> So why such a consistent obsession with making them stop or tolerating these acts done in private.

My point was that the underlying reason for not tolerating these acts is not because they are being done in public. Them being done in public does make them more obvious and a more pressing concern than if done in private.

There is a concerning obsession if they are done in private as well. And there are efforts to curtail use of drugs, mental health support, and so many such programs for people who partake or suffer in private as well. It doesn’t extend to curtailing their liberties - in that you are correct.

Once it starts spilling into the public, it has an effect on society to a greater degree that when in private. Public hygiene and quality of life standards for a majority are being inhibited because of a minority.

The “obsession” is warranted if the symptoms are getting worse. I want “obsession” to be proportional to the scale of the problem.

> If public health is the concern wouldn't needle exchanges, public toilets and street cleaning would be practical solutions?

Agreed, agreed and agreed :) solutions to symptoms and not the problem though.

>> We have a lot of rights stripped away from individuals (including you and me) to promote the public health at large.

> Which ones?

Many of the ones from the example ordinances I’ve listed. You cannot blare music any any time of the night. You cannot do home construction however you want to. You cannot chop down trees (within reason), pollute streams, burn trash on your private property. You cannot route your waste drain to the street…. And so many more.

> I don't think the status quo is good. I don't like avoiding shit on the sidewalk. I don't like explaining to my son why a man is stupified with a needle sticking out of his arm.

We are on the same page again.

> But I weigh those unpleasant events against throwing people against the system and taking their freedom and it's clear to me that their right to liberty outweighs my right to a pleasant Sunday stroll.

It’s not just a Sunday stroll. It’s also normalizing the behavior to a certain extent by leaving it unchecked.

Also, I do not see any “liberty” on the streets when the people on question barely have the mental wherewithal to think clearly. We don’t let people with mental defects from birth live on the streets no matter their age. Social services curtails their liberty quite severely when compared to you and me more often than not by keeping them in institutions that can care for them. The care is not great in any sense of the word but we also don’t let them live on the streets in the name of liberty. But if they become mentally deficient to the extent of a person who was born with such defects due to their independent actions then we somehow cannot take away some of their liberties. That’s hypocritical. We also take away liberty from people who commit crimes - there is precedent to do so. It needs to be weighed against societal good not “feel good” morality. One is measurable and feelings generally aren’t.

Liberty is a sliding scale not an absolute.

> I think there is a moral imperative to change but I think turning once again towards creating a heartless state bureaucracy and pitting it against people who have absolutely nothing is not the change we need.

Bureaucracy by definition is heartless. Paper pushing that is… the people who administer it are the ones with hearts. Don’t falter bureaucracy for the lack of trained people who can work with those who need the help. There are thousands of people who live in our system who honestly want to help. They are restricted by the resources available to them. The people who have absolutely nothing are better off in a heartless bureaucracy than on the streets dying by the droves with life expectancies approaching that of pre-historic human beings. That is more heartless.

> I know that these people have been kicked over and over and over again and that to keep kicking is not a thing that makes sense.

Leaving them be is just another version of kicking them. Doing nothing is just as extreme as jailing them. We need to do something that is in between those two extremes. In any solution though - any at all - liberties will be infringed upon. I suggest not using infringing on liberties as an argument against doing something in this situation. Because curtailing liberty will be part of any solution to combat a disease that takes over rational thought.

Meta point - I think we are mostly on the same page to be honest. Thank you for debating. I hope my arguments do not come off as haughty or attacking. I’ve had a couple of night caps when posting this so please excuse my ramblings if any.