I used to administer benzos as part of the CIWA protocol. Why does this place give alcohol instead of benzos?
I think because that to minimize damage for a full acute withdrawal. As I understand it, benzos increase GABA that is depleted from alcohol, because NMDA recovers more quickly and is excitable, causing the twitching, seizures, etc.
This seems like a slow wean off with social and housing support to replace the dependency on alcohol. Kind of makes a lot of sense.
I’d read somewhere that this program averaged over $300,000 per supported-addict per year, of taxpayer cost.
Having tried participating in “charities” before, I find that number ABSOLUTELY BELIEVABLE.
The US’s United Way pours millions of donated-dollars into the personal-wallowing-wealth of its executives.
It will be a “fine, pleasant, moderate, & reasonable” day in hell, before I’ll believe that the category “not for profits” is any less corrupt than the other categories ( for-profit operations, governments ).
I hope it was wrong information I saw, disinformation, rather than truth/fact, but … no “charity” that I’ve every tangled with would tolerate limiting administration’s wealth for sake of honesty.
None.
_ /\ _
Not-for-profits just means they are less corrupt. (Doesn’t stop them from being very corrupt).
Can someone explain how giving addicts more drugs at taxpayers expense helps?
The article goes into this in great depth on both sides of the issue, but this is probably the most direct answer.
The drinks, dispensed by nurses as a form of medication, are meant to prevent the clients from becoming overly intoxicated while avoiding the worst effects of withdrawal, which may lead to seizures and can be fatal for those physically dependent on alcohol.
To address the “taxpayers expense” part, it’s way more expensive to provide major health care than small amounts of vodka.
Alcohol withdrawal is no joke and it can be deadly. I have gone through withdrawal a couple of times in my life and it is debilitating, even in less serious cases like mine. (I am surprised I didn’t end up in the hospital the last time as I quit on my own without supervision. That was grade-A stupid.)
All political stuff aside, giving out a few drinks will save lives. However, the odds are astronomical that someone might actually use the program as a means to wean themselves off. Still, there is a chance that someone cleans themselves up and that is good enough for me.
The cost should be minimal, I would speculate, as there are countless forms of cheap alcohols out there.
It’s sort of like a supervised injection site, no? Those site have been shown to lead to harm reduction and stopping addiction. Line you say, it’s not likely that any one person will come to get clean but over time people build up trust with staff at the sites
Yeah that is a way to look at it. If people need to get alcohol, it should be medically dosed and without all the frills of a bar. Any place that does this should only have the function of keeping someone alive. Period.
Unfortunately, the people who would need this are likely already in bad shape. However, even having some glimmer of trust in someone else, even if it is just a staff member at one of these places, could be a great start to recovery.
And yes, addicts may go to great lengths to get their fix and reducing any criminal activity related to that is good for everyone.
The absolute truth of the matter is that someone has to absolutely commit to breaking an addiction. A few free drinks a day may keep someone alive long enough to do that for themselves.
Some hospitals keep it on hand because severe withdrawals can kill a person.
I don’t know if this fits your criteria for “helps”, however.
There are certainly other medical uses for ethanol that a hospital would keep it on hand for.
Not saying there isn’t, but this has been documented as treatment for DT’s.
Bottle of liquor is cheaper than a state funeral. Withdrawal does kill.
Also a little empathy will go a long way. Understanding what happens to an addicts body would help here too.
Repeated alcohol withdrawal is more harmful than repeated drunkenness by a long shot, and each one could kill, and very likely so. While obviously all destructive drinkers (and on another level all drinkers period really) should quit, quitting things doesn’t always happen on other people’s schedule and reducing the harm that’s done in the interim can improve future quality of life greatly. As far as doing this at your expense, well, addiction is a thing that can hit anyone and does a lot of damage to the community around the person it hits.
I mean that’s just capitalism. It’s cheaper to give them alcohol and avoid overdoses and withdrawal symptoms than to pay for emergency room visits.
Also, department officials say, none of the booze used in the program is purchased with taxpayer dollars.
Who then Dave from accounting is paying for it?
Heartless monster, you are.
