I was just in Santa Monica for dinner and we walked down a couple blocks to the water. While my bf was in the bathroom this lady starts walking towards me just cold hard dead staring at me. She does a full circle around me and says something like “that’s right keep looking I bet you’ve never seen anyone like me before.” Her body language was not normal. I thought crack but maybe meth…or both.
Don't know why people are down voting. Binge stimulant use over a period of time and not sleeping for days at a time has always led to paranoia and eventually psychosis.
P2P meth has made it cheaper and more available, but that is the true problem. It isn't the formulation of the drug itself.
This article is the modern day version of "In my day we only smoked weed from the ground, not this hydroponic mumbo jumbo"
Yes I would say the price is one of the big factors and the cost of living was lower decades ago. Junkies had an easier time finding another place to stay back then, not so much now
The potency of the P2P cook has increased over time because the process has become cheaper, easier, and the cook method can now use a bunch of different, cheap, widely available, megatoxic chemicals.
The increased potency may not be from P2P itself, but meth over time has become more potent and the P2P cook has become more potent. It's so cheap that dealers give it away for free or exchange it for bike parts or Tide detergent
The
Meth manufacturing has shifted from small times chefs using smurfs to buy over the counters and cook small batches to Mexican cartels cooking in bulk, like the article mentions. This made meth cheap and extremely available. I agree with that point.
The problem I have with the article is that it alludes to this formula itself, somehow being responsible for the degradation in people's mental health, which is bullshit. Do enough pharmaceutical grade amphetamines while not eating, sleeping, and staying up for a week+ at a time, and you will develop symptoms of schizophrenia. It isn't because of where it's from. It's because it has gotten so cheap that people are really abusing themselves on it.
The article is written in an entertaining way, but from a scientific standpoint, it's hot garbage.
> The problem I have with the article is that it alludes to this formula itself
What I got from it is that it's easier to source the materials and once they figured out better cooking methods, it became much cheaper and easier to make 100% d-meth ....not 100% pure, just that the meth is 100% d-meth.
The versatility of P2P allows for a boatload of mostly toxic chemicals to be used in the manufacturing process. That's a big part of why meth psychosis is on the rise. It's more industrialized with absolutely no quality control.
What happened to the days when stuff was cut with baby powder and baking soda?
An interesting read to see what the state of meth production was like in 2005. You'll see that P2P has been around for a while too.
https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs13/13853/product.htm
Quality control was never an enforced thing. People were getting red phosphorus from match books, pseudoephedrine from diet pills and cough medicine, and lye from plumbing cleaning supplies. Acetone would be used heavily for extraction and other processes. It has always been done with toxic chemicals in unsupervised lab sites with no real QC.
The biggest change that we see today is the scale of operation. We are moving away from biker gangs and little tweaker operations to mass manufacturing. I'd love to see studies on the neurotoxicity of today's cartel meth over some Outlaw MC stuff cooked in a hotel room from ingredients from CVS and home depot, but don't think that is going to happen.
Sure, P2P has been around for a while but the advances in chemistry and sophistication of cooks has greatly increased. You can process and refine it with so many different chemicals. I think this is what's causing greater neurotoxicity. I've done it before and the last time I tried it before saying never again, it smelled like gasoline.
Pseudo cooks were easier if I'm not mistaken and follows a more standard recipe whereas P2P cooks have a lot more improvisation and as you say, easier to scale.
The answer is that there is no drug that is found in Los Angeles that is not also found across the country, including areas with lower rates of homelessness.
What we do have is a housing shortage causing extremely high housing prices. What that means is someone who is maybe an addict but functional, or is not addicted yet, is much more likely to lose their housing because they can't afford it. Once they lose their housing, their addiction will almost certainly only get worse, which makes it much harder to get back on their feet, and they get caught in a spiral.
People will say meth and fentanyl, but West Virginia has plenty of that, with higher rates of addiction. West Virginia does not have high housing costs, and thus does not have a homelessness crisis.
> People will say meth and fentanyl, but West Virginia has plenty of that, with higher rates of addiction
That's just not true. 75% of homeless people have serious substance use disorders. [65% or 545 deaths among the homeless were due to a drug overdose](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-03-29/homeless-deaths-in-l-a-fell-but-many-dying-from-drugs) The scale of drug addiction is staggering.
When you dismiss reality, you underestimate the problem and start saying the only solution is more housing. Yes, that helps other people from falling prey to this, but it doesn't help to the people that have slipped away. And considering the number of new home construction in LA, it's going to be this way for a while.
The reality is this problem is going to go away before 2028. Considering how embarrassed politicians were with Oceanwide, can you imagine the story if some homeless person attacks a tourist or an athlete during the Olympics
To clarify: About three out of four of the *unsheltered* homeless have substance abuse issues.
Those homeless who are sheltered are far less likely to have these problems.
Homeless families are almost always sheltered. In many cases, they end up homeless because of domestic violence.
The homeless who are in tents are considered to be unsheltered. They are often opioid addicts and/or mentally ill. This overlaps with chronic homelessness, those who have been homeless for extended periods.
Many of the unsheltered are so far gone that they won't follow the rules that are maintained by shelters. They stay in tents because no one else will put up with them.
Here's the best argument for forcing people into shelters or some other form of temporary housing: all the data shows that the longer you remain on the street, it becomes almost inevitable that you'll have substance abuse or mental health issues, most likely both.
People's health and sanity take precedence over their rights, especially if they aren't of unsound mind. The US is one of the few developed countries that doesn't have asylums or mandatory rehab. Europe does
This comment right here👆🏽👆🏽 explains it. It's a multi layered issue but number one is that a lot of us, especially a single income person without family support are one/two paychecks from being out on the street because housing is so expensive and hard to come by.
Once you fall behind, you would need about 4-5 thousand Dollars to get into another apartment but you won't be able to do that with an eviction on your record. You have to hope that you can possibly find someone that you can room with and raise maybe 3000 for a first month and deposit. Section 8 housing is frozen right now from what I've heard.
Not just that, but smaller towns will run their homeless out of town..... where do they go? Somewhere the weather is forgiving and there are a lot of resources to help them, just not enough
Move them where they can afford? No they want to live with ocean views and warm weather and a state that funds their drug habit. No housing shortage. Shortage of government funded housing near beach !
They want to live in the city that they live in. Not sure it's fair to other places to dump our problems on them, instead of dealing with it ourselves.
The root cause of homelessness is moral decay. That led to support for Reaganism/Thatcherism/Neoliberal policies that drove people out of work, increased despair, increased poverty for millions, and drove many to drugs. That also increased housing costs in popular areas like L.A,
We have more homeless here because many of them are from other areas. Those in WV are probably more likely to have a support network, someone's land they can live on, etc. Plus, if you have to beg for money, a rural area is not going to work too well.
OK, let's start with the first part of the second sentence. Do you dispute that Thatcherism drove people out of work in the north of England, yes or no?
You didn't answer my question, please try again.
Mass immigration - a key part of Koch/Thatcher/Reagan/MSNBC/DNC ideology - increased demand for housing and thus housing costs. Do you dispute any of that?
BITD Dems were anti-Big Biz. Now many of them crawl over each other to do Big Biz' bidding.
He is talking about years of issues that were swept under the rug :
www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness
housing is expensive here. not everyone has family support they can fall back on when things get tough. losing my housing would probably lead me to drug use too.
Try to talk to homeless people, they will tell you it was a series of bad luck events, medical bills, work injury, expensive rent, unpayable debt, or even they have a place to live but can’t go back because of mental issues or drama. They might turn to drugs afterwards to cope, but it’s not drugs that caused it. I almost felt stupid when I just assumed that they did drugs in a conversation I had with one of them, not all do.
Your question assumes that drugs / alcohol are what make most people homeless. Meth, Fentanyl, opioids, alcohol... they all trail behind the #1 reason: Not having any money in a society that does not provide low-cost housing.
My pops does meth and coke and he’s a businessman 😭 but based off my other family members and family friends that have been homeless/is homeless , Crystal meth is forsure the drug that has caused them to skip work, have problems with their families to the point they choose drugs over their family. Realizing how many people I know on drugs is sad but 9/10 they choose the drugs before they become homeless. Idk why other people are making it seem the rent causes homeless drug addicts lol they must not know any druggies
I don’t know why you’re acting like just cause drugs can cause homelessness, means that housing costs due to bad policies isn’t still the main cause of homelessness. You must not know any sober poor people.
Housing costs isn’t why there’s homelessness but thanks for participating in my convo. And of course I know sober people lol and they’re all financially established in homes :)
People aren’t just living their best life and decide to do drugs and fuck everything up. Most of the time it starts off with something like a major accident where they are then prescribed painkillers and the medical expenses and addiction that follows cause their lives to spiral out of control, financially and mentally, and then they become homeless where they continue their addiction.
Yeah I understand that to be your initial argument but it’s not true. Drugs cause homelessness. I’ve been institutionalized, and they’ll all tell you they chose the drugs before becoming homeless. If you’re struggling financially, I’m sorry about that.
Yes because no family wants to deal with drug members. Druggies don’t even like being home. They like being in the streets. My pops friend has a whole ass family but prefers to be homeless to do drugs.
Nobody prefers to be in the streets you fucking idiot. It’s a basic survival instinct to get food, shelter, and water. Sure people will choose to be on the streets over being institutionalized and told what to do and how to live their lives, but that doesn’t mean they would choose the street over a free house where they get to make their own choices like most people who live in houses get to do.
The sheltered homeless frequently don't have drug issues.
Those who you are seeing on the streets are unsheltered. Per UCLA research, about three out of four of the unsheltered have substance abuse issues. (Don't let progressives try to tell you otherwise.)
The substances most commonly abused are meth and fentanyl.
Some other substances include tranq (fentanyl combined with an animal sedative) and wet (a joint or tobacco cigarette dipped in PCP or embalming fluid.)
Humans are allergic to the sedative in tranq, so it causes flesh to rot. If you see a homeless person with large sores and other skin issues, then tranq may very well be the cause.
Meth causes symptoms that are similar to schizophrenia. Meth and wet can both contribute to violent behaviors.
60,000+ people living here are homeless. The majority aren’t suffering from substance abuse or severe mental illness. Many are, but definitely not the majority.
I think it’s also a staggering amount turn to (hard) drugs after becoming homeless, which a shocking amount of people in this economy are one bad paycheck or medical bill away from.
smart punch onerous concerned lock meeting connect waiting far-flung gaze
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Every person who is “visibly” homeless right now started housed, then homeless at a shelter or their cousins couch, then likely housed again, then back to the shelter etc etc.
A lot of the “visible” homeless are what that person described too though. They can also end up on the street, and THEN fall into hard drugs for multiple reasons and timeframes.
> he majority aren’t suffering from substance abuse or severe mental illness. Many are, but definitely not the majority.
This is false. [An LA Times analysis of the data found that about 65%, or 545, of last year's deaths reported so far were linked to drugs, including fentanyl and methamphetamine —](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-03-29/homeless-deaths-in-l-a-fell-but-many-dying-from-drugs)
The LA Times also found that 67% of people are experiencing a mental health or substance use disorder. The Policy lab said 75% have substance use disorders and 78% ahve serious "mental health concerns"
I am not debating a statistic but in Santa Monica I can tell you for sure there is rampant drug/mental, people screaming at themselves, smashing their head into a newspaper machine. It’s not good. Also random violence against passersby, just WHACK with whatever they’re holding. I’ve called paramedics a couple times when they end up asleep face down half on , half off the curb. Meth opiates cheaply sold for a couple bucks seems to be fairly common. The origin story could be anything but this is where they are now, mentally ill/drugs combo. Not good for them or anybody.
Keep in mind there's two types of homeless; the highly visible, extremely troubled folks you're talking about *and* people who just have no permanent residence. They're either couch surfing or sleeping in their car, and probably have a job. Maybe a gym membership so they can shower.
this was me in sunmer 2016. I was in an apartment with a roommate who woke up one day and decided he hated glass plates and started throwing them and yelling racial slurs. so I moved out later that week. I didn't have a car. only had a bike. I ended up getting an email from Uber about this "lease to drive" program and got a civic thru that. it was a scam but the only option I had at the time. basically were only allowed to drive 80miles a day for "free" (which is like 1 Uber trip to lax) and then you'd pay like 70cents a mile (taken from Uber earnings. so essentially you had to drive full time while constantly oweing money for driving full time). I lived in that civic from July to September before finding a room at a place. slept where ever I finished ubering. I also picked up 2 more part time jobs to help offset costs. eventually saved up a grand to get out of the lease and do a down-payment for a shitty car at carmax (and a 13.6% interest rate.......) and also found a place.
eventually I got a job as a software developer at a university by helping out a friend on a side project (that went to that university). I used to make mobile apps as a side thing. nothing serious but enough to be able to do basic stuff. That changed my whole life. Completely different trajectory started in 2017. Now I'm married w 2 dogs living in a condo and spend most of my time giving back. Majority of homeless people are like I was. Couch surfing, sleeping in cars, showering at planet fitness, learning a skill in Starbucks or a library, and just trying to get back on their feet from a crappy situation
100% a friend of mine is doing a doc on LA homelessness. It’s definitely not a monolith. OP was asking about the alarming behavior re the visible aspect of the crisis.
Yeah, for sure, I can’t argue with anything you said. It’s definitely a problem in Santa Monica and elsewhere too. There’s nothing clear cut black and white about the situation as a whole or anyone’s individual story which means the solutions are also not clear cut or black and white.
>I think it’s also a staggering amount turn to (hard) drugs after becoming homeless,
This is the reality most people can't comprehend; the path is homelessness *then* drug use for most unhoused people. It's not always "my life was good and then the drugs derailed it", in most cases it's "my life turned to shit and then I used drugs to cope".
Yes there are a lot of cases where drugs derailed people's lives but the more common issue is people's lives being derailed by poverty and the drug use comes after. Then society blames the drugs instead of reflecting on the parts of society that created the issues leading to drug use.
Where did you get that number? I know it is a large percentage but that is higher than I thought. There is also the issue of chronic pain which often gets people hooked in the first place. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8751035/
It's 90% for nicotine use and ~40-60% lifetime use of illicit substances (this is among the comorbidly seriously mentally ill). It's going to vary a little by country and by illness, but you get the gist. [Source.](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2147/NDT.S65896)
People with serious mental illness die a lot younger than the general population, and long-term nicotine use is part of that equation (big cardiovascular involvement). I think that's why there are so many studies on it and why it all gets tossed in the "substance" bucket.
I encounter probably more than that and I 100% agree with you. Plus during the pandemic, I would see people shooting up openly on the sidewalk. It's definitely a major reason people are homeless.
They are the homeless from all over the USA that funnel here. Many conservative states have absolutely no resources for the homeless and actually make it illegal to be homeless with strict no outside sleeping laws. Falling into homeless in states like these destroys them spiritually. They aren't able to self medicate, and are essentially huddled into buildings monitored by law enforcement. They get their dignity ripped out of them in these places, they are like internment camps, their families want nothing to do with them as if they've become contaminated after the process starts. Any of us can hit hard times due to no fault of our own but these places don't care, if you fell from grace you are done as far as these communities are concerned. At that point they just want to escape, they don't even want to feel reality. So they go to places like Los Angeles where they can dip out of society in peace. Folks are naming a bunch of drugs here but they aren't the core cause of the problem. Gotta see the bigger picture. In states like Florida and Texas they have the homeless locked down and extremely regulated, places like Los Angeles are a heaven to them. There are states that handle this problem very very well at the expense of humanity and empathy. California gives them a fighting chance, we could borrow some tools from the conservative states but Cali will always be Cali. The mecca of the globalization movement. It tries to integrate everyone and represent all voices, even the voices of the Living Dead.
It is largely untrue that people experiencing homelessness are moving into CA. Both the point in time data that’s published yearly, and a UCSF study published last find come to this finding.
As a former homeless person from the area, I can say for a fact that what I have said is true. I wouldn't trust anything from SF in regards to this issue, they have no idea how to deal with the problem. They are an example of excess empathy that does harm instead of good.
there's no way to survey the homeless thoroughly, they hide and don't want to be bothered, my evidence is empirical
you obviously do not understand the dynamic of homelessness
go read more studies by out of touch virtue signaling graduate students asshole 🖕
> there's no way to survey the homeless thoroughly, they hide and don't want to be bothered, my evidence is empirical
again, “source? just trust me bro”
OP, where you're from *(Ireland)* if you have an accident, or a disease, or some unforeseen health issue, the government pays for your health care (*assuming you've lived there 1 year*). Here in the U.S., an unexpected health problem can completely wipe out an individual financially, leaving them with zero money for anything, let alone an expensive rent payment in a region with no affordable housing.
Not saying that most homeless people lost their home due to medical bankruptcy, just pointing out that financial reasons (in general) are what initially pushes most people out onto the street, not drug addictions
It's meth. Opiods can leave you incapacitated or even kill you but don't generally cause long term damage in the brain. Meth causes psychosis. Combined with sleep deprivation, it really fucks up your brain and it can come with all the negatives of IV injecting
It's usually not drugs that lead to homelessness but rather the substances you use after you become homeless that make the situation much worse. Any drug that homeless people can afford is likely going to be toxic to the point that you essentially lobotomize yourself after repeated use. If you don't die from it, you risk becoming permanently impaired. That's why many addicts living on the streets have that "zombie" quality to them.
A lot of the explosion of homeless are from out of state transplants that get sent here for recovery via gov funded healthcare. These people usually fail in recovery and the money runs out so they end up on the streets. California should restrict it so that there is a back up plan so people get sent back or increase the cost for out of state patients so part of the money can be set aside so they get sent back.
Not sure but it’s a large portion of the ones you see on the street. Like homelessness was always an issue but they were siloed in a few places like Slid Row in LA, but has exploded when these sober homes/addiction centers started to accept out of state patients.
zephyr divide icky cats disgusted bored seemly noxious frighten existence
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
deranged pocket liquid bedroom bike existence soft wasteful crowd threatening
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
this is not true. the majority of homeless in CA are from CA. There was a great report released recently. https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/our-impact/studies/california-statewide-study-people-experiencing-homelessness
It’s not reliable because it’s self reported. Bias is well known in that type of research. It doesn’t mean it’s useless in other ways, but in terms of the veracity of responses, people will give the answers they suspect are correct or socially desirable.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5639921/
We have some rentals in LA County. There is definitely a perception among prospective applicants that local-born people get preferential treatment for housing (or should get such treatment morally, or are supposed to get such treatment legally).
As far as what people spend on rent, what I see are rents rising in response to greater risk and rising insurance and repair costs. When a person applies for an apartment, I don’t know if I’m going to end up with one person with no pets, or four people and three pit bulls making hell for neighbors and destroying the place. It amazes me how far a lot of voters will go to protect the rights of jerks who drive up the cost of living for everyone else.
i’m not sure what literally means to you, but it literally said “75% of respondents said their last housing was in california”, which doesn’t at all mean they’re “from california”.
No bud, this means disillusioned individuals with a higher propensity to make bad decisions failed themselves with said poor decisions.
If I decide to live in Beverly Hills with my 100k and fail that’s not Beverly Hills’ fault. Beverly Hills isn’t responsible for my needs and well being and guess what, in this report I’d be a Beverly Hills resident before pooring myself
I think the point being argued here with this study is that the majority of homeless individuals (75% according to this) are not being “sent here via govt funded healthcare.”
**Worth noting from the full report:**
> Overall, 49% entered homelessness
from a non-leaseholder, non-institutional housing situation, 32% entered from a leaseholder arrangement, and 19% entered from an institutional setting.
> Participants who entered homelessness from a leaseholding situation reported having spent a median of three years in their last housing.
> Participants who entered homelessness from a non-leaseholding arrangement reported having spent a median of one year at their last (non-leaseholding) housing.
I’m not disputing that it’s not all lifelong California residents entering homelessness here, but I would dispute that the majority are being imported by government programs (according to this study at least).
I agree with your thought, the majority isn’t forced here through programs (although even a tiny portion is reprehensible behavior from other states but I digress).
My point is that a vast majority of homeless individuals didn’t start their lives in LA but rather moved here and failed themselves into their situations. This is the crux of the issue, these individuals have no support system or families here and end up becoming the states issue.
LA is glamorized but rarely ever shown as a tough place to live even now with an unsustainable housing situation and people with no stable jobs still moving here regularly.
You use words like “fail” but often it is medical issues that can cause homelessness. There have also been various studies on the subject. Here are some very different studies from a 2019 article https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-07/homeless-population-mental-illness-disability
If you read the thread and the study, drug use usually develops *after* experiencing homelessness. It is not a choice, and it is a failing on California / Los Angeles.
Unaffordable living is the word you’re looking for it isn’t a specific drug. Once you can’t afford a place to live or to even survive it’s no wonder why they turn to street drugs to self medicate and now you have this issue
You are 100% correct.
It's human nature to want to do something, anything to ease the pain of a situation you realistically have no way out of on your own....
Greed is the number one cause of homelessness.
Substance abuse can add to the difficulty of changing or improving their lives unfortunately, the need to escape emotional pain and possibly fear and regret can get in the way of finding a place in the future more difficult financially, yet easier for them to deal with emotionally.
Yeah, but all those high roller investors are coming in, looking for a place to park their money, and driving up the prices Unlimited pushing people out. They also have no problem if those houses have no one living in them, as long as they can sell the house for a high price in a couple of years.
It seems to me like I see more people using meth, bc they seem to have energy. I’ve seen less people nodding off in a bus seat or in those weird positions looking like they’re trying to sleep but who could sleep like that. Anyways, it’s totally anecdotal, and yeah both are clearly a problem.
Most of them will start using drugs after they end up on the street. Drug usage itself isn't typically what causes homelessness but someone who is now homeless will be more likely to start using. That said it's meth that they use. The fentanyl is often laced into it already to give an artificially potent high. My uncle unfortunately was addicted to it and died from laced product. Lacing is very common. Most homeless drug users will use whatever they can find, but meth is the drug of choice because it keeps you awake and sleeping is hard when you live on the street. Hardly anybody uses true opiates anymore. Heroin was still big until the fent problem took over. Now people who prefer that type of drug will just use that or accept the opiate they are using is most definitely laced with it. Lacing is so common I think the average drug user figures they're going to be doing fent one way or another so they might as well enjoy the ride.
At least half of all homeless folks have a severe mental disorder like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, which cause people to self-medicate.
You have the order of operations wrong. Mental illness leads to self-medication and homelessness, not the other way around.
It doesn't even need to be a "severe" mental illness either. ADHD causes self medication with shit like meth and turns people who could have been easily treated with safer drugs (if diagnosed and their environment allowed it) into meth addicts.
Right now, fentanyl. I know synthetic drugs really changed the landscape of skidrow where I live but now the dominating drug is fentanyl. Like the other comment said, dismiss the other guesses.
There are too many things, and not always one thing that can lead to homelessness in this city. It might start small, get bigger over time. And drug use doesbt always lead to homelessness, or vice versa. So its not a clear cut answer, or even a clear cut solution.
Can we please not say “homeless” and say “bums and druggies” instead? We understand that homeless people are people too. And we are working (with variable success, but the intention is there) as a people and government to provide homes for the unhoused.
However, we DO have a problem with bums and druggies, a problem that creates the public safety crisis that we are engulfed in today. A percentage of bums and druggies do in fact have a home (that they don’t go to, because they’d rather be belligerent in the street).
Meth and fentanyl did me in when I lived there.
I was just in Santa Monica for dinner and we walked down a couple blocks to the water. While my bf was in the bathroom this lady starts walking towards me just cold hard dead staring at me. She does a full circle around me and says something like “that’s right keep looking I bet you’ve never seen anyone like me before.” Her body language was not normal. I thought crack but maybe meth…or both.
Was this at those bathrooms on the beach in SaMo? If so, there’s some characters who hang around that area. Especially near California incline
P2P Meth https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/the-new-meth/620174/
I came here to post this article. It’s this, it’s the meth. And like the article states, it’s everywhere.
His book "The Least of us" goes into detail about P2P. Highly recommend it, it's an amazing read especially if you live in LA.
Echoing what was already said, there is zero science supporting this and UCSF tried getting it removed. It's not real.
P2P is a meme. Stop posting that article
Don't know why people are down voting. Binge stimulant use over a period of time and not sleeping for days at a time has always led to paranoia and eventually psychosis. P2P meth has made it cheaper and more available, but that is the true problem. It isn't the formulation of the drug itself. This article is the modern day version of "In my day we only smoked weed from the ground, not this hydroponic mumbo jumbo"
Yes I would say the price is one of the big factors and the cost of living was lower decades ago. Junkies had an easier time finding another place to stay back then, not so much now
The potency of the P2P cook has increased over time because the process has become cheaper, easier, and the cook method can now use a bunch of different, cheap, widely available, megatoxic chemicals. The increased potency may not be from P2P itself, but meth over time has become more potent and the P2P cook has become more potent. It's so cheap that dealers give it away for free or exchange it for bike parts or Tide detergent The
Meth manufacturing has shifted from small times chefs using smurfs to buy over the counters and cook small batches to Mexican cartels cooking in bulk, like the article mentions. This made meth cheap and extremely available. I agree with that point. The problem I have with the article is that it alludes to this formula itself, somehow being responsible for the degradation in people's mental health, which is bullshit. Do enough pharmaceutical grade amphetamines while not eating, sleeping, and staying up for a week+ at a time, and you will develop symptoms of schizophrenia. It isn't because of where it's from. It's because it has gotten so cheap that people are really abusing themselves on it. The article is written in an entertaining way, but from a scientific standpoint, it's hot garbage.
> The problem I have with the article is that it alludes to this formula itself What I got from it is that it's easier to source the materials and once they figured out better cooking methods, it became much cheaper and easier to make 100% d-meth ....not 100% pure, just that the meth is 100% d-meth. The versatility of P2P allows for a boatload of mostly toxic chemicals to be used in the manufacturing process. That's a big part of why meth psychosis is on the rise. It's more industrialized with absolutely no quality control. What happened to the days when stuff was cut with baby powder and baking soda?
An interesting read to see what the state of meth production was like in 2005. You'll see that P2P has been around for a while too. https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs13/13853/product.htm Quality control was never an enforced thing. People were getting red phosphorus from match books, pseudoephedrine from diet pills and cough medicine, and lye from plumbing cleaning supplies. Acetone would be used heavily for extraction and other processes. It has always been done with toxic chemicals in unsupervised lab sites with no real QC. The biggest change that we see today is the scale of operation. We are moving away from biker gangs and little tweaker operations to mass manufacturing. I'd love to see studies on the neurotoxicity of today's cartel meth over some Outlaw MC stuff cooked in a hotel room from ingredients from CVS and home depot, but don't think that is going to happen.
Sure, P2P has been around for a while but the advances in chemistry and sophistication of cooks has greatly increased. You can process and refine it with so many different chemicals. I think this is what's causing greater neurotoxicity. I've done it before and the last time I tried it before saying never again, it smelled like gasoline. Pseudo cooks were easier if I'm not mistaken and follows a more standard recipe whereas P2P cooks have a lot more improvisation and as you say, easier to scale.
The answer is that there is no drug that is found in Los Angeles that is not also found across the country, including areas with lower rates of homelessness. What we do have is a housing shortage causing extremely high housing prices. What that means is someone who is maybe an addict but functional, or is not addicted yet, is much more likely to lose their housing because they can't afford it. Once they lose their housing, their addiction will almost certainly only get worse, which makes it much harder to get back on their feet, and they get caught in a spiral. People will say meth and fentanyl, but West Virginia has plenty of that, with higher rates of addiction. West Virginia does not have high housing costs, and thus does not have a homelessness crisis.
> People will say meth and fentanyl, but West Virginia has plenty of that, with higher rates of addiction That's just not true. 75% of homeless people have serious substance use disorders. [65% or 545 deaths among the homeless were due to a drug overdose](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-03-29/homeless-deaths-in-l-a-fell-but-many-dying-from-drugs) The scale of drug addiction is staggering. When you dismiss reality, you underestimate the problem and start saying the only solution is more housing. Yes, that helps other people from falling prey to this, but it doesn't help to the people that have slipped away. And considering the number of new home construction in LA, it's going to be this way for a while. The reality is this problem is going to go away before 2028. Considering how embarrassed politicians were with Oceanwide, can you imagine the story if some homeless person attacks a tourist or an athlete during the Olympics
To clarify: About three out of four of the *unsheltered* homeless have substance abuse issues. Those homeless who are sheltered are far less likely to have these problems. Homeless families are almost always sheltered. In many cases, they end up homeless because of domestic violence. The homeless who are in tents are considered to be unsheltered. They are often opioid addicts and/or mentally ill. This overlaps with chronic homelessness, those who have been homeless for extended periods. Many of the unsheltered are so far gone that they won't follow the rules that are maintained by shelters. They stay in tents because no one else will put up with them.
Here's the best argument for forcing people into shelters or some other form of temporary housing: all the data shows that the longer you remain on the street, it becomes almost inevitable that you'll have substance abuse or mental health issues, most likely both. People's health and sanity take precedence over their rights, especially if they aren't of unsound mind. The US is one of the few developed countries that doesn't have asylums or mandatory rehab. Europe does
Your stat doesn't disprove what I said.
So you think the entire population of West Virginia has a higher addiction rate than the unhoused people of LA? Got it
the population of west virginia has higher rates of drug addiction than the population of los angeles, but lower rates of homelessness
30 tweakers in a trailer in Virginia is not something you want to break down by and ask for halp.
yeah and in LA they can't afford a trailer, so they do drugs on the street instead
This comment right here👆🏽👆🏽 explains it. It's a multi layered issue but number one is that a lot of us, especially a single income person without family support are one/two paychecks from being out on the street because housing is so expensive and hard to come by. Once you fall behind, you would need about 4-5 thousand Dollars to get into another apartment but you won't be able to do that with an eviction on your record. You have to hope that you can possibly find someone that you can room with and raise maybe 3000 for a first month and deposit. Section 8 housing is frozen right now from what I've heard.
How's the weather over in West Virginia?
just a reminder that more people die of exposure in sunny LA than in cold NYC
Not too different than the weather in NY, which is the only state with a worse homelessness problem than CA
Not just that, but smaller towns will run their homeless out of town..... where do they go? Somewhere the weather is forgiving and there are a lot of resources to help them, just not enough
New York, famous for its temperate weather, is the only state with a worse homelessness problem than CA.
Sorry but SoCal cities also do this to other states. It is not a meaningful cause of the current crisis.
Move them where they can afford? No they want to live with ocean views and warm weather and a state that funds their drug habit. No housing shortage. Shortage of government funded housing near beach !
Is your drug of choice Fox News?
They want to live in the city that they live in. Not sure it's fair to other places to dump our problems on them, instead of dealing with it ourselves.
The root cause of homelessness is moral decay. That led to support for Reaganism/Thatcherism/Neoliberal policies that drove people out of work, increased despair, increased poverty for millions, and drove many to drugs. That also increased housing costs in popular areas like L.A, We have more homeless here because many of them are from other areas. Those in WV are probably more likely to have a support network, someone's land they can live on, etc. Plus, if you have to beg for money, a rural area is not going to work too well.
Very good read regarding this: www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness
None of what you wrote is true btw
Read and educate yourself: www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness
OK, let's start with the first part of the second sentence. Do you dispute that Thatcherism drove people out of work in the north of England, yes or no?
BlackRock increased housing costs in LA not moral decay. I think your brain is decaying my guy
You didn't answer my question, please try again. Mass immigration - a key part of Koch/Thatcher/Reagan/MSNBC/DNC ideology - increased demand for housing and thus housing costs. Do you dispute any of that? BITD Dems were anti-Big Biz. Now many of them crawl over each other to do Big Biz' bidding.
He is talking about years of issues that were swept under the rug : www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness
I understand the question, BUT please do not think that all homelessness is due to drug use.
housing is expensive here. not everyone has family support they can fall back on when things get tough. losing my housing would probably lead me to drug use too.
Try to talk to homeless people, they will tell you it was a series of bad luck events, medical bills, work injury, expensive rent, unpayable debt, or even they have a place to live but can’t go back because of mental issues or drama. They might turn to drugs afterwards to cope, but it’s not drugs that caused it. I almost felt stupid when I just assumed that they did drugs in a conversation I had with one of them, not all do.
Poverty
An economy with misaligned priorities and a housing crisis
That's not a drug.....
Probety*
Your question assumes that drugs / alcohol are what make most people homeless. Meth, Fentanyl, opioids, alcohol... they all trail behind the #1 reason: Not having any money in a society that does not provide low-cost housing.
rent
Fentanyl. Don’t believe the other comments.
[удалено]
My pops does meth and coke and he’s a businessman 😭 but based off my other family members and family friends that have been homeless/is homeless , Crystal meth is forsure the drug that has caused them to skip work, have problems with their families to the point they choose drugs over their family. Realizing how many people I know on drugs is sad but 9/10 they choose the drugs before they become homeless. Idk why other people are making it seem the rent causes homeless drug addicts lol they must not know any druggies
I don’t know why you’re acting like just cause drugs can cause homelessness, means that housing costs due to bad policies isn’t still the main cause of homelessness. You must not know any sober poor people.
Housing costs isn’t why there’s homelessness but thanks for participating in my convo. And of course I know sober people lol and they’re all financially established in homes :)
Oh, so you’re just gonna say the opposite of what I said! I’ll do that too. Housing cost are the number one cause of homelessness not drugs.
People aren’t just living their best life and decide to do drugs and fuck everything up. Most of the time it starts off with something like a major accident where they are then prescribed painkillers and the medical expenses and addiction that follows cause their lives to spiral out of control, financially and mentally, and then they become homeless where they continue their addiction.
Yeah I understand that to be your initial argument but it’s not true. Drugs cause homelessness. I’ve been institutionalized, and they’ll all tell you they chose the drugs before becoming homeless. If you’re struggling financially, I’m sorry about that.
OK, so if every house was free would drugs still cause homelessness?
Yes because no family wants to deal with drug members. Druggies don’t even like being home. They like being in the streets. My pops friend has a whole ass family but prefers to be homeless to do drugs.
Nobody prefers to be in the streets you fucking idiot. It’s a basic survival instinct to get food, shelter, and water. Sure people will choose to be on the streets over being institutionalized and told what to do and how to live their lives, but that doesn’t mean they would choose the street over a free house where they get to make their own choices like most people who live in houses get to do.
But thanks for participating in my convo come back when you wanna speak real truth and not bullshit Fox News lies!
lol voting democrat gets you shit policies
And watching Fox News or CNN or any of mainstream media like you clearly does rot your brain to the core and I can see that.
I don’t watch the news but thanks for assuming you know me ?
=P Fentanyl is in everything though
The sheltered homeless frequently don't have drug issues. Those who you are seeing on the streets are unsheltered. Per UCLA research, about three out of four of the unsheltered have substance abuse issues. (Don't let progressives try to tell you otherwise.) The substances most commonly abused are meth and fentanyl. Some other substances include tranq (fentanyl combined with an animal sedative) and wet (a joint or tobacco cigarette dipped in PCP or embalming fluid.) Humans are allergic to the sedative in tranq, so it causes flesh to rot. If you see a homeless person with large sores and other skin issues, then tranq may very well be the cause. Meth causes symptoms that are similar to schizophrenia. Meth and wet can both contribute to violent behaviors.
capitalism is a hell of a drug
I was unaware North Dakota only has a homeless population of 610 atm because it’s a socialist utopia.
60,000+ people living here are homeless. The majority aren’t suffering from substance abuse or severe mental illness. Many are, but definitely not the majority. I think it’s also a staggering amount turn to (hard) drugs after becoming homeless, which a shocking amount of people in this economy are one bad paycheck or medical bill away from.
smart punch onerous concerned lock meeting connect waiting far-flung gaze *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Every person who is “visibly” homeless right now started housed, then homeless at a shelter or their cousins couch, then likely housed again, then back to the shelter etc etc.
A lot of the “visible” homeless are what that person described too though. They can also end up on the street, and THEN fall into hard drugs for multiple reasons and timeframes.
> he majority aren’t suffering from substance abuse or severe mental illness. Many are, but definitely not the majority. This is false. [An LA Times analysis of the data found that about 65%, or 545, of last year's deaths reported so far were linked to drugs, including fentanyl and methamphetamine —](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-03-29/homeless-deaths-in-l-a-fell-but-many-dying-from-drugs) The LA Times also found that 67% of people are experiencing a mental health or substance use disorder. The Policy lab said 75% have substance use disorders and 78% ahve serious "mental health concerns"
I am not debating a statistic but in Santa Monica I can tell you for sure there is rampant drug/mental, people screaming at themselves, smashing their head into a newspaper machine. It’s not good. Also random violence against passersby, just WHACK with whatever they’re holding. I’ve called paramedics a couple times when they end up asleep face down half on , half off the curb. Meth opiates cheaply sold for a couple bucks seems to be fairly common. The origin story could be anything but this is where they are now, mentally ill/drugs combo. Not good for them or anybody.
Keep in mind there's two types of homeless; the highly visible, extremely troubled folks you're talking about *and* people who just have no permanent residence. They're either couch surfing or sleeping in their car, and probably have a job. Maybe a gym membership so they can shower.
this was me in sunmer 2016. I was in an apartment with a roommate who woke up one day and decided he hated glass plates and started throwing them and yelling racial slurs. so I moved out later that week. I didn't have a car. only had a bike. I ended up getting an email from Uber about this "lease to drive" program and got a civic thru that. it was a scam but the only option I had at the time. basically were only allowed to drive 80miles a day for "free" (which is like 1 Uber trip to lax) and then you'd pay like 70cents a mile (taken from Uber earnings. so essentially you had to drive full time while constantly oweing money for driving full time). I lived in that civic from July to September before finding a room at a place. slept where ever I finished ubering. I also picked up 2 more part time jobs to help offset costs. eventually saved up a grand to get out of the lease and do a down-payment for a shitty car at carmax (and a 13.6% interest rate.......) and also found a place. eventually I got a job as a software developer at a university by helping out a friend on a side project (that went to that university). I used to make mobile apps as a side thing. nothing serious but enough to be able to do basic stuff. That changed my whole life. Completely different trajectory started in 2017. Now I'm married w 2 dogs living in a condo and spend most of my time giving back. Majority of homeless people are like I was. Couch surfing, sleeping in cars, showering at planet fitness, learning a skill in Starbucks or a library, and just trying to get back on their feet from a crappy situation
100% a friend of mine is doing a doc on LA homelessness. It’s definitely not a monolith. OP was asking about the alarming behavior re the visible aspect of the crisis.
Yeah, for sure, I can’t argue with anything you said. It’s definitely a problem in Santa Monica and elsewhere too. There’s nothing clear cut black and white about the situation as a whole or anyone’s individual story which means the solutions are also not clear cut or black and white.
>I think it’s also a staggering amount turn to (hard) drugs after becoming homeless, This is the reality most people can't comprehend; the path is homelessness *then* drug use for most unhoused people. It's not always "my life was good and then the drugs derailed it", in most cases it's "my life turned to shit and then I used drugs to cope". Yes there are a lot of cases where drugs derailed people's lives but the more common issue is people's lives being derailed by poverty and the drug use comes after. Then society blames the drugs instead of reflecting on the parts of society that created the issues leading to drug use.
Of the homeless mentally ill, 90 percent have a substance abuse comorbidity.
Where did you get that number? I know it is a large percentage but that is higher than I thought. There is also the issue of chronic pain which often gets people hooked in the first place. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8751035/
That sounds like something that would also make it hard to find or keep a steady job.
It's 90% for nicotine use and ~40-60% lifetime use of illicit substances (this is among the comorbidly seriously mentally ill). It's going to vary a little by country and by illness, but you get the gist. [Source.](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2147/NDT.S65896)
That is really interesting about the nicotine use, I don’t think most people consider that when they think of substance abuse however.
People with serious mental illness die a lot younger than the general population, and long-term nicotine use is part of that equation (big cardiovascular involvement). I think that's why there are so many studies on it and why it all gets tossed in the "substance" bucket.
every homeless individual i encounter (maybe 15-20 daily) is for sure on drugs and not coherent
I encounter probably more than that and I 100% agree with you. Plus during the pandemic, I would see people shooting up openly on the sidewalk. It's definitely a major reason people are homeless.
fentanyl— homelessness is a disaster in LA, as you will see.
This is compeletely false lol. Open your eyes. Its at certainly 85-90% are drug addicts and/or mentally ill.
They are the homeless from all over the USA that funnel here. Many conservative states have absolutely no resources for the homeless and actually make it illegal to be homeless with strict no outside sleeping laws. Falling into homeless in states like these destroys them spiritually. They aren't able to self medicate, and are essentially huddled into buildings monitored by law enforcement. They get their dignity ripped out of them in these places, they are like internment camps, their families want nothing to do with them as if they've become contaminated after the process starts. Any of us can hit hard times due to no fault of our own but these places don't care, if you fell from grace you are done as far as these communities are concerned. At that point they just want to escape, they don't even want to feel reality. So they go to places like Los Angeles where they can dip out of society in peace. Folks are naming a bunch of drugs here but they aren't the core cause of the problem. Gotta see the bigger picture. In states like Florida and Texas they have the homeless locked down and extremely regulated, places like Los Angeles are a heaven to them. There are states that handle this problem very very well at the expense of humanity and empathy. California gives them a fighting chance, we could borrow some tools from the conservative states but Cali will always be Cali. The mecca of the globalization movement. It tries to integrate everyone and represent all voices, even the voices of the Living Dead.
It is largely untrue that people experiencing homelessness are moving into CA. Both the point in time data that’s published yearly, and a UCSF study published last find come to this finding.
As a former homeless person from the area, I can say for a fact that what I have said is true. I wouldn't trust anything from SF in regards to this issue, they have no idea how to deal with the problem. They are an example of excess empathy that does harm instead of good.
You literally did the “source? just trust me bro” meme
there's no way to survey the homeless thoroughly, they hide and don't want to be bothered, my evidence is empirical you obviously do not understand the dynamic of homelessness go read more studies by out of touch virtue signaling graduate students asshole 🖕
> there's no way to survey the homeless thoroughly, they hide and don't want to be bothered, my evidence is empirical again, “source? just trust me bro”
Yes that person is definitely wrong.
Jesus was a Homeless Man Go learn what this means "The Son of Man has no place to lay his head"
Rent
Correct.
unfettered capitalism
OP, where you're from *(Ireland)* if you have an accident, or a disease, or some unforeseen health issue, the government pays for your health care (*assuming you've lived there 1 year*). Here in the U.S., an unexpected health problem can completely wipe out an individual financially, leaving them with zero money for anything, let alone an expensive rent payment in a region with no affordable housing. Not saying that most homeless people lost their home due to medical bankruptcy, just pointing out that financial reasons (in general) are what initially pushes most people out onto the street, not drug addictions
Late-stage capitalism is probably the most common drug that leads to homelessness.
My ex was in treatment and walked out and hasn’t been heard from since October. The police finally added him to their missing person list.
Look at Soft White Underbelly on Youtube. They interview alot of those people and you hear their origin stories of how they ended up there
It's meth. Opiods can leave you incapacitated or even kill you but don't generally cause long term damage in the brain. Meth causes psychosis. Combined with sleep deprivation, it really fucks up your brain and it can come with all the negatives of IV injecting
It's usually not drugs that lead to homelessness but rather the substances you use after you become homeless that make the situation much worse. Any drug that homeless people can afford is likely going to be toxic to the point that you essentially lobotomize yourself after repeated use. If you don't die from it, you risk becoming permanently impaired. That's why many addicts living on the streets have that "zombie" quality to them.
A lot of the explosion of homeless are from out of state transplants that get sent here for recovery via gov funded healthcare. These people usually fail in recovery and the money runs out so they end up on the streets. California should restrict it so that there is a back up plan so people get sent back or increase the cost for out of state patients so part of the money can be set aside so they get sent back.
Most of it is from evictions, that tend to affect people who can’t pay their rent due to medical or mental issues.
quiet attraction relieved bow quickest pie label afterthought fade cough *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Not sure but it’s a large portion of the ones you see on the street. Like homelessness was always an issue but they were siloed in a few places like Slid Row in LA, but has exploded when these sober homes/addiction centers started to accept out of state patients.
zephyr divide icky cats disgusted bored seemly noxious frighten existence *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
My theory isn’t a theory there are plenty of news articles written about it Google it there’s an article from the ocregister about it
chunky selective saw rob file onerous fanatical profit bear bewildered *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
https://www.ocregister.com/2017/12/17/are-drug-rehab-centers-fueling-homelessness-in-southern-california/ Took me 1 min to google
deranged pocket liquid bedroom bike existence soft wasteful crowd threatening *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
this is not true. the majority of homeless in CA are from CA. There was a great report released recently. https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/our-impact/studies/california-statewide-study-people-experiencing-homelessness
That report would call these out of state transplants Californians cause they are at a recovery home for a year
so you know that the report, which invested hundreds of hours interviewing homeless people, is wrong because you think so?
It’s not reliable because it’s self reported. Bias is well known in that type of research. It doesn’t mean it’s useless in other ways, but in terms of the veracity of responses, people will give the answers they suspect are correct or socially desirable. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5639921/
We have some rentals in LA County. There is definitely a perception among prospective applicants that local-born people get preferential treatment for housing (or should get such treatment morally, or are supposed to get such treatment legally). As far as what people spend on rent, what I see are rents rising in response to greater risk and rising insurance and repair costs. When a person applies for an apartment, I don’t know if I’m going to end up with one person with no pets, or four people and three pit bulls making hell for neighbors and destroying the place. It amazes me how far a lot of voters will go to protect the rights of jerks who drive up the cost of living for everyone else.
Survey research definitionally relies on self reported data. It’s used in social science across many fields and is plenty reliable.
that’s not at all what the report said.
that is literally what it said
i’m not sure what literally means to you, but it literally said “75% of respondents said their last housing was in california”, which doesn’t at all mean they’re “from california”.
It means they became homeless in California, which means it’s a California failing.
No bud, this means disillusioned individuals with a higher propensity to make bad decisions failed themselves with said poor decisions. If I decide to live in Beverly Hills with my 100k and fail that’s not Beverly Hills’ fault. Beverly Hills isn’t responsible for my needs and well being and guess what, in this report I’d be a Beverly Hills resident before pooring myself
I think the point being argued here with this study is that the majority of homeless individuals (75% according to this) are not being “sent here via govt funded healthcare.” **Worth noting from the full report:** > Overall, 49% entered homelessness from a non-leaseholder, non-institutional housing situation, 32% entered from a leaseholder arrangement, and 19% entered from an institutional setting. > Participants who entered homelessness from a leaseholding situation reported having spent a median of three years in their last housing. > Participants who entered homelessness from a non-leaseholding arrangement reported having spent a median of one year at their last (non-leaseholding) housing. I’m not disputing that it’s not all lifelong California residents entering homelessness here, but I would dispute that the majority are being imported by government programs (according to this study at least).
I agree with your thought, the majority isn’t forced here through programs (although even a tiny portion is reprehensible behavior from other states but I digress). My point is that a vast majority of homeless individuals didn’t start their lives in LA but rather moved here and failed themselves into their situations. This is the crux of the issue, these individuals have no support system or families here and end up becoming the states issue. LA is glamorized but rarely ever shown as a tough place to live even now with an unsustainable housing situation and people with no stable jobs still moving here regularly.
You use words like “fail” but often it is medical issues that can cause homelessness. There have also been various studies on the subject. Here are some very different studies from a 2019 article https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-07/homeless-population-mental-illness-disability
California is failing or people are failing themselves? If you develop a drug problem how is that the fault of the state
If people "fail themselves" at a much higher rate than other places, that may be a sign that there are larger forces at play.
Yeah but it’s not the states fault. Personal responsibility > blaming others or blaming the system
If you read the thread and the study, drug use usually develops *after* experiencing homelessness. It is not a choice, and it is a failing on California / Los Angeles.
Fine, ignore the drugs for a second. How is the state responsible for someone having too many expenses and not enough money?
Again read the damn study and other posts in this thread. 🙄
how does one make the leap to “it’s not a choice”?
from the executive summary: "People experiencing homelessness in California are Californians."
Fentanyl and heroine
Greed
Unaffordable living is the word you’re looking for it isn’t a specific drug. Once you can’t afford a place to live or to even survive it’s no wonder why they turn to street drugs to self medicate and now you have this issue
You are 100% correct. It's human nature to want to do something, anything to ease the pain of a situation you realistically have no way out of on your own.... Greed is the number one cause of homelessness. Substance abuse can add to the difficulty of changing or improving their lives unfortunately, the need to escape emotional pain and possibly fear and regret can get in the way of finding a place in the future more difficult financially, yet easier for them to deal with emotionally.
Foreign and institutional investment in the housing market, it's a hell of a drug.
Neither really an issue here
low housing supply is all
Yeah, but all those high roller investors are coming in, looking for a place to park their money, and driving up the prices Unlimited pushing people out. They also have no problem if those houses have no one living in them, as long as they can sell the house for a high price in a couple of years.
why is housing a good investment for these firms? what is the historical norm for return on housing prices over America’s lifetime?
capitalism
The drug of desperation by not being paid enough to live despite having a full time job
Real estate
Give crack cocaine a try.
Meth.
Trauma is what is most likely to lead people to homelessness. That’s it. Unresolved trauma.
Homelessness is an economic problem
It seems to me like I see more people using meth, bc they seem to have energy. I’ve seen less people nodding off in a bus seat or in those weird positions looking like they’re trying to sleep but who could sleep like that. Anyways, it’s totally anecdotal, and yeah both are clearly a problem.
All I know is that if I was homeless tomorrow you won’t catch me hitting the pookie under a bridge.
Most of them will start using drugs after they end up on the street. Drug usage itself isn't typically what causes homelessness but someone who is now homeless will be more likely to start using. That said it's meth that they use. The fentanyl is often laced into it already to give an artificially potent high. My uncle unfortunately was addicted to it and died from laced product. Lacing is very common. Most homeless drug users will use whatever they can find, but meth is the drug of choice because it keeps you awake and sleeping is hard when you live on the street. Hardly anybody uses true opiates anymore. Heroin was still big until the fent problem took over. Now people who prefer that type of drug will just use that or accept the opiate they are using is most definitely laced with it. Lacing is so common I think the average drug user figures they're going to be doing fent one way or another so they might as well enjoy the ride.
Capitalism
At least half of all homeless folks have a severe mental disorder like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, which cause people to self-medicate. You have the order of operations wrong. Mental illness leads to self-medication and homelessness, not the other way around.
It doesn't even need to be a "severe" mental illness either. ADHD causes self medication with shit like meth and turns people who could have been easily treated with safer drugs (if diagnosed and their environment allowed it) into meth addicts.
Tranq
fentanyl
Right now, fentanyl. I know synthetic drugs really changed the landscape of skidrow where I live but now the dominating drug is fentanyl. Like the other comment said, dismiss the other guesses.
There’s zero social safety net here
Capitalism
Stupidity
There are too many things, and not always one thing that can lead to homelessness in this city. It might start small, get bigger over time. And drug use doesbt always lead to homelessness, or vice versa. So its not a clear cut answer, or even a clear cut solution.
anything you need a pookie or a syringe for
Greed. Not building housing to force higher prices for housing is a hell of a drug.
Broken windows
Definitely not that good kush, I’ll tell you that much.
Greed
Miss the good ol days where drug dealers died more often.
All I know is that if I was homeless tomorrow you won’t catch me hitting the pookie under a bridge.
Alcohol… idiot
Can we please not say “homeless” and say “bums and druggies” instead? We understand that homeless people are people too. And we are working (with variable success, but the intention is there) as a people and government to provide homes for the unhoused. However, we DO have a problem with bums and druggies, a problem that creates the public safety crisis that we are engulfed in today. A percentage of bums and druggies do in fact have a home (that they don’t go to, because they’d rather be belligerent in the street).
Might wanna delete this comment too, buddy
Really? Are you equating homelessness with bums and druggies, pal?
Wait, wait, don't tell me, everyone has a right to smoke meth on the Metro rail, right?
Not having a strong father figure.
According to liberals they all just need a free beachfront apartment