San Francisco buys vodka shots for homeless alcoholics in taxpayer-funded program

[30CAT]

Democrat policies keeping shitholes, shitholes.

Good job dumbasses.

San Francisco buys vodka shots for homeless alcoholics in taxpayer-funded program

A pilot managed alcohol program in San Francisco provides free glasses of beer and vodka shots to homeless alcoholics so that they won't use the city's emergency services.

www.foxnews.com

 

[riflearm2]

Democrat policies keeping shitholes, shitholes.

Good job dumbasses.

San Francisco buys vodka shots for homeless alcoholics in taxpayer-funded program

A pilot managed alcohol program in San Francisco provides free glasses of beer and vodka shots to homeless alcoholics so that they won't use the city's emergency services.

www.foxnews.com

Try reading your own article to educate yourself on the purpose of the program, the reason why, and the initial success of it, moron.

Then, come back here and explain what you learned from those things.

 

[30CAT]

Try reading your own article to educate yourself on the purpose of the program, the reason why, and the initial success of it, moron.

Then, come back here and explain what you learned from those things.

Give drug addicts drugs and alcoholics alcohol at the expense of taxpayers.

Brilliant.

I read it. There's no excuse....and it's not my article.

 

[riflearm2]

Give drug addicts drugs and alcoholics alcohol at the expense of taxpayers.

Brilliant.

I read it. There's no excuse....and it's not my article.

So you couldn't correctly answer any of the three questions. Ask your neighbor's dog to read the article to you to see if you can get the answer.

 

[30CAT]

So you couldn't correctly answer any of the three questions. Ask your neighbor's dog to read the article to you to see if you can get the answer.

Maybe you need to read the article. To the end. See what's happening with this shitty idea, in a shithole.

Dogs can't speak or understand english, let alone know how to read. That'd pretty cool though.

 

[riflearm2]

Maybe you need to read the article. To the end. See what's happening

A significant financial savings and the saving of lives? That's what the article says, especially at the end. Again, ask that dog next door to dumb it down for you.

in a shithole.

Oh, this again. It's nearly impossible to find just a one bedroom condo that isn't income-controlled for under $500k in San Fran. Why would people be willing to live in a place with that type of cost-of-living if it is a shithole?

 

[30CAT]

A significant financial savings and the saving of lives? That's what the article says, especially at the end. Again, ask that dog next door to dumb it down for you.


Oh, this again. It's nearly impossible to find just a one bedroom condo that isn't income-controlled for under $500k in San Fran. Why would people be willing to live in a place with that type of cost-of-living if it is a shithole?

Maybe that's why there is a huge homelessness problem, drug problem, crime problem and streets paved with shit.

A nasty, shithole, businesses and residents are fleeing.

 

[riflearm2]

Maybe that's why there is a huge homelessness problem, drug problem, crime problem and streets paved with shit.

You're not answering. Try again: if it is as awful as you say, then why are so many people willing to pay that much for property there?

That goes for the entire state that you keep failing to rip on: Why would a state continue to have four of the 17 biggest cities (24%), nine of the 50 biggest (18%), and 14 of the 65 biggest (22%) if it is such a shithole and is extremely expensive?

 

[30CAT]

You're not answering. Try again: if it is as awful as you say, then why are so many people willing to pay that much for property there?

That goes for the entire state that you keep failing to rip on: Why would a state continue to have four of the 17 biggest cities (24%), nine of the 50 biggest (18%), and 14 of the 65 biggest (22%) if it is such a shithole and is extremely expensive?

Why are people leaving? Why are businesses closing shop or moving out?

You're getting the results, elitists want.

No middle class. Rich or poor and a shithole. The working class is dying in shitholes everywhere.

You now have dependents. Congrats!

 

[herdfan429]

Back on topic Days for alcoholics is no joke. What's cheaper for tax payers a liter of vodka or a week long hospital stay? It's the same reason alcohol beverage control stores were considered essential during the pandemic

 

[30CAT]

Back on topic Days for alcoholics is no joke. What's cheaper for tax payers a liter of vodka or a week long hospital stay? It's the same reason alcohol beverage control stores were considered essential during the pandemic

Drinking all day, on the taxpayer dime, keeps them out of hospitals?

That's a new one on me. And here I've been paying for my alcohol like a sucker.

 

[herdfan429]

Drinking all day, on the taxpayer dime, keeps them out of hospitals?

That's a new one on me. And here I've been paying for my alcohol like a sucker.

Go watch an alcoholic go through DTs and get back with me. I'm not saying I agree with it just that I can understand the rational behind it

 

[30CAT]

Go watch an alcoholic go through DTs and get back with me. I'm not saying I agree with it just that I can understand the rational behind it

What's the rational? Now instead of them drinking all day on their own dime, they're doing it on our dime.

That's using the same logic that legalizing drugs was going to work and it blew up in their faces.

Democrats pull the wool over their voters' eyes, attempting to show they are doing something about the problem.

We'll, I guess they are, but it's not helping. They're making the problem worse and it's costing the taxpayers more.

Why do people keep falling for this garbage?

 

[herdfan429]

The rationale is not having alcoholic go through detox at the same time

 

[Rock98Dog]

No the real issue is that it’s not the government’s responsibility to manage the detox issues of homeless people. If they break the law as a result Of these issues they should be arrested, but other than that they need to deal with their own issues.

It is not the intended role of government to solve your individual, personal, problems.

 

[big_country90]

if it is as awful as you say, then why are so many people willing to pay that much for property there

They don’t know any better.
Apathy.
Don’t want to leave home.
Need to be close to family.
Afraid of change.

Lots of reasons why people choose to live in less than ideal circumstances.

 

[riflearm2]

What's the rational? Now instead of them drinking all day on their own dime, they're doing it on our dime.

That's using the same logic that legalizing drugs was going to work and it blew up in their faces.

Democrats pull the wool over their voters' eyes, attempting to show they are doing something about the problem.

We'll, I guess they are, but it's not helping. They're making the problem worse and it's costing the taxpayers more.

Why do people keep falling for this garbage?

I used to blame it on ignorance and lack of life experiences. But even when those things are explained to you, you still don't get it, so I have no option other than to blame it on stupidity.

Your own article showed that this program already saved millions of dollars in medical costs. Surely, it also has saved lives. Addicts are not going to miraculously stop their addiction if they don't have a job or live on the street. They will find ways either through crime, begging, etc.

Do you not know that detox can lead to death for addicts? If you're an addict, a doctor won't tell you to go home and just stop using. It is far too dangerous. Any type of detox has to be done while around medical personnel 24 hours/day due to the dangers.

This program, much like methadone clinics, is intended to save lives and the ill effects associated with addiction (crime, money). I used to work in a very rough area of DC. Driving there each day, I had to pass a methadone clinic. Even at 8 a.m., it had a line around the block for the addicts to get their "fix." It helped the spread of disease from shared needles, overdoses, crime, and eventually, money. Not coincidentally, I also had to pass a bunch of hookers walking in front of a cheap motel early in the morning just a block away from the clinic.

This program isn't "making the problem worse." It is weening addicts off of the dependency over time, with medical personnel present, minimizing death while saving money (and presumably, reducing crime). It's everything that should be happening (other than the reported unlimited and uncontrolled beer access).

 

[riflearm2]

No the real issue is that it’s not the government’s responsibility to manage the detox issues of homeless people. If they break the law as a result Of these issues they should be arrested, but other than that they need to deal with their own issues.

It is not the intended role of government to solve your individual, personal, problems.

This may be the dumbest post in the history of this board, and coming from you, that is a little surprising considering just how dumb some of the people are who have posted on here over the years.

Based on your comment(s), that means you are opposed to any type of assistance to the public:
- Short on food? Too bad, kids. It's your/your parents problem to feed you.
- Short on money due to a natural disaster that resulted in you not having a job? Too bad, family. Go pitch a tent on the sidewalk if you can't pay rent.
- Short on money to go to college? Should have worked all through high school to save $120k. No subsidized financial aid for you.

This is as dumb as Slumlord Sex Sinner's comment years ago where he wanted to ban all public assistance to the needy since "there are enough churches out there who will help those in need."

 

[riflearm2]

Lots of reasons why people choose to live in less than ideal circumstances.

Let's look at these individually:

They don’t know any better.

Oh, I don't know. People who can afford property in San Francisco tend to have the financial resources (directly linked to education and/or intelligence) to be able to travel and see what else is out there. The population is less than 15% of San Francisco's population of those who were born there. In other words, the vast majority have lived elsewhere and been able to compare someplace else. On the other hand, 70% of WV's population also was born in WV, so they don't have nearly the experience to compare to other places like those who live in SF can.

Apathy.

Again, considering the high amount of people who moved to SF from other places, apathy doesn't seem reasonable. More, a substantial portion of the population is foreign born (I believe Chinese-born is over 10% of the SF population). That doesn't seem like an apathetic crowd.

Don’t want to leave home.

As mentioned, it is only "home" to a small percentage of people. Compare that to WV's 70% homegrown population.

Need to be close to family.
Afraid of change.

Again, considering the high percentage of outsiders who live in SF, it doesn't seem reasonable that they are suddenly scared of change, especially since their dollar does a lot more just about anywhere else in the country.

The reasons you're giving don't really add up to SF. Other places in the country? Sure. But not SF.

 

[30CAT]

This may be the dumbest post in the history of this board, and coming from you, that is a little surprising considering just how dumb some of the people are who have posted on here over the years.

Based on your comment(s), that means you are opposed to any type of assistance to the public:
- Short on food? Too bad, kids. It's your/your parents problem to feed you.
- Short on money due to a natural disaster that resulted in you not having a job? Too bad, family. Go pitch a tent on the sidewalk if you can't pay rent.
- Short on money to go to college? Should have worked all through high school to save $120k. No subsidized financial aid for you.

This is as dumb as Slumlord Sex Sinner's comment years ago where he wanted to ban all public assistance to the needy since "there are enough churches out there who will help those in need."

Because natural disasters and hungry children are the same as being addicted to drugs and alcohol?

His post isn't dumb. Not even close.

People have choices to make. No one does drugs or drinks alcohol, not knowing the risks.

Natural disasters and children being hungry are not choices.

Democrats can't claim to care, when they show they don't care in so many other categories. Can't play the saint, while playing satan at the same time.

If the nutcases, who dream up these polices weren't welcoming people to our country illegally, paying for their room, board, food and higher education, you may have a point.

We can't afford what we're doing. We must cut costs. Which of the polices, being discussed, would you cut first?

You know where I stand, where do you?

 

[riflearm2]

Because natural disasters and hungry children are the same as being addicted to drugs and alcohol?

His post isn't dumb. Not even close.

It's extremely dumb. He said that the government shouldn't involve itself in personal problems. Not having food? Personal problem. Not having a roof over your head? Personal problem. Having a severe disability which prohibits you from working and caring for yourself (and have no family to assist)? Personal problem. No lender will give you a $40k annual loan to attend college since you're 18 and don't have a job? Personal problem.

We could go on-and-on about this, but the point remains the same: His post was extremely dumb.

Democrats can't claim to care, when they show they don't care in so many other categories. Can't play the saint, while playing satan at the same time.

Where do they show not to care?

We can't afford what we're doing. We must cut costs. Which of the polices, being discussed, would you cut first?

I can't dumb it down more than the article and my explanation already did for you: these programs ARE cutting costs. If not, we (the government) have to provide medical care, housing, crime costs, etc. for these people.

 

[30CAT]

It's extremely dumb. He said that the government shouldn't involve itself in personal problems. Not having food? Personal problem. Not having a roof over your head? Personal problem. Having a severe disability which prohibits you from working and caring for yourself (and have no family to assist)? Personal problem. No lender will give you a $40k annual loan to attend college since you're 18 and don't have a job? Personal problem.

What he's talking about are drug addicts and alcoholics. He's not talking about children being hungry and people dealing with natural disasters, through no fault of there own.

We could go on-and-on about this, but the point remains the same: His post was extremely dumb.

Nope. Not even a little bit.

Where do they show not to care?

America last policies. Pretty simple.

I can't dumb it down more than the article and my explanation already did for you: these programs ARE cutting costs. If not, we (the government) have to provide medical care, housing, crime costs, etc. for these people.

First we cut unnecessary costs, then that would show they care. Try some America first polices.