Text 2231, 135 rader
Skriven 2006-06-09 20:22:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2677.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Kurt Ullman to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <kurtullman-8B8DF7.17421609062006@news.west.earthlink.net>
@REPLY: <kurtullman-FC9692.10503204062006@news.west.earthlink.net>
In article <ae5j821hm4bbp89dk4os217er3af9jj4v4@4ax.com>,
 Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?

             I am not sure now either. Maybe had something to do with 
something further up... or not.
         

> >> 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.


     Generally can't do that with current programs. Can't tell you right 
off if that is related to the legislative language (which is changeable) 
or because of court cases saying it is discriminatory (which isn't as 
easy to change). Also it would be REAL interesting to see if this would 
pass muster under Americans w/ disabilities act. 

> 
> - 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.
         Problem with committment is that it is very term limited, 
especially in the case of substance abuse. Generally you can only keep 
someone until the crisis is over and they are no longer a danger to self 
or others.  Even with regular longer-term commitments, the alternatives 
aren't all that great. IF they somehow meet the criteria they could be 
rehospitalized. But in civil commitment there really is not an effctive 
stick to go with the carrot, especially in SA cases. You can't send 
someone to jail for instance. A good tongue lashing from the man in the 
black robe is about the best. 
     We actually have more alternatives with schizophrenia and the other 
mental illnesses. 
      > 

> 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.
> 
    Probably could be if you could get some sort of agreement on what 
constitutes "enough" and how to test. There are plenty of qualative 
tests, has anyone taken anything at any place over a certain period of 
time. Fewer usable quantative, how much they got on board RIGHT NOW.




> >    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.
       The bottom is VERY individualized. I know of a friend of mine 
that swore off entirely the first time a cop stopped, and he was just 
barely not drunk (that time) I have a patient I worked at the hospital 
who was 45 years old, had 150 arrests for public intoxication, a really 
bad liver and was still drinking heavily. Thus you can lead, etc. People 
won't stop any kind of addictive behavior until they hit THEIR bottom. 

> 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.

  Won't work. See above. You'll just get people saying what they think 
you want to hear to get out. Or they might actually think about it and 
be willing in the program, but soon break down under the strain of 
respectability when they get out. Also, unless part of criminal 
probation you can't mandate locked treatment. I can see possibility of 
it being more expensive because this kind of treatment is REALLY 
expensive.
                                                                               
                                  
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)