Cheers.

51% Wow. Nice article, thanks Aya.

When I enjoyed my drinking, I couldn't control it.

When I controlled my drinking, I couldn't enjoy it.


But this has to do with a roof over ones head.
Puts a different spin on things. I never quite got that far.

Nice to see it's working, and kudos to them!

I read a similar study once, which took place in Sweden. It was essentially the same, only the subjects recieved controlled doses of heroin.

It's a difficult topic really, because it has some really positive sides, and some really negative ones, for instance giving junkies smack. But the basic philosophy is that they're going to be doing it anyway, so let them get it someplace safe.

Unfortunately, if your basic goal is to eliminate their dependency (and it should be), then you can't give winos booze. You aren't going to make a strong argument for sobriety filling up a hobo's plastic cup with 'shine.

Wow! That is interesting. One of the ultimate means of self-destructive behavior is what alcoholics will do when denied their potion of choice. Kitty Dukakis - wife of the former presidential candidate - when 'locked up' drank "RUBBING ALCOHOL!" That can seriously fuck you up.

Sometimes the solution to a problem is worse than the problem. In the 80's the Reagan administration slashed funding for many social services, including those who assisted homeless folks and/or people with mental issues. So they could buy more military hardware. Turns out that if you give some of those people a square meal or two a day, they will wander about and not trouble anyone too much. Take that away, (and any basic medical care) now you have a 24/7 panhandling issue, and many other social issues and problems.
And when you think about it, who is going to be uglier, meaner, or more dismissive to the panhandler, you, me, or the guy in the business suit whose company is making millions off the weapons trade?? Interesting how those at the top of the food chain despise taxation and welfare - assistance programs, unless it is corporate welfare. That is ok.

that is pure awesome, and here here for a program that can assist people like that.

It's not quite the same, but when I used to collect for the local food drive, the people in the poor neighborhoods were always massively more generous than the ones in the more middle-class and well-to-do neighborhoods.

Like a poor family's donation to the food drive might be two big grocery bags full of all kinds of stuff, while a wealthier family's was probably three cans -- of creamed corn.

I read about the same, or a similar study with heroin. I'm pretty sure it was in England or Scotland though. But it might have been in Sweeden. It was in a great book who's title I can't for the life of me remember. It was about the history and consequences of the war on drugs. Anyway, the whole point of the idea of giving addicts controlled doses is that if you just cut them off, there is a much greater chance of them going back to booze, than if you give them a dose that allows them to live somewhat normally without being too screwed up by the drug, or the withdrawl. The goal isn't to eliminate their dependency, but to allow them to live with it until they want to, or can eliminate it.

The name of the book is Drug Crazy by Mike Gray.

[Edited on Jan 03, 2006 by MrStitches]

It's great that they are trying to help the homeless. I'd like to see the contrast in facilities for the homeless like the one mentioned in this article v. another homeless shelter. Could it be that because it was safer, monitored, and patients treated with care that reduced alcholic intake, emergency visits and encounters with police rather than the 'home brew'. It'll be interesting to see if any of the participants stop drinking completely.

Good for you for participating! I recently read a column by a contributing syndicated columnist/economist in my local paper, Scott Burns. He said essentally the same thing as you, with hard data. And called it Scrooge Christmas for the wealthy, or something like that. The jist of it was that the wealthy -when they contribute - it is a much smaller percentage of income than when people with less contribute. 2% to 5% at the highest income levels, and as much as 12% at the lowest income levels, above abject poverty, of course. Remember too, that people when they give, give things/stuff that reflects where they come from. For the very wealthy, that might be paintings, buildings, endowments. But what does that do for the greater society? Sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. Depends on how you see it, and whether you go to museums and so on.

But for most of us, if you donate a old pair of shoes, or a bookshelf, or whatever, Goodwill or whoever will give you a "receipt for tax purposes."
Good luck. For us, odds are you will never deduct anything from your taxes, simply because you have not given enough away. The rules, as usual, are skewed to the other side of the scale. Bah Humbug, indeed!

i think this is a fantastic idea!!! give 'em a controlled amount of what their body needs, so they dont drink themselves into oblivion (like many alcoholics will) putting themselves at higher risk of being picked up by the cops, or doing stupid shit.

e.x. in my district in the city, there's a local homeless drunk, shortie, who i'm constantly seeing being harrassed by the police. he'll get wasted and pass out on the bus bench, or the 7/11 wall and the cops will yell at him, and *nudge* (read:kick) him, telling him either to get up, or get arrested. passing out drunk will get you sent to the ER or just the hospital, but recently, he was taking a ride on the light rail between cars, where they connected together, as it was turning around, he fell off, but his head got stuck in the wheel, and his body was flipped over and over and drug by his head, causing serious injury to his head and body.


less than a month later, he was back at his usual business of too much to drink. a program of control issuance could help situations like these. SF should start one.