Article on shelter that allow alcoholics to drink - page 2
They claim it is more cost effective and they will drink anyway...... Read More
- 1May 7, '11 by casiHonestly how often do we put these people through DTs when they have no plans or desires to stop drinking. If they want to drink themselves to death they should be allowed. If a charity organization wants to give these people the dignity of having a home, so be it.
- 0May 14, '11 by muffins20You know... if I had a family member that after doing numerous interventions to try and help them find sobriety they still wanted to destroy themselves (or find themselves helplessly addicted) ... then I guess I would support this shelter. It would give them a "safe", or controlled, haven at the very least.
It's not a perfect world, and addiction is a powerful condition, if not a powerful physical and psychological disease, that can turn someone you love into a total stranger overtime. I don't think there's enough gifted people out there who can actually help addicts that don't want to help themselves find sobriety.
It's heartbreaking that it even has to come down to this.
- 0May 14, '11 by Liddle Noodnik GuideQuote from nurse2033From the article: "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." This is just about enough to rent them an apartment, clothe and feed them, AND provide alcohol (depending on what they drink) - why not get them housing so they can drink in a nice place instead of a nasty old shelter? Gee, think, people! (holy crap! I suppose if you let them drink the nurses don't have to deal with those pesky old seizures so much...)They claim it is more cost effective and they will drink anyway...