Addiction isn't a root problem of anything, it's a symptom of other things that led you to become addicted to whatever (gambling, drugs, etc)

If you address only the symptoms and not the sociatal issues that exacerbate them, you won't actually solve the problem.

Addiction is the problem homeless is a symptom. Homelessness is a temporary state that one can move in and out of based on access to economic resources but addiction is a permanent state that though great willpower some can occasionally be suppressed.

I have worked with addicts from a range of backgrounds. The causal arrow does not point simply in either direction.

Addiction is a complex result of genetics and circumstance.

A background of poverty makes addiction much more likely. It is unquestionably harder to get clean if you do not have basic social security, let alone no secure shelter. Of course it is. The best indicator of whether you’ll successfully get clean is socio-economic background.

Once you are homeless (people generally prefer “unhoused” these days), being an addict makes it more difficult to get off the street if most state-provided shelter is contingent on getting clean.

So much state-provided shelter is completely inadequate as a secure base for turning your life around- look at the literal human warehouse that Vegas has just built.

A joined-up, personalised, and evidence-based system of care is required that does not exist where I live in the UK or in the US. Frustratingly, all evidence suggests that providing that system is cheaper than not doing so, whilst also relieving astonishing human suffering.

Providing an easy path off the street will help with addiction rates. Providing addiction treatment services will get people off the street. Do both at the same time as part of the same system of care and things really start working.

A google search will readily provide studies that confirm this.

Addiction is termed “persistent” rather than “permanent” by the NIDA. With respect for the net positive effect of abstinence-only programs, I have seen plenty of addicts stay clean long enough to create a stable life for themselves and then go on to safely use alcohol or drugs recreationally. Although, of course, plenty who have attempted that and then spiralled back down. Every individual is different, and tailored care works best.

>all evidence suggests that providing that system is cheaper than not doing so

Can you elaborate on the costs?

I think what they're saying is that addiction is itself a symptom of some other trauma, where substance abuse is a way to fill some void or distract from some hurt.

True in some cases, but for some it's simply that addiction is genetic. It is almost physically/mentally impossible for them to say no to something once they experienced a high or euphoria from it, unless they are dogged about avoiding it at all costs. An alcoholic addiction can easily become an opiate/stimulant addiction or gambling addiction, they have to somehow manage to stay away from all of it. Being on the street makes that even harder because now you also have the stress of not having any shelter.

Fair enough, but doesn’t the same principle apply? Namely, that if we really want to solve the problem, the root issues need to be the priority?

You seem to agree with this, but that doesn’t necessarily align with the OP. Giving no strings attached housing isn’t fixing root issues.

They didn't say that housing fixes root issues. They said it's a "baseline for treating people".

But they also framed it as simply a means to an end: "finding people so you can treat them."

I can sympathize with the "baseline for treating people" argument, but that, by itself, doesn't address the fact that there is a fundamental symmetry missing. If people want "freedom" they also need to demonstrate "responsibility" for a society to work. There is no free lunch, unfortunately. Literally every "baseline" right guaranteed by the US Constitution can be framed in this same give/take dynamic.

The OP was conflating the issue IMO. They are saying basic shelter isn't enough; people have a right to free housing with no strings attached. I think those are two very different mental frameworks to view this problem.

Well don’t frame it as a right, think in terms of desired outcome.

If a user relapses, does removing their housing help in recovery?

I think we’re in agreement. The two are coupled. This is contrary to the OP, where housing would be completely decoupled, no-strings-attached.

How do you expect to get. an addict to voluntarily accept housings with strings that experience is that a lot of them actively avoid?

The pint of the Finnish approach is that the old approach of attaching strings fails at both addressing homelessness and addiction.

Ah, ok. I think I see the confusion. I think you're applying a false dichotomy here. It's not an "either you are clean or you don't get housing" in most places. But, if a therapist sees that addiction is a contributing factor, they will often make the free housing contingent on being part of a drug rehab program. So it's not "clean or else you're back on the street" but it's looking at it as part of the overall problem that's keeping a person from being self-sufficient. They aren't even generally piss tested as part of that. The cases where they are forced to be clean prior is when they are referred to housing services by a probation or parole officer. But that "remain clean" condition is more a function of the probation/parole than the housing program.

For me it boils down to this, which is more successful: treating addiction without houselessness as a factor or treating it with houselessness as a factor?

If it's the former, then you provide the home to increase efficacy.

I understand this point; I think where most people take issue is that it doesn't seem very effective. (or maybe it is, and people are just ignorant of the impact). And once you give people a benefit, it's exceedingly hard to take it away, potentially leaving society worse off than before.

Where other than Finland is it being tried? What is systematically failing is to expect people to get clean before providing housing. It doesn't get people clean and it doesn't get people off the streets.

See my response to your comment below. It's the general case (where I live, at least) that people aren't required to be clean to get housing. But they are required to be part of a rehab program is a therapist/counselor/case worker has deemed addiction to be a contributing factor to their circumstances. They don't have to be clean in those cases, but working toward being cured of their addiction.

> Don’t you think it makes sense to attack the root problem (addiction) as well as the “big symptoms”?

Addiction very often isn’t the root problem, there may not even be a unique root problem. Addiction is a difficult to manage persistent condition that complicates, is conplicated by, reinforces, and co-occurs with other problems, which may be caused by it, may cause it, or may be linked by more distant causal connections or not, at root, commonly caused despite interacting and reinforcing each other once present.

You need to deal with the complex situation presented, not try to solve a tricky and generally unsolvable chicken-and-egg problem that is usually irrelevant to the path forward.

Let me be clear: I’m not advocating an either-or solution. My point is that the complex problem must be treated as exactly that. To me, just focusing on giving people housing is the antithesis of treating it as a complex problem.

> Wouldn’t that look like a rule to be in a treatment program or be otherwise clean?

It looks more like using permanent supportive housing as a way to get people into treatment programs and stick with them.

Addicts will choose the streets over housing to feed the addiction.