I personally feel that as human beings we have the right in this society to a dry place to live, whether we are alcoholics or otherwise. I also personally believe that we have the responsibility as a SOCIETY (not individually) to provide dry shelter to all human beings who need it. I agree with Lillamy, though, that there are people who are homeless who do not have the resources, contacts, or even the presence of mind to secure shelter and it seems discriminatory to provide for alcoholics so they can drink in peace while ignoring those even less fortunate. It's a huge dilemma in this country.

I just read the NY Times article from the link someone posted above... My gut reaction was one of horror and I can't really get past that. Hearing things like this is what keeps me sober.

I have never heard of this before. I will admit that I would not want one near my home for fear of disruption in the neighborhood and worries about my young son, but really I am not troubled by the idea in general because sadly many alcoholics and addicts live and die on the streets alone, and in my way of thinking it just not right. Also it might have some impact on the reduction of crime, and other concerns that affect the general non-addicted society.

I would actually view this very similiar to many other services provided to addicts; for example clinics that provide free clean needles, or free vials of Narcan to reverse an opiate overdose; so they can carry it with them, or have available for friends who might overdose. If you want to argue enabling continued use; well these things might also be an example.

And then hmmm.. what about churches, and shelters offering free meals to those in need; a lot of them are addicts, or alcoholics. Wouldnt this also be enabling? Well technically I think it would by the common definition.

I actually view all of the above as more of a kind love, instead of tough love.
And in some cases, I can actually see where an alcoholic living on the streets, who then had the opportunity for shelter, a free defined amount of liquor, a bit of kindness; might actually begin to reduce his drinking and rely only on the freeebies, their life might improve if they were given a helping hand.

Of course just like everything else; it would have zero affect on some, and they would use it just as a flop house.

Hopefully funded by donations, as taxpayers should have a choice in all these matters.

The thing is though, many of these alcoholics and addicts choose to live on the streets, and would rather stay on the streets than go to a shelter.

When are people really, truly going to understand that by the 3rd stage of addiction their brains are DAMAGED. Choosing to live on the streets when living with brain damage is not like a secretary choosing to go buy a new blouse.

I wonder sometimes when education is finally going to set in? If not on an addiction board - where?

I'm conflicted too. Actually I think it is a good thing in my head. In theory I generally support harm reduction on a variety of issues. It is like hospice for those dying of alcoholism but the utter hopelessness and despair of it makes it difficult to really wrap my brain around and accept. I want to fix it you know? Giving up is hard to swallow. If it wasn't available would that particular segment of alcoholics find recovery or die under a bridge or out in the woods somewhere? I don't know.

Homeless alcoholics cost the tax payer hundreds of thousands of dollars. I imagine these houses save tax payers a boat load of money in ER visits, ambulance rides, detoxes, medical follow ups, crime related costs, etc. even if they get some state funding.

The one closest to me is not in my state even (but it gets all the news coverage so I know the most about it) is maybe a little different. I think it is more like a dorm type situation and they get referrals from social workers after ER visits, court involvement, or detox (probably after ambulance ride/ER visit) or through homeless shelters etc. so it really is catching those people that are out of options so to speak. I think they've all been through treatment and the courts numerous times.

I think one's views on this issue will depend in great deal upon whether one has had a first-hand, up-close view of late stage alcoholism. It aint pretty.

My exah is in the late-stage. His brain is damaged. He slips in and out of psychosis. He doesn't have a firm grasp of reality most of the time. If he doesn't drink, he will get DTs and he could die. It's the most heartbreaking thing I have ever witnesses and believe me, I have witnessed alot after watching him come to this after 15 years of marriage. I still love this man. I still worry and care about him.

He spent the last 2 months in jail for driving on a suspended license. But no one gets 2 months for driving on a suspended license. he was given 2 months because several of his neighbors went to the court and expressed how scared they are of him because of his erratic behavior.

My exah is going to get out of jail at the end of this week. I don't know what's going to happen but its very likely that he will start drinking again and may, at some point, end up homeless if he doesn't drink himself to death first.

My exah isn't 'choosing' to drink anymore. It's gone beyond that. And while I understand how the wet houses might look like enabling for alcoholics who are anywhere shy of the final stage, they seem like a compassionate alternative for those in the final stages. My exah is a human being. He is a kind man. He wouldn't hurt anyone. He's just very sick. I mean, very sick. The thought of him having to live on the street through one of Michigan's bitter cold winters (which could happen) makes me incredibly sad.

This is, after all, a disease. Right? I think the hospice analogy works. It most definitely works when dealing with the final stages of this hideous disease.

They do their own laundry & the one I saw on the news seemed fairly clean. The police know who the "wet house" residents are. I believe the hospital staff & police officers are glad these places exist. These folks are not going to get better & don't want to get better. This is the reality of late stage alcoholism. Their life clock has already been punched.

[QUOTE=inpieces314;3623433]I saw it on tv too, like they get so many free shots per day or something to keep the DT's away.

Ridiculous, in my opinion. If people can get state assistance, they should be sober. Our tax dollars are paying them to stay drunk.

Your tax dollars are paying for their hospital and jail/prison stays as well. It actually is saving a lot of money. A 3 day hospital detox is $3000-$5,000 & one guy had over 150 detox trips. It is staggering.

Harm reduction programs are cheaper in the long run. Needle exchange programs, wet houses, shoot up places, etc save the city and the taxpayer money. It really isn't a moral issue, it is an economic one.

Exactly. Wet housing is a compassionate response to a very real situation. Some people with addictions will simply never quit, and with those who are homeless (and who often suffer from mental illness as well) the choice becomes stark and simple. We can let them die on the streets, or we can provide them with safe housing.

I, for one, feel that the humane, compassionate thing to do is to provide them with safe housing.

There are already outreach workers who try to get homeless people off of the streets and into shelters. Sometimes these workers encounter resistance when trying to help someone relocate to a homeless shelter. Let's say you're an outreach worker, and a homeless person fights you, tries to beat you and spits on you, in your efforts to help them off the streets. That sounds like a choice to me.

Humane. Kind. Compassionate. Ethical.

We should treat every kind of fatal brain disorder - mental illness, humanely, kindly and with ethics. We can't leave these fellow human beings to die on our streets alone and in agony. They are finding that there is a far greater recovery rate in a "wet house" then with forced sobriety that never works. They have AA meetings there, support and care. For God's sake, give these people a chance to get well and if they can't, allow them a humane, compassionate death.

Once you've seen for yourself 3rd and 4th stage addiction ANY doubt that it is a fatal disease leaves.

An unjust zillion $$$ war in the Middle East financed by my income for a decade? No thanks. Humane care for my ill neighbors - I can't think of a better place for my tax dollars to go.

I never said it wasn't a fatal disease. I understand it is a fatal disease.

If you google "Miami cannibal attack" or "Ronald Poppo", you will find part of the story saying that Poppo was a homeless alcoholic who, a few days before the notorious attack, had been approached by workers from the Miami Homeless Assistance Program who offered him the services of the Miami-Dade County Homeless Trust. Not only did he decline their services, he fought them off, trying to beat them and trying to spit on them. These workers on at least four occasions tried to get Poppo off the street and into a shelter. There are some homeless people who do literally fight to stay on the street. Especially in warmer climates. It seems humane to me to allow people to live their life as they like.

So because some folks turn it down, it shouldn't be available for those who want it?

Wishing Well is 100% right. Not only is it the right thing to do, it actually has a better chance of working to get an addicted person to change their drinking habits than forced sobriety. And the financial and social costs are lower, too. In my view, the question isn't even a close one.

Did I say that?

I guess I agree with it...although the life there seems very depressing from what I've read...then again, alcoholics can drink there to their heart's content with no judgment whatsoever.

One thing I do wonder about is the recovering alcoholics, they could turn around and realize, "all that recovery work when I could have just gone to a wet house" and alcoholics won't want to get sober anymore.

Sorry if I seem to be lacking compassion, or something.

So agree with lillamy- it is infuriating that ANY tax money is spent on addicts. I don't believe public assistance should be used for any care/ treatments of addicts. Although it is a "disease", it is also a condition in which the addict has the power to make choices. Subsidizing chronic bad choices is the ultimate enabler. I have been a psych nurse for 27 yrs and can clearly see the difference between someone with serious and persistent mental illness( schizophrenia, bipolar DO), and a disease (diabetes, alcoholism) where the sufferer has the power to make choices to be healthy. We cannot empower people to want to take care of themselves. To use the argument that wet houses are "cheaper" than funding multiple hospitalizations, rehabs, etc. is ridiculous. Tax payers should not have to foot the bill for any of it.

as if detroit can handle any more social programs!

Yeah I did read about that...Detroit and the lack of employment infrastructure.