have you heard of wet houses?
 

I'd post the link but I don't think I can...

The Detroit Free Press has an article today about wet houses. They are a place for chronic, homeless alcoholics to live. A place where they can drink behind closed doors.

Advocates say that it will reduce police, jail and emergency room services because the alohoholic can drink in peace rather than in public.

I don't know how I feel about the idea. My exah has been homeless at times. He's been in jail. He's been in the emergency room. He's been in psych wards. If you accept that alcolism is a disease (which I most definitely do), than isn't it an act of compassion to give him a room...a place to live...even though he is sick...or maybe especially BECAUSE he is sick?

Or is this just another form of enabling. Homelessness isn't the bottom for some people. Some people never get better. I worry that my exah is one of them. Being homeless hasn't done it...jail...er visits...psych wards...maybe he doesn't have a bottom. Maybe it's an act of compassion to give him a place where he can live and drink in peace. (Just as long as it isn't MY house).

I just don't know what I think about it.

What do you think?

I have seen this on tv. It really blew my mind at first. Still not quite sure I know what to think of it. The theory behind it is just as you said. They get a room, food, and are allowed to drink. They are rationed so many alcoholic drinks a day. Supposedly research has shown that some alcoholics end up drinking less after being there for a while.

Definately got mixed feelings about it.

might be a peace of mind for family members though. At least they know where their son, daughter, husband, wife, are at.

One opened this year in my town. I don't know how to feel about it either. On the one hand, yes, it gives alcoholics a place to drink themselves to death with some dignity -- that's been the argument from the people who created it. That it's sort of like a hospice for alcoholics who can't be cured.

On the other hand it makes me angry. Because hospice is for people for whom there is no help; a place for them to die with dignity. These "wet houses" are for people who either deny they are sick or refuse to get treatment. It's more like leper colonies than hospices. It's a way for well-meaning do-gooders to feel like they're doing something for these unfortunate addicts when, in reality, they're padding their fall and preventing them from hitting rock bottom, thereby really being the ultimate codependents.

I don't know which one it is. If my AXH was homeless, would I rather that he had a place to drink himself to death while being warm? Sure. But I would rather that his life become so uncomfortable that he decided to get sober.

There have been several people who died there. The cops are there a lot. There are I believe something like 23 apartments in this place. There are many times that many addicts and mentally ill people who camp out in the woods. I sort of have the feeling that the people who are together enough to be able to apply for a spot in these houses could theoretically become sober, too. The folks who sleep in the woods out here don't even have the wherewithall (most of them) to consider that there may be options. So are these houses harming people that could be helped, while ignoring the people who really are beyond sobriety and recovery? I don't know.

Oh -- then that's something different. What I'm talking about is just subsidized housing for "chronic inebriates" where nobody cares how much they drink as long as they don't cause trouble.

I confess, I don't know, either.

dandylion

I've never heard of subsidized housing for chronic inebriates.

For low-come families...yes.

For disabled folks...yes.

Even if the housing rent is 100% subsidized, the alcoholic would still responsible for food, clothing, utilities, etc. I don't get it.

I did watch a documentary on a place like what LynnRae described. It's sort of like a halfway house in that there are multiple people with their own rooms, but instead of recovering alcoholics, it's the opposite.

I definitely have mixed feelings on the subject.

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.

And I keep telling the ABF I won't pay for him to drink. At least I KNOW him.

There's one of those here, the cops are called there frequently. It was meant to keep homeless alcoholics from freezing to death outside during our bitterly cold winters.

There is a bean counter in this mix. And I am leaning towards the health insurance industry.

It's a hell of alot cheaper to supply them with some cheap gut rot booze than to pay for detox, rehab, recurring hospital stays.

IMO, this is about MONEY. Health is no longer an issue. How very disturbing.

Its a ridiculous idea,the ultimate in enabling.

To be fair, all the ones I've ever read about do not supply the alcohol, the homeless alcoholic does that. The shelter is just that, a shelter for the person to sleep.

I'm sorry, I find it very obnoxious that active alcoholics are being provided a safe place to drink when there are children who are hungry and cold.

Funded enabling.

Bad idea, on so many levels.

According to this NYT article, this housing alternative is actually "cheaper" for the taxpayer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/ma...re-t.html?_r=0

Yeah, tjp, I don't wish to turn this into a political discussion, but it's infuriating and disgusting to me that tax payers at all are involved in paying for anything for addicts. Infuriating.

I think it's a wonderful idea. The one I saw in Minnesota took 30 of the chronic street alcoholics in. One guy owed close to 1,000,000 in hospital bills & another had been detoxed over 150 times! It actually saves taxpayers money because they have a full time nurse that lives there. The police just have to take them back to the "wet house" when they find them passed out in the park. Being homeless is not always an alcoholics bottom.

It's an emotive issue. There's probably no right answer.

A lot of homeless alcoholics and addicts in my town die from other causes apart from drink/drugs...violence, accident, exposure, ill health....

these places, at least where I am, are not for the middle tier alcoholic - they're for the homeless, the vagrants, and those who've reached the end of their tether and may not be capable of making much in the way of rational decisions anymore.

It's not the Ritz.

Maybe it's because I'm an alcoholic myself and I can see what might have been in every homeless guy but I personally don't see that as enabling.

It's not a perfect solution, but to me it's a humane response to a pretty damn intractable problem.

D

I have never heard of this, but I live in a small town. It would never fly here.

A few questions came to mind:

Do these houses have rules? What if someone is violent? Are they kicked out?

Are the houses cleaned periodically? Or do the alcoholics live in there among vomit, excrement and spilled alcohol?

What if they wander away drunk; wouldn't that defeat the purpose?

Amen Dee, couldn't have said it better myself.

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.