Mother uses Ky. law to pull daughter from heroin

the law is wrong and unconstitutional.they could tell u 2 go home with an abusive family that abused u and cauzed your problems in the 1st place.they have no right doing that.they should just stop arresting people over using drugs or forcing rehab.
 
slimvictor said:
In an ideal family, this is how things would work.
But many people - like, maybe half - are completely brainwashed to be anti-drug.
They believe that using heroin = death.
Even if they see someone hasn't died yet, they think it is inevitable.
So, I think she was simply protecting her child in the way that she knew, based on what made sense to her.
Click to expand...

If she saw her daughter cutting herself, would she have reacted in the same way? Probably not.

This is all I'm getting at. Drugs aren't any different from other possibly harmful behaviors.
 
booooooooooolsheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.

Anybody tries to take me away theyre gonna experience just how motivated and willing-to-do-anything drug addiction can make a person.

BTW my mum would do exactly what this mum would do. I know why she would do that. I know how she would reason it. But being aroud my mother for far too long... it is not the right move in this situation, or generally any other. Shit based on my own experience with my mother I'd say theres a good chance the reason the girl shoots dope (and my bet is she still does), is because of her overinvolved overprotective control freak psycho mother.
 
Captain.Heroin said:
Everyone is entitled to their own definition of "clean", but how is using a maintenance drug like methadone or suboxone, and staying off heroin, for instance... how is that not being clean?
Click to expand...

There's a difference between taking a pill every morning & getting whatever psychological effect coupled with a physiological effect making it either impossible or very difficult to get high and staying abstinent using whatever 'programme' works. A succinct example being if I can choose as soon as I wake up to get high that day, I'm going to choose sobriety. That isn't to say one method is better, only different.
 
wait wait wait

this law applies for people under 18 and if their guardians turn them in right?

If I'm over 18 and someone tries to tell me Im going to rehab and I didn't get caught breaking the law or anything I'd laugh in their face repeatedly until I got a phone call
 
shimazu said:
wait wait wait

this law applies for people under 18 and if their guardians turn them in right?

If I'm over 18 and someone tries to tell me Im going to rehab and I didn't get caught breaking the law or anything I'd laugh in their face repeatedly until I got a phone call
Click to expand...

No, the chick in the article is 19. In this thread it was done to someone who is 30. In the comments to the article some guy was kept for weeks in jail until a spot in a rehab opened up.
 
shimazu said:
how is that not unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

not a lawyer, but I know the Constitution says,

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Click to expand...

I guess the judge determining whether or not you are an addict is sufficient to satisfy the due process clause? If so, that's an entirely pointless part of the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause

(wow, that applies to corporations as well, because they are considered persons. No joke)
 
sheeple.jpg
 
I just don't get how you can be innocent until proven guilty and sent to rehab with no proof of a drug addiction. I guess they could UT you but on what grounds can they give you a UT?
 
In a lot of places in the Western World it all comes down to whether or not "you're a danger to yourself and others", and some places extend that to mean using alcohol and drugs in a dangerous way, or even simply "not taking care of your basic needs".

It can be initiated in a few different ways. If a police officer or certain health-care workers or a court feels that you're acting in a "dangerous" way, they can usually have you "evaluated"....If you end up in the psych ward on an evaluation, you're interviewed and observed for a period of time...Usually, if you're calm and answering the questions in a clear, rational way, the doctor in charge of your case will cut you lose after only a couple of hours. If you're on drugs or acting like a weirdo in any way, you'll usually be held for 3-5 days for further observation. If in that time it's determined that you're okay, you'll be let go. If the doctor feels that you need to be held and treated for a longer period, you'll be given a court date to determine whether or not should be involuntarily committed and held until the court-date.

^This is actually very similar to being arraigned for a crime. You're allowed to have a lawyer defend you and present your side of the case and whoever is trying to have you committed is allowed to present evidence showing why you should be held. If it's determined that you should be held further, you're sent back to the psych-ward and given another court date about a month or so from then where the same thing happens, so it's essentially like a 30 day prison sentence!...You can also be forcibly medicated if you're involuntarily committed, which is the most evil thing of all IMO! Also, when you do get out, guess who has to pay thousands of dollars for the hospital stay?! In the US, the person held against their will is financially responsible!

Unless you are truly going "Bat Shit Crazy", you'll generally get out within a few days unless you're sent there because of a petition signed by your family or associates. For some reason, when it's your family trying to have you committed, it seems to carry a lot more weight than anything else, and if it's proven that you have a history of drug use and "mental illness", even if it's just depression and suicidal ideation, you'll usually end up in there for awhile until you can somehow convince them that you're okay!

It's a really fucked up law that I think a lot of people assume could never be used against them as long as they're not running naked down the street screaming, but it's a lot easier than you make think!

Having people involuntarily held because of drug abuse is controversial and definitely a "grey area" in the law that's interpreted differently in different cases and locales, but if it's your family or SO signing a petition against you, it's "crazy until proven sane"! Pretty fucked up....
 
slimvictor said:
Well, it is relatively easy to die from shooting street heroin, but not so easy from cutting.
Click to expand...

I think it'd be pretty easy to die from both to be honest. Except once you become dependent on heroin, it becomes more difficult to experience an overdose (versus if it's your first time, or haven't had it in many days after being dependent for a while, it's way easier).

It's also a lot easier to revive someone from a heroin overdose granted they have a vial of naloxone on hand as I do; whereas if you accidentally cut too deep or hit a major artery/etc, you can do really grave damage that can take a while to heal.

Bob Loblaw said:
There's a difference between taking a pill every morning & getting whatever psychological effect coupled with a physiological effect making it either impossible or very difficult to get high and staying abstinent using whatever 'programme' works. A succinct example being if I can choose as soon as I wake up to get high that day, I'm going to choose sobriety. That isn't to say one method is better, only different.
Click to expand...

I think it's important to note that if your'e on a low-ish dosage of methadone (anywhere from 10 to 40 milligrams), you can still get high on heroin, as you're not anywhere near the blockade dosage.

On the dosages of buprenorphine I'm using, I can still get high on heroin too. I just have no interest in doing so, and have a long list of reasons why being on buprenorphine at the dosages I'm on is way better for me.

But thanks for elaborating on how you see it, I appreciate that. I can get where you're coming from now.

There definitely is a difference between using like 8 to 16+ milligrams of Suboxone, or 80+ milligrams of methadone per day, where getting high on heroin/other opiates is challenging if not completely impossible, and using smaller maintenance dosages that would enable you to be able to do so on top of your maintenance. Definitely important to point that out.

NSFW:
23536 said:
sheeple.jpg
Click to expand...

look! that's me on the very left!
 
shimazu said:
I just don't get how you can be innocent until proven guilty and sent to rehab with no proof of a drug addiction. I guess they could UT you but on what grounds can they give you a UT?
Click to expand...

If they get the ball rolling where a few people are saying "you're a danger to yourself", and a doctor signs off on the whole thing, the courts will generally just rubber-stamp whatever the doctor says and they can pretty much do whatever they want to you! It seems like you have a lot of protection, but it's a lot easier to violate what you think are" basic rights" than it seems..

Also, if you refuse a urine test or medication, it's pretty much the same thing as refusing to let a cop search your car. they take it as a sign that something really is going on and you seem even more suspicious..
 
It's unethical to force someone into therapy. If this were any other kind of therapy, the court wouldn't allow it. Yet somehow because it's drug addiction, we dishonour the person's bodily sovereignty by removing the right to refuse.

Depending on the person, there's not much point in forcing them into rehab, because rehab is mostly successful only when the person is ready to face their issues. You can't force someone to be ready, and they are more likely to relapse later anyway.

I can see laws like this being abused for profit. Who is paying for the daughter's treatment, if not the family?
 
Lots of times in the case of mental health (in my area of southern Illinois and south eastern Missouri) the tax payers (state money) is used. Of course only certain institutions will cooperate with the state for such treatment and they are not of good service to the individual. For substance abuse, state treatment centers lump you in with parolees and other court mandated treatment people who often don't want to stay clean so there's drugs and criminal activity going on. Psych wards keep you locked away and you live in a small wing in a hospital til you get released under some condition (usually to a group home). Its sad really. My sponsee brother is forced to live in a group home because his lawyer purposely exaggerated his mental illness to keep him out of prison and he's not very happy with the living situation.
 
Sometimes you gotta jump state, but it doesn't work with felonies....but court ordered drug treatment or psych treatment isn't generally something you'll get extradited for, unless there's felony cases that aren't disposed of....A group home?! I'd be gone so quick from there, the other people who lived there wouldn't even have time to see me! fuck that!
 
yeah look how going to rehab worked out for Amy Winehouse

dead
 
^ Even worse - death related to alcohol "abuse."

I may be exaggerating, but when it was made public that she died from alcohol withdrawal, apart from a couple of articles on the dangers of alcohol abuse - barely a peep from the usual sources. It's like they were in denial.
 
At least Amy Winehouse cant put out any more records.

But seriously I think its unethical if not a violation of someones rights to have them institutionalized against their will. Im not seeing how drug use could be cause for that. Just because someone uses drugs does not mean they have a deathwish. Also if they are an adult they are responable for themselves. Its not right for someone to be able to make a call and say that a drug user is a danger to themselves and actually get them locked up. Its must be some archaic law that is the root of this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top