FWIW, the standard argument is that once we can hide people from our view, we forget about them and fail to invest resources in them, resulting in de facto prison sentences or abusive situations with under resourced institutions. The direct implication of intervention is taxation, and most people don't want homeless people around AND they don't want to be taxed, which creates a pretty hazardous set of incentives.

I agree that non intervention is inhumane, but also worry about how humane the intervention is.

It sounds like we're more or less both pro intervention, but arrive at that conclusion in different ways and likely with different caveats.

@hayst4ck we lost a family member to opioids in early 2019. He died in a Richmond bay area airbnb with his girlfriend, they were found by the owner several days after they died. He alternated living on the street and staying in airbnbs - he had to be narcan'd in homedepot (ironically while boosting power tools), and on the streets before finally dying.

Many addicts prefer to be on the street and not behind a door so they can be seen and revived when they OD. This is a fundamental flaw in governor Newsom's project homekey 'housing first' logic. What we are desperately short of are paths to sobriety as Shellenberger and others have pointed out. what we are not short of are 'non profit' bay area homeless industrial complex operations that facilitate street living. There are rumors the cartels donate massively to keep freshman clientele flowing. It is a very grim situation. In most european countries a junkie self harming in public will be given a choice of prison or some form of rehab. We do not have those options in a lot of north America, just open air drug scenes openly operating 24 hours a day. Obviously addicts steal to get their fixes...this is not viable on multiple societal levels.

That's why group housing a la "wet houses" makes sense.