NationStates Jolt Archive

In my city and neighbourhood, there are a lot of street beggars (also called panhandlers). They approach you to ask for money, or sit on the sidewalks in front of shops with little signs and donation cups.

While I do have sympathy for street people, I feel that panhandlers impinge on my freedom to walk down the street or go in & out of shops without being interrupted and bothered.

My main issue is that I pay taxes so have therefore *already* given plenty of money to the poor - they do receive government welfare. Granted it's not really enough to for anyone to live on so I do understand why street people need to panhandle.

When I walk down the streets I enjoy being lost in my own thoughts and *not* having them interrupted every few minutes by someone approaching me for money. Isn't that a basic human right I should be allowed to have?

Sometimes I even avoid certain areas because of the annoying pandhandlers there - isn't that also an infringement on my basic freedoms if I have to do that?

Without being a right-winger about it, I would support laws which restrict panhandling to some degree. I think it should be illegal to approach, call-out or interrupt someone to ask for money. And anyone sitting on the sidewalk begging should at least be required not to be obstructing (often panhandlers sit so that you actually have to step around them or over them).

in my city ( not really my city as i live 75 miles away off in the woods where no one can find me but its the closest big city) they have had to pass anti panhandling laws because some panhandlers have actually physically attacked people who refused to give them money. one woman was stabbed by a panhandler demanding $20

i think it needs more of a recognition and enforcement of current laws
for example, im pretty sure in most cities there are laws regarding blocking the sidewalks.

street beggars are a thorny issue
some are too mentally ill to hold a regular job or accpet government help
some are too busy looking for their next high ( and you are lucky they aer begging for money instead of breaking into your house)
some are too lazy to find real work, begging can bring in a better living than minimum wage and no taxes ehh?'
some minority few are just looking for a little help for an emergency today and will get themselves into a better circumstance in the future.

no i dont see a way to outlaw a persons right to ask you for money wihtout having it be unconstitutional (supposing you live in the US)

Yes, there should be something in place to prevent direct panhandling. If they are just sitting and have a sign and don't ask, they should be left alone. After all, not everyone is lucky enough to have a job, a roof over their head or a family who gives a damn about their well-being.

Here in Toronto, we do have our fair share of beggers. There are some around in my neighbourhood but they are passive and have signs and just ask and don't move from their spots. The city is trying to do more in the way of homeless shelters, but they can't force these people off the streets until they have actually broken the law because the beggers have every right to be on the streets as you and I as long as they follow the law. The city has tried to get them to go the shelters, but one of the clauses of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows these people to sit there.

Theres an issue wit employent n liverpool, and alot of people have to beg. i dont blame them, but something has to be done about it

Standing on a street corner with no money should not make one a criminal.

It is a sad commentary on the state of our nations when people are forced to panhandle. There should be in place:

1. Education programs--these people may not have the skills to survive in the regular world. They need education and work training.
2. Increase in the public sector--get people a job once they have the skills.
3. Increase in welfare--for those who can't work.
4. More government housing--as per #3.

About 50% of homeless people are children--kinda refutes the old alcohol and drugs argument, eh?

Of course, we can't eliminate poverty entirely. But we can at least get people off the streets.

I agree with you completely Temme. We urgently need to alleviate some of the root causes of poverty. In addition to the excellent points you've mentioned, we also need to review how the mentally ill (who make up a sizeable portion of street dwellers) are treated. In Canada a good many people who *used to* get institutional help and subsidized housing are now just given meds and left to fend for themselves on the street. We can thank Conservative governments of the last 20 years for gutting public spending on care for the mentally ill..

I wasn't suggesting that street begging be made illegal, only that it be regulated so that "beggees" rights are respected somewhat too.

Oh, right. Don't give people the support they need if they find themselves unemployed because of one circumstance or another, blame it on them because they're suffering for someone else's greed and apathy, and then don't let them beg so they die of starvation. That's just wonderful. :P

Before we outlaw panhandling we should improve our social support systems for the homeless and mentally ill. The argument "I already pay taxes that go to support these people" doesn't really work because a lot of the money doesn't go into helping them.

I understand why panhandlers can be a problem, but for God's sake they've been screwed over enough.

Oh, right. Don't give people the support they need if they find themselves unemployed because of one circumstance or another, blame it on them because they're suffering for someone else's greed and apathy, and then don't let them beg so they die of starvation. That's just wonderful. :P

Before we outlaw panhandling we should improve our social support systems for the homeless and mentally ill. The argument "I already pay taxes that go to support these people" doesn't really work because a lot of the money doesn't go into helping them.

I understand why panhandlers can be a problem, but for God's sake they've been screwed over enough.

Who said anything about "outlawing" panhandling?? Regulating/restricting something IS NOT the same as outlawing it!

I would never propose outlawing panhandling. But the way things are in my city the panhandlers have unlimited rights to aggressive begging and everybody else has NO rights not to be bothered. Is that fair? Is it?

Both of the sides have good arguments, but there isnt really a huge problem here in Sheffield, and people who beg are worse off doing that, than going to get a job in a shop or something, so eventually they willl realise that, get of there arses and get down the job centre!

Panhandlers seem to have a far greater problem than those who are simply irritated/frustrated by some panhandlers interrupting their thoughts. And it seems to me that the later should not whine about this, but realize how fortunate they are that they are not in the same position as the panhandler.

As far as "rights" are conserned, it seems to me that the panhandler does have more right to panhandle than the pedestrain has to not have his/her internal dialogue/thoughts interrupted. This for the simple reason that the first is acting for survival purposes and the later basically for entertainment purposes or to simply get from A to B, which can easily be done despite some panhandlers bugging you. Of course, if it can be proven that the panhandler is filthy rich, and thus not acting for reasons of survival, then they should get their ass kicked for bugging people! :lol:

Id arrest them and make them work in the crappy jobs that nobody wants. The jobs that illegal immigrants do, such as manual farm work.

I saw on the BBC this morning that the reason farmers are forced to employ illegal immigrants is because British people wont take the jobs. Well make these parasites do the job and we can keep the immigrants out as an added bonus.

This thread is far too liberal for me, Im off! So feel free to reply and say how heartless and evil I am for wanting people to work for their money rather than spongeing off other people but I will never know. And never care.

:twisted:

Id arrest them and make them work in the crappy jobs that nobody wants. The jobs that illegal immigrants do, such as manual farm work.



I would agree to a point. If they're not disabled mentally or physically they should be assigned work and denied welfare if they refuse to work.

Heres how it would go-
Panhandler arrested for panhandling.
Given hot shower, meal and physical evaluation.
Governmental health records checked to see if s/he has any non-obvious mental illness.
Work is assigned- panhandler has the option to refuse.
If s/he accepts, s/he gets to work for a salary.
If s/he refuses, s/he loses his/her welfare rights.

One should be able to exercise the discipline to block out what one does not wish to here.
I pass people who beg in the streets and while I pity them, their methods of attracting attention are very poor. Merely a slight whisper of 'change please'; barely audible.
One wonders if they are really desperate enough for the change, the fact of the matter is that they do sleep in a shelter in my country (UK) and do get a hot meal. While it may be minimalist in offering, at least they have something.
If they wanted more, they should ask louder.
Three times in my life, I have given a few British pounds to the poor on the streets because they had the necessity behind their actions that forced them to arise and to speak to me, to plead with me.
They were worthy enough to ask for help and they recieved.

When I walk down the streets I enjoy being lost in my own thoughts and *not* having them interrupted every few minutes by someone approaching me for money. Isn't that a basic human right I should be allowed to have?

Sometimes I even avoid certain areas because of the annoying pandhandlers there - isn't that also an infringement on my basic freedoms if I have to do that?

Nope. You don't have any 'basic human right' to walk down the street uninterrupted.

...If they wanted more, they should ask louder.

Crikey no...loud interruptions are exactly what I'm trying to discourage most! Panhandlers should be required by law to be a few feet away from pedestrians with signs and/or cups. Anybody who wishes to donate to them can then do so by their own goodwill. I have done this in the past and in fact I'm far more likely to give to someone who *doesn't* verbally ask me or get in my path.

How would the regulation I'm proposing badly infringe on the freedom to panhandle?

Panhandlers seem to have a far greater problem than those who are simply irritated/frustrated by some panhandlers interrupting their thoughts. And it seems to me that the later should not whine about this, but realize how fortunate they are that they are not in the same position as the panhandler.

I agree that my irritation is a very minsicule matter compared to the many huge problems which street people suffer - and of course I'm very grateful I don't have those problems (not yet anyway).

But that in no way completely discounts/negates my issue either. It's false logic to say that it does.

Like many working, underpaid people I do suffer stress - and being repeatedly hassled on the street doesn't help with stress! And I'm far from being the only person who feels this way either.

Standing on a street corner with no money should not make one a criminal.

It is a sad commentary on the state of our nations when people are forced to panhandle. There should be in place:

1. Education programs--these people may not have the skills to survive in the regular world. They need education and work training.
2. Increase in the public sector--get people a job once they have the skills.
3. Increase in welfare--for those who can't work.
4. More government housing--as per #3.

About 50% of homeless people are children--kinda refutes the old alcohol and drugs argument, eh?

Of course, we can't eliminate poverty entirely. But we can at least get people off the streets.

1. We have education programs..it's called elementary school, middle school, high school...and there are tons of financial aid programs for college.

2. Get people a job?...sounds vaguely communistic..give a person a job for which there is no need or slated opening for.

3. Increase in welfare?...so they have more incentive not to look for work then eh?

4. More government housing?...you mean more housing that they don't appreciate because they've not earned that home or apartment.

All of these things means you want to take more money out of my already strained middle class pocket....ugh..uh..not gonna happen...but I've got a job as a clean-up crew on a construction site they can go too.

1. We have education programs..it's called elementary school, middle school, high school...and there are tons of financial aid programs for college.

2. Get people a job?...sounds vaguely communistic..give a person a job for which there is no need or slated opening for.

3. Increase in welfare?...so they have more incentive not to look for work then eh?

4. More government housing?...you mean more housing that they don't appreciate because they've not earned that home or apartment.

All of these things means you want to take more money out of my already strained middle class pocket....ugh..uh..not gonna happen...but I've got a job as a clean-up crew on a construction site they can go too.

1. Childhood schools don't provide enough. What if their grades aren't good enough for scholarships? Or if they don't have good enough credit for a loan? Besides, a college education is no guarantee of a job.

2. Well, these people need jobs, don't they? Where would you get their jobs from?

3. The welfare is for people who can't work or to tide them over until they find work.

4. They could freeze to death if they don't have a place to live. Are you suggesting that they ought to die because they can't afford a house?

I don't want to take a lot of money out of your middle-class pocket. I want to take it out of the rich peoples' pockets. Is it fair that Paris Hilton doesn't even know what generic food is while children eat generic. . .

. . .cat food!

Is this fair? Is this civilized?

"Every man for himself, as the elephant said while dancing with the chicken." --Tommy Douglas

"Every man for himself, as the elephant said while dancing with the chicken." --Tommy Douglas

NS folk might be interested to know that the late Tommy Douglas was:

A) A Canadian politician who led North America's first elected Socialist government (in the '40s), and,

B) Keifer Sutherland's grandfather

Of course, we can't eliminate poverty entirely. But we can at least get people off the streets.

Unless we apply anarcho-communism.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

In my city and neighbourhood, there are a lot of street beggars (also called panhandlers). They approach you to ask for money, or sit on the sidewalks in front of shops with little signs and donation cups.

While I do have sympathy for street people, I feel that panhandlers impinge on my freedom to walk down the street or go in & out of shops without being interrupted and bothered.

My main issue is that I pay taxes so have therefore *already* given plenty of money to the poor - they do receive government welfare. Granted it's not really enough to for anyone to live on so I do understand why street people need to panhandle.

When I walk down the streets I enjoy being lost in my own thoughts and *not* having them interrupted every few minutes by someone approaching me for money. Isn't that a basic human right I should be allowed to have?

Sometimes I even avoid certain areas because of the annoying pandhandlers there - isn't that also an infringement on my basic freedoms if I have to do that?

Without being a right-winger about it, I would support laws which restrict panhandling to some degree. I think it should be illegal to approach, call-out or interrupt someone to ask for money. And anyone sitting on the sidewalk begging should at least be required not to be obstructing (often panhandlers sit so that you actually have to step around them or over them).
“Are there no Prisons?” asked Scrooge. “Plenty of prisons” said the gentleman. “And the Union Workhouses” demanded Scrooge “Are they still in operation?” “They are still,” returned the gentleman.

Sorry that these low lifes rob you of your "freedom"?

There but for the Grace of God, go I?

Id arrest them and make them work in the crappy jobs that nobody wants. The jobs that illegal immigrants do, such as manual farm work.



I would agree to a point. If they're not disabled mentally or physically they should be assigned work and denied welfare if they refuse to work.

Heres how it would go-
Panhandler arrested for panhandling.
Given hot shower, meal and physical evaluation.
Governmental health records checked to see if s/he has any non-obvious mental illness.
Work is assigned- panhandler has the option to refuse.
If s/he accepts, s/he gets to work for a salary.
If s/he refuses, s/he loses his/her welfare rights.
You forgot to add this:

If s/he loses welfare rights, s/he sells drugs to your kids?

OR

If s/he loses welfare rights, s/he breaks into your houses and take what s/he wants?

OR

If s/he loses welfare rights, s/he robs you on the street?

Edit: Added this:

If s/he loses welfare rights, s/he sells his/her body to your husband/wife?

Of course, we can't eliminate poverty entirely. But we can at least get people off the streets.

Unless we apply anarcho-communism.

wouldn't even need to go that far. just set up a vagabond's wage or a social dividend.

I think it should be illegal to approach, call-out or interrupt someone to ask for money...Panhandlers should be required by law to be a few feet away from pedestrians with signs and/or cups.

Just quoting myself to keep the fundamental question front & centre. Gee, d'ya think somebody could directly address my straightforward proposal without accompanying it with attitude?

So AGAIN I'll ask,

How would the regulation I'm proposing badly infringe on the freedom to panhandle?

Somebody please shock us with a direct, pragmatic and polite answer to the above question huh?

OK.. I believe that beggars should just leave people alone. For one.. they stink.. two.. they can get jobs, so they shouldn't be mooching off of the hard working people. If they can't get jobs.. then maybe they should go visit a Mcdonalds!! I see all sorts working there.. they would fit right in. Most of the beggars are so poor because either they bet all of their money or they spent all of their money on booze! So i don't feel bad for them at all! :evil:

I think it should be illegal to approach, call-out or interrupt someone to ask for money...Panhandlers should be required by law to be a few feet away from pedestrians with signs and/or cups.

Just quoting myself to keep the fundamental question front & centre. Gee, d'ya think somebody could directly address my straightforward proposal without accompanying it with attitude?

So AGAIN I'll ask,

How would the regulation I'm proposing badly infringe on the freedom to panhandle?

Somebody please shock us with a direct, pragmatic and polite answer to the above question huh?
Oh you want a polite answer to your apparent disgust of panhandlers?

Perhaps someone should proceed ahead of you as you walk down the street and yell the following at the unruly masses:

"Step back you sons of a silly person."

It is late and that is about as polite as it gets at this hour?

Um - you still didn't answer my question. Why are you so afraid to? You keep hiding behind juvenile self-righteousness instead of contributing in an adult & constructive way.

Could somebody else try?

I think it should be illegal to approach, call-out or interrupt someone to ask for money...Panhandlers should be required by law to be a few feet away from pedestrians with signs and/or cups.
...
How would the regulation I'm proposing badly infringe on the freedom to panhandle?

Somebody please shock us with a direct, pragmatic and polite answer to the above question huh?

we already have laws against assualt and harassment. and you don't have a right to not be annoyed. there just is no compelling reason to further outlaw being poor in public.

I like poor people. Hell of alot more interesting than rich folk. They just need to be helped, and what are we gonna do to them if they do hang out on the streets? Round 'em up and kill 'em? No, I think not.

and what are we gonna do to them if they do hang out on the streets? Round 'em up and kill 'em? No, I think not.

Efficiency and progress is ours once more
Now that we have the Neutron bomb
It's nice and quick and clean and gets things done
Away with excess enemy
But no less value to property
No sense in war but perfect sense at home...
The sun beams down on a brand new day
No more welfare tax to pay
Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light
Jobless millions whisked away
At last we have more room to play
All systems go to kill the poor tonite
Gonna
Kill kill kill
Kill the poor
Kill the poor ... Tonite

Behold the sparkle of champagne
The crime rate's gone
Feel free again
O' life's a dream with you, Miss Lily White
Jane Fonda on the screen today
Convinced the liberals it's okay
So let's get dressed and dance away the night
While they
Kill the poor
Kill the poor ... Tonite

there just is no compelling reason to further outlaw being poor in public.

Sigh. There's that "outlaw" word *yet again*, which I've never once proposed. How is a little regulation the same as outlawing?

Sigh. There's that "outlaw" word *yet again*, which I've never once proposed. How is a little regulation the same as outlawing?

because every law that is targetted at poor people is invariably used to harrass them, drive them off the streets, steal their few possessions, and imprison them.

hmm.. I don't mind. I rarely give and when I do I usaully make sure I see how its spent (take them to get food or something or a ride) I also help out through my church and such. I think they should be allowed to if its bad maybe they should be restricted to certain areas of the town etc.

I'd prefer they do as they wish, we have them outside grocery stores etc. rarely do they bother me and its a temporary discomfort. Sometimes they're just crooks or junkies in which case :x hard to tell though to and as I said as long as they aren't on private property such as mine I don't care

BTW everybody, my proposal isn't aimed specifically at poor people.

If I were being accosted on the street by religious people in suits, or people from banks trying to push Mutual Funds on me, or suburban Girl Scouts selling cookies - I'd want them regulated in the very same way as panhandlers.

Not banned. NOT OUTLAWED. Just told to keep a small & considerate distance.

The issue is street accosting/interruption/impedement y'all, NOT poverty per se.

It puzzles me why so many here insist on not seeing that.

Let's stop trying to create class warfare where none exists. I'm working-poor anyway - broke nearly all the time, don't own a car or a house either.

thats ridiculous trying to regulate something such as you propose not just that of the poor but others is even worse! i no regulation at all of the issue. Can you not take a little inconvenience? Or handle yourself? Leave the area? Aks them to let you alone? Mormons (religious group here very active) used to come to me for conversion I made it clear I was of another faith and had no intention of ever converting I looked into them a bit before coming to the conclusion however and they left me alone. The government having to regulate like this and so much is nuts forget it.

I agree that my irritation is a very minsicule matter compared to the many huge problems which street people suffer - and of course I'm very grateful I don't have those problems (not yet anyway).

But that in no way completely discounts/negates my issue either. It's false logic to say that it does.

I never said that it completely negates your issue. Just that when you put things into perspective your issue really is nothing compared to the issue that the street people have to deal with.

Like many working, underpaid people I do suffer stress - and being repeatedly hassled on the street doesn't help with stress! And I'm far from being the only person who feels this way either.

You have a valid point. It simply never occured to me that there are people who are so sensitive that being bugged by street people stresses them out. To me its like water of the back of a duck.

BTW everybody, my proposal isn't aimed specifically at poor people.

Then why does your poll say : "Should Panhandling Be Restricted?"

It usually aren't the filthy rich who panhandle, you know. :roll:

If I were being accosted on the street by religious people in suits, or people from banks trying to push Mutual Funds on me, or suburban Girl Scouts selling cookies - I'd want them regulated in the very same way as panhandlers.

This is just a cheap cover-up on your part. If this is what you meant then you should and would have said so in your opening post. Point in fact, however, is that you were referring only to: panhandlers, street people, steet beggars. Your exact words.


It puzzles me why so many here insist on not seeing that.

Thats because you just made it up to make yourself look good.

If I were being accosted on the street by religious people in suits, or people from banks trying to push Mutual Funds on me, or suburban Girl Scouts selling cookies - I'd want them regulated in the very same way as panhandlers.

If this is what you meant then you should and would have said so in your opening post.

Oh boy do I ever wish I had!! In fact I really should have titled this thread "Shoud Street Accosting Be Restricted?" instead of giving it the politically-loaded title it has. An error/omission I really regret.

I was looking only at my own neighbourhood, where nearly all street-accosting just happens to be done by panhandlers. But my objection is SOLELY to the behaviour of street-accosting, NOT to being poor itself. But no matter how many times I say that, people seem unwilling to hear me. I guess they're so far up on their high-horse that they *can't* hear.


This is just a cheap cover-up on your part.

Not at all. Rather, I asked myself if indeed I was just objecting to panhandlers in principle. And I truthfully realized that NO, I object to *anybody* randomly accosting passersby in the streets - no matter if they're selling/promoting something, surveying, or asking for money. And it wouldn't matter to me how they're dressed or how much money they have; that is completely irrelevent to the behaviour.

Rather than covering-up my arguement, I'm trying to give it the broadness I sloppily left out in my initial post and thread title.

And afer all this I still haven't seen anybody give us a rational reason why street-accosting shouldn't be regulated slightly.

Instead, I've seen a few people who insist on personalizing & politicizing this issue instead of directly addressing it. When you resort to the low tactic of repeatedly attacking my person instead of debating the issue, it shows how weakly and ineffectively you argue.

And afer all this I still haven't seen anybody give us a rational reason why street-accosting shouldn't be regulated slightly.

(fine, i'll chase those goal posts down)

give me a good rational reason why your attempt to regulate my right to hand you pamphlets shouldn't be regulated. you can't go around making up laws because things bother you slightly.

the burden should always fall on those proposing new laws, not those that are skeptical about them.

Panhandling should be ok; assault should not.
Let them get close enough to make their pitch, and take my handout.
let them NOT get close enough to grab my arm, or walk in the house when my wife is alone (yes, it happened; she called 911).
My favorite drunk grabbed my arm and tried to put a hold on me. I half-nelsoned him to the bus stop and got him a ticket elsewhere.

And afer all this I still haven't seen anybody give us a rational reason why street-accosting shouldn't be regulated slightly.

(fine, i'll chase those goal posts down)

give me a good rational reason why your attempt to regulate my right to hand you pamphlets shouldn't be regulated. you can't go around making up laws because things bother you slightly.

the burden should always fall on those proposing new laws, not those that are skeptical about them.

(singing) "At Last....!"

Thank you. Well put and worth thinking about.

Panhandling should be ok; assault should not.
Let them get close enough to make their pitch, and take my handout.
let them NOT get close enough to grab my arm, or walk in the house when my wife is alone (yes, it happened; she called 911).
My favorite drunk grabbed my arm and tried to put a hold on me. I half-nelsoned him to the bus stop and got him a ticket elsewhere.

I have seen a similar situation. Although I was once approached by a panhandler who asked politely for money, I was also caught in a situation with one who took a rather aggressive posture. He blocked my path and "asked" for some change. I didn't give him anything and despite his forcefulness, looked at him straight in the eye and told him to get out of my way, at which point he conceded and walked away

In my opinion, poor people have very little to lose so some of them will resort to intimidating behaviour. But there are some who are quite obsequious.

Aren't there already laws against annoyance on the street?

If yes, then that covers panhandling; no need to make more.
If no, make some, but make sure they're general enough so that they do not discriminate against the poor.