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.
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.
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.