There are two dead comments that are both just straightforward criticisms of this. I don't get it. The question is basically, "How do we keep bathrooms tidy?" and the answer is massive spending programs. Criticism of this sentiment is verboten. What the hell?
As to the subject, gas stations and fast food restaurants, etc, have always been effectively public bathrooms all through the US. Maybe San Francisco is an exception that people here confuse with a rule.
Criticism of this sentiment is verboten. What the hell?
People who live in SF imagine your city with tidy bathrooms, then follow this tree:
(1): Does the city have homeless and drug addicts?
If yes, go to (2). If no, go to (3).
(2): And where are the bathrooms?
If 'in private businesses' go to (4). If public toilets, go to (5).
(4): The private businesses chase off the homeless, who shit in the street. SAN FRANCISCO IS HERE.
(5): They're probably going to have people passing out in them, then.
(3): OK, so where have the homeless drug addicts gone?
If they've been cured, go to (6). If you've sent them to another city, go to (7)
(6): Now you've probably got a massive spending program. THIS IS WHERE THE PEOPLE YOU'RE TALKING TO ARE
(7): Eh, you aren't the first. THIS IS UNLIKELY TO EARN YOU UPVOTES ONLINE. It might earn you re-election if you get elected then do it by stealth though.
If you've got a solution that avoids every pitfall I'm sure people would be eager to hear it - but if your explanation skips over some of the problems, that's less helpful.
> Does the city have homeless and drug addicts? If yes, go to (2). If no, go to (3).
Why did you put the two together though? There are many drug addicts whose life circumstances are very different, and they are leading a successful life with their addiction, because addiction does not necessarily cause such psychosocial harm.
"Homeless drug addicts" would be more accurate, which you are using later on though. :P But then again, many homeless people defecate publicly despite having the option not to, AND are not drug addicts.
I guess when people refer to drug addicts, they are referring to people displaying a certain set of behaviors that we usually see from homeless or poor people, because they are less likely to be able to hide their addictions and whatnot, mostly because it affects them negatively more, and the consequences are more obvious. I also believe it is not actually due to drug addiction alone. Do not forget that there is a reason for why they started using drugs. It could have been merely because they ended up on the streets, and for totally unrelated reasons.
The book explains it better than I ever could. It is very likely that I phrased myself incorrectly, the first two sections of this book should clear it all up. Cheers.
This is what I am talking about (posted it here to avoid confusion):
Relatedly, different life circumstances may protect people more or less well against impaired functioning (for a review, see Martin et al. 2014). For example, it is well known that addiction is associated with low socio-economic status alongside other mental health problems (Compton et al. 2007; Heyman 2009). But, in so far as addiction is diagnosed via negative consequences, wealth, alongside other forms of privilege, may offer a protective factor (cf. Matthews 2014; Schmidt et al. 2010). For example, a wealthy mother who drinks heavily but can afford a live-in nanny to ensure her children are adequately cared for is able to meet more of her role-related responsibilities than a poor woman who drinks equal amounts but whose children go hungry and miss school. The consequences are more serious by shared social standards in the latter case than the former, and so too, as a result, is the likelihood of a diagnosis.
The implication that individual differences in conceptions of how to live and life circumstances can affect the likelihood of a diagnosis may give pause. Indeed, Martin et al. (2014) have proposed that the negative consequences of use should be considered ancillary rather than core features of addiction for this very reason, namely, that they introduce significant individual and context specificity. However once we acknowledge that drug use in itself is not indicative of any form of disorder, but rather offers instrumental means to fulfilling valuable ends, the idea that negative consequences are fundamental to the pathological nature of addiction becomes evident.
As to the subject, gas stations and fast food restaurants, etc, have always been effectively public bathrooms all through the US. Maybe San Francisco is an exception that people here confuse with a rule.