Text 2217, 121 rader
Skriven 2006-06-09 15:18:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2663.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <ae5j821hm4bbp89dk4os217er3af9jj4v4@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <kurtullman-FC9692.10503204062006@news.west.earthlink.net>
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:24:04 +0000 (UTC), Kurt Ullman
<kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <ec2g8214m6hnipqrnjfbpc17prga2ik85r@4ax.com>,
> Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> As things now stand, I don't think it has a chance in hell, even
>> though the current policy -- wait until they've been caught stealing
>> and then incarcerate them at great expense -- may cost the government
>> more money (I say "may" because treatment programs are far from
>> completely successful).

>   The jail/prison detox programs don't have any better cure rate than 
>the "outside" programs. So, I don't see any more cost.

Not sure what you're saying here. More cost for incarceration?

>It basically 
>boils to what the individual sees as their "hitting bottom". Sometimes 
>it is the first arrest, sometimes it is death. 

Very true.

>> OTOH, there has been some progress in providing drug treatment to
>> prisoners, and they've apparently been successful at reducing the
>> recidivism rate (IIRC, the majority of prisoners now have a drug
>> problem or serious mental illness).

>       Haven't seen this, I would be interested in  seeing something on 
>this. 

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like I saved any of the articles . . .

>> In fact, I've long believed that not only should we provide treatment
>> on demand, but allow commitment for mandatory treatment with probation
>> and testing. That's because I've seen again and again how people who
>> become addicted to hard drugs go down the tubes, watched their
>> families and friends struggle unsuccessfully to convince the addict to
>> help himself, and seen that often the only thing that leaves a Heroin
>> addict lucid enough to be reached is jail. Surely we can do better
>> than that?

>       Describe commitment. IF criminal charges are involved, testing 
>and treatment can be made part of the probation (which can't be 
>prolonged beyond what they would have done under probation w/o the drug 
>part). If no criminal charges are involved, you can't constiutionally 
>require treatment. 

Offhand, I can envisage several scenarios:

- An individual is arrested. Then, as you pointed out, treatment and
testing could be mandated as a condition of probation.

- An individual seeks government assistance. In that case, treatment
and testing could be preconditions for government assistance.

- A concerned third party seeks commitment. I believe this is already
legal in the case of minors. In the case of adults, as I understand
it, commitment is constitutional if mental illness causes significant
risk to self or others. It seems to me that a good argument can be
made that addiction to Heroin, crack, and meth (and for that matter
serious addiction to alcohol) carries with it such a risk, and I
believe addiction is already widely classified as a mental illness.

From a civil liberties rather than legal perspective, the addict is as
unfree as anyone can possibly be. I am concerned about the potential
for abuse by overzealous government busybodies who confuse casual use
or minor addictions with life-destroying ones, so I'd want the
standard of proof to be high and objective.

Finally, possession of these drugs is illegal, and while as I
understand it the presence of narcotics in the body isn't currently
considered illegal, I wonder if a law couldn't be written so that the
presence of high levels of drugs in the blood would be sufficient to
demonstrate low-level possession. I'm assuming that the blood test
would require a warrant which would be issued only under strictly
defined conditions, e.g., sworn testimony that the individual is an
addict, or arrest for a drug-related offense, e.g., DUI. But haven't
really thought out the implications.

>    We probably can't do better than that in real life, since it is the 
>PERSON and not the system that is the restraining variable. You can lead 
>a person to sobriety, but you can't him not drink (to coin a phrase). 

But is that so? I've seen some people stop using even the likes of
crack after spending a few days in jail. Consequences do matter, and
the drug addict typically needs lots of bad ones to counteract the
pangs of withdrawal and the pleasures of use.

Then too, it seems to be impractical to catch the big dealers and stop
drug shipments, and new small dealers spring up as quickly as the old
ones can be carted away. Hell, I've seen places where street dealers
swarm like roaches. Commitment would hit the problem at the level of
the addicted, crime-causing, his-life-and-family's-lives-destroying
user.

Those who failed their probationary tests would spend time locked away
in mandatory treatment, which would likely cost the government less
than the cycle of crime and jail while being less brutal to the addict
and less likely to spread HIV. And while they were in rehab or
straight, the addicts wouldn't get their friends started, selling
drugs, or giving money to the dealers -- which would mean fewer
dealers trying to hook people. At some point, I like to think that
you'd overcome the broken window syndrome.

-- 
Josh

"I'm not going to play like I've been a person who's spent hours involved with
foreign policy.
I am who I am." - George W. Bush
                                          
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)