Bingo.
And if you really wanna get down to brass tacks…If I give a guy a 2 dollar sandwich…thats still 2 dollars he doesnt have to use to pay for food later and that money he can use for booze or whatever.
Hmm. Let’s look at my quote, which Constance actually quoted in his response!
"However, there are plenty of do-gooder programs out there that I think lots of people donate to that are awesome and do a lot of good."
Oh! I can see how one could think I meant that in a bad way. My mistake.
The word ‘do-gooder’ means something. I don’t care how most people feel when they say or hear it, it is a label for a certain kind of organization out there. People know exactly the kind of organization I mean when I say it. I use the term in shorthand so that you know who I mean. I don’t care if people find it derogatory, I made myself clear in the post.
As for the rest of it, I’ve had enough of over-explaining myself again and again. It is clear to any thinking person that you not giving a dollar is not going to cure alcoholism and me giving a dollar is not going to cause or perpetuate it.
That surprises me. You said you don’t want to overexplain yourself, so if you don’t want to answer that, I accept it, but I’m stil a bit surprised. Do you mean the spiritual part of AA is harmful? The violent de-tox approaches without therapy? (Is that still practised in the US?) What exactly do you consider harmful?
Well, the first source I found is the german wikipedia, where it says
That however is related to the now used in Germany approach: de-tox in a clinic under medical supervision, then therapy, coupled if necessary with a selfhelp group like AA, blue cross or other.
The English wiki article gives the following numbers
(bolding mine)
To me, these numbers are good enough. You disagree. Okay.
I also have worked with the homeless for a number of years, both as a volunteer and coordinating a shelter.
Yes. Thousands.
In most areas, yes, though they vary considerably in how they work in different localities. Many are not run by government but by private groups (which the gov’t can refer you to)
Yes, thousands. Of course most require that clients are making a sincere effort. If you’re disruptive or not taking the process seriously
Depending on your definition of mentally ill, maybe.
Yes. But unless the authorities determine he is a danger to himself or others, he generally can’t be made to go.
Hundreds. They aren’t scenic celebrity rehab spas, but they often do the job. Again, they generally require a sincere effort. On your fourth or fifth failed effort, they may tell you to go somewhere else next time.
There are hundreds of methadone clinics in the US.
Thousands.
Hundreds.
As others have noted, the primary impetus for deinstitutionalization came from groups advocating on behalf of the homeless, often in the name of civil rights. It began in the 1950s, long before Reagan. I suspect your source’s bringing up Reagan but not, say, Kennedy or the ACLU (two big advocates of deinstitutionalization) reflects a political bias. For better or worse (I’m inclined to say a little of both), every administration for 50 years has embraced the community-based model. A far more accurate assesment would be that both sides of the political aisle found something they liked in it. I’d say this is about right:
I used to see one guy in Florida that asked for money because he was hungry, but he would take food from me, as long as it was something soft, because his teeth were mostly gone. If I was in his shoes, I daresay i’d want to get drunk sometimes too.
Yes, it is a luxury, in my definition. For me, a luxury is something that is not an absolute necessity. Food is a necessity. Rice and beans were frequently what I had for dinner when we were poor, and they were a necessity. We almost never had steak, we might have it a couple of times a year, and that was round steak (about the cheapest available steak). That was a luxury. The addict might desperately want whatever he’s addicted to, but he almost certainly won’t die if he doesn’t get it, with a very few exceptions. The addict DOES need food and shelter, though, and is not really capable of choosing to spend any money that I give him wisely. So I will offer him what he needs, and not what he wants. There are any number of people who would be happy to take my money for stuff that they want, and there are so very many of them that I would never be able to give everyone what they want, or even part of what they want. I’d go broke first.
Instead, I think it’s far more moral for me to spend any money that I feel like giving out to charity to people and institutions which will actually improve some people’s lives.
I don’t necessarily think that addicts (and I include alcoholics in that group) should be locked up, unless they’re actually in treatment, but neither do I wish to participate in them killing themselves. And giving them money for booze or drugs IS helping them kill themselves, slowly.
And, as I said, people who use these sob stories about why they need two bucks, or five, for gas or food will lead to more and more people like me who will refuse to give ANYONE on the street any money, because we don’t like to be scammed. So giving money not only harms the addict, it harms society as a whole.
Did anyone else read this and think of the Kingston Trio?
The thing to do would have been to hand him a sandwich as the train went rumblin’ through.
This has happened to me 3-4 times in my lifetime. It’s usually a couple, and they both look like they’ve been taking meth. The guy does the talking, and there’s some story that he needs to make a phone call because his car broke down and he needs money to use the phone or to buy gas, etc etc etc. It’s a total scam, and I just politely let them know I have no cash on me, sorry.
Can I borrow $5 for puppy chow? I’m not completely evil ya know.
btw, goats can’t catch syph so I’m only trying to be considerate.
You didn’t get the tuna, did you? You know, the dolphin thing. Get the big salad instead.
Thanks to furt for answering constanze’s questions for me. In summation, yes, a huge number of all the programs constanze mentioned exist in the United States. Some have funding issues, sure, but they exist.
To address an earlier post from constanze:
Firstly, once you denigrate my country baselessly I’m no longer going to treat you politely. I don’t really care about any sort of hand-wringing, cross-cultural bullshit. You talk smack about the United States, I probably won’t like you. Most of the time I’ll just ignore it. You just make stuff up like this:
and expect me to be rude. I don’t really mind or care that most Europeans have this weird anti-American fetish, I don’t think any country is perfect nor above criticism; but I do expect people to have some semblance of a clue before they open their fat, stupid mouths.
That is, quite simply, grossly insulting. We spend 67 billion a year just on housing. Housing, that doesn’t even include the spending on vocational programs, addiction counseling, treatment for the destitute mentally ill and et cetera. You should also note that I brought up this amount of money before you claimed that “I haven’t given any information.” Did you not read the 67 billion figure?
You’re correct I didn’t link it for you, but my assumption is in the internet age anything in the “public domain” of the United States government doesn’t need to be cited. My assumption is anyone who can find their way to the Dope can google the U.S. Federal budget.
But in case you can’t, check out this. That site is not government affiliated but gives the most convenient break down of the data; if you’re a purist direct budget data can be gleaned from various websites such as that of the U.S. Treasury, the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, or the Government Accountability Office.
This has been an interesting thread to me in that I find myself agreeing with things that people have said who seem to be on all sides of this argument. And I sort of think there might be more common ground than not.
True. And also true:
And, I get that people don’t like to be lied to. I get that. Even so, and I’m not accusing anyone here, but I’ve certainly seen the dignity-stripping streetside interview and derisive after-commentary when the master sleuth has determined that the panhandler wasn’t really hungry and it makes me sad. As **Nzinga **has stated ad nauseum, no one is required or obliged to give, and too often it IS more like a game or a “haha! I caught you in a lie” than an “honest interview” to truly determine the precise need at issue.
And so, perhaps, in some of these situations, perhaps the more fortunate person, the one who most likely goes home to a warm bed and a hot meal, and is treated with some modicum of respect most days and most times has his dignity intact, and perhaps one or ten fewer demons to wrestle, perhaps that fortunate one could find it in his or her heart to take the high road and forgive a falsehood from a desperate, unfortunate soul who occupies the very lower rungs of society, and let him keep his dignity. Let it go. Give or don’t give, but come on. Who here hasn’t lied for something much less critical than a panhandler’s need for money? I don’t know. I lived in San Francisco for several years and I admit I got tired of being asked (sometimes I give, sometimes I don’t), but still, I’m way more thankful our roles are not reversed than I am tired of being asked.
One more thing about dignity: whether I give or I don’t give, I almost always respond with a word or at least a shake of the head. Have you noticed that if you say “Sorry, I don’t have anything,” that people seem grateful just for a response? I understand why sometimes people don’t respond – maybe 1) they feel bad about not giving them anything when they know it’s in their pocket and they have the internal battle going on – “do I give or don’t I – am I doing more harm than good?”; 2) they don’t want to start a dialogue because it might go on for a long time; or 3) they’re afraid of the panhandler for some reason, BUT: IMHO, if it doesn’t hurt a person any, it is so much better to acknowledge the person’s existence in some fashion. Answer. Don’t ignore. He may be smelly, he may be hard to look at, he may be in your way, but he is still a human being. When he is treated as if he were invisible or an animal to be avoided, how can that not chip away at what little dignity he may have managed to gather about him?
As I think about these things, I think, too, that I’m making a distinction between the scammer who has the physical and mental health and wherewithal to make up an elaborate “I need gas” scheme complete with gas can and the barely-mobile, sores on his legs alcoholic on the sidewalk of the downtown street. The former has some options, maybe, and there’s a good argument you might do more harm than good to give it to him. But for the guy who’s probably never going to get clean and get off the street: if giving him my dollar was really “destroying” him (he’s destroyed already) and if holding it back somehow had a snowball’s chance in hell of getting him on the shiny road to sobriety, then maybe I’d never hand it over. But for the folks who are so far gone, I really don’t think my dollar does more harm than good. And it might give him a better hour or two. I don’t know. I think I should get out of the Pit because this issue makes me sad and I feel like saying, “Can’t we all just get along?”
IME, acknowledging a beggar in any way, even if it’s a polite, dignified refusal, usually means that the beggar will latch onto me, and ask me WHY I won’t give him some money. I’m told that I obviously can afford to give him five or ten bucks. In other words, I get subjected to that streetside interview which you find so very offensive, when directed at a beggar. Nothing short of a threat to scream for a cop will dislodge a beggar who thinks that because I’m willing to show a bit of politeness, I’m a softhearted easy target who will cough up some money if he can just badger me for long enough.
Now, some beggars will say, after a polite refusal, thanks anyway. However, these are a tiny minority. Most will follow me to my car, or into the shop, or wherever I go, pleading for money, and giving me more excuses, and asking me more questions. I DON’T want someone following me to my car. I DON’T want someone following me around. And I hate to yell for a cop. So I don’t acknowledge beggars in any way. To acknowledge them is to show weakness, and while most of them probably aren’t dangerous, some of them definitely are. And most of them are annoying. Yes, I GET that many, if not most, of them are living miserable lives. But that doesn’t give them the right to harass me.
That’s certainly one way out of the station–arrested for eating.
Yeah I see what you mean. I’m thinking more of the people who can’t or won’t follow you – the kind I’m most used to seeing are the kind who are sitting on the sidewalk downtown, are not physically well, and I am walking past, probably rapidly. There’s almost no chance they are going to get up and even less chance that they *can *physically get up in the few seconds it takes me to walk past them. Plus there are plenty of people coming after me, so it makes more sense for them to try the next group than keep on with me. I’ve experienced a few persistent panhandlers in my life, I guess, but most have been pretty easy to shake off with one reply or two at the most. I don’t recall being followed except for a few steps. Never to my car or into a shop…maybe if I had I’d feel different about it.
And not nearly as tender and tasty as you might think.
Did he ever return? No he never returned and his fate is still unlearned. He may ride forever 'neath the streets of Boston. he’s the man who never returned. (Kington Trio)
OMG…I remember having to sing that song in summer camp way back in 1973 or so. I barely remember the words, but you’ve sparked them. Wasn’t there aline about a sandwich in the song somewhere?
At a quarter past two, his wife hands him a sandwich.
- I hope there’s a bathroom on the train.
- Why didn’t she hand him a NICKEL? Didn’t she want him to come home?
- What about his job? Can he get unemployment?