They’re yelling at our columnist again. Why? He suggested helping folks who need it.

It’s time, once again, for my monthly, “You rip, I respond,”column.

You know how it works: Angry folks write or call, and I respond and make an awkward video. Then hilarity and an occasional expletive ensue.

I hope you enjoy.

You’re a total phony piece of (expletive). – Barry

Barry.

Barry.

Barry ...

While I often disagree with your comments, I do respect your position. I spent over 40 years in public safety. I am troubled by comments written by people who have never experienced what the challenges faced by public safety agencies on the street truly are. I would suggest you might want to do some ride-alongs with law enforcement in Tacoma, Federal Way or Kent to see firsthand the difficulties they are dealing with in the nighttime hours. — Steve

Thanks for the note, Steve. I appreciate it.

This was actually a follow-up email. In Steve’s first message, he mentioned his fear that Puyallup’s homeless situation would end up like Seattle’s.

It’s something I hear frequently.

While, generally speaking, I think it’s a fairly hyperbolic reaction, I do understand the concern that Puyallup — or any city dealing with the regional homelessness crisis — will end up “like Seattle.”

In that regard, I do think there’s a different way to approach things. You can responsibly and compassionately respond to homelessness and not end up “like Seattle.”

For instance, look at San Francisco — a city comparable to Seattle in many regards. As the Seattle Times recently reported, San Francisco has employed an approach that utilizes both enforcement of homeless encampments and the kind of resources that actually helps get at the root of the problem and start to solve it.

To a lesser extent, Tacoma has tried the same thing with its stability site and Tacoma police’s homeless outreach team.

To me, it’s a good place to start. While I do think there’s a necessary conversation to be had about ways that this type of strong enforcement might be inflicting additional barriers on those trying to work their way out of homelessness, overall I find the balance the city is attempting to strike as a reasonable response to a difficult problem with no easy answers.

The key, of course, is actually providing the services and — most importantly — somewhere else for people to go. It can’t just be about enforcement. It’s here that Puyallup is failing miserably.

Also, to date I have done ride-alongs in Seattle, Kent, North Bend, Puyallup and Tacoma related to the issues presented by chronic homelessness.

The law enforcement officials I’ve spoken to have all said the same thing: Without adequate resources for people experiencing homeless, enforcement is largely a no-win situation.

What a ridiculous article. — Jeff, via Twitter

Thanks, Jeff. Good hearing from you.

We should all feel terrible sadness at the sudden loss of friends or family members. Once we are able to move beyond that — as difficult as it may be for those most directly affected — can you explain why it is the public’s responsibility to do the critical thinking for pedestrians crossing at (the McCarver street crossing)? ... As a youngster, I was taught to take responsibility for my own choices. And that sometimes those choices, which may be poor, will have impactful consequences. — Chase

Thanks for the note, Chase.

At the risk of taking some pent-up irritation out on you — which obviously wouldn’t be fair — I simply don’t understand takes like these.

I just don’t.

Every time I’ve written about the two train-related fatalities in Old Town, I’ve received calls and emails from people irked — to varying degrees of frustration — by the idea of improving safety conditions there. Every time, the argument has been similar to the one you’ve offered.

Yes, of course, human error was involved. I get it. Everyone gets it. I’m pretty sure the grieving families of those who have been lost get it, too.

But there were clearly safety deficiencies at the crossing.Two people died there, under similar circumstances, in the course of a year. There was an easy fix that would have gone a long way toward preventing it — which is exactly what the city has now done.

We install guardrails. We install crosswalks. We install traffic signals.

As a society, we do all sorts of things to make the world safer.

If we can reduce the chances of another person dying for the small investment of adding completely reasonable safety features — reducing the chances of another child losing a mother or another wife losing a husband — why wouldn’t we?

And how, exactly, do you become the type of person who gets mad about something like that?

I don’t see where there is anything to “celebrate” when people with drug addictions are receiving their supplies from the government, or when law authorities ignore drug laws. What the government is doing, and all people who provide and authorize drug supplies, is helping the addicted person poison themselves. Perhaps they are spared HIV or AIDS, but surely not drug addiction or the possibility of an overdose death. — Deana

Thanks for reaching out, Deana.

I’m sure it comes as no surprise that I’ve heard this argument about needle-exchange programs before. So did Dave Purchase, the man who founded the first legally sanctioned, publicly funded needle exchange in the country — right here in Tacoma.

That program recently celebrated its 30th anniversary. And, yes, I do believe it was a cause for celebration.

Why? Simple: Needle exchange programs save lives, they prevent the spread of infectious disease, and they help connect those suffering from addiction to services like drug treatment.

If a person battling drug addiction dies, recovery is impossible. I think it’s important to remember that.

People suffering from addiction are not to be forsaken — they’re just people, who need help.

I’m reminded of the words of Paul LaKosky, the current executive director of Tacoma’s needle-exchange program.

“I have never in my entire public health career come across someone who’s a substance user who says, ‘I started using because I had access to a clean needle.’ Never,” LaKosky once told me.

“Study after study has shown it doesn’t exacerbate those issues. A lot of arguments can be made against needle exchange, but none of them are based in science. They’re all emotional.”

He’s right.

This story was originally published September 28, 2018 at 9:18 AM.