Kentucky is a good place to be for those recovering from drug abuse,

[Chuck]

Charlotte Wethington, an advocate for drug abuse recovery, said the model used for the state's new Recovery Kentucky program has a 65 percent success rate for those who have been out of the program for one year--the highest success rate Wethington said she has heard of for recovery programs.

The Recovery Kentucky Program, announced by Governor Ernie Fletcher in January, is a voluntary non-treatment program for those in recovery who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. Within the next two years, the program will offer housing and rehabilitation services to 1,000 people at 10 sites throughout the state, said state Division of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Director Steve Shannon.

Wethington told the Subcommittee for Families and Children today that the program works by allowing those have been through it to help those who are just beginning the program.

"It's called a therapeutic community," she said Wethington, who lost her son to addiction in 2002. "The people who have been in the program act as mentors to ones coming into the program."

Everyone who enters the program does so voluntarily, a fact that raised questions with a few lawmakers, including Rep. Tom Burch, D-Louisville, who chairs the House Health and Welfare Committee. Stating that a person needs to be off drugs for at least two months before recovery can begin, Burch asked how being able to leave the recovery facility is beneficial.

"Whey should we waste money?" he said. "Somebody comes in and two days later they walk out of the place."

Shannon said each time a person enters the recovery program "may be a good learning experience. The nature of substance abuse is it may take several times (for there to be success)," he said.

"That's the really good this about this program," added Wethington. "This is a continuum: It's detox, then treatment and then after-care."

Recovery Kentucky will eventually have facilities in every state Congressional district, Shannon said. The program is a joint effort by the Governor's Office for Local Development, the Department of Corrections and the Kentucky Housing Corporation.

[MichaelB]

I realize this is a volatile subject and evokes great emotion and I am, generally speaking, very conservative in nature and typically oppose any spending on such social reengineering projects. Further, most people can lend at least tacit support for such programs as long as they are not in their neighborhoods but when it's in your 'back yard" it becomes something else. However, we must realize that these people are already with us and some may already be in your "back yard" so we need to find a way to make as many of them as possible productive. The bottom line is that these people, left untreated, will cost us money and resources either through vandalism or other damage, vagrancy, crime, court and jail cost, etc. so if we have have a program that allows even moderate success I believe we should pursue it. Also, if the powers that be think through the location process I believe there are multiple venues in the state that allow for neighborhood safety and provide a positive atmosphere for recovery. Good planning and management will allow programs of this type to work for all citizens. I suggest rather than total opposition to the idea we as citizens should provide positive input into the planning and location function of the program. Sometimes all interested parties need to think a little deeper to provide solutions to such social problems!

[Chuck]

I realize this is a volatile subject and evokes great emotion and I am, generally speaking, very conservative in nature and typically oppose any spending on such social reengineering projects. Further, most people can lend at least tacit support for such programs as long as they are not in their neighborhoods but when it's in your 'back yard" it becomes something else. However, we must realize that these people are already with us and some may already be in your "back yard" so we need to find a way to make as many of them as possible productive. The bottom line is that these people, left untreated, will cost us money and resources either through vandalism or other damage, vagrancy, crime, court and jail cost, etc. so if we have have a program that allows even moderate success I believe we should pursue it. Also, if the powers that be think through the location process I believe there are multiple venues in the state that allow for neighborhood safety and provide a positive atmosphere for recovery. Good planning and management will allow programs of this type to work for all citizens. I suggest rather than total opposition to the idea we as citizens should provide positive input into the planning and location function of the program. Sometimes all interested parties need to think a little deeper to provide solutions to such social problems!

Very good point. I agree with everything. I stand against the location. I have our local jail in my backyard and do not have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with the drug treatment center being right next to it.

I do have a problem with it being in the back yard of a school where I expect to leave my children all day.

Now MY OPINION has nothing to do with the school system management. It has to do with the rule of "What is an acceptable risk." To me this is not an acceptable risk.

A whole bunch of tax money is being dumped in the school system to better protect our children while at school for many different reasons. Now we want to add a facility that has a potential to cause a situation that I feel would be unacceptably to my child safety.

You can color me a control freak if you like but I watch my children and know as many of there activities and friends as possible. I don't choose there friends I just know them.

I would not send my children to a place that I would need to worry about them for up to 8+ hours in a day, each day. I can do that at home.

It only takes a second for something to happen to a child. I just don't feel we should increase the risk.

[MichaelB]

Exactly correct. The public needs to establish a positive dialogue with whomever is to make the location decision and subsequently that person or persons need to be open-minded enough to accept the positive input. Hope it works that way.

[Eddie]

Michael,
There were concerns voiced at the last city commision meeting, with really no response other than "ok".
I'll just go on record here, and as I usually do, go against the political correct thing by stating "What a waste of tax payers money"! I simply dont want one single dime of my tax money spent to re-hab a stinking druggie. I know this money is being spent at the Frankfort level, which to me is all the more reason to vote these knuckle heads out of office, starting with Fletcher. If 65% is considered a success, I'm in the wrong business...If I was only 65% successful, I'd be fired by Monday! I didn't get them (the druggies) hooked, and I sure as heck don't want my tax dollar cleaning them up. I'll go as far as to say I really don't give a rats butt if they get sober or not. If they want to kill themselves on drugs let them, less problems for society. Here's an idea, lets take that money and spend it on improving the quality of life for folks over 70, who worked hard all their lives, NEVER tried drugs, and are trying to live on 460.00 a month. If you ask me, this is simply job security for some brain quack (excuse me, doctor) who wants to spend their day sitting around trying to convience some druggie why they should stop, and collect tax payers money to do it. WHAT A WASTE!

[MichaelB]

I certainly don't disagree with your premise but as you stated you received little more than lip service at the hearing. I would suggest that this must be a done deal so if it is, everyone should be on record with their objections and concerns and more importantly they should monitor the situation themselves so when the time comes and the project fails these same people may be held accountable for any problems that arise. As for what you do with drug addicted people it rest somewhere between a 15 cent bullet and a multi-million dollar rehab program. They have to be dealt with some way.

[stinkerbelle]

dont be a nimby...it is for the common good...plus think about the people who lost their jobs and turn to drugs they deserve help to..

[Eddie]

Losing a job is a reason to turn to drugs? Give me a break dude or dudette, It sounds the drugs were more like an excuss for losing the job in the first place.
I don't mean to sound like I'm beating up your post stinkerbelle, but losing a job is a pretty poor excuss for drugs don't you think?

[annieap]

Why would you turn to drugs after losing a job? And how would you afford them?

[snowtiger]

Wow, some of you are really lucky in that you have never seen a loved one go through drug/alcohol addiction. Well...I'm not so lucky and they don't deserve a "15 cent bullet." I've seen people just as stolid and conservative as anyone fall prey to some kind of substance abuse when their world falls apart, and it has no bearing on their will power or social status. I can't believe that some of us can make such blanket judgements on others. Some hurts goes so deep that people find anyway they can to dull the pain, fortunately not all people go this route. I'm very disappointed in the attitudes around here toward these people that need help. Maybe this attitude is what has helped this problem get bigger. I know everyone is upset about the location, but I don't think that is the real issue for some of the posts. It must be nice to sit back on our thrones and just look down on these people and assume their problems are because they are not as strong as us or as lucky as us or they are just "trash" that are not worthy of our empathy and kindness.

[snowtiger]

I didn't mean to get so huffy. Ughhhh....it's been a horrible month and I'm starting to see why people WANT DRUGS, lol. Just, never mind me right now.