Program offers drinks to homeless alcoholics

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
Stupid idea? Sure sounds like it. But is it?

Shelters across the country are taking a closer look at an Ottawa shelter that gives drinks to homeless alcoholics after a study suggested the program is having a positive impact.
Dr. Tiina Podymow envisioned the program after volunteering with chronic alcoholics, including some who drank upwards of 40 drinks per day, including mouthwash.

Participants in the Managed Alcohol Project were given permanent beds in a shelter and, from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m, allowed to have one drink of homemade wine or beer per hour, carefully measured out at a dispensary counter.

Now a study published in this week's edition of the Canadian Medical Association Journal is raising interest in the program.

Completed by the shelter's medical director, Dr. Jeff Turnbull, the study examined the program's impact on 17 residents. Most had been alcoholics for 35 years before starting the program.



His study found:
  • Participants who typically drank 46 drinks a day before the program dropped to about eight drinks a day during the program.
  • The number of emergency room visits fell by 36 per cent.
  • The number of encounters with police were essentially halved, falling by 51 per cent.
Critics say there's no way to judge how effective the harm-reduction approach is because there's no comparison group in the study, such as people taking part in an abstinence program like Alcoholics Anonymous.

But Turnbull says the aim of the program is not complete abstinence.

"We always try to encourage people to stop drinking but we are realistic," said Turnbull. "These are people who have spent 20 to 30 years on the street and trying to get them to stop alcohol is not possible at this time."

Others question the reasoning behind the program.

"If this works for alcoholism and you can keep your streets cleaner and safer, then what is stopping you from doing it for cocaine addicts or crystal meth people?" asked Brian Venables, with the Salvation Army.

Podymow says she understands the criticism.

"I would totally agree the best treatment is to stop completely. But if the person with the disease isn't going to stop, what else is the plan?" she said.

Tim Hogan says he'd like to give up drinking but doesn't think he's ready.

"I would like to throw that bottle into the Rideau [Canal] and never come back for it, but knowing me I'd throw the bottle in and I'd probably jump in the Rideau to go get it," said Hogan.

The program has been successful for others.

Wendy Cooper and Jimmy Smyth went through the program together and are now both completely dry.

"If it wasn't for the program I seriously say I would've been dead by now," said Cooper.

With a year-long waiting list to get into the program, several shelters in other cities are interested in adopting it.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/02/alcoholics-ottawa060102.html

Think of all that money saved due to reduced police encounters and emergency visits. Who would have thought that giving alcoholics alcohol could save money and increase safety?
 
I'm curious what led to the decrease in drinks per day. What it regimented (i.e., was their enrollment in the program contingent upon their continued success, or reduction in drinks per day), or were the drinks intentionally shitty in taste (and given that some participants had been drinking mouthwash, that's probably a moot point)?

EDIT: RvB, only if you're serious in your comment, why disregard something that seems to be statistically successful (though the article admits to not having a control/comparison group) in order to suggest something punitive? Is the goal to help these people reduce/stop drinking and the associated deviant behavior along with it, or is the goal to punish them for being alcoholics and vagrants?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']EDIT: RvB, only if you're serious in your comment, why disregard something that seems to be statistically successful (though the article admits to not having a control/comparison group) in order to suggest something punitive? Is the goal to help these people reduce/stop drinking and the associated deviant behavior along with it, or is the goal to punish them for being alcoholics and vagrants?[/QUOTE]

Silly Myke, Americans don't care about rehibilitation, get out the scarlet "D"!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/31/shaming.drunks.ap/index.html
 
[quote name='bushwaccer']I really dont understand their "reason" of doing this. Sounds pretty stupid to me.[/QUOTE]

*sigh*

If I could show you that, statistically, giving people a red crayon would stop them from doing drugs, would you think it was stupid? Perhaps. You can't deny that it works, though.

Now, theoretically, giving people a red crayon seems completely unrelated to crime; in this instance, however, rationing alcohol is related to the problems of crime, public intoxication, vagrancy, and other related issues.

Here's another question: if you want to provide assistance to people who substance abuse problems, would you force them to go cold turkey out of their own volition, or would you help wean them off of the substance they are addicted to? What's more foolish then? Just because we aren't punching people in the face for being substance abusers doesn't mean that means aren't being taken to reduce dependency.

Here's a final question, and one I'm certain that you'll find the most difficult to answer: what's stupid about this program? Give me details.

EDIT: This idea is as stupid as giving a methadone prescription to a heroin addict.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Here's a final question, and one I'm certain that you'll find the most difficult to answer: what's stupid about this program? Give me details.
[/QUOTE]

It either requires constant monitoring of alcoholics before and after the programs starts, constant breathalyzer tests or worst of all actually taking the bum's word on how much they've had to drink. Also it shouldn't be too surprising that when you give someone a permenant place to stay and sleep they spend less time on the streets and so have fewer problems with the police.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']It either requires constant monitoring of alcoholics before and after the programs starts, constant breathalyzer tests or worst of all actually taking the bum's word on how much they've had to drink. Also it shouldn't be too surprising that when you give someone a permenant place to stay and sleep they spend less time on the streets and so have fewer problems with the police.[/QUOTE]

Of the three reasons this appears to work you have an answer to one

Participants who typically drank 46 drinks a day before the program dropped to about eight drinks a day during the program.
The number of emergency room visits fell by 36 per cent.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Stupid idea? Sure sounds like it. But is it?[/QUOTE]

Yes. Wow, by pouring government money into giving drinks to alcoholics, we've made them less alcoholic! Awesome! I wonder how much it cost for the government to do this instead of a halfway house where they were actually made to be sober.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Yes. Wow, by pouring government money into giving drinks to alcoholics, we've made them less alcoholic! Awesome! I wonder how much it cost for the government to do this instead of a halfway house where they were actually made to be sober.[/QUOTE]

Well locking people up in jail doesn't usually work, treatment centers don't usually work, so how is a halfway house, which isn't even designed to treat addicts (but to help those who have been through treatment) going to work any better? The rate of beating drug addictions (including alcohol) is very low. And halfway houses don't "make" anyone stay sober.

We can either work on an all or none principle, or say "this is better than nothing" and take what we can get. This isn't preventing anyone from stopping and may even provide a stepping stone to eventually doing so, but it is attempting to lessen the severity of the alcoholism.

And besides, if it really does work as it appears then the government makes money due to not having to pay for as many emergency visits and arrests. Its not like these places are build for this, its something a previously existing shelter is doing.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Of the three reasons this appears to work you have an answer to one[/QUOTE]

No I have an answer to 2, the results of how much the drink are very questionable and it's easy to claim a reduction in police problems when you give someone a guaranteed place to stay 24/7. Besides isn't the first reason the entire point of the program? If they aren't infact drinking less then reductions in police incidents and emergency room visits will only be temporary.
 
I'd like someone to explain to me how, philosophically, this is different from a methadone clinic.

I'd also like to see if similar reductions in emergency room and police visits were found in halfway houses and other facilities that did not offer drinks. I doubt that's the case, because a "guaranteed place to stay" isn't always that important if you're not drinking. I also would argue that it is a false assumption that the people in these various programs have no place to stay. I don't do much work examining deviant behavior in this manner (perhaps I should), but there has to be data on the average % homeless amongst participants in rehabilitation programs.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'd like someone to explain to me how, philosophically, this is different from a methadone clinic.

I'd also like to see if similar reductions in emergency room and police visits were found in halfway houses and other facilities that did not offer drinks. I doubt that's the case, because a "guaranteed place to stay" isn't always that important if you're not drinking. I also would argue that it is a false assumption that the people in these various programs have no place to stay. I don't do much work examining deviant behavior in this manner (perhaps I should), but there has to be data on the average % homeless amongst participants in rehabilitation programs.[/QUOTE]

The difference between this and a methadone clinic is simple, the purpose of a methadone clinic is the eliminate herion use while this program is a research study.

Comparing this to a halfway house or any rehab center would be difficult due to the different levels of freedom allowed to the participants and the punishment for rule violation. What you should consider is that the article clearly states that: Participants.... were given permanent beds at the shelter..., which suggests that this isn't typical.
 
Could be, this shelter is in ottawa. That also says they dilute the alcohol over time, so the 1 drink won't be as bad by the end as it was at the beginning.
 
Also, we had a massive budget surplus. So, therefore, we could spend the money on these types of programs.
 
bread's done
Back
Top