addicts?
I really appreciate learning more about the solutions San Francisco is trying, these were new to me. The framing about someone with a deep addiction as comparable to a person with Alzheimer's is very interesting.
I chatted with a Powderhorn couple the other day, whose family has front row seats to the symptoms of all this: crime, open drug use, trash, defecation in their yard, etc. They need compassion too.
Intervention benefits not only the addicts and mentally ill, it benefits those forced to deal with the detriments. Win-win.
Nice article. Hard to believe that it's taken this long to honestly face this problem. I don't think, though, that "moral hazard" means what you think it means.
You’re right. “Moral challenges” might have been a better fit. I was trying to convey that one is forced to decide as to what is the right course of action instead of spacing out and listening to podcasts.
I do not know how many times I’ve heard “housing first” repeated like some mantra from city activists and politicians. Having worked with addicts in both adult conservatorships and child protection cases for 13 years now, I find that mantra to be misguided and naive. It’s a public health issue, not housing. I think the authors quoted here put it beautifully. You wouldn’t let someone who is incapacitated to their own devices and call it respect or compassion. So why is that only true with addicts?
Thanks Terry ! Appreciate your observations! Bruce
I really appreciate learning more about the solutions San Francisco is trying, these were new to me. The framing about someone with a deep addiction as comparable to a person with Alzheimer's is very interesting.
I chatted with a Powderhorn couple the other day, whose family has front row seats to the symptoms of all this: crime, open drug use, trash, defecation in their yard, etc. They need compassion too.
Intervention benefits not only the addicts and mentally ill, it benefits those forced to deal with the detriments. Win-win.