Dimes and 50 cents only please

I wonder if building second stairwells in multifamily buildings is really a cost effective way of mitigating stalking.

Mitigation isn’t the end result - the OP (as I read it) is saying that two exits provides for not being trapped by a stalker. You may still be stalked or approached by a malicious group of actors, but a second exit makes it much more difficult to be cornered.

I think perhaps that because solutions have become so partisanly labled, we continue to fail on this. People in this thread are merely asking for common sense policies that exist in basically all other developed countries. This includes socialist countries, where oddly enough disincentives to junkie behavior mean that everyday people can live normal lives in urban places without the constant storm of drug induced bullshit degrading basically everything. Why the American progressives refuse to course correct is inscrutable to me.

What about the obvious punishment: Taking their drugs away.

Doing so improves the addicts life in the medium-long term, and provides an immediate consequence. Its something that many addicts actually want, that society wants, yet no one has the balls to actually do it.

Maybe if they werent constantly cycling through erratic meth benders and on a constant search to steal enough to afford their next high, they might have a better chance at affording housing. Im all for housing those who need it. And housing is too expensive in cities, but the meth/fent addict who cant even manage to keep their pants on has more severe problems than the going rate on a studio apartment.

I know this sounds absurd, but I don't think social studies on such politically hot issues can be trusted outright. Given the state of university social science departments, can you imagine the cost of publishing something that supported ‘war on drugs’ style policy. Im not saying your study is bogus, just that Ive learned to be circumspect around research into such topics. Because often such academics are also activists or involved in public/ nonprofit institutions that have become invested in specific policy.

I get your sentiment, but note that this study goes even farther to piss off anti-war on drugs activists:

It says it doesn’t matter either way, so they are wrong (if they win, it won’t help), but also irrelevant.

Heroic. I try to do this too but everyone I know thinks I'm being neurotic when I explain it to them. I still see so many people accelerating into stoplights/brake scenarios.

> I still see so many people accelerating into stoplights/brake scenarios.

Every time I have to use the brake - rather than downshifting - for anything other than holding the car in place, makes me feel like I've committed a failure in planning and/or situational awareness.

My driver’s ed instructor explicitly framed it like this in class, and it’s made me a much better freeway driver.

I think it should be seen the other way around. Why should I have to stop moving, meaning using my brakes and subsequently the gas, just because the other drivers wanted to rush up to the light and wait? It's much easier for everyone if we do this smoothly

All those people you caused to miss a left turn light because you didn't feel the need to clear the turn-lane entry, because you wanted to keep slow-rolling, are cursing you. I have had that exaqct situation more times that I can count and every time I get angry at the other drive who thought "Why should I have to stop moving".

I think an underappreciated hurdle is how silly headsets look. I don't want to embody/identify as someone with a computer strapped over my eyes like a blindfold. It's a bad, even dystopian image. Personally, I think a helmet would be much more appealing form factor, and you have the digital astronaut/crusader allusions.

You never take your quest out in public. Being “stylish” would be a waste since no one is going to see it outside of your home.

No reason why mental institutions cant be compassionate and devote time and effort to individuals. Much better than letting these people live in their own excrement in the subway.

Well, maybe "no reason" is a bit strong. Organizations cannot be engineered to be compassionate; compassionate individuals can make an organization more compassionate, but the bottleneck will always be finding people who are compassionate, have subject matter expertise, and are willing to work for the wages offered.

And even with compassion there are still problematic situations. Involuntary confinement of any sort requires a careful application of principles -- when is it okay to confine someone; when and how do you decide when they can or must be released; who can make the judgment calls and what checks are in place to prevent abuse. These are questions that seem to have no good answers.

These self reported studies are not good measures. They need to find out where these people were last employed or attending school.