“Give Them All the Fentanyl They Want”: SoCal Mayor Under Fire For Homeless ‘Purge’ Comments

| Published April 24, 2025

Southern California Mayor R. Rex Parris is under fire for his incendiary remarks suggesting that the homeless population in his city should be allowed to use fentanyl if they choose. Parris, known for his outspoken and often controversial opinions, made the comment during a recent speech about addressing homelessness, a growing crisis across California.

The mayor’s statement—“Give them all the fentanyl they want”—was intended, according to Parris, as part of a broader critique of how the state handles homelessness and addiction. However, it has sparked a fierce backlash, both locally and nationally, as critics argue that it not only reflects a dangerous disregard for human life but also offers a stark contrast to more compassionate, solution-oriented approaches.

Parris’s Controversial Stance

In a speech that quickly went viral, Parris, who has served as mayor of Lancaster, California for over a decade, bluntly suggested that the homeless should be allowed to take fentanyl “if they want” as a way to address the overwhelming and often tragic presence of addiction in the streets. He argued that government resources are being stretched thin trying to combat homelessness, and that providing resources to addicts who refuse help might be enabling destructive behaviors.

“We’re throwing money at a problem that’s not going away,” Parris said, expressing frustration with how state policies are being implemented. “If they want fentanyl, give them fentanyl. Let them do what they want. But it’s time we stop pretending this is a solution that works.”

The Conservative Perspective

From a conservative viewpoint, Parris’s comments, while shocking, may reflect a growing frustration with what many view as the failure of liberal policies to address the root causes of homelessness. Conservatives argue that the “compassionate” approach of offering endless services, without requiring personal accountability, has failed to curb the problem. In many parts of California, this has led to an explosion of tent cities, drugs, and crime on the streets—especially in places like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego.

Parris’s controversial stance mirrors a broader conservative argument that emphasizes the importance of personal responsibility, clear boundaries, and effective management of taxpayer resources. From this perspective, providing endless support without any requirement for individuals to seek treatment or take responsibility for their actions only perpetuates a cycle of addiction and dependence.

Many conservatives also argue that liberal policies have emboldened those in the homeless population who use drugs, choosing to stay on the streets rather than seek out long-term rehabilitation programs. Mayor Parris’s comments, though harsh, could be interpreted as a challenge to the status quo that hasn’t delivered real results.

Reactions from Across the Political Spectrum

Naturally, Parris’s comments have drawn sharp criticism from left-wing politicians, homelessness advocates, and addiction specialists who argue that his remarks show a lack of empathy and a dangerous disregard for public health. “What Mayor Parris has suggested is not just morally wrong—it’s reckless,” said a spokesperson for the California chapter of the National Homelessness Coalition. “Rather than supporting our most vulnerable, he is dehumanizing them and advocating for their self-destruction.”

On the other hand, many on the right view Parris’s comment as a necessary provocation aimed at shaking up the political conversation about homelessness and addiction. Right-leaning commentators argue that Parris is simply voicing a truth that many in the political establishment refuse to acknowledge: that soft-on-crime policies and enabling behaviors have exacerbated the crisis.

“People like Mayor Parris are finally speaking the truth,” said one conservative columnist. “We can’t keep pretending that throwing more money at this problem is going to fix it. It’s time for real solutions—solutions that address the root causes and prioritize law and order, not enabling destructive habits.”

The Larger Picture: Fentanyl Crisis and Homelessness

While Parris’s remarks may have been incendiary, they draw attention to the broader, nationwide fentanyl crisis. Fentanyl, a synthetic opioid that is 50 times more potent than heroin, has become the leading cause of overdose deaths in the United States. It is also heavily associated with the homeless crisis, particularly in California, where drug use among the homeless population has surged.

Many conservatives point to the increasing number of homeless encampments in urban areas, where fentanyl and other drugs flow freely, as evidence that liberal policies have failed to curtail both drug abuse and homelessness. With the homeless population continuing to rise despite billions of dollars in spending, many on the right argue that there needs to be a shift toward accountability, treatment, and enforcement.

Here’s a Pros and Cons analysis of Mayor R. Rex Parris’s controversial comments:

Pros

✅ Challenges the Status Quo

Mayor Parris’s remarks challenge the effectiveness of current liberal policies on homelessness, which many conservatives argue have failed to make a meaningful impact. His blunt statement cuts through the politically correct rhetoric, urging a reevaluation of strategies.

✅ Prioritizes Personal Responsibility

From a conservative standpoint, Parris’s comment emphasizes personal responsibility. He’s suggesting that people should be accountable for their actions and that enabling behaviors, such as providing endless social services without requiring individuals to take responsibility, only perpetuates the problem.

✅ Calls for a New Approach

By stating that the current system is ineffective, Parris is indirectly calling for new, more aggressive approaches to combat homelessness and drug addiction, ones that could include treatment mandates, rehabilitation programs, and stricter law enforcement.

✅ Fiscally Responsible

Conservatives often argue that taxpayer money is being wasted on programs that do not yield results. Parris’s comment aligns with the belief that resources should be spent more effectively, focusing on solutions that help individuals transition off the streets and become self-sufficient.

✅ Shifts the National Discourse

The controversial nature of Parris’s comments forces a larger national conversation about how to address the homelessness crisis. In a time when many conservatives believe the issue has been neglected or mishandled, this kind of provocation could encourage policy change and increased attention to the problem.

Cons

❌ Inhumane and Reckless

Even from a conservative viewpoint, Parris’s suggestion of giving homeless individuals fentanyl could be seen as dangerously inhumane. Allowing individuals to use a deadly drug like fentanyl could lead to widespread harm, worsening the crisis by encouraging addiction and even death.

❌ Potential Backlash

While Parris’s comments may resonate with some conservatives, they could alienate more moderate or center-right voters who believe in more humane, balanced solutions. It could lead to negative public perception, undermining support for broader conservative efforts on homelessness.

❌ Undermines Conservative Compassion

Although many conservatives advocate for law and order and personal responsibility, they also emphasize the importance of offering individuals a chance at rehabilitation. Parris’s rhetoric might be seen as disregarding the value of providing rehabilitation programs and social safety nets.

❌ Focuses on Symptoms, Not Solutions

The comment risks focusing on the symptoms of the homelessness crisis (drug use) rather than addressing the root causes, such as a lack of affordable housing, mental health services, and addiction recovery programs. Conservatives generally advocate for a more comprehensive approach to solving homelessness, including prevention and long-term solutions.

❌ Divisiveness

Parris’s rhetoric may deepen divisions within conservative circles. While some may support his bold stance, others may see it as unnecessarily divisive and counterproductive, particularly when trying to unify the party on pragmatic policies.

Conclusion

Mayor R. Rex Parris’s controversial remarks have ignited a polarized debate, even within conservative circles. From a conservative perspective, his blunt criticism of the status quo on homelessness and addiction reflects deep frustration with ineffective liberal policies. His call for a new approach, grounded in personal responsibility and fiscal accountability, may resonate with those who believe that the current system is failing.

However, Parris’s suggestion to allow fentanyl use as a form of “purging” the homeless population is deeply troubling. While his remarks may be seen as a provocative call to action, they risk alienating moderates and undermining the core conservative value of compassionate solutions for those struggling with addiction. The challenge, then, for conservatives, is to balance the need for tough love with the understanding that addressing homelessness requires both accountability and effective rehabilitation.

Ultimately, while Parris’s comments could spark an important national conversation, they also highlight the need for a more nuanced, comprehensive approach to homelessness—one that tackles the root causes, provides opportunities for rehabilitation, and prioritizes human dignity.