So how does one solve the problem of non compliant drug addicts who wont voluntarily admit themselves into a program but continue to commit crimes to support the addiction? The only realistic answer is lockdown and statistics about drug addiction recovery proves that lockdowns are an integral part of an addicts percentage of success.
We have mentally ill people who can't function in the real world and have to be institutionalized already...that's where you need an institution that will keep them sober and productive and not out continually breaking the law....the laws should represent no tolerance for abuse of anything that puts others or the public in harms way or inhibits sober people from freely and safely enjoying the city without harrassment or exposure to unhealthy public activity such as shitting on a sidewalk or ranting at the telephone pole..If you can't control your problem then social services should intervene.
Okay, but how? You didn't really answer the question. I agree the law should represent no tolerance for abuse. So how do we fix those who don't want help, but are continually in violation of the law? When you say, if you cant control your problem, if you mean addicts, well almost all cant. And so how, and in what way, should social services intervene? Forcibly implement a detox and recovery program?
It's a long process and will take funding....I did answer the question but as to a financial proposal...no...our govt hasn't even come up with one yet...this will take a long time to implement and half the country doesn't support socialized programs even like planned parenthood so helping addicts is going to be pretty far down the line for their tax dollar approval. We're not solving this issue on a msg board but we can speculate. My answer is legalize drugs and regulate their use first. Enforce public safety laws and public health regulations so nobody can abuse their freedom of choice without being removed from the streets. It's like saying you're going to cure domestic abuse....you can try but it's not going to be an easy battle.
I don't disagree, but I'm looking for more specifics. If an individual has been arrested and convicted of a violent crime while high and has been deemed has a chemical dependency on a regulated drugs, but this individual declines social services that will help him, what alternatives are there other than letting them loose to repeat the behavior or lock them up and force rehab on them? I think the disconnect or miss understanding might be the gap in addicts who say they want to quit and or want help, vs the number that actually take the physical steps to do so. Most are just talk and when it comes down to it, would rather live on the streets than go the path of recovery. recovery isn't easy. Most addicts will need to be forced onto it some way or another. Again, stats show that most cant quit without help. And most of that help is forced through conviction of crimes and a penalty that includes a recovery program the individual has to pay for and often cant, or thru intervention of family and friends. But its extremely rare for recovery programs to get volunteers on their own.
I thought I addressed this with the comparison to mental institutions...addicts who refuse treatment can be institutionalized and sobriety can be forced on them by lock and key. In abuse cases this is probably going to be necessary. Nothing will be a cure all...people will manipulate the system and relapse just like alcoholics do. It's worth the effort in my view. Courts would have to determine the path
You added how, by defining locking them up. Which is the exact thing Ive been saying all along. Lock those up who don't comply and overhaul the programs that happen while locked up. So you agree with what I've been saying all along.
People who continually commit crime get longer and longer sentences. They can shorten their sentence by exhibiting good behavior. Part of that good behavior for people with drug problems can be completing a rehab/recovery program.
I drink alcohol but I'm responsible with it. I have tried three of those drugs in my younger days. But it's been a long time. It's been a while since I have had prescription drugs, but I used them only when needed and responsibly.
To make sure im getting this right? Part of the good behavior would be a recovery program after they are released or will it be during the sentence? If after they are released, I wouldn't expect a very high percentage to voluntarily admit themselves. I would think this would need to be part of the sentence in order to be successful.
Both. What happens is when you are released early you are still on probation. You have to meet certain requirements in order to remain out early, otherwise you go back in to finish your sentence. We have very good models to follow. We don't need to parce out the individual aspects of the program here. Just do what other countries have successfully done. Remake our police like Germany or even Camden New Jersey have done, and set up a system to deal with drugs like Portugal has done. Deal with homelessness like Finland has done. While we're at it, let's copy their education system as well. Institute Medicare for all here in the US. These solutions have proven to cost far less than what we do here in the US and they are proven to be far more effective. We know how to solve these problems. We just need to get out of our own way and stop trying to control the lives of individuals.
Fair enough, Though i am still not seeing a direct connection/ answer to those who keep denying help and keep repeating the same criminal cycle, other than to keep locking them up. Which is al i w been saying really. Though I may have not been clear. There will be instances where some will simply not comply and repeat the cycle, and those people need to be locked up. I think we are pretty much in agreement overall.
Looking at the poll, diversity is important for the forum, so I'm going to need one of you to start doing meth.
I might try it if you found some of the real Walter White shit, but I'm not messing with the biker gang trash. Obviously kidding, I'd never touch the stuff.
Yeah, as long as we aren't harassing the general population over personal use or transportation of a substance I'm pretty much good with it. Aside from that we need to overhaul our police, judicial, and social safety nets in a logical way. Disclaimer: Nuclear material would be an exception
