|
| |
| Last Updated:
Tuesday, August 7, 2018 10:58 PM |
| |
If you listen to law enforcement leaders, you will hear that drugs are paid with cash only 50% of the time. The other 50% of the time, drugs and alcohol are paid for by trading or bartering of items: e.g. electronics, cell phones, stereo equipment, iPhones, iPads, bikes, laptop computers, etc.
Many times the stuff that is traded for drugs or alcohol is STOLEN from a person they already know, typically a family member, relative or friend, as they have close access to their stuff. Plus, these homeless can't hold a job in the first place.
Notice how all these homeless advocates don't mention the "family" or "friends" of the Homeless. And if you read the news articles and watch these homeless documentaries you will see that journalists and movie producers have a difficult time speaking with any family member as virtually all have declined to speak to the journalist, movie producers, or news reporter.
|
When talking with the Homeless on the streets, or visiting the Homeless at the Shelter, should we believe every "hard luck" story we hear from the Homeless as 100% accurate?
Are there not at least two sides to an argument? If so, why not listen to the other side, like the family members and former friends?
And instead of organizing these events of visiting the Homeless, or even "sleeping outside on the sidewalk", to feel what it is like to sleep on the street, why not visit with the family members and former friends of the Homeless? |
 |
| |
| |
| |
| Also, if these "homeless" are just one (1) or two (2) paychecks from homelessness, why can't these Homeless sleep on the couch of their family members or friend(s) for a few months? (These Homeless are not homeless through no fault of their own and have jobs, correct?) Is every single family member and friend so uncompassionate to allow their
one family member or friend a couch to sleep on so they can their next job? |
| |
| And why can't they just use their family member's phone as a contact phone number? Wouldn't any family member allow the use of their phone for a phone contact to get a job? It's not like the phone number is going to be used a lot in the first place as how many companies are really going to call this person for a job? |
| |
| For those that say some Homeless have no family then that means they have more time for friends, co-workers and to make friends. Hence, they should not only time to make friends, but also more time to work overrtime, take other part-time jobs. Make even more money. Basically, lots of time to do stuff with others who are not their family. Certainly a "networking" opportunity. |
| |
| If these are actually military veterans, did they not serve in a military unit with other soldiers? And are not the other soldiers in his/her boot camp and military unit, friends for life? Fight side-by-side? e.g. Rambo and Colonel Samuel "Sam" Trautman; Forrest Gump, Bubba and First Lieutenant Dan Taylor. If so, wouldn't every one of these fellow military buddies, bunk mates, be the ones who have the most compassion and understanding of PTSD, yet abandoned their own friend for life? Or is there far more to this Homeless story? |
| |
In the below government reports, we have twenty-two (22) military vets who commit suicide EVERY DAY (50% via poisoning and at an overall age of 59), but not a single starvation death in America. Note, this is just only military veterans committing suicide, the general population will make the suicide numbers much higher.
Veterans Administration Report
Actual Report in PDF
|
| |
"As a Dallas police officer," he began, "I have encountered hundreds
of panhandlers over the years. I've had conversations with many of them
and asked them why they don't go to shelters. The usual response is, 'They've got rules, and I don't want to follow them.' "I can assure you also that probably a large percentage of panhandlers are either drug addicts or alcoholics. I'm not judging them for that, for I don't know where each has come from.
Steve Blow: Your donations can help — or dig the hole a little deeper for panhandlers | Dallas Morning News |
| |
| |
First, Louisiana and Mississippi have historically almost no good paying jobs in the first place. That means whatever recreational drug users there are in LA and MS, they almost always will not have a good paying job. Next, those with good paying jobs typically have a lot of responsibility, work a lot of hours, and just don't have time for doing drugs or finding drugs dealers who by the way are hard to contact in the first place, as they keep changing their address and their phone numbers. Next, why should these same drug dealers give lip service to a well-paid recreational user with a good job who is very infrequent in their purchasing of drugs? A purchase once, twice, or 4 times a year is not even going to pay the monthly bills for the drug dealer. Plus, the logistics, time and cat/mouse game in meeting up with recreational users cuts into the time that could be used for more reliable drug addict customers. This versus a well-paid hardcore user you read about like these Hollywood celebrities.
Next, this leaves recreational users with low paying jobs, e.g. tourism and service industry jobs that you see in New Orleans. These low paying jobs have workers who complain about the cost of everything, e.g. from rent to bus fare to cell phone bills being only $10/month extra. If they complain about those costs, how much do they have left for drugs on a regular basis like 52 weeks/year or even say 12/months a year? And can you be doing drugs that much and still be ready to work, or show up for work? Some can, but the vast majority will develop chronic problems and eventually be fired, hopping from one lower paying job to an even lower paying job.
Lastly, compare the once, twice or 4 times a year recreational user to the Homeless drug user who buys 365 days a year. This would mean 365 days per year divided by 4 times per year giving a value of 91.25. |
| |
| Drug Usage and Drug Revenue Comparison between User Types |
 |
| One (1) Homeless Person |
= |
One Hundred and
Eighty-Two (182)
Recreational Drug Users |
|
|
One (1) Homeless Person/Drug Addict is equivalent to ninety-one (91) Recreational Drug Users (4 times/year).
If a recreational user experiments and tries drugs between 2 and 4 times a year, that would mean one (1) Homeless person can be the equivalent of between ninety-one (91) and one hundred and eighty-two (182) recreational users. If the Homeless only make up one percent (1%) of all users, they still would comprise a very high amount of total drug use compared to all other drug users.
Something similar could also be said about alcohol.
Now if the above is true, or even partially true, should we not ask if the Free Food and Shelter from public, private and religious organizations allow the Homeless to spend all their time and effort in obtaining drugs that fund Drug Dealers? |
| |
| |
| back to Articles on The Problem |
| |
| |
