Is there any ambiguity in your mind these are laws on the books? In what way is it not unequivocal that these are illegal? Do you have a different definition of the word?

I suppose in the way that neither of the things you listed are the definition of being a drug addict or homeless. I’m glad you made this point though, because it furthers mine…being poor isn’t specifically in the law, just like being a drug addict and being homeless aren’t. It’s circumstances that result from being a drug addict, being homeless, and being poor that they criminalize, because for some reason that seems to fool some people into thinking it’s okay to do it.

I addressed that in my post immediately prior to this one. One or maybe two logical leaps I find mostly acceptable (as each leap lowers likelihood or confidence). Blindly accepting infinite logical leaps drives us right into “slippery slope fallacy” territory. As I said on this before, I’m not accusing you of “slippery slope” here yet, but you’re well on your way and not too far off.

Maybe I haven’t articulated this well enough for you to see it yet. Maybe someone else can do it better:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

Sure, he was French, but he was right.

We’re in agreement on homelessness, but again, you’re making logical leaps to try and tie, in this case theft, to simply the state of being poor illegal. Are you moving your claim that we have an epidemic of people in jail for stealing basic foodstuffs?

We definitely differ; I don’t see why it’s hard for you to see that the circumstances that arise from being a drug addict or homeless or poor shouldn’t be a reason for imprisoning someone. It’s really hard for me to understand why you can’t see the obvious similarity just because there’s a few more steps.

You’re moving the goalposts here. This has always been a discussion of “illegal vs legal”. You’re now moving the argument to “the circumstances that arise” from these conditions. You’re welcome to take that stance, but thats a different discussion. However, the OP post didn’t say that. I understand why it didn’t. It doesn’t hit as hard rhetorically, and the poster was trying for eloquence. They were largely successful if partially inaccurate.

Let me clarify. I used the word “neutral” before. My mistake from your interpretation of it. Let me change that to “no opinion”. Am I correct from your responses that you would like to take someone that currently has no position on this (because of lack of exposure/ignorance to it) to someone that does have an opinion supporting change?

Here I think the OP and I differ, actually. The OP probably does want that. I’m more of the mind that if you haven’t figured this out and aren’t on board yet, I’m not the right person to help you get there. The OP might be, though.

I appreciate your candor and respect your position. Its also helpful to understand you and the OP post are going in different directions with your goals. With this understanding I don’t think I have any more argument with you in defense of the OP Post. You are taking a decidedly different position from the OP post. You’re perfectly free to do so, and do so with whatever language and goal you have in mind.

I appreciate you taking the time to share you position. I think your goal is a good one even if I disagree with the slight nuance of the message or the means.