- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 48,852
- Reaction score
- 15,866
Correlation does not prove causation.
While housing is definitely a factor, you can't discount the fact that urban centers, especially wealthy liberal urban centers, are where resources for the homeless exist most (shelters, soup kitchens, health centers, hand-outs from bleeding hearts, drugs, etc. ).
There's also the gray area where drug or alcohol addiction may not have caused the person to become homeless, but it ultimately causes them to REMAIN homeless.
I was going to say something similar to this, the thing about homelessness and drug addiction is that drug addiction is often used as a discriminatory measure against the homeless. Like there arent functional drug addicts who work and are housed, or who have the benefit of being prescribed their addictive substance by Doctors. Then there is, are they homeless because they're drug addicts or are they drug addicts because they're homeless? Some want to feel drug addiction is a simple as a moral failure, but that's not always the case.
Some of the worst areas in the US for drug addiction are plagued by disinvestment, which means something like illegal drug use becomes the dominant local economy, and everyone else just avoids the area. I saw a video about Kensington PA where the guy actually interviewed residents (didnt just show their destitution), and a few of them said they had lost jobs, they had no economic opportunities, no means to move...and drugs are plentiful. You can make money, and then spend the money on something they see as a remedy for the depression. Then once the area is a cesspool its seen as unworthy of investment. That's one way that cycle then perpetuates.