Social Can homeless people be fined for sleeping outside? A rural Oregon city asks the US Supreme Court

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

Lmao. 1 , nobody does heroin anymore.

That must be why the government has set up safe injection sites and needle exchange programs. Because no one's doing heroin.

 

[fedoriswar37]

That must be why the government has set up safe injection sites and needle exchange programs. Because no one's doing heroin.

Why in God's name would somebody spend money on heroin when they can get fentanyl for a fraction of the price, on any corner with way higher potency.

Again , nobody's doing heroin. You have 0 clue what your talking about and everybody can tell.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

Why in God's name would somebody spend money on heroin when they can get fentanyl for a fraction of the price, on any corner with way higher potency.

Again , nobody's doing heroin. You have 0 clue what your talking about and everybody can tell.

Replace the word 'heroin' with 'opioids' in my posts if it's too difficult for you to wrap your head around.

 

[fedoriswar37]

Replace the word 'heroin' with 'opioids' in my posts if it's too difficult for you to wrap your head around.

You don't even know what's out there why would I care about any more of your opinion on the matter

 

[djacobox372]

Says the guy who has concluded that most homeless people are drug addicts based on personal anecdotes.

You've offered no systemic evidence for your position and would rather toss out actual statical evidence because it collides with your partisan worldview.

Again, why are California's underreprting drug abuse when the state has one of the most acute homeless epidemics. This seems odd given all I hear I'd that California has encouraged drug use and open air drug markets.

What evidence do you have that the majority of homeless AREN'T drug addicts? You do realize that the "stats" are all based on self-reported polling.

As one that lives among the most dense homeless population in the country it's crystal clear that 90% of them are drug and alcohol addicts. Of course they'll swear to you, and the pollsters, they're clean even though you can see the needle marks up and down their legs and arms.

 

[avenue94]

What evidence do you have that the majority of homeless AREN'T drug addicts?

Most research shows a large plurality. My contention was on causation vs correlation.

You do realize that the "stats" are all based on self-reported polling.

Yup, just like most other drug stats. Which is why I didn't argue that the usage rates might be underreported. I argued rather than there is no evidence that drug users are more or less honest based on what state they live in. Which again goes to the myth that drug use is the cause of homelessness.

As one that lives among the most dense homeless population in the country it's crystal clear that 90% of them are drug and alcohol addicts.

Skid Row? Assuming that's what you're talking about, you have a really shit sample and need to brush up on your stats. Homelessness isn't just Skid Row, it's a lot of other populations that aren't as visible.

Of course they'll swear to you, and the pollsters, they're clean even though you can see the needle marks up and down their legs and arms.

The drug question is pretty irrelevant given:
1. Drug use is correlated but not causing homelessness on population level. There's no evidence that it's the primary culprit.
2. It's really hard to treat drug addiction when the patients aren't housed, it's a cart before horse issue.

 

[Limeade]

“That was taken away from us when the campers started using the parks,” he said.

A homeless man taking a bath in the park lake.

Still, Spurgeon said his own brother died while homeless in a nearby city, and his son is living in the parks as he struggles with addiction. Once, he said, he realized with shock that the homeless person covered with blankets that he stepped past to enter a grocery store was his son.

“I miss my son every night, and I hold my breath that he won’t OD in the park,” Spurgeon said.

A used needle is seen next to orange syringe caps on the ground on Friday, March 22, 2024, in Baker Park in Grants Pass, Ore. (AP Photo/Jenny Kane)

Mayor Bristol and advocates have sought to open a shelter with fewer rules, or a designated area for homeless people to camp. But charged debates emerged over where that would be and who would pay for it.

While support for a designated campground appears to be growing, the problem remains: Many homeless people in Grants Pass have nowhere else to live. And some advocates fear a return of strict anti-camping enforcement will push people to the forest outside town, farther from help.

A homeless man saving a park watcher!

Even if the Supreme Court overturns the 9th Circuit’s decisions, Bristol said, “we still have 200 people who have to go somewhere.”

“We have to accept that homelessness is a reality in America,” she said.

This broken heart has turned to stone
Go hang your glory on the wall
There comes a time when castles fall
And all that's left is shifting in the sand

You're out of time, you're out of place
Look at your face
That's the measure of a man
This coat that fits you like a glove

These dirty streets you learned to love
So welcome back my long lost friend
You've been to hell and back again
God alone knows how you crossed that span

Back on the beat, back to the start
Trust in your heart
That's the measure of a man
It's the fire in the eyes, the lines on the hand
It's the things you understand

Permanent ties from which you once ran
That's the measure of a man
You've come full circle, now you're home
Without the gold, without the chrome

And this is where you've always been
You had to lose so you could win
And rise above your troubles while you can
Now you can love, now you can lose
Now you can choose
That's the measure of a man



https://apnews.com/article/grants-p...-encampments-a8dcddb518bd76b11d409666c06701b8

Leonardo,

Thank you for the post. I believe we have to look at Grant's Pass through the lens of past decisions like Martin v. City of Boise, 902 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2018) and the 8th amendment line of cases about involuntary status. And apologies if you already know this, but I thought you lived abroad and may not know our legal system.
The eight amendment states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Over the years, courts have interpreted what it means to be excessive and also that it prohibits punishing someone for an involuntary status. Thus, we do not make it a crime to addicted, we do not make it a crime to be born one way or another, we do not make it a crime to be homeless.

In Martin v Boise, the city enacted an ordinance that made it a misdemeanor to camp outside as well as sleep on property without the owner's permission. I think it also defined camping as using bedding like sheets and blankets. Trh court ruled the city could not punish someone for being involuntarily homeless unless the city had enough shelter housing to accommodate the homeless population. So you can't be punished for having no where to sleep, and it's up to the city to show you had enough options to go somewhere and thus not involuntarily homeless.

You can see how would this would be a problem. It punishes someone based on his or status --- unable to have his or her own place to sleep.

Martin was not the first case to apply this kind of thinking. We also saw it in Jones v. Los Angeles in the early 2000s, so it's not a radical new idea anymore. However that case ended in a settlement and a vacated judgment so it did not become precedent. But Jones paved the way for the decision in Martin.

Skip forward a few years and now we have Johnson v Grants Pass. This time it's a little different, now a fine instead a misdemeanor. But it is still the same prohibited conduct. Still, the 9th circuit (two layers up) did a straightforward application of Martin and ruled Boise could not impose fines in this case.

Now we are on appeal to the Supreme Court and to me the fundamental question would whether we are overturning Martin and the current precedent. Because if Martin and thus Johnson v. Grants Pass were incorrectly decided, then cities would no longer be restricted from imposing fines or penalties based on homelessness. Nor would cities need to examine the number of available shelter and short term housing spaces. It would be a fairly big upheaval of our legal system.

That's way this case crosses party lines. Officials from both parties - Democrats and Republicans - want some ability to regulate homelessness. If you read the supporting testimony, some city officials said fear of violating the holding in Martin prevents them from doing ANYTHING. I imagine they are paralyzed by the threat of litigation and paying settlement amounts to homelessness plaintiffs.

Who knows what the current Supreme Court will land on this case. I would expect a very narrow holding to affirm Johnson v Grants Pass but leave open the idea that cities can do SOMETHING to regulate homelessness.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

What evidence do you have that the majority of homeless AREN'T drug addicts? You do realize that the "stats" are all based on self-reported polling.

As one that lives among the most dense homeless population in the country it's crystal clear that 90% of them are drug and alcohol addicts. Of course they'll swear to you, and the pollsters, they're clean even though you can see the needle marks up and down their legs and arms.

I mean, you can't prove a negative but of course you're right and only these lily white liberals who have never even seen a homeless person believe the homeless aren't all on drugs lmao.

There's a also a lot of young drug using liberals who are quick to argue that drugs have no negative consequences as a coping mechanism. They'll learn.

 

[Andy Capp]

I mean, you can't prove a negative but of course you're right and only these lily white liberals who have never even seen a homeless person believe the homeless aren't all on drugs lmao.

There's a also a lot of young drug using liberals who are quick to argue that drugs have no negative consequences as a coping mechanism. They'll learn.

LOL you're pretty self-righteous for someone so consistently wrong.

There are a massive number of working poor, many of them living out of their cars and going to work every day. They're all drug-addled waste cases too, are they?

A profile of the working poor, 2020 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

This report summarizes data on the working poor. The working poor are people who spent at least 27 weeks in the labor force (that is, working or looking for work) but whose incomes still fell below the official poverty level.

www.bls.gov

"In 2020, 37.2 million people, or 11.4 percent of the nation’s population, lived below the official poverty level, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.1 (See the technical notes section for examples of poverty levels.) Although the poor were primarily adults who had not participated in the labor force during the year and children, 6.3 million individuals were among the “working poor” in 2020, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS); this measure was essentially unchanged from 2019. The working poor are people who spent at least 27 weeks in the labor force (that is, working or looking for work) but whose incomes still fell below the official poverty level. In 2020, the working-poor rate—the ratio of the working poor to all individuals in the labor force for at least 27 weeks—was 4.1 percent, little different from the previous year’s figure (4.0 percent). (See table A, chart 1, and table 1.)"


Note: I'm not saying all working poor people are homeless, far from it, but that they exist in rather too large a number to support your claim.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

There are a massive number of working poor, many of them living out of their cars and going to work every day. They're all drug-addled waste cases too, are they?

No one's worried about them because they aren't causing problems. A lot of those guys are living like that by choice because they're rather live debt free than throw money away on rent every month.

As I've said before in this thread, the issue isn't that they're homeless it's all the fucking crimes they commit.

No one considers a young guy living the 'van life' lifestlye to be 'homeless' unless it's specifically to inflate the numbers and dillute the drug use/crime stats.

 

[Andy Capp]

No one's worried about them because they aren't causing problems. A lot of those guys are living like that by choice because they're rather live debt free than throw money away on rent every month.

As I've said before in this thread, the issue isn't that they're homeless it's all the fucking crimes they commit.

No one considers a young guy living the 'van life' lifestlye to be 'homeless' unless it's specifically to inflate the numbers and dillute the drug use/crime stats.

Except that is not the thread topic, which is whether can you be fined for sleeping outside. Innocent people are being harassed, like the guy in the video above.

And yeah, sure, by choice. Right.

 

[ferrisjso]

That must be why the government has set up safe injection sites and needle exchange programs. Because no one's doing heroin.

Those are for everyone because of the fentanyl crisis.

 

[Madmick]

Then why is the R2 value so low when comparing drug use and homeless rate by state?

Please educate us on basic stats, I'm sure you're familiar with them?

You know what's funny? When COVID happened, and I presented similar charts that were so obviously lopsided on a red/blue basis by state regarding mortality compared to vaccination rates, most leftists nodded, and it was mostly conservative anti-lockdown whiners who did mental gymnastics to deny the obvious. Yet, when you observe the staggering correlation to homelessness in these charts, suddenly that partisan blindness flips, and they somehow become incapable of connecting the dots.

 

[Seano]

I mean, you can't prove a negative but of course you're right and only these lily white liberals who have never even seen a homeless person believe the homeless aren't all on drugs lmao.

There's a also a lot of young drug using liberals who are quick to argue that drugs have no negative consequences as a coping mechanism. They'll learn.

If you're a homeless person, 99 times out of 100 you're either an addict or mentally defective. Most are beyond help and I'm tired of tax money going to make life in a ditch more comfortable instead of just taking care of the problem as aggressively as possible.

 

[ferrisjso]

I mean, you can't prove a negative but of course you're right and only these lily white liberals who have never even seen a homeless person believe the homeless aren't all on drugs lmao.

There's a also a lot of young drug using liberals who are quick to argue that drugs have no negative consequences as a coping mechanism. They'll learn.

Aren't you a libertarian who claims your ideology is based on leaving people alone?

 

[avenue94]

You know what's funny? When COVID happened, and I presented similar charts that were so obviously lopsided on a red/blue basis by state regarding mortality compared to vaccination rates, most leftists nodded, and it was mostly conservative anti-lockdown whiners who did mental gymnastics to deny the obvious. Yet, when you observe the staggering correlation to homelessness in these charts, suddenly that partisan blindness flips, and they somehow become incapable of connecting the dots.

Not sure what you're trying to argue here? That states with the more expensive housing tend to correlate with higher homelessness?

 

[Seano]

Not sure what you're trying to argue here? That states with the more expensive housing tend to correlate with higher homelessness?

He's pointing out blue states top the list, obviously.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

Aren't you a libertarian who claims your ideology is based on leaving people alone?

Yep. They can do drugs, they just can't have any involuntary money and support from people who aren't fuckups.

And they can't rob people, break into their houses or assault them. If they do, they should be dealt with.

It's called the non-aggression principle.

 

[avenue94]

He's pointing out blue states top the list, obviously.

He's trying to twist evidence to suit a prior held belief. From later in the article he got the graph from:
"The other claim we often hear in homelessness discourse is that homelessness is being driven by progressive policies, which, like weather, serve as magnets for the homeless. But if this claim were true, wouldn’t the places with the most generous welfare benefits have the most homelessness? But yet again, the data shows no link:"

As has been repeatedly explained, the strongest correlation and causation link homelessness and root causes is housing. Period. Anything else isn't even close in impact. Limiting housing isn't a progressive position, it's a NIMBY and selfish position held by people of all political stripes. Notice how your support earlier in this thread is literally grounded in NIMBY principles (As long as I don't see the homeless in my life, I don't care whose problem they are)

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Fining them is useless. Using them for spare parts and bio fuel, profitable and effective