(Continuation from "Howling for Addicts," below.)
QUESTION: When should Walden (Utopia?) be forced?
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY:
Ideally, in a society that thrives on individuals’ freedom, dignity, earned merit, work, self sufficiency, and self reliance, each member should be conditioned, educated, and afforded opportunity to thrive on such philosophy.
However, not everyone would be qualified. Some, perhaps because of genetics, culture of nourishing, accidents, or hard luck, may become codependent, incompetent, lazy, misled, mis-trained, injured, traumatized, or addicted.
So, how should a civilization-pursuing-enlightenment manage its resources in order that such persons will more likely become rehabilitated or motivated to become responsible, respected, contributing members of society?
QUESTIONS:
Should most drugs, regardless of addictiveness, be legal, but regulated?
For safety of society at large, when and how should persons who otherwise would be rendered incorrigible by drugs be treated, rehabilitated, confined, or removed?
Pending rehabilitation, when and how should persons addicted to self-defeating or dangerous life styles be supervised --- in regard to society, safety, sustenance, shelter, and sex?
In providing such support and supervision, what quality of control should society require in return?
PROBLEM:
Presently, America’s urban areas have prisons and streets filled with adjudicated delinquents, recidivists, incompetents, end-times "prophet" delusionists, gangs glorifying victim-mongers, pimps, professional party "leaders" glorifying excuse makers, rap "artists" glorifying addict hedonists, and hard luck cases. Turn that sh*t off!
MEANS AND ENDS:
Should we not wish, humanely, to identify, confine, and not allow to breed those among us who are clearly conspiratorial, dangerous, or beyond rehabilitation or redemption?
Still, we should probate the continued freedom of those adjudicates who may yet recover capacity to pursue fulfilling, contributing lives.
But, such freedom should become temporarily forfeit once an adjudicate is found publicly (without assisted control by a non-intoxicated confidant) to have relapsed into prohibited addictive behavior.
Assuming the addict is found, in public, or to have hurt only himself, it should be determined whether his behavior results from a recognized addiction.
Having already received and violated probation, such an addict should be subject to forcible rehabilitation.
Typically, forcible rehabilitation should consist of confinement in a single gender facility, with little privacy, under the coordinated supervision of counselors for detoxification, recreational therapy, and work training and hardening.
An inmate should not be released until having successfully completed a minimum period of rehabilitation. Even at such point, an inmate should not be eligible for release, absent adequate guarantee of “ankle-bracelet” monitoring, family supervision, and job responsibilities.
An inmate who lacks means, in respect of family supervision or a personal job, should be probated to a structured living and working environment, supervised by a licensed facility, until availed of transition and probation to a personal job.
One who relapses yet again, who is found in a state of public addiction, should be confined to a detoxification center, whereupon probation should be modified. Once detoxified, there should be a wait list, for going back to a supervised rehabilitation work facility. While being wait-listed, such a one should be confined.
DUE PROCESS, CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL COURT:
Where a subject has physically harmed only himself, such procedures should be considered civil, so as to require only a preliminary affidavit by an arresting probation officer; provided, however, that proof must be made, without unreasonable delay and beyond a reasonable doubt, that the subject was found, while on probation, in a state of public intoxication.
One subject to such civil procedure should be subject to monitoring and civil adjustment of course, quality, and length of confinement or supervision.
Alternatively, an addict-adult may “self-commit,” by swearing out his own affidavit, which could substitute for a public exhibition of addiction in violation of parole.
Habeas corpus should apply only to allow challenge to the civil findings (such as findings of violations of probation, public intoxication, and lack of means of reliable private or familial supervision). Provided, however, each inmate must be presented, at least yearly, to a hearing before a State commission of medical examiners empowered to rule whether he is sufficiently rehabilitated to merit being trusted upon release to behave responsibly and non-addictively, without supervision.
One who commits a crime while in such a civil treatment facility may be amenable of further adjudication and transfer to a criminal confining facility. Alternatively, one serving time in a criminal confining facility may, upon accumulation of good time and request, be considered for early or probated transfer to a civil treatment facility.
Genders at civil rehabilative facilities should not ordinarily be mixed. Fraternizing should be prohibited. Minors should not be mixed with adults. Where reasonably feasible, facilities should augment financing by contracting out or charging for work of inmates. (If such be thought a kind of “tax” on lifestyles of hippies, addicts, or ignorance, so be it.)
VOTING:
Those confined to civil rehabilitative facilities need not be given temporary passes to depart to vote. However, political candidates should have a right to require that civil inmates be regularly afforded access to a "voting ambassador."
EMIGRATION:
One whose life has become horrifically intolerable, except upon living on the street in a perpetual haze, should perhaps emigrate to a country more accepting of such a state of affairs. Upon one's choosing to live in America, America should be entitled to insist upon forcible rehabilitation of persons who otherwise become publically addicted nuisances and dangers to themselves and others.
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM:
As part of a comprehensive program, it may be well to make most drugs, regardless of addictiveness, legal (to adults), yet regulated and taxed (as a salutary tax to discourage stupidity).
Provided, however, that a program for forcible rehabilitation of public addicts should be made a part of any such comprehensive program.
Otherwise, for social misfits, dropouts, and those who would profit by selling drugs retail, we would legitimize lifestyle choices that lead quickly to irresponsibility and addiction.
Just imagine the sort of advertising pioneered by tobacco companies; then imagine it being used to recruit succeeding generations of youth into all manner of socially “cool” drug addictions!
COMMENT:
Vice regulation entails making inroads against free speech by defining and limiting speech. Speech fomenting riot or sedition is restricted. Commercial speech for advocating vice is regulated. Generally, what do such trends for free speech bode?
Tobacco companies still find ways to advocate their wares, perhaps more so in print media than on television. Although various programs seem to be causing the proportion of smokers in the U.S. to decline, there remains a sizeable market, even, worldwide, a growing market. And, government sponsored earmarks seem not uncommon for helping tobacco growers. Government, in drafting tax resources to regulate both sides of an argument, often becomes less effective in advocating for either.
COMMENT:
PROBLEM: Who can rehabilitate a passive-aggressive narcissist of multiple addictions, whose biggest “fix” consists in gaming and controlling treatment providers?
From http://www.hbo.com/addiction/treatment/index.html :
Most addiction treatments are designed to do more than simply reduce or remove alcohol or drug use - they focus on getting addicted people to change their lifestyle and even their core life values as a way of preventing return of the problems.
From http://www.hbo.com/addiction/treatment/37_getting_someone_into_treatment.html :
Addiction is a progressive disorder -it gets worse over time. The sooner a person receives treatment for addiction, the greater the chances for long-term recovery. Further, experts know that forced, or mandated, treatment can be successful. In fact, most people receiving treatment for addiction are getting help because they were forced into it by family or friends, employers or the criminal justice system.
From http://www.hbo.com/addiction/treatment/372_unhealthy_family_behaviors.html :
Emotions are fluid. When you are frustrated, hurt, angry and exhausted, remember that these feelings are responses to current situations. When you change the way you interact with your loved one, the situations will change. When the situations change, so will your feelings. As you develop more effective ways of addressing his or her substance abuse, your emotional pain will gradually flow into feelings of confidence and hope.
From http://www.hbo.com/addiction/treatment/322_nida_principles_of_treatment.html :
Medications are an important element of treatment for many patients, especially when combined with counseling and other behavioral therapies.
Addicted or drug-abusing individuals with coexisting mental disorders should have both disorders treated in an integrated way.
Medical detoxification is only the first stage of addiction treatment and by itself does little to change long-term drug use.
Treatment does not need to be voluntary to be effective.
Possible drug use during treatment must be monitored continuously.
3 comments:
Re: Quantum of Uncertainty:
Dave,
A year or so ago, you may have been playing with a possible "formula" for discussing limits of uncertainty.
Being an "extreme moderate," I find myself intrigued when I come across scientists willing to use “dirty test tube” notions to expand the definition of “science” to encompass not only physical empiricism but spiritual will.
But mainstream scientists seem often to be as insulted by such interpretations, as are masters of art insulted when tagged by graffiti gangs.
However, just for grins, you might check out http://www.williamjames.com/Theory/REFLEXIV.htm.
“Young points out that 2ph is the quantum of uncertainty. Thus we have a fundamental relationship between purpose and uncertainty, confirmed by the fact that h contains an angle, 2p, which according to Eddington (the physicist from whom Young derives the greatest inspiration), is a phase dimension. For Young, the 2p represents choice. Uncertainty then is not so much a limitation upon science as the positive introduction of purpose and choice and therefore free will.”
*****
P.S. --- I feel a concept of “free will” can be worthwhile when limited to moral philosophy (and criminal law). But I question trying to quantify it in terms of science or empiricism.
Still, I don’t know whether the “jury can (or should) ever come in” on the question.
It would make an interesting "Monty Python" film to imagine a future where scientific issues are presented to be decided by lay juries. I feel precursor tremors of laughter just imagining some of the attorneys' table thumping objections. Imagining such absurdities (like extreme moderation) seems to be my particular addiction of choice. Maybe because they seem not entirely devoid ot "truthiness."
Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it see s fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ASS, doing drugs, while I work. . . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. I hope you all will pass it along. . Something has to change in this country -- and soon!
Defining Deviancy Down --- see:
http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/defining_deviancy_down_daniel_patrick_moynihan/; http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/formans/DefiningDeviancy.htm.
Post a Comment