Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DanteHicks
It really depends on what you're comparing to what for any economic analysis to make sense.... So what exactly is being weighed up?
|
When dealing with people with such chronic personal problems who refuse any offers of treatment I believe it is the responsibility of the state to sensibly manage the financial burden so created. It must be remembered that, ultimately, these people have chosen this lifestyle and have slapped away the hand that tried to lift them back up. My point was that while I agree with the approach of allowing these people to drink themselves into oblivion in the privacy of a dedicated building (as opposed to on the streets) the monies set aside should not exceed the amount required to ignore the problem in the traditional way.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tactitus
It might be cheaper for the state to warehouse these people but it doesn't strike me as being particularly humane. Instead of drinking their lives away out on the streets we give them a place to drink that costs us less money overall and takes them off the streets and out of public view. Is this for their benefit or ours?
|
Clearly it's for our benefit and I don't see why this should be a problem. These people have choices, they are not being railroaded or abused by the system in any way. They
choose to drink the amount they do. In this case they have all
chosen to refuse treatment on many occasions. I believe in their freedom of choice even while it kills them and I believe this option is preferable to an approach of criminalisation and expensive, pointless punishment.