More likely the housing had requirements like strict abstinence without providing any of the support they would need to actually quit.
When people aren't using the services there's always a reason. You might not find that reason valid ("well then they should just quit" etc) but it's there. An addict on the street isn't having a better time than you would be doing the same thing. You have to consider why they experience that as a better option for themselves than the one you're presenting.
> When people aren't using the services there's always a reason.
That is what I was saying. There is the perceived return on investment of using the services designed to help get one out of homelessness, and it is being weighed against the perceived return of going back to the street. If you can bring in several hundred dollars a day on the streets that you can spend on alcohol, the effort of being in a place that is trying to help you change your situation might be hard to justify.
But a big piece of the equation is how easy it is to just get cash from well-meaning people on the street.
I'm not disagreeing with you about needing help with addictions, but there are two sides to the equation.
When people aren't using the services there's always a reason. You might not find that reason valid ("well then they should just quit" etc) but it's there. An addict on the street isn't having a better time than you would be doing the same thing. You have to consider why they experience that as a better option for themselves than the one you're presenting.