Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reply To Thread

The Wet-House ConceptFollow

#1 May 06 2011 at 8:01 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/06/where-alcoholics-can-drink-themselves-to-death/?hpt=C2
Quote:
St. Anthony, which receives funds from the state and the Catholic church, is known as a "wet house" because Hagerman and the others are allowed to drink on site, with some caveats - including no mouthwash.

"It's not bad. I got cable TV," Hagerman says. "You can't drink in your room, but you can drink. You gotta do it outside."

The theory is that it's better to allow these guys to drink in a safe place than to end up on the streets and in the city's emergency rooms, jails, and detox centers. At St. Anthony, they have access to nurses - and doctors if the situation warrants - plus on-site case managers to aid in their addiction. Ideally, St. Anthony's counselors want the residents to sober up – but they realize that there isn't a strong chance of that happening.

St. Paul isn't the only city that has a "wet house"-style residence - Seattle was one of the first cities to put this concept into practice in 2005, and Memphis is considering building one, too.

Another argument in favor of the concept is that it saves money. Each St. Anthony's resident costs about $18,000 a year to house and feed, about $1,500 a month. A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association indicates that if these men were out on the street, it could cost over $4,000 a month in incarceration, shelter and sobering center use, hospital-based medical services, publicly funded alcohol and drug detoxification and treatment, and emergency medical services.

But the idea of allowing alcoholics to drink is antithetic to the basic tenets of addiction counseling.


There are similar concepts in the EU, Canada, and Australia for harder drugs - usually injected ones like heroin. The idea being, if people are going to be addicted, at least let them be safe, not be a public nuisance, and give them the chance to get clean if they want to. Wikipedia refers to these as safe injection sites. The results seem pretty mixed on taking down crime or preventing overdoses, but in general the cost to society overall is less than if they lived on the streets.

Anyone else have more information or opinions on this idea? I don't like the idea myself... it feels like good intentions gone horribly wrong. While recovery help is available, the addiction itself is directly provided, which sorta nullifies the entire idea.
#2 May 06 2011 at 8:05 AM Rating: Excellent
LockeColeMA wrote:
There are similar concepts in the EU, Canada, and Australia for harder drugs - usually injected ones like heroin. The idea being, if people are going to be addicted, at least let them be safe, not be a public nuisance, and give them the chance to get clean if they want to. Wikipedia refers to these as safe injection sites. The results seem pretty mixed on taking down crime or preventing overdoses, but in general the cost to society overall is less than if they lived on the streets.

Anyone else have more information or opinions on this idea? I don't like the idea myself... it feels like good intentions gone horribly wrong. While recovery help is available, the addiction itself is directly provided, which sorta nullifies the entire idea.


One of my bosses was in Australia and said the first time she went into a public ladies room, she saw one of those biohazard boxes that you put needles in. She was surprised. She was later told that there are places you can get clean needles, no questions asked.

Someone isn't going to really get clean until they want to. Until that time, I think making an effort to reduce them spreading disease by sharing needles is a good idea. It's not like they're supplying the drugs to them, just looking after them to make sure they don't kill themselves or anyone else.
#3 May 06 2011 at 8:11 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,512 posts
Belkira wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
There are similar concepts in the EU, Canada, and Australia for harder drugs - usually injected ones like heroin. The idea being, if people are going to be addicted, at least let them be safe, not be a public nuisance, and give them the chance to get clean if they want to. Wikipedia refers to these as safe injection sites. The results seem pretty mixed on taking down crime or preventing overdoses, but in general the cost to society overall is less than if they lived on the streets.

Anyone else have more information or opinions on this idea? I don't like the idea myself... it feels like good intentions gone horribly wrong. While recovery help is available, the addiction itself is directly provided, which sorta nullifies the entire idea.


One of my bosses was in Australia and said the first time she went into a public ladies room, she saw one of those biohazard boxes that you put needles in. She was surprised. She was later told that there are places you can get clean needles, no questions asked.

Someone isn't going to really get clean until they want to. Until that time, I think making an effort to reduce them spreading disease by sharing needles is a good idea. It's not like they're supplying the drugs to them, just looking after them to make sure they don't kill themselves or anyone else.
It also provides an opportunity to get away from their fellow junkies, just for a little while, and potentially meet someone who can help them break their addiction.
#4 May 06 2011 at 8:15 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
I'm OK with the idea so long as the goal is to ween them off of their addiction, with a time table set as to when we classify them as hopeless if they don't clean up, and then at that point, we set them free and let them off themselves, meaning we don't incarcerate them or treat them medically either. Barbaric? I don't care, I don't want to pay for someone who's never going to clean themselves up.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#5 May 06 2011 at 8:22 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I'm OK with the idea so long as the goal is to ween them off of their addiction, with a time table set as to when we classify them as hopeless if they don't clean up, and then at that point, we set them free and let them off themselves, meaning we don't incarcerate them or treat them medically either. Barbaric? I don't care, I don't want to pay for someone who's never going to clean themselves up.
IV drug users are at a higher risk of HIV, and can pass on HIV to their partner who is unaware and potentially not an IV drug user.
#6 May 06 2011 at 8:26 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Ok, OD them before they leave the complex. Trying to reason with me is going to be difficult on this one as my compassion for others is limited to them trying to help themselves as well.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#7 May 06 2011 at 8:27 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,512 posts
I don't necessarily care about the people individually, it's simply an issue of public health. ER visits are significantly more expensive than letting the druggie drug with supervision from people who aren't dipsh*t junkies. They'll be in legal hot water if they let them die, costing even more money. I wouldn't be surprised if they had opiate blockers on hand, which would also reduce costs.

Also, how are you going to determine an optimal time?

why can't I ever make up my mind when posting?

Edited, May 6th 2011 9:32am by Sweetums
#8 May 06 2011 at 8:31 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I don't care, I don't want to pay for someone who's never going to clean themselves up.
I'm not a fan of it either, but you're still paying for it when they go to jail and court ordered rehab and such.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#9 May 06 2011 at 8:37 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I don't care, I don't want to pay for someone who's never going to clean themselves up.
I'm not a fan of it either, but you're still paying for it when they go to jail and court ordered rehab and such.
I've covered this point already.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#10 May 06 2011 at 8:39 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I'm OK with the idea so long as the goal is to ween them off of their addiction, with a time table set as to when we classify them as hopeless if they don't clean up, and then at that point, we set them free and let them off themselves, meaning we don't incarcerate them or treat them medically either. Barbaric? I don't care, I don't want to pay for someone who's never going to clean themselves up.
Yeah, I'm kind of with this.

When I was in High School they opened a student smoking lounge with similar reasoning. I think the outcome was a generation of nicotine addicts.

The thing with Alcohol is though, if you're an addict that has lost your livelihood to the drink, anything short of full-scale quitting isn't really going to help.

It would be interesting to see an experiment or even some kind of metric of dry vs wet halfway house and how many alcoholic customers end up dead (untimely), and how many are rehabilitated enough to be useful and/or self-supportive, and how many just stay - long term on the dole.


Edited, May 6th 2011 4:39pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#11 May 06 2011 at 8:39 AM Rating: Good
I've been to the facility in the article. It's in the part of town we should be consigning the retched refuse to. I say take 12-16 blocks over there and wall them off so we can add more people to it.

Look, it's private money, so no matter how poorly spent it is I honestly don't give a sh;t. These people made the choice to become degenerates, so as long as they're off the streets and out of sight, let them drink themselves to death. The real blight is the Dorothy Day Center in downtown St. Paul. If they could only figure out a way to move that things, we'd have no homeless peoples downtown. They'd all be over by the railroad yard, so it'd be a shorter walk for all the bums coming up from Chicago.
#12 May 06 2011 at 8:39 AM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Sweetums wrote:
I don't necessarily care about the people individually, it's simply an issue of public health. ER visits are significantly more expensive than letting the druggie drug with supervision from people who aren't dipsh*t junkies. They'll be in legal hot water if they let them die, costing even more money. I wouldn't be surprised if they had opiate blockers on hand, which would also reduce costs.
As pointed out Gaxe, I've covered my thoughts on this already. cut them off from everything.

Sweetums wrote:
Also, how are you going to determine an optimal time?
I'm willing to leave that to experts, and given that we're talking about giving up on someone, I'm going to even side with those experts that give a long period as opposed to those that determine a shorter period.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#13 May 06 2011 at 8:43 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,512 posts
Elinda wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I'm OK with the idea so long as the goal is to ween them off of their addiction, with a time table set as to when we classify them as hopeless if they don't clean up, and then at that point, we set them free and let them off themselves, meaning we don't incarcerate them or treat them medically either. Barbaric? I don't care, I don't want to pay for someone who's never going to clean themselves up.
Yeah, I'm kind of with this.

When I was in High School they opened a student smoking lounge with similar reasoning. I think the outcome was a generation of nicotine addicts.

The thing with Alcohol is though, if you're an addict that has lost your livelihood to the drink, anything short of full-scale quitting isn't really going to help.

It would be interesting to see an experiment or even some kind of metric of dry vs wet halfway house and how many alcoholic customers end up dead (untimely), and how many are rehabilitated enough to be useful and/or self-supportive.
I don't think you can really equate nicotine addiction with heroin addiction.

With an issue as contentious as allowing illicit drug users to use with government acceptance, there have probably been positive studies just to quell some of the opposition.

It's not only to help the junkies. A lower prevalence of HIV benefits everyone.
#14 May 06 2011 at 8:43 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,512 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
I don't necessarily care about the people individually, it's simply an issue of public health. ER visits are significantly more expensive than letting the druggie drug with supervision from people who aren't dipsh*t junkies. They'll be in legal hot water if they let them die, costing even more money. I wouldn't be surprised if they had opiate blockers on hand, which would also reduce costs.
As pointed out Gaxe, I've covered my thoughts on this already. cut them off from everything.
That's probably about as tenable as drug prohibition.
#15 May 06 2011 at 8:45 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
I don't necessarily care about the people individually, it's simply an issue of public health. ER visits are significantly more expensive than letting the druggie drug with supervision from people who aren't dipsh*t junkies. They'll be in legal hot water if they let them die, costing even more money. I wouldn't be surprised if they had opiate blockers on hand, which would also reduce costs.
As pointed out Gaxe, I've covered my thoughts on this already. cut them off from everything.
That's probably about as tenable as drug prohibition.
No, its much easier if the bleeding hearts would let us.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#16 May 06 2011 at 8:53 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
I don't necessarily care about the people individually, it's simply an issue of public health. ER visits are significantly more expensive than letting the druggie drug with supervision from people who aren't dipsh*t junkies. They'll be in legal hot water if they let them die, costing even more money. I wouldn't be surprised if they had opiate blockers on hand, which would also reduce costs.
As pointed out Gaxe, I've covered my thoughts on this already. cut them off from everything.
That's probably about as tenable as drug prohibition.
No, its much easier if the bleeding hearts would let us.
I live in Texas and it's still quite easy to get drugs. Remember: we execute retards.

Edited, May 6th 2011 9:54am by Sweetums
#17 May 06 2011 at 8:55 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
No no, let them have the drugs, just don't try and resuscitate them when they OD. Let the fuckers go. Their time here is done.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#18 May 06 2011 at 8:56 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
No no, let them have the drugs, just don't try and resuscitate them when they OD. Let the fuckers go. Their time here is done.
It ain't the bleeding hearts in that case. It's the ambulance chasers.
#19 May 06 2011 at 8:57 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Remember: we execute retards.
You also make them governors.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#20 May 06 2011 at 8:57 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
Remember: we execute retards.
You also make them governors.
Hopefully, we execute them afterwards.
#21 May 06 2011 at 9:00 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Do they provide the drugs too, or is it BYOB?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#22 May 06 2011 at 9:00 AM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
No no, let them have the drugs, just don't try and resuscitate them when they OD. Let the fuckers go. Their time here is done.
It ain't the bleeding hearts in that case. It's the ambulance chasers.
I have no problem sticking them with a needle and having them join their clients.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#23 May 06 2011 at 9:01 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I'm OK with the idea so long as the goal is to ween them off of their addiction, with a time table set as to when we classify them as hopeless if they don't clean up, and then at that point, we set them free and let them off themselves, meaning we don't incarcerate them or treat them medically either. Barbaric? I don't care, I don't want to pay for someone who's never going to clean themselves up.
Yeah, I'm kind of with this.

When I was in High School they opened a student smoking lounge with similar reasoning. I think the outcome was a generation of nicotine addicts.

The thing with Alcohol is though, if you're an addict that has lost your livelihood to the drink, anything short of full-scale quitting isn't really going to help.

It would be interesting to see an experiment or even some kind of metric of dry vs wet halfway house and how many alcoholic customers end up dead (untimely), and how many are rehabilitated enough to be useful and/or self-supportive.
I don't think you can really equate nicotine addiction with heroin addiction.

With an issue as contentious as allowing illicit drug users to use with government acceptance, there have probably been positive studies just to quell some of the opposition.

It's not only to help the junkies. A lower prevalence of HIV benefits everyone.
I thought this was about alcohol?

..and while I understand nicotine addiction is not the same as alcohol, the concept of letting the addicts indulge in their addictions in a safe place is better (or worse) than forcing them to an uncontrolled location to smoke...or drink, or shoot up, or eat paint, or whatever is a similar concept.

I don't know how any facility could legally allow illegal drug use, though we allow pot smoking and that's illegal.

Edited, May 6th 2011 5:01pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#24 May 06 2011 at 9:02 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,512 posts
Ah, there were needle exchanges mentioned above.

Frankly, I'd rather not deal with drunk, crazy homeless people asking me for money, and the homeless shelters probably don't want to deal with them either.
#25 May 06 2011 at 9:03 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
No no, let them have the drugs, just don't try and resuscitate them when they OD. Let the fuckers go. Their time here is done.
It ain't the bleeding hearts in that case. It's the ambulance chasers.
I have no problem sticking them with a needle and having them join their clients.
Well that's a different story entirely. The only problem is that lawyers are like cockroaches.
#26 May 06 2011 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Sweetums wrote:
The only problem is that lawyers are like cockroaches.
I'm confident we can produce enough needles.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 199 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (199)