DescentBB

People will kneejerk-reaction this but I say do it. These people are alcoholics regardless, at least the park is clean now. So I say it's a win.

My instincts say if a municipality has a problem with the behavior of a group of citizens in public what ever the solution they choose to solve it shouldn't include exploiting that groups addiction to a substance if consuming the substance is the root of the problem in the first place.

It seems like a selfish and harmful way to hide a problem.

If you had a family member who got drunk/high all the time and regularly abusive when ever guests came over would you bribe them with extra drugs so your social life was temporarily easier to enjoy?

The bottom line for the municipality should be to decide if the behavior is legally acceptable. If it isn't then enforce what ever laws you have to make the location safe again. If you want to help the drunks do that too.

This "solution" seems to not really be one at all.

I can see both sides of the argument, but come down, personally, on Will's take. Expediency, gained at the expense of the weaknesses of others, is a bad idea.

Don't alcoholics have free will? The government is just helping them have more freedom and liberty!

I see it as counterproductive. First they clean the streets, then they get plastered on their wages and proceed to go back and vomit in those previously clean streets.

When you stop and consider that alcoholism is acknowledged as a disease, this is pretty damn reprehensible.

I wonder when some municipality will think it is a good deal to have pedophiles clean the parks where children play. Bet they'd do it for free.