(09-01-2017, 10:57 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I'm for letting people just do drugs if they want so long as they don't get violent, but making them live with the consequences. You get one OD rescue from 911, after that you're on your own. Choices. Consequences.

If you don't wake up from one near-death experience and seek help, then you need to be left to your own choices. All of a sudden then drugs become a scarier experience, people are dying, and maybe someone decides that doesn't sound like something they want to try after all.

Your version sounds all nice and flowery, but at some point you need to say enough is enough and stop coddling them and wasting everyone's time and money on them. Why work 40 hours a week, when it goes towards giving junkies free room, board, and job training?

(09-01-2017, 11:01 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Like I've said I don't really disagree with you.  The ideal situation is when an individual WANTS to get clean.  Absolutely 100% agree on that.  However I do believe that some addictions are dangerous to society and forced treatment could be an option.  I just read an article in the USA Today about the subject I'll see if I can find it.   Sorry I still read an actual Newspaper, so I'll have to see if I can find it on-line.  lol

(09-01-2017, 04:40 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: It could be set up something like this, and this is for 18 years old and older. Under 18 years old they stay on the first offense until they are 18.

First offense, the offender gets treatment which will give him the tools and support to help themselves.
Second offense, the offender gets another dose of treatment along with a work program of the offenders choice in something meaningful and will maybe get him a job after.
Third offense, the offender goes to jail to work picking up garbage, chopping wood, whatever until the bill is paid for the first two programs.
Fourth offense, 5 years prison
Fifth offense, 10 years prison

You can only give a person so much help. I won't say most but will say many will clean up after the first offense and I think most will clean up after the second. Few will clean up after the third offense and if they make it to the fourth offense, they go to jail to protect them from themselves and hope they get it.

The fifth offense shows they don't care so you put them away for a while longer.

If they get out and offend again, I don't know what to do. Maybe 15 years?

Just spitballing here

(09-01-2017, 11:01 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Like I've said I don't really disagree with you.  The ideal situation is when an individual WANTS to get clean.  Absolutely 100% agree on that.  However I do believe that some addictions are dangerous to society and forced treatment could be an option.  I just read an article in the USA Today about the subject I'll see if I can find it.   Sorry I still read an actual Newspaper, so I'll have to see if I can find it on-line.  lol

(09-01-2017, 04:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Definitely an interesting prospect. What would be fun would be if I knew anyone at some think tanks to run this through a policy mill, get some expert opinions on the types of programs, and present it to some state legislature to make it happen. With the current opiate epidemic, there might be some willingness to try something like this.

(09-01-2017, 05:41 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: You could also change the 18 year old or older for Second Offense phase to kick in to 25 years or older since its around age 25 that the brain fully develops and reasoning, decision making and other things change from the Frontal Lobe to other parts of the brain I do believe.

(09-01-2017, 04:40 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: It could be set up something like this, and this is for 18 years old and older. Under 18 years old they stay on the first offense until they are 18.

First offense, the offender gets treatment which will give him the tools and support to help themselves.
Second offense, the offender gets another dose of treatment along with a work program of the offenders choice in something meaningful and will maybe get him a job after.
Third offense, the offender goes to jail to work picking up garbage, chopping wood, whatever until the bill is paid for the first two programs.
Fourth offense, 5 years prison
Fifth offense, 10 years prison

You can only give a person so much help. I won't say most but will say many will clean up after the first offense and I think most will clean up after the second. Few will clean up after the third offense and if they make it to the fourth offense, they go to jail to protect them from themselves and hope they get it.

The fifth offense shows they don't care so you put them away for a while longer.

If they get out and offend again, I don't know what to do. Maybe 15 years?

Just spitballing here

Quote:Drug Court is a shining example of Kentucky’s success in specialty courts. Instead of spending time in jail, eligible participants complete a substance abuse program supervised by a judge. Drug Court graduates are more likely to return to productive lives and stay gainfully employed, pay child support and meet other obligations.

Kentucky Drug Court was created in 1996 to assist individuals who have entered the criminal justice system as a result of drug use or drug-related criminal activity and are choosing to achieve and maintain recovery. Drug Court combines close court supervision and treatment with other services to intervene and break the cycle of substance abuse, addiction and crime.
The program uses a team approach that requires collaboration among judges, Specialty Court staff, prosecutors, defense counsel, treatment professionals, law enforcement officers and other community agencies. These professionals help addicted individuals regain control of their lives through judicial oversight, intensive supervision and monitoring, participation in substance abuse treatment sessions and self-help groups, frequent and random urine screens, and referrals to community service agencies and other services.
Today there is irrefutable evidence that Drug Court is achieving what it set out to do — substantially reduce drug use and criminal behavior in drug-addicted offenders. For more than 20 years, the program's solid track record has convinced leaders in state government, along with local judges, prosecutors and treatment providers, that Drug Court is an essential part of the Kentucky court system.
Drug Court operates under the Department of Specialty Courts at the Administrative Office of the Courts.

(09-01-2017, 06:16 PM)Benton Wrote: Kentucky has something similar, but less regulated as there's no funding for it. Many judges and staff donate their time to make drug courts work.

https://courts.ky.gov/courtprograms/drugcourt/Pages/default.aspx


But, given the limited resources (i.e., none), they have to be pretty selective. And the judges I've worked with have been pretty strict. One screw up and you're likely in jail for full sentence. Basically, in most cases, judges defer sentencing and help first or second time non-violent offenders get into rehab. The problem is most rehab centers are for profit, and many of those needing help don't have any insurance. So courts have to work to find centers that will help someone for free. On top of that, many of your centers have specific requirements, from types of addiction they treat to gender to ages. 

I've long advocated trying to use KY's drug courts as a model that — with a little funding — could substantially reduce prison populations and drug abusers. I'm sure other states have similar programs that are likewise effective.

(09-01-2017, 05:19 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You can't force anyone to change unless you lock them up and make every decision for them.   And that isn't even going to work all the time.  

No one changes without a purpose.

Hence why I said hard labor.  That could be a variety of things not just pounding rocks.

(09-02-2017, 02:33 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: The way you word things sometimes makes me question you.  When you say "hard labor", I think of "pounding rocks".  You could have just said "putting them to work" and I would take no issue with that.  But when you say hard labor, it just sounds
punitive, something that is OK in N. Korea, Russia or China.  It may seem like semantics to you but not to me.

I agree that the more willing someone is to treatment, the better the outcome usually is.

(09-01-2017, 11:05 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: In all seriousness? It's an ideological difference. I'm not going to say your viewpoints are bad, I just don't agree with them. The base idea behind social programs is that they benefit society as a whole, and so funding them and putting efforts towards them improves society and therefore improves your own life as well. This isn't the conservative take on things, it's the liberal one.

I'm also not going to say we shouldn't cut them off at some point, because the entire point of this is for them to stand on their own. This is why society needs both viewpoints. We need to have people like me who can take things to a certain point, and then people that you who are going to be more willing to say "we have to cut this off somewhere, and here is where we should draw the line." Determining where to draw that line is where the compromise occurs. You know, how government is supposed to work.

(09-02-2017, 03:03 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I used hard labor because I wanted to emphasize the physical part. When the body is pushed physically you are more likely to break from bad habits.

The minute I just say labor..... someone will think that entails just reading a book.

(09-02-2017, 09:24 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The bold is just another complete fabrication.

https://www.hrw.org/report/2010/01/07/where-darkness-knows-no-limits/incarceration-ill-treatment-and-forced-labor-drug

Literally, no one does the stupid shit you're suggesting except the Chinese. In violation of human rights I might add. So you're not a Libertarian, you're officially a Communist.

Quote:In detention, they receive little or no medical care, no support for quitting drugs, and no skills training for re-entering society upon release. In the name of treatment, many suspected drug users are confined under horrific conditions, subject to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and forced to engage in unpaid labor.

(09-03-2017, 12:36 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Seriously is something wrong with your ability to read? Where did I advocate for any of this from your link.

Stop wasting everyone's time with your nonsensical posts trying to pigeon hole me into some crazy stuff.

I said hard labor. Not a concentration camp.

(09-03-2017, 10:59 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Would you prescribe hard labor for strep throat?

Of course not. That's silly. Because treating a medical condition punitively is a moronic idea. A moronic idea shared by you and your communist friends, Comrade Lucy.

(09-02-2017, 03:03 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I used hard labor because I wanted to emphasize the physical part.  When the body is pushed physically you are more likely to break from bad habits.  

The minute I just say labor..... someone will think that entails just reading a book.

(09-04-2017, 01:24 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: You didn't say just "labor" you said "hard labor"...makes me think of communism.  Sounds politically motivated.  It's fine, I didn't really expect anything more or less.  Hope you enjoyed your labor day weekend :andy:

(09-04-2017, 03:08 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: How is this politically movitaved?  

I am for helping people get over drug addiction and I said they needed some hard labor to go along with their treatment.   It helps them focus on something else....

(09-04-2017, 03:08 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: How is this politically movitaved?

I am for helping people get over drug addiction and I said they needed some hard labor to go along with their treatment. It helps them focus on something else....