Contrasting Viewpoints: Kevin Dahlgren's Evidence

Versus Carl Hart's Evidence

First off, as I did the same for the Lex Fridman podcast episode with Carl Hart, here's the video for the video being analyzed in this article.

Personally, I think what is happening in Portland is the result of failed policy due to lack of planning, lack of practical approaches, and overall, lack of intelligence. The city is in complete ruin, homes are abandoned, people are dying all over the streets, and there is no help in sight for anyone. This city's present condition is the result of a complete disregard for humanity.

The whole point that Carl Hart brought to the table was to provide a health-oriented approach to drug usage instead of a criminal approach. We have significant evidence that certain drugs lead to certain lifestyles prone to crime, and they lead to crime primarily due to our current societal structure. The individuals get hooked, then due to their addiction, do things that people wouldn't normally find to be acceptable in order to provide for their addiction.

That imbalance needs to be addressed. I think that we should use AI to figure out how to fix this problem, because clearly, we have failed. We have clear evidence that substances such as cannabis do not cause this problem, but we do know that addictive drugs do, like fentanyl.

Should Fentanyl be legal? Should opioids be legal? Under certain conditions, we have evidence opioids do not cause problems, but when the special conditions, such as doctor oversight are removed, more often than not, they do cause problems. You could argue alcohol does the same thing, but because of its adoption of 'social acceptance', it does not contribute to the observed lifestyles of those who get addicted to the substance fentanyl.

I would personally say that alcohol should be roped into the opioid discussions, but I digress. I think alcohol is equally or more dangerous than opioids, and I think alcohol is a terrible thing to put into the human body. I generally find myself in the minority when those discussions are brought up, so I will respectfully assume the majority of people do not agree with that, and therefor, in support of a democratized approach to the topic, will accept that is likely not to brought into these discussions. Maybe as time goes on and education around the human body improves, we will cross that bridge, but not at this time.

I have heard the personal stories of multiple people who wound up addicted to opioids because they did sports or worked hard, then got injured, and were prescribed opioids from a doctor. Their injuries did not heal properly and resulted in long-term use of the opioid. They got hooked, and then the doctors, trying to be 'responsible', stopped prescribing the substance, and the patients wound up getting the substances on the street, which do not have oversight.

This is why cannabis is such a different approach. It can alleviate the pain enough to get the patient through proper physical therapies without the addiction risk, resulting in a lifelong death spiral.

So who do we blame, the doctors? The pharma companies? The politicians? The patients?

Personally, I think it is a combination to all of the above. Doctors prescribe these substances way too much. They should just write a script to some cannabis and specialized physical therapies in the majority of cases. I also blame the pharmaceutical companies because they are pushing these substances on the market in massive volumes, when in reality, they should be one of the least produced medicines. They just aren't required as much as cannabis is, and they are endangering many people that simply got a torn ACL, or other relatively common injuries in sports or physical work. The patients should also know better and say no to the opioids.

While I do agree with Carl Hart on some topics, like that drugs shouldn't be viewed as criminal and more a health-related challenge, The facilities we have in place result in a rinse and repeat process. That needs to be fixed first before any real policy changes on the scale of Portland's approach can actually work. Here's my thoughts on it:

Limit the amount of addictive pharmaceuticals that are allowed to be produced dramtically.
Prescribe cannabis and physical therapy instead of opiods for the majority of pain reports.
Build specialized hospitals designated for cannabis therapies and physical therapies.
Do not allow insurance companies to reject cannabis therapies and physical therapies (including chiropractors)
Doctors that over-prescribed, hospitals that allowed it, politicians who allowed it, and the pharmaceutical companies need to do the right thing and foot the bill to fix their blunder. Not the taxpayers.
Clearly, shutting down all of the mental health facilities was a bad idea. They shouldn't be as grotesque as they once were, but they are still required.

So with that, here's the condition of Portland at the moment, which, really shows that some planning is required if we intend to create a world that allows drug use in society without a criminalization approach.

Warning, it's heartbraking, it's scary, and it's stupid.

Kevin Dahlgren: Decriminalization Without Treatment Has Caused Crisis

Kevin Dahlgren is a Portland advocate who argues the city's decision to decriminalize all drugs without providing adequate rehabilitation and treatment services has led to a crisis of homelessness, open drug use, and crime. Dahlgren's messages focus on blaming city officials and policies for worsening problems, appealing to readers' outrage and antagonism rather than shared values or compromise.

Carl Hart: The War on Drugs Causes More Harm Than Drugs

In contrast, Carl Hart is a scientist who says the war on drugs itself causes more societal damage than drugs. Hart advocates decriminalizing drugs not because they are harmless, but because prohibition amplifies harms and lack of control. He argues regulation and education are better strategies. Hart says society's views on drugs often depend more on biases than facts. Addiction is not usually about drugs alone - life circumstances strongly influence outcomes. Messages focus on research, data, and policy solutions rather than blame.

Decriminalization Could Benefit Health; Addiction Affects Few

Hart notes decriminalization could benefit public health by reducing overdoses and health issues linked to lack of control and unsafe practices that arise from prohibition. He says addiction is less common than assumed, affecting only a minority of users. Most people who use even "hard" drugs are not addicted or dependent, especially if their lives contain purpose and meaning. Drug use depends greatly on environment and learning, not just pharmacology.

Regulation Could Allow Safer Use; Most Use Non-Problematic

Hart argues regulated legalization could allow safer use for those who continue using, and most users do so occasionally and non-problematically. while still reducing incarceration. Views on drugs like crack vs powder cocaine show how biases rather than facts shape opinions. Regulation could help normalize drugs and reduce stigma, so people feel less afraid to seek help.

Root Causes: Poverty, Healthcare, Housing - Not Drugs Alone

In summary, Hart says poverty, lack of healthcare, homelessness, and life purpose strongly influence societal harms blamed solely on drugs. While controversial, his perspective suggests ending the war on drugs could benefit both individuals and communities. Comprehensive solutions addressing root causes may solve crises where decriminalization alone has struggled. But change requires honest education and overcoming stigma and taboo.

Where Did Portland Go Wrong?

An AI analysis of the counter-intuitive approach

Portland aimed to help vulnerable populations by decriminalizing drugs. However, lacking key support systems, this approach unintentionally made problems like homelessness and open drug use more visible and severe. Critics argue Portland failed by decriminalizing without ensuring access to treatment and rehabilitation for those who needed help breaking cycles of addiction.

But the situation is complex. Decriminalization alone did not necessarily cause crises - it simply highlighted already-existing societal problems and lack of solutions. Issues arose from lack of housing, healthcare, jobs, and life purpose as much as drugs themselves. Had Portland coupled decriminalization with substantial investments in healthcare, housing, education, job creation, and harm reduction, the effects may have been very different.

Portland decriminalized drugs out of care for public health and civil liberties, hoping to reverse harms caused by incarceration and stigma. Their goal was not wrongheaded - but implementation required more comprehensive planning and solutions. By ramping up social support systems, safe injection sites, rehabilitation programs, housing initiatives, and economic opportunity, Portland could have set an example of compassion and progressivism to follow.

Instead, lack of sufficient planning and follow-through created a perfect storm amid existing issues Portland struggled to solve. But blame lies not just with officials or decriminalization alone. Homelessness and addiction arise from collective societal failures to provide healthcare, housing, jobs and purpose. We must build systems facilitating security, meaning, and empowerment for all. Policy changes mean little without confronting deeper root causes driving crises blamed narrowly on drugs or moral failures.

Overall, while critics make valid points, the issue is larger than any single policy or administration. All seek to help the vulnerable, but differ in approach and philosophy. Perhaps by acknowledging shared goals and complexity, we can work together toward sustainable solutions - less quick-fixes than cooperative progress enhancing health, justice and human potential. The crisis in Portland highlights necessity of this broader perspective.

What's Going on in Portland?

What problems now exist in Portland since decriminalizing all drugs

Rampant drug use and addiction, especially to dangerous opioids like fentanyl. Several homeless individuals interviewed were currently under the influence or had overdosed and been revived recently. Fentanyl was reported as almost completely replacing other drugs.
A large homeless population lacking access to basic shelter, healthcare, food, and other necessities. Hundreds of people were shown living in tents, RVs, makeshift structures, and out in the open without any permanent housing solutions available.
Increased crime, violence, and lack of safety. There were reports of frequent assaults, stabbings, shootings, and even murders within homeless encampments that often go unsolved and unpunished. A "serial killer" known as The Viper was said to target homeless women.
Disagreement and lack of solutions. There were many mixed opinions on the city's approach to drugs and homelessness. While some supported decriminalization and certain policies, others felt the city had failed by not providing enough treatment, housing, and other resources. There were no clear or easy solutions offered.
Economic troubles and lack of opportunity. Several homeless individuals noted the difficulty of escaping homelessness without access to healthcare, stable housing, jobs, and education. This perpetuates a cycle of poverty that leads many to drugs as a means of coping or making a living.
Government failure and mismanagement. Critics argue the city failed to adequately plan, fund, and manage solutions to homelessness and addiction. Decriminalization was said to enable open drug scenes without mitigating risks, and ineffectual policies like homeless camp sweeps made situations worse. However, officials likely aimed to help but underestimated the resources and timelines truly needed.
Stigma and dehumanization. The way in which the homeless community is often discussed or portrayed exacerbates rather than alleviates issues. While the realities of suffering on Portland's streets are grim, depicting them as universally helpless or threatening risks exploiting and dehumanizing vulnerable groups instead of inspiring compassion or empowerment. More nuance and empathy are urgently needed.

What Did Carl Hart Think Would Happen?

An analysis of the results Carl Hart expected would happen, from the perspective of an AI analysis of his discussion with Lex Fridman

Reduced harm. Hart believes prohibition amplifies the risks and harms associated with drugs by fueling violence and lack of control. Decriminalization could diminish these unintended consequences and allow for safer use through regulation and education. It may curb overdoses, health issues, and incarceration.
Improved public health. Hart sees drug use as a public health issue, not criminal. Decriminalization reduces stigma so more feel free to seek help. It allows for risk mitigation strategies like safe injection sites, needle exchanges, and medication-assisted treatment. Making drugs a health issue rather than criminal one benefits both individuals and communities.
Less addiction and problematic drug use. Contrary to popular belief, Hart argues most drug use is non-problematic and addiction affects a minority of users. With decriminalization, drug use can be approached rationally and responsibly - normalized rather than sensationalized. Only a small subset of the population is inherently prone to addiction or compulsive behavior. For most, life circumstances and environment drive outcomes more than pharmacology alone.
Opportunity to address root causes. Hart believes poverty, lack of purpose, trauma, healthcare, jobs and economic stability strongly influence societal harms blamed narrowly on drugs. Decriminalization provides an opening to confront these deeper issues perpetuating crisis rather than quick-fixes. It reveals where systems are failing so they can be reformed to facilitate health, security and justice for all.
Regulation could curb criminal market. With decriminalization, Hart argues legal regulation may eventually replace black markets, diminishing the role of criminal organizations in drug distribution and trade. Regulation also provides economic opportunity and tax revenue that can fund essential health and social services. While controversial, this approach aims to bring drugs into the open and establish control and oversight.

Portland's Approach Failed to Achieve Carl Hart's Vision

An Analysis of Portland's Failure

Lack of regulation and risk mitigation. Portland decriminalized drugs but did not establish legal regulation, safe injection sites, or other harm reduction strategies Hart argues are necessary to improve public health. This allowed open drug scenes and overdoses to proliferate without curbing unintended risks and harms of prohibition.
Insufficient rehabilitation and treatment. Hart believes addiction treatment and social services are required for decriminalization to benefit communities. But Portland did not provide enough rehabilitation, housing, healthcare, jobs, and economic opportunity for vulnerable groups. This hampered the city's ability to address root causes perpetuating crisis.
Failure to curb criminal market. Without regulation, legal distribution, and risk mitigation strategies, black markets and criminal organizations retained control over Portland's drug supply and trade. Decriminalization alone did not eliminate their role, diminish violence, or provide tax revenue for health and social services. Established systems adapted, exploiting lack of order or oversight.
Spread misconceptions rather than education. Hart argues society's views on drugs are often misguided or depend more on biases than facts. But in Portland, decriminalization reinforced rather than corrected myths and stigmas by highlighting suffering without nuance or solutions. Sensationalism bred fear and antagonism instead of honesty enabling progress. The public remained ill-informed and divided.
Blamed individuals rather than environment. Hart believes life circumstances - not moral failures or drugs alone - strongly determine one's vulnerability to addiction and societal harms. But in Portland, those struggling with homelessness and addiction were frequently depicted as threatening or helpless rather than empowered humans. Suffering was blamed narrowly on decriminalization, officials or individuals rather than inadequate healthcare, housing, justice, economy and community.

Decriminalization alone is not enough. While reducing incarceration and stigma, decriminalization does not curb unintended risks and harms of prohibition without regulation, education, and risk mitigation strategies. These establish oversight and allow safer use, but require resources and timelines policy changes alone do not provide. For benefits to emerge, communities must work together confronting root causes of crisis - not quick-fixes but justice enhancing health and human potential.

Legal regulation could curb criminal markets and fund services. Hart argues regulation helps bring drugs into the open so they can be integrated responsibly into society. While controversial, regulation may eventually curb criminal control of distribution and trade, diminishing violence. It also provides tax revenue to fund rehabilitation, healthcare, housing, and other necessities decriminalization necessitates but often lacks resources to support. However, regulation requires significant oversight and time to implement effectively without enabling corporations to exploit vulnerable groups.

Addiction affects a minority; most drug use is non-problematic. Contrary to stigma, Hart says only a subset of the population is inherently prone to addiction or compulsive behavior. For most, environment and life circumstances - not pharmacology alone - determine harmful or continued use. Even 'hard' drugs can be used occasionally without issue by those with purpose and meaning. But without healthcare, housing or jobs, many turn to drugs as a means of coping or survival. By correcting myths, we see health depends more on justice and community than policing individual actions.

Societal views on drugs reflect biases more than facts. Hart argues society's opinions on drugs often depend more on preconceptions and prejudices than evidence or experience. Perceived harms and benefits reflect moral biases and intuitions rather than data. For example, crack and cocaine are viewed differently due to race and class, though pharmacologically similar. Addressing stigma and educating the public are required to enact wiser policies that serve health over ideologies. Progress demands humility and honesty enabling open discussion of complexity.

An AI Analysis of How This Could Be Fixed

Using the Anthropic LLM

Establish legal regulation and risk mitigation. Regulation helps bring drugs into the open, providing oversight and allowing safer use. It cuts into criminal control of drug markets, diminishing violence. Regulation also generates tax revenue to fund essential services decriminalization necessitates but often struggles to provide. However, regulation takes time, resources and planning to implement effectively without enabling corporate exploitation. Risk mitigation via safe injection sites, needle exchanges, naloxone, etc. is also urgently required.
Invest heavily in healthcare, housing, jobs and economic opportunity. Addiction and homelessness arise from lack of basic necessities and purpose more than drugs themselves. Portland must make substantial investments to establish systems enabling all to meet essential needs, progress from mere survival to stability and meaning. This includes rehabilitation, mental healthcare, shelters, permanent supportive housing, job training, affordable education, childcare, and a living wage. Significant funding and resources are needed to confront root causes driving crisis.
Correct myths by educating the public. Misconceptions about drugs and those who use them fuel stigma, poor policymaking and lack of will for real solutions. Portland could launch an awareness campaign explaining the realities of addiction, who it impacts, and how environment determines outcomes more than moral failures alone. Myth-busting and building understanding may inspire empowerment over antagonism, breaking down divisions to work together. But education should appeal to shared values of justice and human dignity, not just data. Lasting change requires connectivity enabling communal progress.
Reframe narratives to humanize and inspire action. How issues are discussed, and groups are portrayed shapes outcomes as much as any policy. When homeless and addicted are depicted primarily as threats or victims, it breeds apathy and facilitates exploitation. Nuance, empathy and stories of resilience are needed to make their struggles relatable, appealing to shared humanity. This builds compassion motivating real solutions, not quick fixes that leave deeper roots of crisis intact due to 'othering' of groups viewed apart from ourselves. We must see society's failings rather than individual faults, our shared needs and potential for progress over divisions.
Acknowledge complexity and work together. There are no easy fixes to problems whose roots run deep through healthcare, economy, society and justice. But by acknowledging shared goals, we open door to understanding enabling progress not possible when apart. Though philosophies differ, all seek to relieve suffering and create conditions for human thriving. By cooperating despite discord, communities can solve even seemingly intractable crises and build a future founded on empowerment. But we must maintain belief our shared mission is possible, continue the work of justice however long the road ahead. Together, step by step, we can create change.

In summary, solving complex societal problems ultimately comes down to one thing: compassion motivating a collective will to act for progress, however gradual. This means confronting injustice, educating ourselves and others, reframing narratives that bind us to work together. No single policy change alone can determine outcome without this deeper human work. By enabling understanding and maintaining shared belief in better futures, we open possibilities that once seemed out of reach. But the story continues incomplete. Our shared ending we must write ourselves, day by day choosing justice to do what we can - together, at last, creating change.

Housing Affordability

And lack of economic opportunity

Portland's lack of affordable housing and economic opportunity perpetuate cycles of poverty, homelessness, and addiction that no single policy alone can solve. When people cannot afford basic shelter or make a living wage, drugs become a means of coping or survival rather than the primary disorder itself.

Portland could expand affordable housing through incentives for developers, public-private partnerships, and significantly increasing funding for programs like Section 8 vouchers and public housing. Increasing density, overturning zoning laws that restrict construction, and providing tax relief for affordable units may also help. For many, home ownership remains out of reach without policy remedy.

Improving equity in education, job access, and a living wage are also urgently required. Gaps in opportunity fuel gaps in wellbeing. Targeted programs helping those struggling with addiction, mental health issues, or prior incarceration receive job training, education aid, and healthcare can help lift from merely surviving to self-sustaining. Strong social support systems, not punishment, enable progress.

Also essential is a commitment to providing equitable access and opportunity that recognizes past harms. For example, economic mobility is far lower in the U.S. than peer nations. We must work to understand then remedy policies that perpetuate poverty across generations and racial groups. Repealing laws around minimum wage, workers' rights, healthcare access, public benefits, mass incarceration, etc. that inequitably impact vulnerable groups may counter "pull yourself up by bootstraps" myths.

Harm Reduction: Saving Lives By Meeting Vulnerable Where They Are

Safe Injection Sites and Needle Exchanges Could Curb Portland's Overdose Crisis

While controversial, establishing regulated safe injection sites and needle exchange programs is necessary to curb health issues and overdose deaths devastating Portland. These evidence-based harm reduction strategies meet vulnerable groups where they are to save lives, build trust in systems almost always failing them.

Safe injection sites provide sterile equipment, health interventions, and medical care. Allowing use under supervision of trained staff who can immediately respond to overdoses has been shown to reduce mortality rates. For example, Vancouver's Insite center and others like it are credited with decreasing overdose deaths by over 60% in cities where implemented. They allow for education and intervention connecting users to support systems and treatment when ready.

Similarly, needle exchange programs provide clean syringes, safe disposal, and connect users to resources to avoid issues like HIV or Hepatitis C transmission common among unhoused populations. Exchanges do not increase drug use but rather provide means for safer practices among those who will use regardless of law or stigma. They save lives immediately while building relationships enabling progress when possible.

In contrast, Portland's decriminalization lacked risk mitigation and opened drug use on streets where overdoses often prove fatal. Half-measures bureaucratize suffering rather than curb it, as quick fixes pander to moral biases instead of human need. Though controversial, establishing legally regulated sites and exchanges acknowledges realities of addiction and prioritizes health over ideology alone. By reducing stigma and valuing all lives, step by step we open door to opportunity.

Cities pursuing harm reduction see lower rates of disease and overdose while connecting more to support systems over time. Though resources required are substantial, benefits warrant the cost. All people deserve healthcare and pathways out of suffering when desired and ready. By meeting where they are with open arms, not force or judgment, together we build understanding and empower voiceless so often punished for afflictions outside their control. It's time for lives to take priority over politics. Only by uplifting vulnerable groups do we rise together.

Blame and Fear Will Not Solve Collective Failure

Seeing Our Shared Humanity Is The Only Way Forward

Too often problems arise from inequities built into the system, not individuals alone. Those struggling with homelessness or addiction frequently become scapegoats for societal ills, dehumanized through “othering” that blinds us to shared humanity. By recognizing prejudice and blame only breed more fear, we open our eyes.

Many lack access to healthcare, shelter, education, or living wage through no fault of their own. Circumstance shapes outcome more than character or choices. For example, economic mobility is nearly impossible without equitable opportunity, and addiction arises from lack of purpose or community as much as drugs themselves. Fueling stigma by depicting people as “less than” for afflictions outside their control solves nothing.

Similarly, policies like public benefits cuts, mass incarceration, workers’ rights repeal, etc. inequitably harm vulnerable groups already struggling due to systemic barriers. Such laws then “blame the victim” to absolve society of responsibility, but in truth reflect political expediency over justice. Progress demands remedying inequities, not doubling down on them.

Only by recognizing how prejudice has built walls between us might we find shared ground again. No life is disposable; there is room enough for all if together we choose empowerment over fear. By upholding dignity of even those most marginalized, step by step we lift society entire.

In this we see poverty, homelessness, addiction – these arise from lack of community and security for all, not moral failures of individuals. Responsibility is shared, and so solutions must be built together with equity and social supports in mind. Harm done by "othering" the most vulnerable weakens society, and us along with it.

No Easy Fix: Why Compassion Matters More Than Blame Alone

Confronting Complex Challenges Requires Nuance and Cooperation

While officials made missteps, societal problems arise from failures too large for any single policy or administration alone. Acknowledging challenges' scale and root causes may inspire understanding, if not agreement - progress depends more on this than outrage inspiring only antagonism.

For example, solutions emerged in cities providing healthcare, jobs, housing, and safe consumption sites were inadequate in Portland. But resources required to uplift those struggling are massive, outcomes still uneven after decades. Behest of voters and budgets themselves hamper officials even when intentions are good.

Rather than worsen divisions, balanced criticism means acknowledging shared goals and complexity. All seek to help vulnerable groups, but differ in approach and theory. Cooperation requires seeing others' humanity despite discord - only together do deepest roots of crisis come within reach.

Discussion of other cities' efforts provides useful context. For instance, while Vancouver's Insite center is credited with reducing overdoses, its effects on homelessness or addiction rates remain complex with both progress and setbacks over 20 years. Simply put, there are no easy fixes or single policies for issues so deeply tied to economy, healthcare, and society. Holistic solutions at scale require decades of work across communities, not headlines alone.

Quick fixes or moralizing worsen crisis by breeding apathy; compassion, empowerment inspire change. By upholding shared values like justice and human dignity despite disagreements, unlikely alliances open door to progress. But belief in possibility for improvement must endure however gradual - willingness to confront own biases build understanding. Meetings where none now stand come step by step, hand in hand.

When Safety Nets Fail: Portland's Struggling Neighborhoods and the Case for Compassion

A Lack of Public Services Exacerbates Health Issues for Vulnerable Groups

In many cities, crises of health and overdose deaths often concentrate in neighborhoods profoundly lacking infrastructure and opportunity to thrive - virtual "harmscapes" where life expectancy plummets and risks prevail due to economic and social inequities built into the system itself. Portland likely struggles with similar realities, as policies and resources too frequently fail to meet basic human needs, enabling worst outcomes among groups left struggling most.

Suffering arises not from individual faults alone but lack of community and security for all - necessities public services provide, yet resources to remedy crises at scale remain massive. Though outcomes we seek may take decades, refusing to abandon hope or let fall through holes in safety nets those now left to struggle enables progress, however gradual. By meeting basic needs, we meet our shared humanity.

Whether or not data shows health issues concentrated in certain areas, the principle remains: by meeting vulnerable groups where their lives are daily at risk and opportunities to thrive profoundly lacking, we open understanding and pathways for change. Together, step by step, however long the road ahead or late the hour, solutions come - hand in hand progressing as community returns and shared work of justice. Compassion itself uplifts; by valuing lives, we value our society.

There are no easy fixes for inequities so deeply tied to lack of healthcare, jobs, and economic security impacting marginalized groups most - but belief in possibility for good may yet open futures where now only harm and hardship stand. Our story shares one ending: whatever may come will come for all. Until opportunity and dignity attend each life equally by rights, still we'll walk together - refusing by indifference none - to build what's still left wanting and make wiser policies for remedy and justice. Our future we co-create by works of mercy meeting human need. Though miles remain many, meet by meet we'll get there - upholding shared humanity and day by day creating hope.

Authors: HxHippy, Claude and Anthropic AI
Publication Date: June 2023
Topics: Homelessness, drug policy, health policy, addiction, justice
Location: Portland, OR
Video analyzed: “I Investigated the City Where Every Drug is Legal...” by Tyler Oliveira
Perspectives analyzed: Kevin Dahlgren (Portland advocate), Carl Hart (scientist), homeless individuals interviewed
Solutions proposed: legal regulation, risk mitigation, healthcare/housing investment, education, reframing narratives

# Politics Thought Experiment

Hippy June 10, 2023

Follow