Are Wet Shelters a Good Idea?

A University of Washington-led research team studied a group of 95 chronically homeless alcoholics and found that in one year, they cost taxpayers more than $8 million in hospitalizations, detox center treatments and incarcerations.

When the same group spent one year in Seattle's Housing First program -- residences where they are allowed to drink -- the same group cost $4 million in taxpayer money, according to the study, which was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/11/minneapolis.wethouse.alcoholics/index...

My personal opinion is that wet shelters are a good idea. Harm reduction models are as valid as abstinence based models. These wet houses focus on the most basic human needs.

Start at 10:20 in the video.

Comments

$4,ooo,ooo.oo or 50% savings?
Not too shabby...

Clara's picture

I am not sure. I don't find the methodone labs to be a success as often one addiction is traded for another. What is considered recovery in this venue?

Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.

Gunthar2000's picture

Meeting the most basic human need of shelter is.
Why, should these basic needs be withheld from people just because they drink alcohol?
It's funny how dry shelters operate... These people supposedly suffer from a disease, yet when they show symptoms of the supposed disease their basic needs are denied them and they are thrown out on the street.

AA is a religious cult dressed up to look like a treatment for alcoholism.

Gunthar2000

http://www.expaa.org/

Clara's picture

Because they drink alcohol in a fashion that caused them to lose the ability to provide shelter for themselves. The example of the guy dying at 52 because he had free housing and was able to continue drinking rankled me... Is this some sort of success?

Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.

Gunthar2000's picture

Would you rather he drank himself to death on the street?

AA is a religious cult dressed up to look like a treatment for alcoholism.

Gunthar2000

http://www.expaa.org/

I think it’s about options.
If continuing to drink is not a real option then neither is stopping. If all of the options imposed by society are choices in recovery then they are closed ended and not real choices, they are forced recovery solutions imposed by society. You can not even make someone stop drinking in prison; it will always be a personal choice.
People need to have ALL options available so they can make real choices they can commit themselves to.

In order for me to make a decision to stop drinking I need to have the choice of drinking available. Otherwise it is not a decision; it is forced behavior control.

Under a forced solution I will drink as soon as you are not looking. Those things we cannot have we want more. I want Cuban cigars; I have a Jewish friend who loves bacon and have seen many forced into treatment who drink badly.

Complete choices area part of human dignity and integral to the process of changing a behavior.

Pennywise's picture

Very good, Disclosure. Very good indeed.

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

Clara's picture

Yes, wanting to stop is a factor is successful recovery. Having said that, I know people that DIDn't want to stop but realized that it was the difference between death and life. For these people, moderation isn't an option. The Jewish guy that wants a slice of bacon isn't dealing with a life or death matter.

I recognize and agree that there are options, but I don't think this guy chose that. He drank himself to death and was provided with tools to do that. Money and a safe place to live spo he could drink. Having said that, it doesn't need to be this model. I know many people in SC that are on disability to some drinking related situation and they qualify for low cost housing. There is very little difference between these two examples for me.

Thank you for respectful disagreement, Disc. The only horrifying part of my post is that I suddenly realized how republican it sounded... God, I need cake or an Almond Joy!

Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.

Pennywise's picture

People have a hierarchy of wants. While a person might want to still drink, he might want the benefits of not drinking more. If a person drinks himself to death, he is acting on a decision to put his want of alcohol over his want of things. It's all a choice, simple as that (esspecially after the detox stage).

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

steve cochrane's picture

Are you looking in the mirror?N o one and I mean no one projects that far ahead. It is impossible. We do not have these capabilities. Wanting the effects of alcohol is what one is after as is with any other thang!!
Changing ones shift is nothing new.

Pennywise's picture

I agree most people don't consciously decide to put alcohol over other wants. Most people think they can have both. When it becomes apparent to the person that alcohol is jepordizing his other goals, he has to decide whether to keep trying to find a balance or whether to give something up. Either way, it is all a choice.

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

becket's picture

"If a person drinks himself to death, he is acting on a decision to put his want of alcohol over his want of things."

Alcohol is a thing. Curious that someone would prefer death over life, if drinking is at this point truly a choice. That would mean that every death directly attributable to excess, chronic alcohol ingestion has been intentional. Is suicide by booze always a conscious choice? After all, most posters on this forum would contend that these drunks could stop anytime they want to.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

Pennywise's picture

I meant to say "other things."

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

becket's picture

So: Is suicide by booze always a conscious choice? After all, most posters on this forum would contend that these drunks could stop anytime they want to.

If the answer is "yes", then the alcoholic is solely responsible. If the answer is "no", what person or group do we blame for the death? Somebody needs to hang for it.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

Pennywise's picture

Not usually. The choice is to drink, the death is often an unintended side effect of that choice. Analogously, a person might make a choice to drive to the store. Accidentally running a red light and getting into a car crash would be an unfortunate side effect of that choice. I have heard quite persuasive arguments that fee will is an illusion and that we really have no free choice about anything we do. We are essentially victims of our brain chemistry, so the argument goes. I am sympathetic to that argument, and if it is true, then I would have to grant that the alcoholic has no choice but to drink insofar as no one really has any choice about anything, alcohol related or not. But if we do have free will over whether we go see the Batman movie instead of the Superman movie, then we all have free will over whether to take the next drink.

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

LisaMarie's picture

I have known 3 alcoholics in my life that literally drank themselves to death. All of them knew they were going to die, if they continued. All three continued to drink. One was my second cousin, my mothers first cousin. She grew up with him, went to school with him and just adored him. He was one of the finest jazz trumpet players, I had ever heard, Miles Davis being the best IMO, Johnny Coltrane a very close second but he played the sax. Billy, was an unhappy sort and always had been. He had a heroin addiction for years but kicked it back in the 60's, he switched to booze. While reading Perse's and Avo's stories it made me think if my cousin was suffering from paws, I bet he was. He was in NA back when Jimmy K. was still alive and active, he actually met him. Jimmy K. was the founder of NA, in CA. NA did not help him at all and he actually hated all the badgering (his words) from fellow members. Billy wanted to drink.
Billy played the 880 in Hartford Ct and the Birdland NYC and various other clubs t/o Ct and NYC.
Penny I don't think for your hard core alkies, death is an unintended side effect. But I do understand where you are going with your point.
I was 3 years clean and sober when Billy died. I stayed with him for his last days in hospice. No one else bothered to come. His own siblings, cousins including my mother (his friend) would not come, they pretty much said, he brought it upon himself. WTF....So what!!! He was dying. No one should die alone.
I don't have all the answers when it comes to alcoholism and/or dependency. I know one thing, deaths due to alcohol, is still right up there as one of the leading reasons why people die. So we have to give this some thought, don't we?
Avogadno, my heart goes out to you concerning your brothers. I have some experience with a brother who damn near was killed due to his choices. Well he did die twice and both times paramedics brought him back. I was in the emergency room with him for the second cardiac arrest.

It still comes down to the choice, without all available options it is compulsory and not a choice.
People in life or death situations choose to continue to drink every day. I think the discussion revolves more around the societal regulatory implications of alcohol treatment options.
Additionally, the Jewish man who consumes bacon may risk the death of his soul. Or even worse, he could be a heart patient with very high cholesterol. Still the love of bacon remains because he has spent his whole life avoiding the deadly but delicious meat.
Perhaps one slice won’t hurt.

Clara's picture

But that isn't why Jews don't eat pork products. Are they physically predisposed to higher cholesterol than Gentiles, or is that one of the beliefs that may have made sense at one time... If he's a heart patient, he's been warned of the problem and then makes a choice.

I do think there is much about alcoholism/drug use that can be choice. You can choose to respond to life with alcohol as a solution to your ills or you can look for solutions in another fashion. I get that. Now. But there are some that abstinence is the only solution.

Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.

Pennywise's picture

But there are some that abstinence is the only solution.

But of course you are not one of those people.

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

Clara's picture

I am admiring your restraint, Penny!

Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.

Gunthar2000's picture

Who decides? Abstinence is always a choice. It's the choice I've made, but I'm not going to run around (like AA members) insisting that it's right for everyone. This is what is referred to as psychological prohibition.

AA is a religious cult dressed up to look like a treatment for alcoholism.

Gunthar2000

http://www.expaa.org/

Clara's picture

I am not insisting that it is what's right for everyone, but this man is dead. There is a part of me that thinks moving into a wet house, being provided with money to drink with... contributed to his death at 52. I wonder what his family thinks...

But I would agree that most in AA would feel that AA is for those that want abstinence while the other programs are for people that don't, that possibly can still manage their drinking. Most people I knew in AA had already tried some forms of management and realized that it wasn't for them.

Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.

AA is a tough fit for lots of folks who don't like the religious tones. Plus AA does not offer abstinence, it offers sobriety which is a state of mind.

Ironic's picture

Jews can't eat pork because God says so. That's the reason. Isn't that similar logically to how AA supposedly "works?"

becket's picture

Leviticus 11:7-8

"And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they [are] unclean to you."

Deuteronomy 14:8

"And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it [is] unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass."

According to Jewish law, pork is one of a number of foods forbidden from consumption by Jews. These foods are known as "non-kosher" foods. In order for a meat to be kosher, it must first come from a kosher animal. A kosher animal must be a ruminant and have split hooves - therefore cows, sheep, goats and deer are all kosher, whereas camels and pigs (having each only one sign of kashrut) are not kosher.

As someone who has often written on this forum with pride about your Jewishness, Ironic, your explanation was really disappointing. You took an opportunity to educate and pissed on it. Why? Is it that much of a pain in the ass to explain something that you claim is part of your heritage? If so you might consider the Baptist church. They eat all the pork they want with impunity.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

Ironic's picture

You quoted the Bible, but you just repeated what I said, which was "Jews can't eat pork because God said so."

The laws about what is and isn't kosher is MUCH more complicated than you wrote, and extends beyond meat. I've seen people argue about the why of it but even those that can quote the Bible can't say for sure. Was it because pigs are dirty and 5000 years ago their meat was very likely to make you sick? What about rules about milk and meat? Do you know why they exist? I can tell you what I've been told but it doesn't make it not silly.

If you want, I can amend my statement to "Jews can't eat pork because pigs have cloven hoofs and God said we can't eat them."

The point is that creating life rules from a very old book with mysterious origins (or a not as old book about "alcoholism" written by a stockbroker) is silly.

becket's picture

Yet it took a lapsed Catholic to initially address the topic, while the young, proud Jewess sat on her tush and did nothing. Why is that?

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

becket's picture

To play devil's advocate here, if the only option were to just stop drinking, the alcoholic can still choose, according to most posters on OPF. There is nothing compulsory about either decision. What has been most emphatically alluded to in post after post here is that stopping drinking is not a matter of religion or faith or what the Ouija board says on Saturday night. It is a decision one makes, and then he either struggles or sails his way through the process.

If this is the case, why do we have any "societal regulatory ... alcohol treatment options"? Since they are portrayed as more harmful than helpful, shouldn't the focus be on eliminating them entirely from the treatment landscape? I don't just mean AA. I mean the whole blessed lot of them.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

Pennywise's picture

I'd be cool with that, Becket. The alternatives are good because they are something other than AA, but if we could eliminate them all, I'd support it.

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

live_free_or_die's picture

and be done with it. fucking criminals!

Alcoholics Anonymous: MyNotGodHasItCovered®
http://www.expaa.org/
http://bereanresearch.com/
http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/
NOT AA:
Rational Recovery, SOS, HAMS
http://alcoholabusesolutions.com/

Persephone In Exile's picture

Well, those from a 12 step perspective will only see that the person is on the street due to his or her drinking. In many cases they are drinking due to being on the streets, due to whatever else led them to be on the street, etc. There are many factors involved, oftentimes, I'm sure. It's a bigger disservice to assume to know the underlying problem as well as the supposed solution while offering help only on those terms.

avogadno's picture

Good point Gunthar. If excessive drinking is a disease (I'm not saying that it is), than why are people that believe in it blame the sick persona and treat them poorly?

Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/

Clara's picture

We aren't to treat them poorly. But that isn't the same as providing the booze and a place to live until you die because sobriety wasn't part of the equation.

Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.

avogadno's picture

As I said in another post, I wasn't considering the money into the equation. But from what I remember about wet houses (at least the couple I've looked into in the past), the drinker had to provide his for his own booze and pay a fee for his room and board. Noted that the money usually comes from the Government. Some of the places I was looking at were for Native Americans that were recieving special funding.

Either way, many excessive drinkers are unable to work and are on unemployment or recieve welfare. This is basically the same thing and imo less productive than the option of a wet house.

Having a loved one kill themselves by drinking/drunking and exposure (using state funds to supply their habit), because they live under a bridge and don't take their medications is heart wrenching. It is part of the equation.

Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/

Clara's picture

I said that sobriety wasn't part of the equation, not living under bridges and not taking medication. I know people that very much lived that way until they realized that abstinence was the only way for them toward a life with any quality at all.

And, yes, in earlier posts I recognized that I know many people that are disabled due to mental illness or drinking related illnesses that qualify for public housing, SSI and other government benefits. Some have it much better than they ever did in their lives.

Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.

becket's picture

Why should an actively saturated alcoholic be entitled - entitled! - to such amenities while sober individuals cannot qualify for easy room, board, taxi service, medical services? I have no medical insurance. You would not believe the fiery hoops I have to jump through just to set up a medical appointment or get a refill on medication. And I live in a progressive state.

Giving drinking individuals homes and overseers would only encourage people to continue to drink. The availability of such a cush deal is pretty seductive.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

live_free_or_die's picture

That is called progress judge. Haha! The judge working.

Alcoholics Anonymous: MyNotGodHasItCovered®
http://www.expaa.org/
http://bereanresearch.com/
http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/
NOT AA:
Rational Recovery, SOS, HAMS
http://alcoholabusesolutions.com/

avogadno's picture

I agree that the system is flawed in too many ways. I disagree that a wet house would be considered an amenity though. At least not in all/most cases.

My vote for wet homes is based on the opinion that many alcoholics are sick underneath their drinking. Some may not be able to function or be even less functional staying abstinent. Again about the flawed system, it's the same one that has you jumping through loop holes to get help but gives the alcoholic monthly checks, food stamps and all that but allows for them to use it only to drink themselves to death under a bridge. I'm not saying it's right, but I'd much rather see them have a chance rather than none at all.

Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/

Ironic's picture

1. It has already been proven that ORT has higher success rates than abstinence alone. I'm happy to provide evidence to support what I say, because I don't make facts up out of thin air.
2. M-E-T-H-A-D-O-N-E, Clara. We must be able to spell the things we insult.

Clara's picture

Why are you taking it as an insult, Ironic?

Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.

avogadno's picture

From what I understand, the methadone plan is used so that addicts can live normally while very slowly reducing their intake until it's no longer needed. I've met people on the plan that were able to go back to work and care for themselves and family while at the same time slowly tapering off of the it. I don't see anything wrong with that if it's the route a person wants to go. I also think that it's a lot easier to say that going cold turkey off of heroin is the best way when you don't have a clue what it is like. Post acute withdrawal syndrome can be so awful as to make a person want to die. IMO, that's no way to live, and to expect people to endure that kind of emotional pain for years and possibly indefinitely is cruel.

Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/

Persephone In Exile's picture

PAWS is so completely cruel that I can't imagine asking people to endure it, with no exceptions, simply due to the idea that using ORT is "staying addicted", or "trading addictions". It's absurd. That only fits in with the worldview that substances must be quit entirely and abruptly (and usually with a sobriety date) and a period of sobriety must then begin. Black and white thinking. There are usually gradations in life, and if it spares people the cruelty of PAWS, I think that ORT is a perfectly good gradation to accept! It doesn't have to be permanent, nor is it usually. I've never understood this idea that substances should be gotten off of immediately and little done about the side effects of the withdrawals or post acute withdrawals. Doctors don't usually operate this way with any other medications, why should it be that way always with opiates? In any form? (Just by the bye, before the advent of 12 step groups, there were already ORT clinics in place. These developed concurrently.)

I truly think that if something could be done for PAWS (more than ORT or if ORT was more across the board) there wouldn't even be the relapses you see in terms of opiate addiction.

Ironic's picture

You said that AA works better than methadone. That is factually untrue, and along with NA's statement about methadone use highly offensive to my sensibilities.

Gunthar2000's picture

Clara claims to support alternative recovery methods. She also claims that she's never seen people in AA who take an anti medication stance.

In this case Clara is not supporting alternative methods, and is discouraging others from taking their meds.

AA is a religious cult dressed up to look like a treatment for alcoholism.

Gunthar2000

http://www.expaa.org/

Clara's picture

I have heard people take that position for themselves, but not force it on others. For example, my sponsor does what was recommended to Massive on RFR.com when she was dealing with rage last week, whic h is right out of the LS book. Move a muscle, change a thought. My sponsor runs for both physical and mental fitness. He would much rather released natural chemicals into his system with the run than to take a pill of any kind. But if my doctor scripted a med for me, he would never say, "Hey, Clara, instead of taking that perscribed medication, try running up that mountain there..."

Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.

avogadno's picture

Exercising for physical and mental/emotional fitness is a wonderful thing. I understand that it's the most effective and a harmless approach. That's wonderful, but what if it doesn't work for some people?

For several years I was completely miserable. During that time I was able to stay clean off of opiates, although it was very difficult because of the PAWS (post acute withdraw syndrome). Time didn't heal it and I tried everything else that was suggested to me in order to find some relief. Exercising, eating healthier, therapy, anti depressants (all different kinds). I even tried ECT (electric shock treatments), and those scared the heck out of me. As you know I also tried AA . None of these did I benefit from.

I didn't want to be on Sub because in the program I was told that if I used it I wouldn't be considered clean. I also learned that I would be physically dependent on it which wasn’t preferable to me. However, I was completely depressed nearly all of the time and sadly I was also suicidal and also suffered anxiety/panic attacks. Other than my illness my life was wonderful. Happy marriage, healthy family, secure jobs. Just about everything a person could dream of having. I wasn’t rich but definitely comfortable, and I was perfectly happy being an average citizen, living in a modest home and thankfully in a safe neighborhood. I didn’t have any “reason” to feel so awful, but I did.

The very last option I had was to try Suboxone to help alleviate the symptoms of PAWS. FYI, I didn't need it to wean myself off of the opiates (pain killers), because I had given the pills up many months prior (this was after a relapse that lasted about six months). Trying Sub wasn't an easy decision to make because I didn't want to become dependent on an opiate-like medication after going through so many wd's in the past (detoxing off of opiates is no fun at all). I also wasn't sure if it would help me or if it did help that it might not last more than a few months.

I started the Sub last September (2011) and it relieved my depression and helped my anxiety nearly immediately. I'm not exactly sure why this helped so well but I was told that more and more people with refractory depression have been recently taking Sub for depression and having great results. I am one of those persons. It isn't a miracle drug and it doesn't get me "high". Sub has naloxone in it which blocks the effects of the opiate buzz, only sort of igniting my brain into making the dopamine that I had not been able to produce on my own.

I don't advocate Suboxone for others because I think it's a personal decision and one that should be discussed and made with a doctor/psychiatrist. What I do advocate for, if I'm asked, is that people strive to find what is the best for them. There are options out there and I'd suggest that people look into all of them and try the ones that best fit them personally. If it's AA than they should do that. I only hope that if they do become a member that they are respectful to the decision of others and not lie, push the HP aspect, and try and recruit.

Since other support groups or recovery programs weren't for me I don't advocate any of them personally. I would only tell people of the options that I know of and let them decide for themselves what they want. I'm a big believer in that all addicts are different, use for diff reasons, and have their own preferences to which they choose help them reach their goal.

When I was actively using and in bad shape I sought out ways to help me get clean. This is what I wanted, not a maintenance plan. I wasn't aware PAWS existed. AA was all that was ever given as an option (besides resuming using) so that is the route I took. While there I learned many things that were actually unhelpful for me, some of it was damaging to me. "Recovery" seems to have been redefined by AA's to mean complete abstinence, actively working steps, regularly in contact with a sponsor, and regularly attending meetings. I don't believe in that definition of recovery. For me the standard definition applies and that is "being restored to a former or better condition". I have achieved that.

PS. Sorry for the long, exhausting post.

Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/

Clara's picture

Very educational, and I am glad that it works for you.

To the others, I don't have personal experience with methAdone, but from what I have seen from people that use those clinics, it was trading one addiction for another, which is not restoring a person to a former or better condition. I never said AA was better than methAdone as I never made a comparison.

Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.

avogadno's picture

Clara, you said that "from what I have seen from people that use those clinics, it was trading one addiction for another, which is not restoring a person to a former or better condition".

I don't understand. It certainly can be a better condition. If an addict is spending most of their money on drugs, unable to work, and not present in their family life - wouldn't being on methadone and although physically dependant on it be a "better condition" than their previous one? This assuming they are able to work and live an otherwise "normal" life?

Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/

Clara's picture

But they aren't, Avo. The persons in my experience aren't doing those things now any more than they were when they were using their DOC. I haven't been left with a favorable impression of the situation. Now a girlfriend of mine differs completely. She used to be a nurse in a methAdone clinic and she would dole out allocations to people that were on their way to work. One was her banker.

Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.

avogadno's picture

What do you mean "they aren't"? You just said that your friend would dole out allocations to addicts for people on their way to work. Unless they were working before they got on methadone, I'd say it's a step up and in the right direction.

Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/

Pages