People last week accused me of violating the privacy of a homeless addict named Korey, who I interviewed as he smoked fentanyl & meth
But thanks to that video, an outreach worker tracked down his sister, Keneda. She hadn't seen him for two years
I brought her to him yesterday
People rightly worry about the privacy and dignity of homeless drug addicts, but many tell me they feel invisible and *want* to share their stories. They often express gratitude afterwards.
Here's the first video with Korey that upset so many people
My critics are struggling with how to attack me. At first they said I never actually interview any homeless people, and just don't want to look at them. Then, after I shared video interviews, my critics said I was exploiting the homeless, and violating their privacy. Which is it?
The real reason supposed "advocates for the homeless" are attacking me is because I'm exposing their decades-long lie that people are the street because rents are too high when, in reality, the root cause of homelessness is addiction & untreated mental illness.
It's true that the people living on the street can't afford the rent, but that's mostly because their addiction/untreated mental illness led them to stop working and get cut off by family and friends who were incapable of dealing with them, a process known as disaffiliation.
In "San Fransicko" I document how researchers have known for decades that addiction & mental illness cause homelessness and how radical Left ("progressive") housing activists have sought to cover up that fact, including by demonizing journalists & policymakers who point it out
Things are changing. My colleagues & I are forcing self-appointed "advocates for the homeless" to acknowledge that addiction, not high rents, is what causes people to live on the streets. They're trying to save face by noting it's "bidirectional." Fine.
“Prosecutors in Sacramento, California filed charges in the killing of a woman whose partly nude body was found hanging from a tree in a homeless encampment after she was kidnapped & raped”
No sane psychiatrist believes that enabling & subsidizing people with schizophrenia, depression, and anxiety disorders to use fentanyl & meth is good medicine. Yet that is what San Francisco & other liberal cities are doing.
What California does with its 100,000 unsheltered residents, most suffering mental illness or drug addiction while living in violent, dangerous and degrading encampments, is mistreatment of the foulest sort.
The question used to be: do you reward people for not committing crimes, or do you punish them when they do? But that’s been superseded by a question from progressives: what if it’s a form of victimization to try to influence people’s behavior at all?
People say we just need to offer homeless addicts more services, including special places where they can use drugs. But yesterday, one block from San Francisco's new drug use site, I discovered mass, open drug use, drug dealing, & psychotic, skeletal addicts on the brink of death
People say we need to follow the lead of Portugal which, they say, legalized, de-stigmatized, and normalized drug use. But the head of its drug program told me they arrest people who use drugs publicly, coerce treatment, and do not normalize drug use.
People say lack of housing forces local residents into the streets, but James says he came from Texas to San Francisco for the drugs, the non-enforcement of anti-camping laws, and the $820/month in welfare & food stamps. James says he sold fentanyl, 2 weeks ago, to a 15-year-old.
It's reasonable to ask whether I'm seeking out outliers, but I met James 5 minutes after parking my car and he was the first person I interviewed, and Ben, below, was the 4th person we interviewed after ~20 minutes on the street doing interviews
People are surprised by these interviews because much of what we've read is propaganda put forward by activists with an agenda & reporters who are also ideological but also lazy & too scared to ask direct questions of street people.
I agree addicts have to decide to quit, but they are more likely to quit when when loved ones intervene and when they have to obey the law. When we don't enforce the laws against public drug use, defecation, and camping, we enable, normalize, & increase addiction.
Yes, addicts have to hit bottom before they'll quit, but San Francisco and other progressive cities keep lowering the bottom. They don't enforce laws against addicts. They give them cash and housing. And now they are giving addicts their own drug use areas downtown.
This isn't complicated. In Europe, addicts and the mentally ill are expected to take responsibility for their health and their cities. They are not excused of those duties. To boil it down:
The people operating San Francisco's supervised drug addiction site say they're trying to save lives, but a government insider tells me, "People die in supervised drug sites all the time. They just register place of death as the hospital or ambulance."
San Francisco Mayor @LondonBreed , Sen. @Scott_Wiener & SF Sup. @MattHaneySF claim supervised addiction sites prevent overdose deaths but there is ZERO evidence from anywhere that they do that.
Moreover, the sites may in fact INCREASE overdoes & poisoning deaths.
Far more people who overdose are revived and survive than die.
That's the situation right NOW *outside* the supervised drug addiction site.
During the last decade, as Canada created supervised addiction sites, its OD and poisoning deaths from illicit drugs *increased.*