Should States Spend Millions of Dollars on Alcohol for the Homeless?

Trending Polls:

• Is There a Rising Concern of Anti-Semitism at America’s Top Universities?

• Should Political Campaigns Refrain from Controversial Ads on Sensitive Occasions Like Mother’s Day?

• Should Bill Maher Be Considered a Spokesperson for Moderates?

• Should the Biden Administration Press Israel to Withdraw from Gaza?

• Should Infants Be Allowed at Large Concert Events?

Here’s the Scoop

The city of San Francisco is now in the business of enabling addiction, and it’s costing taxpayers a whopping $5 million annually. The city’s so-called “managed alcohol program” offers free beer and vodka shots to homeless individuals suffering from severe alcohol addiction. Initially launched during the COVID-19 pandemic, this controversial initiative is, unsurprisingly, under fire.

Adam Nathan, the chair of the Salvation Army San Francisco Advisory Board, recently exposed the program’s shocking reality. The program operates from an old hotel where they “basically give out free beer to the homeless who’ve been identified with AUD (Alcohol Use Disorder),” according to Nathan. The disturbingly casual setup allows program participants to walk in, grab a beer, and repeat – all day long.

The program’s exorbitant cost is alarming, but what’s more distressing is the flawed strategy behind it. Proponents, like Shannon Smith-Bernardin, a UCSF School of Nursing professor who helped create the program, argue that the goal is to stabilize the alcohol use of homeless addicts. The San Francisco Fire Department even claimed the program reduced the use of emergency services for a “small but highly vulnerable population.”

But the question remains: Is this really the best way to manage addiction? San Francisco’s Democratic Mayor London Breed has criticized similar “harm reduction” programs, stating they are “not reducing the harm” and are “making things far worse.” A recovering heroin addict echoed this sentiment, questioning whether we should be funding addictions with taxpayer dollars indefinitely.

San Francisco’s misguided approach to managing addiction is a stark reminder that it’s time to reevaluate where our taxpayer dollars are going. It seems that detox and recovery programs would be a far more responsible and effective use of these funds.

What do you think? Let us know by participating in our poll.