“They did not spend more money on alcohol or drugs, contrary to what people believe, and instead they spent the money on rent, food, housing, transit, furniture, a used car, clothes. It’s entirely the opposite of what people think they’re going to do with the money.”

  • neatchee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    “According to SAMHSA, 38% of homeless people abused alcohol while 26% abused other drugs.” (These are overlapping statistics)

    “Most research shows that around 1/3 of people who are homeless have problems with alcohol and/or drugs, and around 2/3 of these people have lifetime histories of drug or alcohol use disorders”

    This means roughly 11% of homeless people started their abuse as a consequence of becoming homeless, while 22% of homeless people may have become homeless due to their substance abuse.

    So you’d essentially be proposing that we don’t help 78% of all homeless people because the other 22% of them would misuse the money.

    And that’s without even discussing the fact that many of those 22% could be rehabilitated if they’re provide with appropriate healthcare on top of the monetary benefits

    • eeltech@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      So you’d essentially be proposing that we don’t help

      Excuse me? I haven’t proposed anything. I’m simply asking questions because the headline/description seemed misleading to me and not adequately conveying the full story/situation. Purely from a math/stats/logic point of view