Should taxpayers support wet houses? In AA literature, it has been said that there are those who seem to be constitutionally unable to get sober. A wet house is basically a place that allows drunks and addicts to enjoy a modicum of shelter and to drink, usually outside the premises. Typically, shelters require residents to remain sober or they are disqualified. What appears to be the ultimate in enabling is to some a less costly way of dealing with drunks. The argument being ER, jail, and crime are the alternative and cost more than sheltering a drunk or addict. Advocates of wet houses call it harm reduction. Whether America comes to terms with its chronic population of drunks and addicts is yet to be seen. Addiction doesn’t seem to be waning and it is in fact costing all of us too much money and grief.
DadOnFire 
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 20, 2011 at 7:13 am
Dad 4 Truth
There was a time I would have fell out of my chair in disbelief reading about “wet houses” but over the years a new truth about addition has transformed my understanding of this disgusting disease. Part of my transformation came after reading “In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts” by Gabor Mate, M.D. This book tied it all together for me.
The fact is, there is a small, very small, percentage of those addicted in which this is may be a viable option. One that serves the addicted individual, as well as society. My question is, who could possibly determine which person would qualify for a “wet house?”
I have not fully investigated this but I find it a very interesting concept.
May 21, 2011 at 9:41 pm
peglud
My daughter is a recovering heroin addict. I have learned not to rule out any option in dealing with addiction. The concept of “harm reduction” is an interesting and provocative one – and one I never would have considered several years ago. However, similar to “Dad 4 Truth” above, Dr. Gabor Mate also introduced me to this term and approach. Visit this post, “Staying Alive”, (http://peglud.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/staying-alive/) on my blog about Dr. Gabor Mate’s work and his illumination of the inhumane treatment drug addicts often are subjected to in ERs. Tom, at http://www.recoveryhelpdesk.com, also has written about safety vs. using. There was a time in the not-so-recent past, that just keeping my drug addict daughter alive, was the priority. And so – I must consider this option of “wet houses” – the risks versus benefits. Thanks for stirring the pot. Peggy
May 25, 2011 at 5:28 pm
susan lea
My first thoughts are: Why not just provide treatment to those who can’t afford it? But I also realize that this isn’t always possible. And I know that the addicts who show up to an ER will be treated for the immediate problem and then sent back out to the street. Maybe a “wet house” is an idea that could be part of the larger picture of services to addicts and alcoholics that we, as a society, need to look at.
May 31, 2011 at 11:19 pm
Bill Ford
You have a realistic picture of the issue Susan. If addiction were not such a ravenous disease, I don’t think even the more liberal amongst us could conjure up the concept of wet houses. The point is hardly conceivable, but those who have seen the depravity of alcoholism and addiction know the slight worth of humanity that emerges in even having a place to die in piece vs lying in a gutter and being sucked up by a municipal street sweeper.