Lethe
June 27th, 2011, 10:54 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13936998
I recently read this article and was curious to see what others think of this :D.
If you didn't read the article, here's a synopsis:
____________________________________
In Minnesota, alcoholics are offered housing without being told to stop drinking. There are three of these "wet houses" in Minnesota, and they follow the controversial rule that no person can stop you from drinking. If you want to you can "drink yourself into a stupor, or even to death".
People's House states that alcoholics that live at the wet houses have shorter binges than those who have not attended a wet house and says that it saves the county about $500,000 a year by reducing hospital visits and jail bookings.
Many alcoholics that live at the wet houses say that their lives have been turned around or saved. They claim that the option to drink or not gives them more power and makes them more motivated to stop drinking as often. ""When someone tells me I can't do something, I'm going to do everything in my power to do that," Mr Mihalik (an alcoholic since he was 18) says. "That's kind of vanquished here. They're saying 'go ahead and drink', and all of a sudden the options fall in my lap."
The wet houses do not provide alcohol for the residents; they must buy their own with their own money. This also weighs heavily on choice; spend money on alcohol, or save it for something worthwhile?
Of course there are critics. The County Commissioner states that enabling alcoholics to drink is only costing the tax payers more money, and it is helping to destroy people's lives.
Still, the wet houses continue to abide by their "no forced sobriety" rule.
____________________________________
What do you think of all of this? What is your opinion on wet houses? Do you believe these types of facilities enable users to continue to drink when they wish to stop? Is having the option to drink a good or bad thing, especially in a place that is trying to help those with drinking problems in the first place?
I recently read this article and was curious to see what others think of this :D.
If you didn't read the article, here's a synopsis:
____________________________________
In Minnesota, alcoholics are offered housing without being told to stop drinking. There are three of these "wet houses" in Minnesota, and they follow the controversial rule that no person can stop you from drinking. If you want to you can "drink yourself into a stupor, or even to death".
People's House states that alcoholics that live at the wet houses have shorter binges than those who have not attended a wet house and says that it saves the county about $500,000 a year by reducing hospital visits and jail bookings.
Many alcoholics that live at the wet houses say that their lives have been turned around or saved. They claim that the option to drink or not gives them more power and makes them more motivated to stop drinking as often. ""When someone tells me I can't do something, I'm going to do everything in my power to do that," Mr Mihalik (an alcoholic since he was 18) says. "That's kind of vanquished here. They're saying 'go ahead and drink', and all of a sudden the options fall in my lap."
The wet houses do not provide alcohol for the residents; they must buy their own with their own money. This also weighs heavily on choice; spend money on alcohol, or save it for something worthwhile?
Of course there are critics. The County Commissioner states that enabling alcoholics to drink is only costing the tax payers more money, and it is helping to destroy people's lives.
Still, the wet houses continue to abide by their "no forced sobriety" rule.
____________________________________
What do you think of all of this? What is your opinion on wet houses? Do you believe these types of facilities enable users to continue to drink when they wish to stop? Is having the option to drink a good or bad thing, especially in a place that is trying to help those with drinking problems in the first place?