[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

But let's take a poll - how many military people here think that homeless drug users made their bed and need to lie in it, but the same doesn't apply to homeless drug users who are vets?

Perhaps you'd have better luck advocating for the drug addicted homeless if you started a new thread about the subject while letting the Vet's and Serving members vent about the actions of this MP without accusing them things they have no control over.

As it stands now your accusations and sanctimonious attitude to the discussion is doing nothing but pissing off alot the Serving Members and Vet's on this site.

All drug addicts need help but the difference between you and some of the people you're accusing is the method of treating the problem. You'd like nothing better than to have drug addicts go to treatment when and if they feel like it whereas people like me would have them put in mandatory treatment and if that infringes on their freedom, let them go talk to a Veteran about the meaning of freedom as it relates to society.

[andyt]

You slid off the rails there. I think you do have a point that I'm being a bit sanctimonious here, or at least should just let people vent. But I haven't seen any suggestions here for putting drug addicted vets in mandatory treatment, just that this problem deserves attention. I agree, I just it deserves no more or less attention than ordinary homelessness. Just as I don't think women being homeless is so bad (it is) but men, well fuck em - we hear that from certain quarters too. They're all human beings that deserve help. Bringing mandatory treatment is a red herring here.

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

You slid off the rails there. I think you do have a point that I'm being a bit sanctimonious here, or at least should just let people vent. But I haven't seen any suggestions here for putting drug addicted vets in mandatory treatment, just that this problem deserves attention. I agree, I just it deserves no more or less attention than ordinary homelessness. Just as I don't think women being homeless is so bad (it is) but men, well fuck em - we hear that from certain quarters too. They're all human beings that deserve help. Bringing mandatory treatment is a red herring here.

You can call mandatory treatment a red herring but the fact remains that like all the advocates say about things like needle exhanges, free booze and free medical:

"if it saves one life it's worth it"

And who knows maybe it is. I guess we'll have to wait till the results from Singapore come out to know if mandatory rehab saved anyone.

[andyt]

We're not that far apart - I'm willing to consider anything, including mandatory treatment. I don't think it works. I especially don't think it will work in Canada unless we could change ourselves to be like Singapore - never happen. I think that's further out there than my dream of turning Canada into Norway. And if we're going to have mandatory treatment, I put alcohol at the top of the list.

I should have left it alone. I did a search and actually didn't find a lot of the hard assed stuff about the homeless from people here I expected. Except from Penetrator who said PTSD was no excuse,

But I see homelessness as not that far different from people who function just a bit better - they manage to have some sort of housing, but still really struggle in life. And we do get lots of hardassed statements from people here including yourself. Guess I mixed those up - to me they're part of the same thing.

Anyway, thanks for having a reasoned discussion with me. I've gotta admit you always seem to keep it at that level.

[Freakinoldguy]

I try.

You'll probably find that most of us are just as interested in finding a solution to the issues as you are, with the only difference being the method used.

But I seriously doubt those answers are gonna come easily especially since everytime the topic comes up the first thing the Governments tend to ask is "how much will it cost" and "is it cheaper to do it this way".

Neither of which is really relevant if they're serious about tackling the problems.

[EyeBrock]

Gunnair Gunnair:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Ignore is your friend Gunny.

Nope, because some of the other idiots that plague the forum, Andy makes some good posts. I chose to enjoy his good posts and tell him to go fuck himself for his bad ones.

His 'good' posts are infrequent and are drowned out by his plethora of shit stirring.

Ignore.

[andyt]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

I try.

You'll probably find that most of us are just as interested in finding a solution to the issues as you are, with the only difference being the method used.

But I seriously doubt those answers are gonna come easily especially since everytime the topic comes up the first thing the Governments tend to ask is "how much will it cost" and "is it cheaper to do it this way".

Neither of which is really relevant if they're serious about tackling the problems.

Since this topic isn't drawing any on topic comments anymore anyway:

I learned in psychology that in the 1800's the Quakers took in mentally ill people into healing communities on farms. The ratio of healers to ill was 1 in 4. Then governments got involved, turned them into mental hospitals and the ratio moved to 1 healer to 100 - to save money of course. The original Quaker homes were as successful in treating mental illness as our current drugs are, but without the side effects.

The thing is, for this sort of thing, it' the right that's got it's eye on the bottom dollar, much more so than the left. What you are proposing would cost a lot of money. And I think all the money in the world won't really do it (it will certainly help) with our current society the way it is, and it's lack of overall sense of community.

I think the military and Canada owes the vets the best supports when they come home. Where I diverge from some is the Bill Kristol idea that the average citizenry doesn't deserve the same.