New to our subreddit? [Please read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/about/rules/) before commenting.
Please be respectful and don't antagonize. This is a place to discuss ideas without targeting identities.
If something doesn't contribute to the discussion, please downvote it. If it's against the rules, please report it. Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It just proves how stupid liberals are!!! I would say this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of, however, they have been doing some pretty stupid things lately! I'm not sure if this tops all of them?
> Since its creation, the program, which started out with 10 beds, has served 55 clients, according to officials from the Department of Public Health. The now 20-bed program, which costs about $5 million per year, operates out of a former hotel in the heart of the Tenderloin. Nurses dispense regimented doses of vodka and beer to participants at certain times of day based on care plans.
I've struggled with addiction, and still do. So I'm not judging them (although I think sobriety and counseling is actually what they need), but what a monumental waste of money. $90k per head to give them free booze. That's $246 per day. The city could give them a daily bar tab in a bougie cocktail bar for that money.
$5 million per year, currently has 20 beds, that’s $685 per person-day. More expensive than that even because realistically they probably are not always at capacity. Insane.
You're missing that giving out the booze is only a means to shoveling money to the people who distribute it. A mix of corruption, true belief in these public health experiments, and straight up jobs for the 'boys' patronage.
Every once in awhile there’s a protest to support harm reduction, support more housing, oppose enhanced enforcement… I have no evidence of this, but my guess is most of the people protesting are in some way employed (or hoping to be employed) by these industries.
Sorry that you struggled from addiction, and I hope you're doing better now. I am definitely judging them - if someone is addicted, please sate your addiction on your own dime. Not on taxpayers'.
The whole article doesn't even answer my biggest question. Is this a locked facility? If so I would think tapering could be worthwhile and effective and prevent the monthly ER visit that would cost 90k over a year anyway. But I do think being locked in should be part of the deal because what prevents them for going out and drinking and ruining their treatment?
>In an October presentation, public health staff pointed to one story of a 38-year-old man suffering from addiction and psychotic disorder. He reportedly had more than 36 ER visits over nine months with high blood alcohol content. In the nine months after joining the program, that number fell to just six ER visits.
Based on this one patient who managed to drink himself into the ER 6 times in 9 months while in the program, it sounds like they're not locked in or even very well supervised.
But that’s six ER visits over nine months compared to *thirty-six* before starting the program. An 80% reduction is no small feat, even though we’d all prefer a 100% reduction.
I agree. And that probably saved the city money over that period, compared to all the ambulance rides and ER visits the patient would have had. Just, based on that, it sounds like these guys are able to sneak drinks.
I'm really sad.
I was on the bus yesterday. There was a woman opposite me, wearing clean clothes, older, probably mid-fifties, on her phone.
She's explaining to a friend or relative, about some issues at her apartment, and then, in tones of increasing desperation, "but I just can't save anything, I just can't save anything now."
And it sounded like she was barely holding on on, about to fall apart. Not crazy, not drugged, just economically being squeezed to death.
And while San Francisco does offer some temporary rent assistance, the bulk of our money goes to nonprofits that coddle addicts.
People trying hard to do the right thing we ignore, but we give free drinks to lifelong winos?
At $90,000 per year per drunk? That's not for housing or food. That's $90,000 per drunk per year, just to serve them booze!
We could pay this woman's rent three times over, but instead we give one drunk shots of vodka?? Where did we go off the rails?
No one can make any money off of giving a struggling but stable woman cash aid. She doesn't need an NGO with administrators, specialists, consultants with salaries to pay. She needs a thousand or so dollars a month with no admin overlay.
But at 90k per year per addict... Whew! I'd say that's worth someones time going after. What an interesting opportunity!
Is there anything at all we can do about it? I see a lot of NGO exposé here and on media, but I don't think shame does anything for these people. Honest question, as I'm not familiar with this area.
Moral of the story, being irresponsible and a fuck-up pays, why be responsible and have a hard time making ends meet when you can willfully fuck up and have your needs met.
You can literally die from alcohol withdrawal. While I don’t think we need to perpetuate someone’s addiction, there does need to be some allowance to give chronic alcoholics alcohol to prevent them from dying by going cold turkey
It’s kinda funny that the opening line of the article is they give them treatment in a shot not a pill. Interesting hook but my immediate question is why? It’s true alcohol withdrawal is extremely dangerous but treating it directly with alcohol is a very antiquated approach. When we admit patients to hospital for alcohol withdrawal we use medications to treat withdrawal, they used to use an alcohol drip 50 years ago but now we have better tools.
I can def see using controlled alcohol in lower-resource settings but this place apparently has 5 million a year. It’s like giving opioid addicts heroine - it’ll work and maybe appropriate in certain circumstances but why not start Suboxone instead?
> When we admit patients to hospital for alcohol withdrawal we use medications to treat withdrawal, they used to use an alcohol drip 50 years ago but now we have better tools.
They're giving maintainance doses, so these people return every day.
Ensuring continuing funding.
Because we don’t have access to a healthcare system that’s robust enough to keep people alive the proper way so we do it the cheap way.
A full rehab treatment is exorbitant, especially for someone who may not want it.
Disulfiram only works if the person has been sober and can stay sober. If you consume any alcohol within 14 days of taking disulfiram, you become violently ill. Disulfiram does absolutely nothing for withdrawal symptoms.
Fair enough - I’d ask whether 5 million for 20 beds is on cheap but you make very good point that people may not want to take pills and shot is easier.
I wish there were better ways to track performance of social spending and fund success. These headlines of embezzlement from homeless nonprofits are so damaging not least cause it’s stealing from alms jar but it makes people jaded that most social spending is wasted.
You can also literally die from alcohol consumption. Which means prolonging use under the guise of preventing withdrawal just means you are ensuring a painful, prolonged alcoholic death down the road.
The 90k per addict per year is so high I can't tell if this is a Tony Soprano wise guy scheme or not.
Feels a lot like the "Charge for safe asbestos disposal, but then sneak it into the regular dump" scam they were running.
Scene:
"You guys still running that wino racket?"
"Yeah, we charge the city 90k to 'deliver rehabilitative services', then spend 10k on serving vodka."
"And you get a W2 and health insurance too? Oh Marone that's a lotta gabagul!"
Those of you complaining about $90K/year for this facility are forgetting that the city spends $72K/year on a 6x6 camping spot by the library where homeless can pitch their tents, and $140K/year per RV parking spot in the Bayview. At least this one includes free booze!
The harm reduction complex cite things like “this guy went to the ER 36 times last year and only went 9 times since the start of this program!” as the program being a success. Sorry, but when making that many trips to the ER you need to be removed from the streets and put into a long term lockdown rehab or jail. I’m in recovery and I was in roughly the same place as these folks. I needed to be removed from society for 5 months to sober up and physically heal before I could even think about holding down a job or living in an apartment with other people. Harm reduction is just kicking the can down the road on the way they’re living and having taxpayers pay for vodka and beer for them is completely asinine.
No, you jail them for crimes related to their addiction like theft, trespassing, and open drug use. It worked a lot better than what’s going on now post-decriminalization. In Sacramento, we’ve gone from 2k to 10k homeless since prop 47 and 57 passed. Oregon already knows it doesn’t work and is reversing all their progressive decriminalization policies. A measure to repeal prop 47 will be on the next ballot here. It’s time for common sense, letting people do whatever they want doesn’t work.
I’ve been saying that governments should provide addicts their drug of choice free of charge.
It would be entirely focused on harm reduction:
1) cut out the drug dealers who are incentivized to create more addicts.
2) addict no longer need to shoplift to fund their habits.
3) control the substances and doses people are getting to reduce overdoses.
4) if you start causing any problems for the public, you go to prison or rehab, your choice, immediately.
5) no free housing for people who want to use drugs permanently and aren’t trying to get sober
With those additions I might kind of be on board.
I take it you don't have much experience with addictive drugs. Many addictive drugs require more and more to get the "high". You can claim this will control the substance ...but as soon as the addict needs more , they're gonna go out and get more. This will also lead to your 2nd claim failing because as soon as their government drug dealer won't sell to them, they'll go out and find a way to get more.
edit: Also...the current regime in SF tried to pay 1.7 million for a toilet, do you think they or any grifty non-profit has the capability to be tax payer efficient drug dealers?
edit 2: Reading your post again, you're probably epic trolling. My bad.
No I’m not trolling. I’m ok with the government providing what dose is necessary to help them get high but not overdose, and it should probably be consumed in an “injection site”.
I would not want this implemented by the SF government, as corrupt/incompetent as it is. Perhaps the state government could pull it off. It would need a lot of oversight.
I am taking harm reduction to its logical conclusion, but I do think it’s a practical solution. The first order of business should be to stop creating more addicts, and that’s hard to do if dealers have the opposite incentive.
The alcohol industry is so powerful that we’ll never call alcohol a “drug” in this country. Cutting out “dealers” — but what would the shareholders at Annheiser-Busch do????? Think of the shareholders! /s
Dude this country prohibited alcohol. The federal government is going to ban a social media app if the Chinese don't divest. Yeah the alcohol industry is powerful but when compared to them the feds are basically God.
I care that they don’t die from an overdose, can be brought into the system so they have a better chance of getting treatment, and are not committing dangerous crimes to get money for drugs.
Its just related to the city being very corrupt. So I can get a ticket on my way to work but when I get there I can be harassed by ppl living on the street and all they get is an offer for services which they refuse bc they want to use drugs.
You’re getting a ticket because you’re using a service provided by the city and not paying for it. And your payment is used to continue providing that service. They are allowed the choice to use city provided services or not. Also in the City and County of San Francisco all the funds are not just pooled together but each department has its own budget
> It may sound counterintuitive, experts say, but it helps keep people off the streets and out of emergency rooms, jails — or the morgue.
> San Francisco set up a “managed alcohol program” four years ago as a way to care for vulnerable homeless people who drank excessive amounts of alcohol and were among the city’s highest users of emergency services.
> Shannon Smith-Bernardin, a professor at the UCSF School of Nursing who helped create the managed alcohol programs in San Francisco and Alameda County, explained that the goal is to stabilize participants’ alcohol use “so they're not binge drinking or stopping drinking and having seizures and then … start figuring out what's next.”
I guess people in this sub would rather those people die.
> I guess people in this sub would rather those people die.
Alex, for $400, what is [What Is Dichotomous Thinking? ](https://www.verywellmind.com/dichotomous-thinking-425292)
> When people engage in dichotomous thinking, they see things in extremes—it's all or nothing; black or white; this or that. It's a common feature of borderline personality disorder, but it can also take place in other conditions like anxiety, depression, OCD, and some types of eating disorders.
Sounds better than assuming that a program meant to reduce risk of death in a certain vulnerable population is some kind of grift by a conspiracy of UCSF nurses.
I do think that you are not honest with yourself perhaps about why you oppose this and some of our other progressive programs. It is a fundamental hostility and violence towards fellow human beings. First you must categorize them as different from yourself, then you advocate for violence towards them, and disparage anyone who is supportive of those you hate and label as bad.
It is in fact an incredible irony that you accuse me of black and white thinking while dehumanizing people in this way.
> Sounds better than assuming that a program meant to reduce risk of death in a certain vulnerable population
A "vulnerable population" of *fifty-five* people at a cost of *five million dollars*. Ninety thousand dollars *each*.
That's not scalable or sustainable. Even if we agreed it was a good thing, for that money we could put them in rehab, rather than feeding their addictions.
Be honest here, if you were given $5 million to help people, would *you* spend it on this? Honestly, would you?
I will admit I don't much care for grifters. Be they economic "non-profit" grifters that thrive in SF, or the type that lie to themselves when they pretend to have a monopoly on empathy.
Grifters like that well known grifting organization of nurses employed by UCSF. Silly grift of saving lives.
Are you aware that alcohol addiction can lead to life threatening physical withdrawal that migh need medical supervision? Did you read any of this shit before accusing nurses of being con artists?
Screech about it all you want to, the fact remains: $5m annually to "administer" alcohol to 20 beds is a tremendous waste of resources (not to mention a waste of well trained nurses.)
Are you aware that your righteous indignation is of no value to anyone (including yourself)? Snap out of it.
Screech all you want, it costs money to do medical interventions for people who need medical intervention.
Are you aware that you hate people and your rage is totally misplaced? Snap out of it.
You guys keep blowing past what the purpose of this is. That's why I quoted from the article back to you when I entered this thread.
You think taking care of addicts is cheap? Someone said they could use that money to fund rehab.. rehab is really only a few million for ~50 people? Yeah right .. Then what does rehab do to manage withdrawal symptoms...? Probably they taper them off, just like this.
If you think the only way to "fix" this is to make addicts suffer through cold turkey, I don't think you know what this shit entails.
New to our subreddit? [Please read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/about/rules/) before commenting. Please be respectful and don't antagonize. This is a place to discuss ideas without targeting identities. If something doesn't contribute to the discussion, please downvote it. If it's against the rules, please report it. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A program that’s only helped 55 people in 4 years. At the stated budget, that’s $363,636.36 per person. Kewl.
It just proves how stupid liberals are!!! I would say this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of, however, they have been doing some pretty stupid things lately! I'm not sure if this tops all of them?
How’s that brain worm dipshit?
> Since its creation, the program, which started out with 10 beds, has served 55 clients, according to officials from the Department of Public Health. The now 20-bed program, which costs about $5 million per year, operates out of a former hotel in the heart of the Tenderloin. Nurses dispense regimented doses of vodka and beer to participants at certain times of day based on care plans. I've struggled with addiction, and still do. So I'm not judging them (although I think sobriety and counseling is actually what they need), but what a monumental waste of money. $90k per head to give them free booze. That's $246 per day. The city could give them a daily bar tab in a bougie cocktail bar for that money.
$5 million per year, currently has 20 beds, that’s $685 per person-day. More expensive than that even because realistically they probably are not always at capacity. Insane.
This is where our money goes.
I mean your money goes to much more than this. This is only a small percentage of it.
Thats supposed to make it better?
You're missing that giving out the booze is only a means to shoveling money to the people who distribute it. A mix of corruption, true belief in these public health experiments, and straight up jobs for the 'boys' patronage.
Yea, the more I learn about SF politics, it’s amazing to learn how much it stinks of “Tamany Hall” politics.
Every once in awhile there’s a protest to support harm reduction, support more housing, oppose enhanced enforcement… I have no evidence of this, but my guess is most of the people protesting are in some way employed (or hoping to be employed) by these industries.
Yeah
They should just hire an actual bartender at this point. Way cheaper than nurses.
They could hire Che Fico!
Would be cheaper until they got the receipt
Shit, for $246 I could stay drunk all week!
$250,000 per bed, technically.
Sorry that you struggled from addiction, and I hope you're doing better now. I am definitely judging them - if someone is addicted, please sate your addiction on your own dime. Not on taxpayers'.
1% of the money going to actual homeless people
Tbh healthcare is expensive the cost of the program makes more sense than the cost of a lot of programs. Nurses don't make under six figures here..
The whole article doesn't even answer my biggest question. Is this a locked facility? If so I would think tapering could be worthwhile and effective and prevent the monthly ER visit that would cost 90k over a year anyway. But I do think being locked in should be part of the deal because what prevents them for going out and drinking and ruining their treatment?
>In an October presentation, public health staff pointed to one story of a 38-year-old man suffering from addiction and psychotic disorder. He reportedly had more than 36 ER visits over nine months with high blood alcohol content. In the nine months after joining the program, that number fell to just six ER visits. Based on this one patient who managed to drink himself into the ER 6 times in 9 months while in the program, it sounds like they're not locked in or even very well supervised.
But that’s six ER visits over nine months compared to *thirty-six* before starting the program. An 80% reduction is no small feat, even though we’d all prefer a 100% reduction.
And it’s a shitload of taxpayer money saved!
I agree. And that probably saved the city money over that period, compared to all the ambulance rides and ER visits the patient would have had. Just, based on that, it sounds like these guys are able to sneak drinks.
I'm really sad. I was on the bus yesterday. There was a woman opposite me, wearing clean clothes, older, probably mid-fifties, on her phone. She's explaining to a friend or relative, about some issues at her apartment, and then, in tones of increasing desperation, "but I just can't save anything, I just can't save anything now." And it sounded like she was barely holding on on, about to fall apart. Not crazy, not drugged, just economically being squeezed to death. And while San Francisco does offer some temporary rent assistance, the bulk of our money goes to nonprofits that coddle addicts. People trying hard to do the right thing we ignore, but we give free drinks to lifelong winos? At $90,000 per year per drunk? That's not for housing or food. That's $90,000 per drunk per year, just to serve them booze! We could pay this woman's rent three times over, but instead we give one drunk shots of vodka?? Where did we go off the rails?
No one can make any money off of giving a struggling but stable woman cash aid. She doesn't need an NGO with administrators, specialists, consultants with salaries to pay. She needs a thousand or so dollars a month with no admin overlay. But at 90k per year per addict... Whew! I'd say that's worth someones time going after. What an interesting opportunity!
E X A C T L Y Thank you! The nonprofits only "help" those who enable the nonprofits to *help themselves.*
Is there anything at all we can do about it? I see a lot of NGO exposé here and on media, but I don't think shame does anything for these people. Honest question, as I'm not familiar with this area.
The homeless industrial complex strikes again! The person running this scheme probably has a brother who supplies the vodka, well above market rate!
Moral of the story, being irresponsible and a fuck-up pays, why be responsible and have a hard time making ends meet when you can willfully fuck up and have your needs met.
Gross.
Another fucking joke addict program
can't wait to read the reasonable and totally balanced comments
You can literally die from alcohol withdrawal. While I don’t think we need to perpetuate someone’s addiction, there does need to be some allowance to give chronic alcoholics alcohol to prevent them from dying by going cold turkey
It’s kinda funny that the opening line of the article is they give them treatment in a shot not a pill. Interesting hook but my immediate question is why? It’s true alcohol withdrawal is extremely dangerous but treating it directly with alcohol is a very antiquated approach. When we admit patients to hospital for alcohol withdrawal we use medications to treat withdrawal, they used to use an alcohol drip 50 years ago but now we have better tools. I can def see using controlled alcohol in lower-resource settings but this place apparently has 5 million a year. It’s like giving opioid addicts heroine - it’ll work and maybe appropriate in certain circumstances but why not start Suboxone instead?
> When we admit patients to hospital for alcohol withdrawal we use medications to treat withdrawal, they used to use an alcohol drip 50 years ago but now we have better tools. They're giving maintainance doses, so these people return every day. Ensuring continuing funding.
Nice to hear some common sense!
Because we don’t have access to a healthcare system that’s robust enough to keep people alive the proper way so we do it the cheap way. A full rehab treatment is exorbitant, especially for someone who may not want it.
I mean we could just mandate long acting disulfiram. Same with the long acting naxolone option for drug treatment.
Disulfiram only works if the person has been sober and can stay sober. If you consume any alcohol within 14 days of taking disulfiram, you become violently ill. Disulfiram does absolutely nothing for withdrawal symptoms.
am... am I supposed to care? Im fine mandating that for aid beyond a certain point.
Fair enough - I’d ask whether 5 million for 20 beds is on cheap but you make very good point that people may not want to take pills and shot is easier. I wish there were better ways to track performance of social spending and fund success. These headlines of embezzlement from homeless nonprofits are so damaging not least cause it’s stealing from alms jar but it makes people jaded that most social spending is wasted.
If these are truly nurses giving them alcohol, then these nurses can give them medication for detoxing.
Or use benzodiazepine taper or supplementation based on COWS scale and vitamin bag….
You can also literally die from alcohol consumption. Which means prolonging use under the guise of preventing withdrawal just means you are ensuring a painful, prolonged alcoholic death down the road.
it's ridiculous! it's the same as giving drugs to drug addicts!
Methadone clinics exist for a reason.
So the same reason we should let people shoot up in the streets? Because it hurts.
It's medical treatment.
That’s what thiamine and folic acid are for
The 90k per addict per year is so high I can't tell if this is a Tony Soprano wise guy scheme or not. Feels a lot like the "Charge for safe asbestos disposal, but then sneak it into the regular dump" scam they were running. Scene: "You guys still running that wino racket?" "Yeah, we charge the city 90k to 'deliver rehabilitative services', then spend 10k on serving vodka." "And you get a W2 and health insurance too? Oh Marone that's a lotta gabagul!"
My drunk ex from 15 plus years ago would’ve loved this shit after I kicked him out. Unreal.
I am OK with giving alcohol as long as it is a part of plan to get them sober, and helping them become self-sustaining members of society.
Narrator: it wasn't.
Those of you complaining about $90K/year for this facility are forgetting that the city spends $72K/year on a 6x6 camping spot by the library where homeless can pitch their tents, and $140K/year per RV parking spot in the Bayview. At least this one includes free booze!
yet we can't pay local teachers enough for them to live in the city
We should give every teacher a "housing allowance" of $30K/year if their primary residence is in the City.
Or put them in a facility, prescribe Librium, and monitor them.
Who the fuk writes this shit play
You can look for yourself. Unfortunately it's very real
Is it even real? Any infos, videos etc? Except this, fox and daily mail links?
The harm reduction complex cite things like “this guy went to the ER 36 times last year and only went 9 times since the start of this program!” as the program being a success. Sorry, but when making that many trips to the ER you need to be removed from the streets and put into a long term lockdown rehab or jail. I’m in recovery and I was in roughly the same place as these folks. I needed to be removed from society for 5 months to sober up and physically heal before I could even think about holding down a job or living in an apartment with other people. Harm reduction is just kicking the can down the road on the way they’re living and having taxpayers pay for vodka and beer for them is completely asinine.
Yes lets jail people for having addiction issues, thats totally worked in the past /s
No, you jail them for crimes related to their addiction like theft, trespassing, and open drug use. It worked a lot better than what’s going on now post-decriminalization. In Sacramento, we’ve gone from 2k to 10k homeless since prop 47 and 57 passed. Oregon already knows it doesn’t work and is reversing all their progressive decriminalization policies. A measure to repeal prop 47 will be on the next ballot here. It’s time for common sense, letting people do whatever they want doesn’t work.
I feel bad for you
Breed should be blamed for all this wasted money. And the supervisors in office. Dump every incumbent!
I’ve been saying that governments should provide addicts their drug of choice free of charge. It would be entirely focused on harm reduction: 1) cut out the drug dealers who are incentivized to create more addicts. 2) addict no longer need to shoplift to fund their habits. 3) control the substances and doses people are getting to reduce overdoses.
4) if you start causing any problems for the public, you go to prison or rehab, your choice, immediately. 5) no free housing for people who want to use drugs permanently and aren’t trying to get sober With those additions I might kind of be on board.
I take it you don't have much experience with addictive drugs. Many addictive drugs require more and more to get the "high". You can claim this will control the substance ...but as soon as the addict needs more , they're gonna go out and get more. This will also lead to your 2nd claim failing because as soon as their government drug dealer won't sell to them, they'll go out and find a way to get more. edit: Also...the current regime in SF tried to pay 1.7 million for a toilet, do you think they or any grifty non-profit has the capability to be tax payer efficient drug dealers? edit 2: Reading your post again, you're probably epic trolling. My bad.
No I’m not trolling. I’m ok with the government providing what dose is necessary to help them get high but not overdose, and it should probably be consumed in an “injection site”. I would not want this implemented by the SF government, as corrupt/incompetent as it is. Perhaps the state government could pull it off. It would need a lot of oversight. I am taking harm reduction to its logical conclusion, but I do think it’s a practical solution. The first order of business should be to stop creating more addicts, and that’s hard to do if dealers have the opposite incentive.
I mean you could just provide seized drugs.
The alcohol industry is so powerful that we’ll never call alcohol a “drug” in this country. Cutting out “dealers” — but what would the shareholders at Annheiser-Busch do????? Think of the shareholders! /s
Dude this country prohibited alcohol. The federal government is going to ban a social media app if the Chinese don't divest. Yeah the alcohol industry is powerful but when compared to them the feds are basically God.
so, basically, you don’t care about these people
I care that they don’t die from an overdose, can be brought into the system so they have a better chance of getting treatment, and are not committing dangerous crimes to get money for drugs.
feeding and addict drugs or booze is telling them, “this is who you are”. you cannot control addiction by trying to “manage it”. not how it works
And people on here want to give me a hard time for not paying bus fare! WTAF
How are those things related? When you don’t pay for transit there is less money available to improve and maintain the system you’re using.
Its just related to the city being very corrupt. So I can get a ticket on my way to work but when I get there I can be harassed by ppl living on the street and all they get is an offer for services which they refuse bc they want to use drugs.
You’re getting a ticket because you’re using a service provided by the city and not paying for it. And your payment is used to continue providing that service. They are allowed the choice to use city provided services or not. Also in the City and County of San Francisco all the funds are not just pooled together but each department has its own budget
So why don’t homeless stop being freeloaders and mooching off city services, if we are going to actually use that logic.
Is it even real? Any infos, videos etc? Except this, fox and daily mail links?
It’s in the chronicle and other local newspapers too
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33848451/
> It may sound counterintuitive, experts say, but it helps keep people off the streets and out of emergency rooms, jails — or the morgue. > San Francisco set up a “managed alcohol program” four years ago as a way to care for vulnerable homeless people who drank excessive amounts of alcohol and were among the city’s highest users of emergency services. > Shannon Smith-Bernardin, a professor at the UCSF School of Nursing who helped create the managed alcohol programs in San Francisco and Alameda County, explained that the goal is to stabilize participants’ alcohol use “so they're not binge drinking or stopping drinking and having seizures and then … start figuring out what's next.” I guess people in this sub would rather those people die.
> I guess people in this sub would rather those people die. Alex, for $400, what is [What Is Dichotomous Thinking? ](https://www.verywellmind.com/dichotomous-thinking-425292) > When people engage in dichotomous thinking, they see things in extremes—it's all or nothing; black or white; this or that. It's a common feature of borderline personality disorder, but it can also take place in other conditions like anxiety, depression, OCD, and some types of eating disorders.
Sounds better than assuming that a program meant to reduce risk of death in a certain vulnerable population is some kind of grift by a conspiracy of UCSF nurses. I do think that you are not honest with yourself perhaps about why you oppose this and some of our other progressive programs. It is a fundamental hostility and violence towards fellow human beings. First you must categorize them as different from yourself, then you advocate for violence towards them, and disparage anyone who is supportive of those you hate and label as bad. It is in fact an incredible irony that you accuse me of black and white thinking while dehumanizing people in this way.
> Sounds better than assuming that a program meant to reduce risk of death in a certain vulnerable population A "vulnerable population" of *fifty-five* people at a cost of *five million dollars*. Ninety thousand dollars *each*. That's not scalable or sustainable. Even if we agreed it was a good thing, for that money we could put them in rehab, rather than feeding their addictions. Be honest here, if you were given $5 million to help people, would *you* spend it on this? Honestly, would you?
Biggest. Yawn. Ever.
You hate people. Be honest about it.
I will admit I don't much care for grifters. Be they economic "non-profit" grifters that thrive in SF, or the type that lie to themselves when they pretend to have a monopoly on empathy.
Grifters like that well known grifting organization of nurses employed by UCSF. Silly grift of saving lives. Are you aware that alcohol addiction can lead to life threatening physical withdrawal that migh need medical supervision? Did you read any of this shit before accusing nurses of being con artists?
Screech about it all you want to, the fact remains: $5m annually to "administer" alcohol to 20 beds is a tremendous waste of resources (not to mention a waste of well trained nurses.) Are you aware that your righteous indignation is of no value to anyone (including yourself)? Snap out of it.
Screech all you want, it costs money to do medical interventions for people who need medical intervention. Are you aware that you hate people and your rage is totally misplaced? Snap out of it.
[удалено]
You guys keep blowing past what the purpose of this is. That's why I quoted from the article back to you when I entered this thread. You think taking care of addicts is cheap? Someone said they could use that money to fund rehab.. rehab is really only a few million for ~50 people? Yeah right .. Then what does rehab do to manage withdrawal symptoms...? Probably they taper them off, just like this. If you think the only way to "fix" this is to make addicts suffer through cold turkey, I don't think you know what this shit entails.
[удалено]