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.