 |
Daily news for Seattle's Ballard neighborhood |
great idea
offlineMember
is ahyusaca truly an issue in working with addicitive populations?
I have never had this experiece but know well of others that have had the most amazing duration of their lives. these are the sort of people to seek out shamans and spend sigfnificant amounts of money and time to have the opportunity to have this experience.
misslydia
offlineMember
It's something to consider. It's not legal in most of the world. I went to the Amazon Jungle in Peru this last summer and participated in ayahuasca ceremonies. It's a powerful medicine and I saw it help addicts and people who had suffered with depression for years. These were not the homeless populations, but people who had some money and were desperate because they had found no success with the treatment offered in the "western world" (for a lack of a better word). I'm not suggesting we send addicts to the jungle, but there is some serious potential in helping the addicted population here in our own country by merging traditional plant medicines/ceremonies with the more modern day methods.
Cate
onlineMember
Okay, this intrigued me so I tried to look up actual research on the use of ayahuasca in the treatment of substance abuse disorders. There is nothing in peer-reviewed scientific or medical journals that I could find.
This is a schedule One drug. There are deaths reported from its usage including an American teenager this past summer who traveled to the Amazon as part of drug tourism.
Why do I think that the idea of giving an psycoactive/hallucinogenic drug to a person who already has trouble with drug usage is a bad idea?
shanedillon
offlineMember
I'm saying money could be spent on more worthy causes. One thing that has been done in some European countries is to ban retailers from selling to offenders. You'd often go into a bar or off license liquor store and they'd be photo posters of banned individuals in the area. The establishments would lose their license if they sold alcohol to any on the list. In the end it would take so long for the offenders to go somewhere else (another county usually) they would spend less time drunk.
That would save more money than the wet houses and free health care we keep giving these people.
Spend this money on cancer care, education, training or helping homelessness!!!
nwcitizen
offlineMember
Thank you misslydia. Loved the video of Dr. Mate's talk. He is a most amazing man.
cd6
offlineMember
SOMEBODY DIED
LET US DISCUSS THE EFFICIENCY OF HOW TAX DOLLARS ARE SPENT
onederfullone
offlineMember
"It's a powerful medicine and I saw it help addicts and people who had suffered with depression for years."
wow.
You saw it all on vacation? Can't argue with such testimony. /sarcasm.
Ask any addict if they are improved when high. They are 100%, 100% of the time improved, cured, and feeling no pain.
What a facebooking Nirvana.
(Sorry Kurt)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G8V6ta9Auk
...unplugged, fwiw.
shanedillon
offlineMember
It's sad that the guy died, but Heart Disease and cancer are the biggest killers in America and usually the victims aren't to blame. If the alcoholic stops drinking - problem solved. Take away the booze not enable someone to keep abusing themselves.
Spend the money on more 'deserving' causes!
great idea
offlineMember
"Heart Disease and cancer are the biggest killers in America and usually the victims aren't to blame"
sure there's often genetic factors that cause these diseases, but smoking and eating big macs doesn't help.
should we take those things away to stop enabling people?
NYC outlawed big, fizzy drinks and it will probably save the city boatloads of money.
onederfullone
offlineMember
"NYC outlawed big, fizzy drinks and it will probably save the city boatloads of money."
lmfao
*wipes away tears, takes deep breath*
It wasn't a war on fizzy, genius, and it will cost more in tax revenue than it will ever save, plus, it will cost every retail establishment revenue, which means even less tax revenue.
I couldn't even tell you about ice volume for a super-tanker drink, or how many ounces of actual displacement occurs, or even how many half full super-tankers are simply discarded.
But, the Mayor of New York city, that's a facebooking genius. /sarcasm.
"should we take those things away to stop enabling people?"
Yes, we should, as long as you are prepared to pay for a Big Mac house, a fizzy drink house, and a lethal level of corn syrup house as well.
Maybe you need to follow our constitution and quit enabling stupidity on our dime.
I know, it makes no sense to talk about stupidity to someone so stupid, but I tried.
pennygirl
offlineMember
Well...I think the most important thing that we can take from this thread is that it wasn't a faceless person. Corvus and his daughter knew this man and they liked him. Regardless of what people think about anything, maybe we should step back and realize that they have suffered a loss. It wasn't a family member, granted, but it seems to have been someone who had a profound effect on Corvus Jr. Maybe we should think about that.
If there is another argument (or many) about the homeless then maybe a new thread would be preferable.
Edit: Sorry about the many 'maybes'
treehugger
offlineMember
pg + 1
phoo
offlineMember
Actually, the problem isn't solved when an alcoholic stops drinking. There is still the reason of WHY they were drinking. Without fixing that, they can go back any second and probably will as soon as they hit stress. Then there are the secondary health issues they've accrued from when they were drinking. Not just physical illnesses, but also mental illness. Long term alcoholism can cause actual brain damage.
shanedillon
offlineMember
Something like a wet house should only funded privately and absolutely never from public funds in my view.
phoo
offlineMember
Shanedillon: that works, as long as you are consistent by also denying them other public funds, like health care, shelters, homeless services, jails (which is extreme public housing), and anything else that could cost the public money. Otherwise, the wet houses end up saving money.
pennygirl
offlineMember
There are also people out there with chronic/acute issues not caused by drugs or alcohol. How many women are out there? How many of them may be suffering from breast/ovarian/cervical cancer without knowing it?
Ballardemician
offlineMember
I think wet houses are a pretty good idea, but am still skeptical about their utility/efficacy in the long term and on a large scale. The research in favor of them is fine, but limited in both number of studies and the size of those studies. And I can foresee many problems that could arise if these pilot programs were scaled-up to serve the larger population of homeless addicts. It's hard to manipulate social problems -- so many variables, all evolving in ways that can't usually be predicted. But hey, if wet houses seem to be working it might make sense to creep forward with expansion and see what happens.
Sad that this man died -- exposure is a rough way to go.
Ballardemician
offlineMember
Ayashuasca as an addiction therapy tool: I've done my best to get a handle on this topic as it come up in some teaching I do in Neuropsychology. The research is extremely limited and poorly controlled. It is fringe to say the least, and basically driven by (extra)clinical anecdote. It is FRAUGHT with confirmation bias.
This is not to say ayahuasca doesn't work in some cases, or couldn't work if applied broadly; just that putting down your marker on "it's totally the answer" is not a reasonably supported position. The argument pattern used by its supporters is the classic application Kuhnian rhetoric as logical fallacy: there have been other similarly revolutionary breakthroughs in the past, so you can deny that it is possible, so this must be one too.
And, again, this is not to say it couldn't possibly work as a wide-spread therapy; just that there is no strong evidence to support that case.
shanedillon
offlineMember
Phoo - often what it comes down to is there are only so many resources and funds available. Would you honestly choose a service to help those who continually hurt themselves by making bad choices every day over people that need help due to circumstances completely out of their control?
You have to pick and chose often.
Ie. wet house or hospice? Library or shelter? Parks or school services etc etc.
There's not money to help everyone!!
Pokerguy
offlineMember
Shane- Can you really be this stupid?
ynh98107
offlineMember
I have crossed paths with SD several times and he is one of the more educated, aware, and well-spoken persons around (in) here.
Pokerguy
offlineMember
well on this subject he is being pretty obtuse
GAM
offlineMember
I agree with shanedillon's point. It's all about choices. We can't help everyone. And choosing between worthy programs or solutions is tough. Impossible, perhaps.
Phoo has a good point, too. Some folks that (for instance) drink themselves to ruin might be able to stop if underlying causes were addressed that society could help with. So spend a little money on someone now, even if that money includes a wet house, and they might be able to return to society productively. (Bonus for the pragmatists: I hear this is cheaper for society in the long run).
No two people are the same of course, and there are some that will fall through the cracks for all sorts of reasons. I tend to think it's good to throw a little $$$ at a variety of services as I think it increases the odds of having a program that is the right fit for more people. No service will save everyone, but more people will be saved in the end.
As this discussion has been going on I've been reminded of a conversation I had with my mom years ago. Her charitable giving mostly goes to the arts. Mine mostly goes to human services. I was trying to convince her that my philosophy was better: until all people are saved, we can't waste money on the arts. Her point was that without the arts, it's not a society worth saving people for. We're both right. My point here, is there are all sorts of ways to help. I'm not going to begrudge someone taking a different path than me, as long as what they are doing is doing some good. Because, really, is there a "right" choice?
Pokerguy
offlineMember
Do some of you not get the basic concept that wethouses save money and free up resources that can then be directed towards those worthy of them?
shanedillon
offlineMember
And you do understand a wet house doesn't run itself on zero funds. There is no actual evidence that it saves money. In fact in some instances it has been reported of a sizable percentage in wet houses drink themselves to death.
I get your point that you are suggesting it saves money on health care, but perhaps upto a certain point that maybe they should be refused treatment. Maybe after ten A&E visits, twenty, thirty? There has to be a limit!
Maybe there is no helping some of these people and its very sad they die. But maybe there is no stopping that and that is just their nature. It may come off as callous but as I keep saying there are only limited resources. What about the elderly, sick, and disabled that need help through no fault of their own?
If you have $100 to give or spend then you have to make choices who or where it goes and who gets nothing. It's the same for a city budget and as tax payers we all get a say.
onederfullone
offlineMember
Many resources are provided to far more successful efforts, far better outcomes, and not one dime of taxpayer arm-twisting involved.
Do some of you not get that basic concept?
Clearly.
racerX
offlineMember
There has to be a limit!
http://www.myballard.com/forum/topic.php?id=14940&page=2#post-202984
shanedillon +1
Corvus
offlineMember
Wouldn't it be nice if we could just walk through the Commons and slap the drunks upside the head with a fiver saying 'be healed' and watch as they go scurrying off to do their laundry and lead 'productive' lives?
Unfortunately that only happens in bibles and other story book fantasies, and apparently that may be the only place charity can happen too.
Like anybody else, I like the money I give to feed starving children to actually feed starving children. Yes, I think charity should work or actually help the persons who are the recipients. Maybe I am going out on a limb here, but why shouldn't drunks be provided with a warmish, dryish place to drink themselves to death, or.. decide not to. Considering the huge sums of money we give for vastly less rewarding behavior, it seems down right petty and small minded to talk about the relative merits of 'wet houses'.
For what is probably the cost of one twelve pack from each of us, the whole lot of them (Ballard's or even Seattle's drunks) could be housed where they could quietly end their wasted lives peacefully and be able to walk down the hall to take a leak instead of pissing and dying where our children play. Seems like a no brainer to me, but that kind of logic just doesn't seem to resonate in a country where military spending positively dwarfs education spending.
Since when was the relative worth of a charity determined by the return or reward to the person making the donation?
Clearly some people do not get the basic concept. Maybe it should be called something else.
GAM
offlineMember
Well said, Corvus.
I do consider the relative return/reward of charities when I'm looking where to donate to because my dollars are limited. It's part of my effort to do the most good.
I think it's positive to look at that sort of thing.
OingoBoingo
offlineMember
When the drunk is drinking and drunk, it matters not where the drunk drinks. Under bridges, in street gutters, or mired in alley mud puddles it don't matter. The misery of their addiction dictates their life, regardless.
We were out with the grand kids in lower Queen Ann after having ridden the 'city bus' to our Wizard of Oz adventure in the Seattle Center but something happened. Some man wearing an 'ID badge' did a hurl of streaming yellow vomit at the corner near where we were contemplating lunch. This drunk brought about social opprobrium upon his selfish self and disturbed the appetite of one of our grand kids. The other two were still hungry as were my wife and myself and after having ordered, the oldest came around and ordered too. Should we count ourselves lucky to eat lunch without having some drunk interrupt our meal with a panhandle much less deal with a lout lying on a side walk?
Our story to the kids was that the man was sick and will probably die of his problem. No we can't help him unless he wants to help himself.
They understood.
great idea
offlineMember
"Should we count ourselves lucky to eat lunch without having some drunk interrupt our meal with a panhandle much less deal with a lout lying on a side walk?"
I would hope not, but sometimes it does feel like the exception to not get hasseled.
I think what you told your grandkids was appropriate. I think there are also some down-trodden souls that would welcome assistance, but haven't sought it out for whatever reason.
I also find your avatar to be one of the most intriguing on MyBallard. it looks like a scene from M.A.S.H., only there's black people, so couldn't be!
phoo
offlineMember
GAM: I think you misunderstand my point. I am not talking about putting an alcoholic in a wet house in the hopes that he'll choose to get better. It is certainly much better circumstances in which for him to choose sobriety, but that's not the primary goal here.
"pick and choose" is *exactly* what this is, though perhaps not how Shane means it. By choosing to fund a wet house there are not LESS funds for police, fire, public hospital funds, there are actually more. Because a wet house costs less than sending an ambulance for the drunk who is ill from exposure, from being beaten up, from an untreated illness that is exacerbated by living in unsanitary conditions. Also less than throwing him in a drunk tank, imprisoning him, or other police services. We frequently already house these people from time to time, it's just in a more expensive system where we also feed them and hire a LOT of staff.
shanedillon
offlineMember
My suggestion was to try what they do in Europe. Ban establishments and liquor stores from selling to offenders. It makes it much more difficult to get drunk ( yes I'm sure they will find a way but it has been proved over there that they spend so much time going out of town to buy their alcohol they are drunk fewer hours).
This method I'm sure costs far less than a wet house.
Also I do think there should be a limit on how many times you help someone for self inflicted injuries. I also think that incarceration is a better deterrent to others than a wet house.
nwcitizen
offlineMember
Vigil for Don Farquharson will be held today, 11/28, 12-1pm
See BNT article for details:
WHEEL to hold candlelight vigil for man who died in Ballard Commons Park
http://www.ballardnewstribune.com/2012/11/27/news/wheel-hold-candlelight-vigil-man-who-died-ballard
OingoBoingo
offlineMember
nwcitizen
Will you be attending?
Compass Rose
offlineMember
"I also think that incarceration is a better deterrent to others than a wet house."
That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard, SD, with all due respect. Are you seriously advocating that people be incarcerated for addiction, that it be treated as a criminal problem rather than a health issue?
Jesus.
shanedillon
offlineMember
@Compass Rose
I was just repeating what Phoo said "Also less than throwing him in a drunk tank, imprisoning him, or other police services."
And I didn't mean incarcerating someone for being drunk (that isn't against the law) but if they do anything else against the law they should pay the price!
I'm sick and tired of calling people that make stupid decisions time and time again victims, and then try to make a case to keep giving them handouts.
I pay and contribute my share to society, so am entitled to an opinion no matter how stupid you think it is. There are so many more worth while causes than a wethouse.
There are far more many elderly, or people with terminal cancer in Ballard than there are homeless drunks!
nwcitizen
offlineMember
Zachariah from the BNT came by the WHEEL Women in Black vigil this noon. His report is already up on their website.
Many thanks to the Ballard News Tribune for their attention to this.
From WHEEL: "The BNT sure is a good respectful publication, imho."
http://www.ballardnewstribune.com/2012/11/28/news/moment-silence-observe-don-farquharsons-life-deat
Corvus
offlineMember
Watch this...
http://www.thehappymovie.com/film/
and relate it to the conversation and commentary here.
I dare you, any of you.
Compass Rose
offlineMember
Shanedillon, it's easy to think that it's simply a matter of someone choosing to drink or not drink. But that doesn't take into account the fact that a lot of street drunks are mentally ill, have come from traumatic pasts, are messed-up war vets or just don't have the wherewithal, for whatever reasons, to be able to make better choices.
I agree with you that there are many other social issues that need funding and attention, and yes, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion. And as I've said here many times, I believe in personal responsibility.
I'm just saying that usually not as black and white as your comments suggest. And as others here have pointed out, there's a sound economic argument to be made in favor of wethouses, whether you agree with them in principle or not. We pay now or we pay later; these problems don't just go away.
You must log in to post.