Denver experimented with giving people $1,000 a month. It reduced homelessness and increased full-time employment, a study found.
Denver experimented with giving people $1,000 a month. It reduced homelessness and increased full-time employment, a study found.
UBI, or universal basic income, is a form of direct cash assistance to help the most vulnerable get back on their feet. A new study in Denver suggests it works.
cross-posted from: https://lemmit.online/post/1021018
This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/upliftingnews by /u/DyeZaster on 2023-10-05 17:58:02.
You're viewing a single thread.
The study does not go over it's selection criteria so it's impossible to tell how the participants skew. For example, if they selected for those without drug addictions, this data is no surprising. As a relatively right leaning person who isn't against some social welfare programs, I believe having no drug addiction should be a prerequisite to any of these types of programs. Else you are just feeding their addiction further. There would be literally 0 incentive to quit if you have all your basic needs taken care off while you waste my tax money on drugs
I'd say allow addicts but mandate provided use reduction care.
use reduction? how about no use at all. Not one dime of tax payer money should go into the hands of seedy fentanyl dealers.
Yawn. Try harder
?
I mean, yes, but also unless we're handing addicts a daily dose of fentanyl or whatever else they're stuck on, they'll get it because they're addicted to it and that's all their brain wants. Then they're out of the social programs and we're back to square one.
I'm totally fine funding good rehab care. but i'm not willing to continue to fund an addicts addiction with my tax dollars. perhaps make this program require a voluntary admission into a program with reduced freedoms (i.e. can't leave the campus) until the drug addiction is kicked.
You like, just posted this, how did it go negative. Lemmy, don't downvote people for varying opinions, downvote for comments that don't seem civil or based in good faith.
Anyway. Years of drug research shows that, if you want the most bang for your buck for social programs, full restriction is the wrong way to go about it. Humans just don't seem to work that way and addiction rates won't go down if we're not using the most effective methods possible.
What do you mean when you say "full restriction"? Initially quitting is definitely the hardest part. The temptation to make all your pain go away with a quick trip is too much to bear for many. There's a reason most detox facilities restrict you from having phones, cash, and don't let you leave. I think its good for addicts to have temporary restrictions on their freedoms to initially get clean.
Medicine Hat, AB realized that without stable shelter, it's nearly impossible to kick an addiction
Their program of trying to help people get off the street first looks like the most viable option to ending homelessness
Can we find a middle ground where perhaps you have up to 3 months to be off drugs or else you lose your benefits? Of course with proper care supplied. People need to know they are putting their immediate comfort at risk if they continue to use drugs
I would suggest we defer what the middle ground or success factors look like to the people running and studying programs like this
Beyond individual success, a certain amount spent to help people off the streets helps a lot of other people too.
And it's not like sleeping out in the elements doesn't have costs to the towns with homeless people. Healthcare still needs to be given to people living out in the elements. And security needs and expenditures increase as well.
I would suggest we defer what the middle ground or success factors look like to the people running and studying programs like this
Nah I think i'll keep having my own opinions instead of blindly trusting "experts". There is a lot of money in the addiction biz, and you don't make money off of a recovered addict. I am unwilling to fund someones addiction for their entire life. It's easy to be a functional addict when everyone else is footing the bill. I don't think temporary improvement of conditions is indicative of much.
Drug users are experts on optimizing immediate comfort. You could have just said "I don't understand addiction but that's not gonna stop me wanting to punish addicts for some reason."
What you call punishment I call boundaries. I know a lot of addicts and I've seen what worked for those who were able to break the cycle. Knowing that your family will kick you out of the house for instance, is a pretty big deterrent to using drugs. There needs to be some limits somewhere so we aren't subsidizing life long addiction on tax payer dime.