Speaker 1: We have a celebrity guest to talk about the homeless issue.
Speaker 1: It's Armstrong and Getty's extra large because four hours simply enough,
Speaker 1: this is Armstrong and Getty extra large. So does that
Speaker 1: mean this is in very longer than our usual podcasts.
Speaker 1: Is that the theory on that? I don't know. It's
Speaker 1: a long form interview. Uh so. Dr Drew Pinski is
Speaker 1: indeed a well known fellow from the media, but he
Speaker 1: is an internist addiction medicine specialist UM and has been
Speaker 1: dealing with folks with substance abuse problems for decades and
Speaker 1: is absolutely, uh not only dead serious about the bums
Speaker 1: and junkies problem, the homeless problem, if you want to
Speaker 1: call it that, but it's really crusading and trying to
Speaker 1: get people to see it for what it really really is.
Speaker 1: Dr Drew, this is a pleasure. We really appreciate you
Speaker 1: joining us. How are you? And we definitely have three
Speaker 1: people here that are in the category of don't get
Speaker 1: us started on the homeless situation. Yeah, yeah, I'm afraid
Speaker 1: of how when you When when I get going, I'm
Speaker 1: afraid of where I go. I'm the same way too,
Speaker 1: be part partially because I had a personal situation with
Speaker 1: my family where an aggressive bum got in our faces
Speaker 1: threatened to murder and rape my family. Uh, in front
Speaker 1: of me. I had to intervene physically with the dude.
Speaker 1: Cops are called the guys now in prison. I I
Speaker 1: hated the homeless situation before that, but since then I
Speaker 1: really do. Yeah. So listen, why don't we start with
Speaker 1: what it's not, the the giant homeless explosion in particularly
Speaker 1: the West. Let me jump in right there. I'll tell
Speaker 1: you the guy that threatened to kill my family, he
Speaker 1: was not a guy who couldn't afford his apartment, right,
Speaker 1: That is not what he was. It's not a guy
Speaker 1: for whom four walls is going to help. It's not
Speaker 1: going to help him to push him in a room
Speaker 1: of his own. He needs serious mental health treatment long term.
Speaker 1: And the conflation, the conflating of the real problem of
Speaker 1: a act of affordable housing, I would a couple weeks
Speaker 1: ago at the Schwarzenegger Foundation meeting he held, and at
Speaker 1: that meeting there was absolute consensus that the lack of
Speaker 1: affordable housing was a self created problem by the extraordinary
Speaker 1: regulations in the state of California. Therefore, we could undo
Speaker 1: that if we had the will. That's one problem. Now,
Speaker 1: the lack of affordable housing, I would argue, is not
Speaker 1: that acute. If we in Los Angeles could absorb one
Speaker 1: point five million undocumented workers in the last two years
Speaker 1: and none of them are on the street, they're not
Speaker 1: on the street, how bad could the housing? Probably I
Speaker 1: wanted to have million people found housing, all right, But okay,
Speaker 1: we all agree there's a shortage of affordable housing. That
Speaker 1: is a separate and distinct issue from homelessness. Homelessness is
Speaker 1: the result of the dismantling of the mental health system
Speaker 1: of the state that resulted in the patients pouring out
Speaker 1: onto the streets, the prisons and the nursing homes. We
Speaker 1: have now wish them out of the prisons, they're on
Speaker 1: the streets. And then we've made the problem more acute
Speaker 1: by legalizing drugs and drug trafficking, So all the other
Speaker 1: addicts in the country are homeless. Headed it all way,
Speaker 1: that's homelessness, and it is killing justin l A county
Speaker 1: three people a day. Would you would you body count
Speaker 1: need to be everybody before we do something about this? Right?
Speaker 1: Would you agree that it's useless to discuss homelessness unless
Speaker 1: we start breaking down percentages of the drug addicted, the
Speaker 1: mentally ill, the mentally ill, and drug drug addicted guys
Speaker 1: who are just bums, they're just dropouts, they'd rather not work,
Speaker 1: et cetera. There are probably that latter category is about
Speaker 1: ten percent, and even those a majority of probably taking math.
Speaker 1: So it is. You know. Look, I was up in
Speaker 1: Sacramento about a month ago. I went on the streets,
Speaker 1: I went around with the cops. I talked to all
Speaker 1: the homeless, and they all told me the exact same thing.
Speaker 1: The cops and the homeless using mess on a regular basis.
Speaker 1: And these were unprompted ad hockey interviews with homeless and cops,
Speaker 1: and they, you know, on the streets of Sacramento, they
Speaker 1: all said the same thing. When I go out in
Speaker 1: the Los Angeles, I asked what percentage you're doing drugs,
Speaker 1: they'll say somewhere between six. You go downtown in downtown
Speaker 1: on skit Row, and it's higher and the mental health
Speaker 1: issues are much more acute. This is unconscionable. No other
Speaker 1: country on Earth doesn't take care of people with brain diseases.
Speaker 1: It's too much, it's too much. I can't even believe
Speaker 1: what I'm seeing. This is a population I served for
Speaker 1: thirty years. I know exactly what's going on. I know
Speaker 1: exactly what can be done for them, and I know
Speaker 1: exactly how well they can do. And I know those
Speaker 1: that need chronic custodial care. We have to get realistic
Speaker 1: about this well, and I just did. I became aware
Speaker 1: of this for the first time just a couple of
Speaker 1: months ago. The trends, the almost crazes in mental health
Speaker 1: care that happened during the twentieth century, including zyra calls
Speaker 1: late fifties, early sixties, that there was this this craze
Speaker 1: that the community mental health centers could take care of
Speaker 1: the mentally If you want to read it, that's exactly
Speaker 1: where we went off the rail. It was in It
Speaker 1: was a guy named Robert Felix, an unelected official, who
Speaker 1: got the ear of President Kennedy and got him to
Speaker 1: sign the Community Mental Health Hack, which was designed to
Speaker 1: eliminate institutions for the care of the mentally ill, because
Speaker 1: in the mind of these social engineer whack jobs, there
Speaker 1: were three psychiatrists that ran the National Student Mental Health
Speaker 1: for forty years, non elected officials. None of them had
Speaker 1: ever been in One of them only had been in
Speaker 1: a state mental hospital, none of none of them had
Speaker 1: ever been in it. The rest of them watched One
Speaker 1: Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and thought they were watching
Speaker 1: a freaking documentary. They were not. And they decided to
Speaker 1: dismantle the system, and that their goal was to create
Speaker 1: these community mental health centers who were going to quote,
Speaker 1: prevent mental illness. So no provisions for what to do
Speaker 1: with those pouring out of the state hospital, some ill
Speaker 1: conceived plan which we still don't know how to do
Speaker 1: to this day prevent mental illness. They were going to
Speaker 1: be social engineers. The excesses of psychiatry in the fifties
Speaker 1: and sixties on that side and what they did to
Speaker 1: the patients that were in institutions unconscionable. So laws were
Speaker 1: put in place in the sixties and seventies that were
Speaker 1: a backlash to that. Those laws are approaching one hundred
Speaker 1: years of age, they are at least sixty or seventy
Speaker 1: years old, they're anachronistic, and they're the barrier to the
Speaker 1: ability to treat the patients today. It was a reaction.
Speaker 1: I get it. I'm not apologizing or excusing the excesses,
Speaker 1: but those laws are the barrier right now, and they're
Speaker 1: they're they're approaching a century old. We've learned a little
Speaker 1: bit about how brains work and how to treat them,
Speaker 1: and that's sixty seventy years. It's time we changed the
Speaker 1: laws that's going to be necessary to address this problem.
Speaker 1: Why does it seem I mean, we're talking about the
Speaker 1: seventies when a lot of these laws were passed, and
Speaker 1: they were reaction to the cruelty of some of the
Speaker 1: first half of the twentieth century mental health care. But
Speaker 1: why is it seems so much worse on the streets
Speaker 1: in the last ten years. That is that is right.
Speaker 1: First of all, there's Newton people in mental illness every day.
Speaker 1: They gradually strangulated the definition of gravely disabled. So so
Speaker 1: you can't bring people into a facility for treatment unless
Speaker 1: they say they're going to kill themselves or kill somebody else.
Speaker 1: And if on the way in they go I was
Speaker 1: just kidding, they can. They're only allowed to ask two questions.
Speaker 1: You know where to get food? Yeah, there's an Arby's
Speaker 1: over there. You know where you're gonna live? Yeah, I've
Speaker 1: got a tent at the underpass on Highland. That's it.
Speaker 1: You have to let them go at that point. So
Speaker 1: the notion of assembly being gravely disabled, having losing their
Speaker 1: legs from infection, lying in the street, you can't touch them.
Speaker 1: They they not only do you not touch them, you
Speaker 1: can't touch their belonging. So one of the one of
Speaker 1: the phenomenon of the chronically psychotic patients is they will
Speaker 1: hold their duels and urine. Can't touch that, can't touch anything.
Speaker 1: They're intended to do whatever they want, man, and that
Speaker 1: is killing people. It is ridiculous that we don't have
Speaker 1: gravely disabled anymore. There's a bill in Sacramento, s B sixty.
Speaker 1: State Senator Um Morlock has brought families up there by
Speaker 1: the dozen saying, please help us. We are loved ones
Speaker 1: on the street. We have resources, we have doctors, we
Speaker 1: have a bed to put them and will nourish them.
Speaker 1: Help us get these people home. They're told to take
Speaker 1: a hike. It's it's morally reprehensible what our legislator is
Speaker 1: doing in Sacramenty. It's truly reprehensible. We got a heartbreaking
Speaker 1: letter from a listener with a son in exactly that
Speaker 1: position today. Yeah, hey, listen, you mentioned California's Prop forty seven,
Speaker 1: And I know from reading some of this have you
Speaker 1: written you're as staunchly critical of it as us. Why
Speaker 1: don't she explain for folks what it was and why
Speaker 1: you think it relates to our problem. I'm actually probably
Speaker 1: not as critical of you, because I'm very sympathetic to
Speaker 1: the idea that these people do not belong in prison.
Speaker 1: Drug addicts don't belong in prison. They belong in mandated
Speaker 1: treatment that is not prison, that is life saving intervention.
Speaker 1: Drop for seven was an attempt to deal with the
Speaker 1: excessive uh imprisonment of the drug addicts. Instead, they made
Speaker 1: drug use and drug trafficking essentially a misdemeanor. And you
Speaker 1: give drug addict a misdemeanor citation, are you ever going
Speaker 1: to see them again? No? So it's a zero. It's
Speaker 1: a zero. You're also allowed in Prop. Fifty seven to
Speaker 1: steal nifty dollars a day misdemeanor, so they can traffic
Speaker 1: their drugs, use their drugs, steal the support the habit,
Speaker 1: unencumbered by law enforcement who have just given up. They
Speaker 1: don't even You just watch it at a target that
Speaker 1: someday and watch people walk right past the cashier. It
Speaker 1: happens all day long because law enforcement can do nothing.
Speaker 1: Citing them does nothing, So we have to create some
Speaker 1: kind of mandated treatment system. Otherwise you are murdering these people.
Speaker 1: These are make no mistake about it. People that defend
Speaker 1: Prop for seven are murderer. I've been dealing with drug
Speaker 1: addicts for thirty years. This is active killing of drug addicts.
Speaker 1: You can't allow an addict to use unencumbered and not
Speaker 1: expect them to die. It's a fatal illness. We know that.
Speaker 1: So anyone that defends the status quo is a murderer period.
Speaker 1: Just because we're acting as enablers as a society, it's
Speaker 1: worth an enabling it's it's actually an active encouragement of
Speaker 1: the progression of a fatal illness rather than intervening in
Speaker 1: a way that and by the way, if they wanted
Speaker 1: to say, hey, you know what we're gonna do. We're
Speaker 1: gonna create nursing homes where nurses administer the heroine and
Speaker 1: the amphetamine all day long, we keep them safe. If
Speaker 1: they want to do that, fine, go do that. I
Speaker 1: wouldn't even object to that. But if you're just letting
Speaker 1: addicts run unencumbered, they die. So if you have to
Speaker 1: do one or the other. You have to all the
Speaker 1: way and start administering the substance to them in a
Speaker 1: controlled environment, or you have to intervene. And trust me,
Speaker 1: having dealt with thousands homeless drug addicts, they're way happier
Speaker 1: when you get them so their way, they and they
Speaker 1: can be great. In fact, I have people in the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice that I'm working with right now who
Speaker 1: are recovering homeless drug addicts. It's not that unusual. It happened.
Speaker 1: It's tough, it's time consuming, it takes a lot of resource,
Speaker 1: and a lot of structure, and a lot of a
Speaker 1: lot of sort of damocles over their head all the time.
Speaker 1: But they do fine. So for God's sakes, everybody, let's
Speaker 1: let's let's get realistic here and where. Why aren't they
Speaker 1: listening to clinicians. This is the mystery of me that
Speaker 1: you have a mental health and open air asylum and
Speaker 1: then refuse to consult with people that work with them
Speaker 1: too much. So I don't I've never understood this completely.
Speaker 1: There's there's mental illness like my son's got um, you know,
Speaker 1: just it's it's something that happens that you didn't make
Speaker 1: any life choices that brought this on your or whatever.
Speaker 1: And then there's ruining your brain from drug use. Can
Speaker 1: you fix somebody's brain who's ruined it from drug use?
Speaker 1: Are they just an award of the taxpayer at that
Speaker 1: point or what do we do with them? It's a
Speaker 1: great question. So that it's let me answer your question,
Speaker 1: and then I'm going to give you a corollary issue.
Speaker 1: One is about three quarters of the time the even
Speaker 1: the psychotic drug user will reconstitute. There was some crazy
Speaker 1: data that just came out, however, that shows if your
Speaker 1: psycho psychosis was induced by either cannabis or methamphetamine, you're
Speaker 1: actually more likely to stay and remain psychotic from cannabis
Speaker 1: then amphetamine. This was shocking data to me. So both
Speaker 1: drugs are inducing psychosis, but one actually is more likely
Speaker 1: to be a long term problem. Now, the issue of
Speaker 1: a spontaneous mental illness, which are about one percent of
Speaker 1: the general population, We're always going to have this. It
Speaker 1: is a phenomenon. It just a brain gets sick, just
Speaker 1: like hearts. And when that happens and we don't treat it,
Speaker 1: you can lose people forever. If you treat it early
Speaker 1: and aggressively, they can do very well and actually return
Speaker 1: to a product of life. Weirdly, in this in the
Speaker 1: state of California, if somebody has a dementia and as
Speaker 1: confusion and hears voices and is delusional and you don't intervene,
Speaker 1: you're guilty of abhuse with schizophrenia with the same exact
Speaker 1: symptom complex or you can't touch them, You're not allowed
Speaker 1: to touch or go near them. And the schizophrenia is
Speaker 1: the circumstance in which you can change the course of
Speaker 1: the illness by intervening. Dementia intervening does nothing, and yet
Speaker 1: that's the one that we have to intervene on. It's insane.
Speaker 1: It's insane from a clinical perspective. And and look, listen,
Speaker 1: you you hear what the case I'm building here. People
Speaker 1: that defend the status quo are defending ruining lives and
Speaker 1: killing people. It's a genocide and these people are defending it.
Speaker 1: It's too much. I wake up every day beside myself
Speaker 1: thinking about this because I know during the day three
Speaker 1: more will die, justin l A County. Well, the case
Speaker 1: you just built, the comparison between schizophrenia and UH and
Speaker 1: dementia is incredibly powerful. Who are you? Who are you
Speaker 1: pushing against who is saying no, Drew, You're wrong on that,
Speaker 1: or is anybody just The only person that really is
Speaker 1: listening is Ben Carson, and he's he's coming, He's coming. Uh.
Speaker 1: Some of the immediate advisers to the President who listened
Speaker 1: very carefully, and they're looking for ways to pull levers
Speaker 1: to try to make things better. Catherine Barger, Eli County
Speaker 1: Boarder Supervisor chair here in southern California, listening carefully and
Speaker 1: taking a deliberate action. Everybody else, well, even when they
Speaker 1: start to talk about mental health with I'm I'm happy
Speaker 1: that meyr Steinberg and Sacramento has begun to talk about
Speaker 1: it well, then mention it and back into a conversation
Speaker 1: about affordable housing, and that to me, I just I
Speaker 1: jumped out of my skin. I can't stand even to
Speaker 1: listen to it when I hear that, because yes, go
Speaker 1: go deal with affordable housing. Do not contaminate that topic
Speaker 1: with the topic of homelessness. It's a contamination and it's
Speaker 1: reprehensible for them to do it. It's clearly a moral
Speaker 1: failing on their part, and they need to change or
Speaker 1: this problem is not getting better. So let me tell
Speaker 1: you what we gotta do. Are you ready all right?
Speaker 1: We gotta pass s six forty and re established the
Speaker 1: idea of gravely disabled, so we can bring gravely disabled
Speaker 1: people to care like every other country on Earth. Number one.
Speaker 1: Number two, we need to expand conservative ship are three.
Speaker 1: We need a directive to physicians when there's a psychiatric diagnosis,
Speaker 1: just like we have a directive to physicians when there's
Speaker 1: a medical diagnosis. There are circumstances in which the brain
Speaker 1: stops working due to metal or medical or psychiatric conditions.
Speaker 1: In medicine, we do it as a matter of professional
Speaker 1: mandate called the pulse form. We need the same thing
Speaker 1: for psychiatric care. So when somebody does decompensate, which is
Speaker 1: inevitable and most psychiatric illnesses, we are directed to go
Speaker 1: in and take care of them. We need to build resources, right,
Speaker 1: We need these in particular intermediate residential care, not housing
Speaker 1: treatment centers. Call it what you will. We used to
Speaker 1: call them psychiatric hospitals. Let's call them something different, let's
Speaker 1: call them life centers, whatever you want to call them.
Speaker 1: But the the Social Security Administration and Department of Health
Speaker 1: are in the way, so it takes years of paperwork
Speaker 1: to get past them. Plus sequel the environmental protection laws
Speaker 1: that I don't know how you get around them, maybe
Speaker 1: declaring emergency. They need to be swept aside, and in
Speaker 1: a year you can have thousands of events with them
Speaker 1: in place. It's going to take may never happen. So
Speaker 1: these are some of the things that are simple, simple.
Speaker 1: Our legislator legislature in Recramento could do it. Now they're
Speaker 1: not doing it. They're not doing it, and it's it's reprehensible.
Speaker 1: Dr Drew Pinsky and listen, Drew will have links to
Speaker 1: the some of the stuff you've written at Armstrong and
Speaker 1: getty dot com. So folks can go over it again
Speaker 1: and get a little more acquainted with it. But keep fighting,
Speaker 1: a good fighting. Let us know how we can help. Huh,
Speaker 1: we're just talking about it. Help and again, don't don't
Speaker 1: don't fall for the rhetoric. The rhetoric is so ill
Speaker 1: placed and so loose base. It's it's about modifying forty seven,
Speaker 1: it's about repealing fifty seven. It's about expanding conservatorships, it's
Speaker 1: about six disabled, it's about resources for people that need
Speaker 1: mental illness that we've been ignoring for close to seventy years.
Speaker 1: And it's costing lives on a daily basis. Listen, if
Speaker 1: Corona were killing three people in Los Angeles on a
Speaker 1: daily by basis, you don't think we would take action immediately.
Speaker 1: Come on, everybody's get with it. Wow, good stuff, Dr
Speaker 1: Drew Pinsky, Thanks Drew. Good to talk to you. There's
Speaker 1: an interesting point in the coronavirus. Yeah, and he's right, which, Yeah,
Speaker 1: if three people got it at all, it would be
Speaker 1: in the news, let alone dying from it. You know,
Speaker 1: I appreciate what he said about the affordable housing thing.
Speaker 1: That is an issue, but it's not this issue. I'll
Speaker 1: never understand that. How do you how do you not
Speaker 1: move if you can't afford to live somewhere? I just
Speaker 1: don't understand how you just don't go somewhere else cheaper.
Speaker 1: And again it's a different question completely to in question
Speaker 1: then the You know, it's obviously a mental health problem.
Speaker 1: Spend Spend ten minutes among the homeless, and you'll understand
Speaker 1: it's a drugs and mental health problem. I just but
Speaker 1: government gets power by passing money through itself. So how
Speaker 1: mare's a hell of a lot more money in housing
Speaker 1: than there is in fixing a schizophrenic Well, that's what
Speaker 1: I was gonna ask is how much of it is
Speaker 1: just cynical. It can't be as much as I hate Steinberg,
Speaker 1: the mayor of Sacramento. Um, he can't be so cynical
Speaker 1: that it's just I just want the money to go
Speaker 1: to my friends. No, I think it's misguided. How could
Speaker 1: you be so misguided? Howegical? Bubbles? How could you possibly
Speaker 1: And it seems like it plays into these people's a wheelhouse,
Speaker 1: the compassion for drug addicts and everything like that in
Speaker 1: the mentally ill. Why are they making it a housing thing?
Speaker 1: I just I don't get it because that's the conventional wisdom.
Speaker 1: I guess I'm We've been hearing that for years from
Speaker 1: uh and this is awfully California centric. But you know
Speaker 1: that's both Drew and us. That's what we're most acquainted with.
Speaker 1: So wherever you are, you can apply this to where
Speaker 1: you are. But um, Jerry Brown was previously the governor,
Speaker 1: was always calling it a housing thing. Gavin Knewsom calls
Speaker 1: at a housing crisis. He admits that it's also mental health.
Speaker 1: But um, and and you just hear it all the time.
Speaker 1: I don't know why in particular, but it's just time
Speaker 1: to stop, just stop bringing up housing when you're talking
Speaker 1: about homelessness, because his Drew put it these people and
Speaker 1: oh he makes it. I I read something he wrote
Speaker 1: that was really interesting. One of the primary symptoms of
Speaker 1: some of the psychosis that keeps you from living a
Speaker 1: normal life is that you can't recognize that you have
Speaker 1: a problem. And then if your standard is this person
Speaker 1: has to self report and turn themselves in and or
Speaker 1: kill somebody. I mean, that's just idiotic. Is dementia comparison?
Speaker 1: That's what it was about these people. It's he compared
Speaker 1: it to stroke. A lot of times, when you're having
Speaker 1: a stroke, if it knocks out, I think it's the
Speaker 1: right side of your brain. You can't comprehend that you're
Speaker 1: having a stroke, and there's not a doctor in the
Speaker 1: world even as your hand flops in your face, right,
Speaker 1: And so doctors know if a patient has those symptoms
Speaker 1: and says no, I don't think I'm having a stroke,
Speaker 1: you don't send them home. You say, oh, yeah you are,
Speaker 1: and we're taking care of you. Any problems on the street.
Speaker 1: But literally, in schizophrenia, you don't know that you have
Speaker 1: a problem. And so anyway, well, yeah, the people I
Speaker 1: see yelling at the cement wall. They just need an apartment.
Speaker 1: They're not any position to self diagnose anything. They need
Speaker 1: a tiny home. They're having a very loud conversation in
Speaker 1: which they are in direct opposition, vehemently with the position
Speaker 1: being held. But that cement wall. Yeah, well, I could
Speaker 1: go on and on about um and I wish I
Speaker 1: had in front of me. I gotta grab it. But
Speaker 1: that history of mental health and mental illness care in
Speaker 1: the twentieth century, it reminds me a little bit of
Speaker 1: of the crazes that catch hold and education or it's
Speaker 1: it's practically like music or fashion, like clothing. Fashion, In
Speaker 1: that a particular ideology caught hold in the like fifties,
Speaker 1: and it swept the nation. All the pros got super
Speaker 1: excited about this idea of shut down the hospitals, go
Speaker 1: into the communities and say, look, you're feeling a little stressed,
Speaker 1: here's what you do, and that will prevent people from
Speaker 1: becoming psychotic. It was idiotic. It was based on no data,
Speaker 1: on no sound research. It was just a craze. And
Speaker 1: they convinced Kennedy and his people of it, and and
Speaker 1: they all turn them loose, and Reagan off and gets
Speaker 1: blamed for closing the mental hospitals, but he was pressured
Speaker 1: like crazy from the left to do it, and so yeah,
Speaker 1: and and we ended up with this idiotic system that
Speaker 1: doesn't work, and now people are afraid to deal with it.
Speaker 1: And listen, libertarian types like ourselves were a little cautious
Speaker 1: about the idea of the government stepping in and locking
Speaker 1: you up for your own good. And oh yeah, I
Speaker 1: think there's gotta be a break as well as gas
Speaker 1: pedal on that move back to sanity. But when we
Speaker 1: currently live in a society where the aforementioned Because I
Speaker 1: saw this woman the other day yelling at the cement
Speaker 1: wall under the overpass, like just really angry, pointing and
Speaker 1: yelling at this mount wall. What did it do? Don't
Speaker 1: you have to have a society where somebody can pick
Speaker 1: her up and take her and and and incarceraate her
Speaker 1: for that, You're doing her an enormous act of kindness
Speaker 1: if you do. How how is that not a possibility?
Speaker 1: Even as a libertarian, You've got to be able to
Speaker 1: look at her and think that person, it's got to
Speaker 1: be put away. They're not capable of making their own decisions. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't think it's not safe for that her or me,
Speaker 1: right right, Well, you could absolutely make the argument, and
Speaker 1: again you have to be careful with this argument, but
Speaker 1: you can make the argument as Drew did. Dr Drew,
Speaker 1: that it's an incredibly cruel thing to leave her out
Speaker 1: to freeze, starve, get raped, self, medicate with math or whatever.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's other than, like, you know, putting her
Speaker 1: in some torture chamber and torturing her her to death.
Speaker 1: What could you do worse than than insisting that she
Speaker 1: have that fate. So I don't know. I'm hoping change
Speaker 1: is gonna come. Just stop conflating the homeless thing with
Speaker 1: a housing thing. That'd be a big step in the
Speaker 1: right direction. It's two separate issues, for God's sake.