As well, the “free choice” argument is shaky at best when dealing with addictions, which by nature reduce or eliminate people’s ability to control themselves.
If they’re not going to stop because we tell them not to, or because we show them how bad it is for them, I doubt involuntary confinement would result in any different of an outcome.
If it’s treated as a Public Health problem as opposed to a Criminal Justice problem, it allows you to better control it, and implement harm-reduction policies.
Vancouver had a very bad problem with deaths from Heroin overdose, they drastically reduced this by providing safe, monitored injection sites where if someone does OD they can receive immediate treatment and in many cases health professionals are able to save lives that wouldn’t have been saved otherwise.
Did anybody ever watch one of the best US TV series in recent history, The Wire?
My favorite character was Major Colvin, the one who “legalized” drugs in Baltimore in Season 4.
As long as we are refering to drug usage, the user is never alone when it comes to the consequences of either his consumption or consumption by the public at large.
I think society works best when it offers education, a safety net, and some regulation of the products sold to protect people from things they are not likely to be able to know on their own (lead adulterated Jell-O).
I am okay footing the bill for other people’s mistakes. We’re a society. We’re interconnected. I imagine it like a huge line of people walking up an incline with ropes running from one person to the next. Yes, some people are going to be able to find their feet again if they slip without pulling on those ropes. Maybe some will only fall to one knee. Maybe some will be at the right angle to fight back up. And some other people will sprain an ankle when they fall, or will develop arthritis and need help just walking, or an entire section of the line might fall in a domino-like action. We can say, “Look out for those rocks!” or “Look out for that ice!” but the plain fact is that we need to get those people up and moving or the whole line will stop, eventually.
Programs like that only go so far. Look at cigarettes. The danger of cigarettes is indisputable by any reasonable person and that information is out there. There have been numerous campaigns to persuade people to voluntarily quit smoking. But some people continue to smoke.
At some point you get down to only two alternatives: you allow people to do things even if it’s against their own best interest or you force them to do what you think they should be doing.
Actually, I think Tobacco proves the point. We haven’t had to outlaw Tobacco in order to dramatically reduce youth and adult rates of smoking. Usage is way down across the board. I think this can be chalked up to a couple separate factors, education, enforcement of regulations, sensible restictions on when and where someone can smoke, etc…
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5644a2.htm#fig
Smoking rates have declined by half in the last 50 years, without the need to outlaw it.
I don’t think anyone (with the exception of tobacco company executives) has any problem with programs designed to persuade people to quit voluntarily. That’s never been an issue.
The issue is what do you do about the people who don’t want to quit voluntarily?
Some people choose to engage in inherently risky behavior. I don’t think we can become a nanny nation and tell people what they should and shouldn’t be doing. At some point people have to be able to make their own decisions.
I don’t think we can honestly expect everyone to act in a rational manner.
“Involuntary confinement” =/= “criminally jailing”. I think involuntary committal to a rehabilitative care facility would produce better results than locking them up in jails.
I was thinking that myself and then I thought both options are self fulfilling prophecies.
Prevent the person from suiciding and they’re thankful afterwards for what you’ve done.
Don’t stop them and they’ll never know, plus they’ve achieved the objective that they’ve had when they were feeling distressed.
I am not postulating this as the right course of action but merely raising a moral dilemma.
If they live ,then they’re happy.
If they die, (And they will one day do so eventually whatever happens in their lives), then they won’t be unhappy.
I agree.
It’s a pretty fine line. I say if you look somebody up and won’t let them go, you’re imprisoning them. Whether you call it a prison, a jail, a detention center, a POW camp, a mental hospital, a workhouse, or a rehabilitative care facility are just details.
Yeah, to me it’s a distinction without a difference.
The difference is, you’re not locking them up with rapists, murderers and thieves. You’re providing therapy and possibly substitute medication if that works for their particular addiction. Prisons, despite the pretence otherwise, are a place to punish wrongdoers. Care facilities are a whole different animal.
Heroin users ARE wrongdoers, though. Whether it’s right or not, Heroin is illegal, and therefore those who use it are breaking the law, making them criminals.
I’ve known prisoners who prefer to be in prison (where they receive the same treatment programs they would get elsewhere). They say the conditions are usually better in prison than they are in involuntary treatment centers.
In some states and counties it is/was against the law to have anal sex, are those people criminals?
Remind me not to be your friend. Geez.
Back in the dark ages, the mid-80s I went through a bad time. I considered ending it all, and a friend of mine stepped in and helped me. I suppose she is pure evil, huh?
I guess I’m evil, too. 6 years ago a friend of mine cdidn’t show up for work and called me crying saying he was going to kill himself. I found him after he had drank about a dozen bottles of nyquil (whether that would actually have killed him or not, I can’t say…but he was totally out of it, like being uber drunk, almost unconscious). I called an ambulance and the chaplain. Now he’s married with three kids and happy. Damn my evil hide…I could have saved him from that if I had just let him kill himself.
I was going to bring that up in my last post, but I figured someone else would have already if I kept reading the thread.
For example some asshole without insurance decides to end it all by ramming his car into a telephone pole. Mr. Asshole careens down the street and hits me by accident before killing himself. He doesn’t have insurance so now MY insurance has to pay for my injuries. (and since I’m on active duty, really YOU pay for it)