Posted on 07/05/2006 9:06:59 AM PDT by george76
Rodney Littlebear was a homeless drunk who for 15 years ran up the public tab with trips to jail, homeless shelters and emergency rooms.
He now has a brand-new, government-financed apartment where he can drink as much as he wants. It is part of a first-in-the-nation experiment to ease the torment of drug and alcohol addiction while saving taxpayers' money.
Last year, King County created a list of 200 "chronic public inebriates" in the Seattle region who had cost the most to round up and care for. Seventy-five were offered permanent homes in a new apartment building known by its address, 1811 Eastlake.
Each had been a street drunk for several years and had failed at least six efforts at sobriety. In a controversial acknowledgment of their addiction, the residents — 70 men and 5 women — can drink in their rooms.
They do not have to promise to drink less, attend Alcoholics Anonymous or go to church.
"They woke me up in detox and told me they were going to move me in," said Mr. Littlebear, 37, who has had a series of strokes and uses a walker.
"When I got here, I said, 'Oh boy, this don't look like no treatment center.' "
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Why don't they send the drunken bums to Cambridge, MA?
Ever.
The building's critics are particularly incensed that residents do not have to stay sober.
The Seattle Times, in 2004, editorialized that government should insist that the residents quit drinking in order to live there.
"Bunks for drunks — it's a living monument to failed social policy," said John Carlson, a conservative radio talk show host here.
This approach, he said, is "aiding and abetting someone's self-destruction."
Did you know that 10% of the State Store revenues go for alcohol rehab? That's right. The liquor stores are owned by the state in good ol' Washington. See anything wrong with that, or is it just me?
I think this is a good idea. Better idea would be to put them in some sort of camp far away from population centers, give them all the cheap booze they can guzzle for free and let them drink themselves to death out of sight. I'm sick and tired of walking a gauntlet of panhandlers and passed out winos going to and from work every day (and I work in a "good" part of Washington DC).
That's OK. The sooner they peg out, the cheaper.
You know,believe it or not,the Cambridge Police Department has a zero tolerance policy toward street bums in and around Harvard Square and near MIT as well.
Why,you might ask?
Because although there are more "progressives" per square inch there than anywhere else on earth,the residential and commercial real estate in the vicinity of both campuses (campi?) is about the most valuable on earth.
It's easy to pay almost $750K for a small studio condo within walking distance of Harvard Yard.
"I think this is a good idea. Better idea would be to put them in some sort of camp far away from population centers, give them all the cheap booze they can guzzle for free and let them drink themselves to death out of sight. I'm sick and tired of walking a gauntlet of panhandlers and passed out winos going to and from work every day (and I work in a "good" part of Washington DC)."
I am with you. Get them off our streets and out from under our bridges and overpasses. Find some area where they are isolated and tell them if they leave the compound they will be arrested and thrown in a drunk tank.
But heaven help the law-abiding taxpaying citizen who decides to have a cold one after work and lights up a cigarette...........
It's obvious to anyone that this is assisted suicide.
Which Washington embraces elsewhere in its laws, yes?
Why not relocate these people to the Kennedy compound in Hyannis?
Gee, I wish the government would pay me continue my addiction to slot machines. ;-)
How about if they put the bums behind the counter of the Out of Town Newsstand?
"This approach, he said, is "aiding and abetting someone's self-destruction.""
But neither should we criminalize or penalize them for it.
As a practical matter, if one is forced to do something about the situation (ie, nannny will be nanny) then the pragmatic thing to do is the one that impacts the taxpayer least. And that's what is being claimed here.
I was more or less okay with this project until I got to this line. Not one penny should be spent on medical care for these people. They are not trying to avoid illness and they are not trying to get well. Leave them be. When it gets really bad, give them morphine so they don't die in agony, but nothing more.
I'm sick and tired of walking a gauntlet of panhandlers and passed out winos going to and from work every day (and I work in a "good" part of Washington DC).
And thats just the senate
typical gubmint common sense. sports betting is illegal,
but state lotto is advertised on TV.
then in turn the state pays for gambling addict programs.
And their begging for even MORE taxes this year!
Sounds like you know a little something about Haavad Square.You surely realize that a drunk would never be able to tell a patron when the next issue of the Columbia Journal of Economic Development is due to arrive.
But is it up to the State to make that decision? It sounds to me that this may be the cheapest way to handle the problem..shelters and emergency rooms are not cheap. I don't know what the answer is. And old-timers in AA will also tell you that there are "Those who are constitionally incapable of being honest with themselves...they are not at fault...they seem to have been born that way."
Any recovering alcoholics will not usually vote Democratic.
Another thing, the libs detest the 12 Step Program.
who does the house keeping?? cleaning etc ??
WHY NOT? We've been paying for 5 generations of Welfare Queens and their 4 kids for years. Not to mention we're giving SSI checks to young, strong hosses in their 20's for "Bi-Polar" disorder when the only problem they have is their brain is fried from drugs. We're paying out billions of dollars each year to dope up our elementary school kids on anti-ADHD drugs because some teacher "diagnosed" them.
And, on a final note: Look at all the bennies given to those on the dole who are serving in the House and Senate and are drunks, dopers, corrupt and womanizing scum bags.
I'd just as soon give it to the bums living on the street as the bums who are integrated into mainstream society.
Nor the "New York Times Book Review" on Monday for the following Sunday edition.
Not necessarily. As soon as one "peg's out" there will be another to replace them; all at taxpayers expense.
You're onto something! Look at the way some don't perceive themselves as needy and hence do not apply for state-funded bennies...garsh, whoda thunk it?
The taxpayers pay for everything !
stores=jobs=votes for the rats.
Who knew you could drink yourself INTO an apartment?
Yes, let's legalize drugs, so we can pay for drug addicts to live, too. That'll be a great way to save the taxpayers money.
I think the goal is to just get them out of sight so we don't have them laying on the sidewalk. It's cheaper than jail, cheaper than detox. For that goal, it probably works. And it's better than spending all kinds of money on rehab programs these people won't cooperate with.
I think it's pretty well-known that alcoholics won't reform themselves until they've hit "rock-bottom." Well, this initiative will serve to deprive them of their rock-bottom, not only prolonging their own misery, but removing from others the disincentives that might prevent them from becoming down-and-out drunks in the first place. When you reward bad behavior, you can expect more bad behavior.
soooo true
Not just you, F; I see it too.
Same here in Pennsylvania, but not quite as high a percentage. The 50 states should NOT be in the alcohol business, in any case.
Uh, if they are spending taxpayer money, why not at least force the guy into rehab instead of letting him drink as much as he wants?
This has got to be the stupidest idea yet.
Perhaps that's the desired outcome. Then the taxpayers won't have to pay anything to support these people.
carolyn
Before the government decided that churches, service agencies and private citizens lacked compassion drunks were cared for by people who put demands on the alchoholic. Liberals have decided it is more important to allow drunks and other drug abusers to do their thing without Christians getting in the way. Today we have increasing rates of abusers and lost lives thanks to the inability of government to solve personal problems.
That's what I was thinking. Teddy will happily be their drinking partner...
They're not trying to cure them, they just don't like feeling guilty tripping over them. Seattle has a lot of pride in being a very progressive, clean, nice city. A bum on the sidewalk detracts from that, and rightly so. A civilized and liberal society may not be able to cure the ills of the world, but it can at least afford to hide them.
Liberal charitable acts consist of stealing conservatives' tax dollars and spending the money on liberal causes.
Cheapest way is to just ignore them when they panhandle. Let them go into convulsions from drying out and die. (If they don't die from that, they can starve to death. That's supposed to be humane, right?)
"This has got to be the stupidest idea yet..."
Which is why the NY Slimes loves the idea !
It's a vicious cycle. Just like welfare. The Dems started it and now they don't want to give it up because that's their voting base. Sorry sacks of sheet...
You got that right.
I am an old timer(25 years last week)and you are right.
This is state sponsored enabling.
LOL
Those programs still exist and thrive, what makes you think they don't? They just don't always work. A large percentage of addicts WILL NOT do their part and they get booted from those programs. This program appears to save US from having to look at the inevitable washouts from all of those programs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.