The New York Times spotlighted the complications and ravages of homelessness in Oregon and California last week in two fitting illustrations of a larger national trend: Governments at all levels have spent billions of dollars to try and compassionately alleviate homelessness, but it’s still on the rise.
Often, the policies that seem most humane and considerate have the worst unintended consequences.
After years of heavy spending, citizens — particularly Christians — should consider what types of government aid are most effective at tackling homelessness, and whether seemingly compassionate policies administered by the wrong people can do more harm than good.
Experts generally agree a combination of mental illness, drug addiction and lack of affordable housing cause homelessness.
Governments across the nation are facing pressure to address these problems at the same time, without violating the rights of homeless people, homeowners and businesses.
It’s a tall order.
Oregon’s government aspired to tackle drug addiction by making personal possession of illegal drugs — including meth and fentanyl — punishable by a $100 dollar fine, which can be waived if the person consents to drug screening and a health evaluation.
Instead of reducing drug use, overdose deaths and emergency room visits in Oregon increased after the law went into effect. | 
