The assumption is that drugs perpetuate the illness/uselessness of the homeless. If you have a home and can manage to afford it on your own, you get the privilege of drug consumption (within the law). If it is causing you to be unhoused or unhinged and the rest of the community is putting money into you having a place to sleep, it seems reasonable to impose some standards of behavior.

You’re welcome to do whatever you want at your own expense.

If you can’t function to a degree where society needs to clothe you, feed you and house you; it should come with strings attached. Resources are finite and “the vulnerable population” isn’t entitled to everyone’s else labor.

My point is simply that policy should be based on what is effective and humane. Keeping people housed only based on the contingency of their sobriety is neither. Under no circumstances is it better for someone to be unhoused than housed. Housing should be a human right, full stop.

The thing is: How do we encourage or enforce good behavior? At what point do we insist that an individual try not to be a burden, and to try to be a decent participant in society? That could be as little as "don't be a public nuisance and help around the housing complex once or twice a week".

If there is no standard for behavior or "giving back" to earn one's keep, bad actors will bring everyone down.

The drugs I'm talking about are illegal. Is it common to be a fentanyl addict that pays rent? Maybe but I doubt it. As a society we should do more to stop the opiod crisis. Why do we tolerate people smoking fentanyl on the bart or on our public sidewalks?

Do you think people are more likely to abuse drugs if they are on the streets, or if they are housed?

I think a drug addict will use drugs anywhere they are. Many were paying rent before they decided to prioritize getting high over paying rent.

Because they're paying for it? If society is paying for your housing you need to follow societies rules. Giving addicts free housing isn't humane. It's enabling their addiction.