As an Addict, is this humane?

[JessFR]

I don't think you'd appreciate having the same said to you. While maybe not name calling per say, definitely a personal attack.

I don't agree that it's a personal attack. There's a difference between saying a belief itself is foolish and saying the person who believes it is a foolish person for believing it.

Now yes, I wouldn't appreciate being told that my beliefs were foolish, but that doesn't make it a personal attack. The problem is that I simply don't believe that it is possible to express my honest opinion about the belief in a way that wouldn't likely be found offensive by the person believing it.

If I think an opinion is foolish and discredited, I don't see a way to express that that wouldn't be likely to go unappreciated. Sometimes there's no way to sugar coat an opinion while preserving the integrity of the opinion.

From my initial post I made it clear I was attacking the belief and not the person. I even apologized in advance if he felt I'd attacked him personally. So I don't believe what I did is a personal attack.

It can be found insulting even if it's not a personal attack.

If the studies will be ignored, what benefit will arguing at all have? Seems like yelling at the deaf either way.

It is yelling at the deaf. The point in denouncing the belief isn't to engage in a lengthy debate over its objective merits and evidence. The point is to show that some of us feel the belief is unacceptable. Denouncing it is itself the point. The point is to make a statement to anyone watching that these beliefs aren't acceptable.

I'm not sure what you would base your arguments on, or how one could tell whose opinion is more valid without. One says punitive, other says rehabilitative- who is right? Well if we are going to be fair we would have to look at these ideas being implemented, so we need something in the way of studies. Other wise we are just shouting opinions.

Well, arguing that the punitive ideas presented are immoral isn't something you can really objectively measure. It's a point of view. And it's immorality was the primary point I was making.

But yes I was also making a legal point and a point that it was discredited, and yes that is more objectively measurable. You could show studies and statistics from countries that have tried different approaches at different points in time and try and demonstraight what the outcomes were.

As for the legal side, under American jurisdiction you could show the constitution and requirements for due process in constitutional and common law. As well as case law for how its applicable to this situation.

But all of that is pointless if one or more sides of the argument aren't interested in real evidence or science to decide what their beliefs are. And I have no doubt whatsoever that was the case here which is why I wasn't interested in proving it.

Honestly I suspect anyone who might be watching who is interested in the reality will either have already researched it and come to the conclusion than punative and deterrant based policies don't work. Or they will begin to research it on their own now. In which case it would be wise to do their own investigation rather than relying on what's said here.

In this instance there was never a realistic opportunity for meaningful debate. A horrible, immoral, unethical suggestion was proposed and I decided to take it upon myself to denounce it. I did so with sincere effort not to directly attack the poster, and still believe I was successful.

 

[Mafioso]

Well, arguing that the punitive ideas presented are immoral isn't something you can really objectively measure. It's a point of view. And it's immorality was the primary point I was making.

There are a ton of arguments based on facts that you could make in favor of your point. Even if morality is what you choose to center your argument on, there are still a lot of quantifiable facts that you can base it on. Like the fact that addiction is considered a brain disease by the DSM-5, and that punishing people for having a disease is morally wrong for so many obvious reasons that it'd be easy to pick one to use to demonstrate your point.

A more effective point would be to look at the success rates of the punitive process and other approaches, namely the harm reduction approach. The morality of punishing drug addicts lies mostly in the success rate, or lack of one, for we don't consider punishing children to be bad if it is effective in teaching them how to live a better life, with the assumption that extreme and unusual punishment will not lead to a better life for the child.

If the punitive process worked, there would be no moral argument against it, only how it is to be carried out, and even that would be debatable. For example, if causing someone shame directly lead to that person getting better, then it could be said that shaming helps people. But it doesn't often work out that way and even if it did a few times, it often causes far more harm than good so it can't be said that shaming helps people. The same logic can be applied to the punitive processs with respect to drug addicts. If it really helped, then why don't people get better after going to jail(sure some do, most don't)? Why is "institutionalized" a well understood process? Why is the problem continuing to grow, and little to no progress can really be seen?

The argument against the punitive can entirely be a moral one, for if it truly hurts and does not help people, how can it be moral of a society to implement such a process? And the opposite, if it did help people and the pain it caused was necessary to heal, it would be considered moral. Dentist aren't immoral for pulling teeth, instead much the opposite.

And if what you say is true, that there really are no facts and nothing quantifiable can be presented, no measures can be taken- well then I think you should be a little less sure-footed when expressing such things, because if you can present anything to back up your argument, how are you even making the argument to begin with? It appears you spent a lot of energy arguing as to why you can't present any facts or evidence to support your opinion, despite my multiple attempts to point you to some. The facts are really on your side in this instance, and if you cared to look you would see that you don't have to look far to find some.

 

[JessFR]

There are a ton of arguments based on facts that you could make in favor of your point. Even if morality is what you choose to center your argument on, there are still a lot of quantifiable facts that you can base it on. Like the fact that addiction is considered a brain disease by the DSM-5, and that punishing people for having a disease is morally wrong for so many obvious reasons that it'd be easy to pick one to use to demonstrate your point.

That it's considered a brain disease by the DSM is a fact. But acceptance of that determination and the implication that it morally precludes punishment is an opinion. One I seem to recall expressing in my original post.

A more effective point would be to look at the success rates of the punitive process and other approaches, namely the harm reduction approach. The morality of punishing drug addicts lies mostly in the success rate, or lack of one, for we don't consider punishing children to be bad if it is effective in teaching them how to live a better life, with the assumption that extreme and unusual punishment will not lead to a better life for the child.

I've found people like the poster who kicked off this current discussion don't care about evidence. Even in the very rare instances when they accept the evidence they still reject the conclusion. Usually some form of an argument which says that punishing people for breaking societies rules must happen regardless of any greater benefit to society. That that's the nature of justice. If it's not that then it's to "send a message".

If the punitive process worked, there would be no moral argument against it, only how it is to be carried out, and even that would be debatable. For example, if causing someone shame directly lead to that person getting better, then it could be said that shaming helps people. But it doesn't often work out that way and even if it did a few times, it often causes far more harm than good so it can't be said that shaming helps people. The same logic can be applied to the punitive processs with respect to drug addicts. If it really helped, then why don't people get better after going to jail(sure some do, most don't)? Why is "institutionalized" a well understood process? Why is the problem continuing to grow, and little to no progress can really be seen?

The argument against the punitive can entirely be a moral one, for if it truly hurts and does not help people, how can it be moral of a society to implement such a process? And the opposite, if it did help people and the pain it caused was necessary to heal, it would be considered moral. Dentist aren't immoral for pulling teeth, instead much the opposite.

And if what you say is true, that there really are no facts and nothing quantifiable can be presented, no measures can be taken- well then I think you should be a little less sure-footed when expressing such things, because if you can present anything to back up your argument, how are you even making the argument to begin with? It appears you spent a lot of energy arguing as to why you can't present any facts or evidence to support your opinion, despite my multiple attempts to point you to some. The facts are really on your side in this instance, and if you cared to look you would see that you don't have to look far to find some.

I wasn't making an argument to begin with. I was denouncing their appalling point of view. That is why I did not consider it to require evidence or care to apply extra time and energy to discuss it as a real argument.

Your point about my reaction to it however, while I don't think I agree, is nevertheless a reasonable argument I find worth spending the time to address. I'll take the time to argue this point with you because I feel it's a productive use of time. I did not feel such debate was worth engaging in with previously. Because the kind of shit that guy said convinced me that there would have been no point in doing so.

A fairly objective argument can be made against such punative punishments, but only if you first accept a few subjective points as uncontested.

Such as that evidence in the form of statistics and data is legitimate, and evidence in the form of assumptions and intuition is not.

Without that, you're just gonna wind up with statistics and research being ignored as either clearly wrong because it contradicts what's obviously true.

You also need to mutually accept that it is better to improve society overall than sending a message or providing justice. Otherwise the evidence will be ignored as irrelivent. You find that the person you're debating with considers their view of justice as more important than overall social benefit.

Such as the argument that say, even if you could prevent a murderer ever hurting anyone again without killing them, that you should still kill them to get justice.

These aren't things easily quantified and argued in objective ways. And I do not believe any amount of evidence would have in any way effected this person's opinion. In fact I am quite certain it wouldn't. It wouldn't because people like that aren't basing their opinion on their understanding of the evidence in the first place.

Their opinion is based in a desire to see justice done, to see the weak punished, to see the immoral suffer. All subjective desires that can't be argued against. All you can do is denounce then.

At this point you might ask how I could possibly be so sure that this is the case with the person in this situation. To that all I can answer is experience and intuition. There was a time I would probably have agreed with you here, and would probably have argued the way you have suggested I should have from the start. But many years ago I realized that some people just won't listen. Can't be argued with. And aren't worth arguing with. I have no doubt that was the case here. Which is why I didn't.

Which is why I'm willing to spend a lot more time arguing why I responded the way I did. Because I feel you are worth debating with.

We are kinda going off topic here. For my part I'm willing to drop this. I get where you're coming from, and I can respect what I think you're trying to say. But I don't think we are going to agree.

I just don't think there was ever any point in seriously arguing with this guy. I felt he should be denounced and have it left there, I still do.

 

[Mafioso]

Well yes, we should definitely drop it as I'm not even aware of what point you are trying to make now.

My point to you was that if you are going to use words like "discredited" then you should follow with some evidence. Not doing so will inevitably start a flame war, as both sides can do this and it can be pretty irritating. If you provide facts, they will have to debate the facts rather than retaliate with more unsubstantiated claims and pejoratives.

 

[JessFR]

Well yes, we should definitely drop it as I'm not even aware of what point you are trying to make now.

My point to you was that if you are going to use words like "discredited" then you should follow with some evidence. Not doing so will inevitably start a flame war, as both sides can do this and it can be pretty irritating. If you provide facts, they will have to debate the facts rather than retaliate with more unsubstantiated claims and pejoratives.

Except I had absolutely no intention right from the start to debate the guy, and suspected he would get himself banned pretty quickly regardless of what I did.

I almost entirely agree with you where the goal is actual debate. But that wasn't my goal.

But, if you'd like to end on a note of agreement. I will say I do largely agree with what you're saying when real debate is being attempted. And I agree with a lot of the points you've made about how debate and discussion should work. It's just that's not what I was attempting in this particular situation because I believe it would have been totally fruitless. That's basically the point I was trying to make. I can understand if you disagree with how I worded my opinion like a statement of fact. Perhaps I could have worded it better. But I did intend it as my opinion rather than something I intended to prove.

 

[emkee_reinvented]

We live in a society of laws, of rights.

On paper yes. But real life, real time they are just words on paper. If right's and law are not respected, and that's mostly means for us excluding them, what use do they have.

Btw you are USA, don't you have a history of neglecting basic human rights when it comes down to it?

 

[JessFR]

On paper yes. But real life, real time they are just words on paper. If right's and law are not respected, and that's mostly means for us excluding them, what use do they have.

Btw you are USA, don't you have a history of neglecting basic human rights when it comes down to it?

Yeah but when I said that I was referring to what someone was saying should happen. Not their opinion on what does happen.

Yes, many places including the US have violated basic human rights, including rights they themselves officially legally protect. But that that's how it often is doesn't mean that that's how it should be.

We should respect and protect basic human rights. Which if you ask me the subject of this thread most definitely does not.

That there have been other abuses in the past doesn't mean we should stop trying to prevent current and future ones.

But yes, America has had a great many shocking failures to live up to its ideals. I don't think we've failed as badly as some people think we have, but we sure havent been a flawless success either.

 

[Mafioso]

Btw you are USA, don't you have a history of neglecting basic human rights when it comes down to it?

I'd challenge you to show me a country that doesn't have a bloody history marked with injustices.

But even if you could, that is a flawed and very negative way of thinking. The US, and many other countries, has a history of slavery and war, but I'm not sure how that is relevant to the current treatment of an addict in the criminal system.

There has been a lot of progress made in the last 100 years in the way of treating addiction. Most of advances in science and human knowledge can be boiled down to words on a paper. It isn't the paper that carries the value though, at least not much anyways. It is the ideas that the words represent that holds the true value.

 

[totach]

As a 15 year heroin addict I believe it is completely inhumane but at the same time I feel you can piggy back off a law like this just in a humane way.

 

[emkee_reinvented]

I'd challenge you to show me a country that doesn't have a bloody history marked with injustices.

Yeah, you are right it's hard for me to judge the actual situation in America vs my little spot on the earth. Who is actually worse is way beyond scope. But in general I would rather treat my own addiction's then ever going to a dr. The risk of being stigmatized is just to big.

And we do have a very dark past, slavery and such. And very dark present. We tax people for the concequences of global pollution while Multinational's use our country to avoid paying taxes to the country's they are exploiting.

 

[emkee_reinvented]

Yeah but when I said that I was referring to what someone was saying should happen. Not their opinion on what does happen.

Yes, many places including the US have violated basic human rights, including rights they themselves officially legally protect. But that that's how it often is doesn't mean that that's how it should be.

We should respect and protect basic human rights. Which if you ask me the subject of this thread most definitely does not.

That there have been other abuses in the past doesn't mean we should stop trying to prevent current and future ones.

But yes, America has had a great many shocking failures to live up to its ideals. I don't think we've failed as badly as some people think we have, but we sure havent been a flawless success either.

What is weird in my eyes is, someone with physical injury's is, on paper, entitled to receive adequate pain care.

A person in serious mental pain will be denied the same treatment. While on paper pain is pain. And so are the consequence's. A girl in UK receives Diamorphin ampule's from her dr, GP in the USA if I am correct. She hesitated bringing the info out scared to loose the gift that made her life liveable.

There was a time that practice was more common in the Netherlands people could get Dextromoramide at first. But that wasn't such a good idea. Stuff has some disadvantages leading to it being used no more. Then there was the option to get pharmaceutical Heroin instead of Methadon. But it had to be used on site unlike 'Done', no take home's. Unlike the girl from England who got them at the pharmacy to shoot up at home.

Sitting in a shooting gallery with junkie's. That way they probably kept feeling like addict's. I think a prescription for Diacetymorphine ampules is a totally normal option if a person can't or doesn't want to stop. In the case I mentioned it served the HR protocol quite good. She got out of the circle lead a normal live, I think she used less then when she was on the streets.

She was very happy at the time the story appeared, wonder how she is now?

Link to the-state-of-heroin-prescribing-in-UK and Swiss

 

[JessFR]

I wish more countries made heroin available to those dependent on it in a legitimate way. Alas.

However, I don't see how you could possibly have heroin provided like methadone and subuxone without constant takeaways. Heroin just doesn't last long enough. You'd have to go at least twice a day every day. Both morning and night. That just doesn't seem very feasible for anyone, providers and patients alike. At the very least I'd think you'd have to provide at least one takeaway for use at nighttime per day.

Back when I was still using the absolute longest I could go since shooting up was about 12 hours before withdrawal began. And unlike methadone heroin withdrawal begins and worsens very fast.

Which is another problem. With say, methadone or opioids with similarly long half lives, you can miss a full 24 hours with little discomfort. No way are you gonna be comfortable if you were to miss 24 hours with heroin.

 

[emkee_reinvented]

I wish more countries made heroin available to those dependent on it in a legitimate way. Alas.

However, I don't see how you could possibly have heroin provided like methadone and subuxone without constant takeaways. Heroin just doesn't last long enough. You'd have to go at least twice a day every day. Both morning and night. That just doesn't seem very feasible for anyone, providers and patients alike. At the very least I'd think you'd have to provide at least one takeaway for use at nighttime per day.

Imo it is only humane to offer prescribed Diacetylmorphine/ Heroine by your normal home dr. as a option. Not the first option he or she would choose offcourse.

And getting a prescription with which you can get it at the pharmacy. So you can take your ampules go home and live your life. This option is only practised in UK and Swiss as far as I know. The link I provided, see my last reply 10:51 today, is from 2015 so it might have changed.

LSD can, or could, be given in patient setting in Switzerland to clients. Psychedelic therapy ander guidance of Psychiatrist or Psychotherapist. Just a small scale experiment. "Every little drop helps" said the mosquito to the Elephant and peed in the sea.

 

[emkee_reinvented]

Place were the provided Heroin can be used in the Dutch program. They were in the bigger city's were the problems of addict's were getting problematic. And below the waiting room with the smaller rooms for people whom preffered it.

 

[emkee_reinvented]

The waiting room, not a ideal alternative IMO, they had to come in 3 times a day to smoke up or shoot pharmaceutical grade Heroin. I can see this is a good option for a certain group. The hardcore junkies living on the street. And it was effective in reducing crime and bettering the live circumstances of that group.

But take home's would be I am guessing for the mayority of addicts a much better way.

My first image's posted, so let's see if I got this correct. Looks kinda weird, on my pc but it worked, or so it seems.

 

[Mafioso]

While those types of clinics may be far from perfect or ideal, especially from the perspective of the drug user, they serve a far greater purpose than just helping the individual drug addict. When addiction and its related problems gets bad, particularly spreadable diseases combined with homelessness in urban areas, it becomes a major public health concern. No longer is the threat of addiction only limited to addicts and their loved ones, it now affects those who live in the area. Modern utilities allows us, in general, to live a very hygienic lifestyle compared to civilizations without things like modern plumbing.

The prevalence of untreated mental illness can make for quite a public nuisance as well. Take a look at the current state of Seattle, who seems to be losing the current struggle with this issue. With Seattle's current policies that make it difficult to arrest for drug offenses and other low level crimes, and with no real alternative solution, they are seeing the problem start to spiral out of control. Policies on things like shoplifting make it a safe haven for criminals and an uphill battle for small business owners. So while I am all about treating those with drug addictions with humanity, I think as a society we need to be careful we don't do so at the sacrifice of others.

So there definitely are some arguments for detaining people against their will, and with some of the unfortunate effects drug addiction can have on an individual, it is definitely necessary to have laws in place that allow authorities to do so. I wouldn't say that anyone should ever be treated in a degrading or inhumane way, and arguments for that type of behavior are questionable at best. The truth is that we are still struggling to figure out the solution to this problem, and in an imperfect world we may never arrive at a perfect solution. In my eyes, one that gets people into recovery despite potential problems and growing pains, is a good one.

 

[JessFR]

While those types of clinics may be far from perfect or ideal, especially from the perspective of the drug user, they serve a far greater purpose than just helping the individual drug addict. When addiction and its related problems gets bad, particularly spreadable diseases combined with homelessness in urban areas, it becomes a major public health concern. No longer is the threat of addiction only limited to addicts and their loved ones, it now affects those who live in the area. Modern utilities allows us, in general, to live a very hygienic lifestyle compared to civilizations without things like modern plumbing.

The prevalence of untreated mental illness can make for quite a public nuisance as well. Take a look at the current state of Seattle, who seems to be losing the current struggle with this issue. With Seattle's current policies that make it difficult to arrest for drug offenses and other low level crimes, and with no real alternative solution, they are seeing the problem start to spiral out of control. Policies on things like shoplifting make it a safe haven for criminals and an uphill battle for small business owners. So while I am all about treating those with drug addictions with humanity, I think as a society we need to be careful we don't do so at the sacrifice of others.

So there definitely are some arguments for detaining people against their will, and with some of the unfortunate effects drug addiction can have on an individual, it is definitely necessary to have laws in place that allow authorities to do so. I wouldn't say that anyone should ever be treated in a degrading or inhumane way, and arguments for that type of behavior are questionable at best. The truth is that we are still struggling to figure out the solution to this problem, and in an imperfect world we may never arrive at a perfect solution. In my eyes, one that gets people into recovery despite potential problems and growing pains, is a good one.

Yes there are times when people need to be arrested, and maybe even confined for both their good and the public good.

But I would say there's never a good reason to confine someone just because they're an addict alone. It has to be because of some destructive behavior, even if that behavior is drug induced.

And I would also say that there is absolutely never a good reason to confine those people in jail. This is what involuntary mental health facilities are for.

Admitidly those places, especially in the public system can be as bad as jail, but that's a separate problem that needs fixing.

 

[Mafioso]

It's really the same problem that needs addressing, though. Jails are currently being used as mental health facilities in a lot of ways, and there are both good and bad reasons for this. Some of the "good" reasons, necessary might be a better word, are that certain kinds of mental illness in certain kinds of people seems to invoke either criminality or, more often, unconcern for the law and what inevitably follows is the person getting arrested after an encounter with the police. No one is being criminalized for psychosis or bipolar mania, just the stuff they get into while in such states. One could argue addiction is currently criminalized, but it isn't the act of being addicted itself, its possessing illegal substances. A true solution to this will inevitably involve law enforcement and the laws that govern such things.

 

[Penf0ld]

Ive been through a situation lije this and its compkicated .

I have no time to say what happened and why but it could assist OP .

 

[Penf0ld]

I wish I had read this thread a lot earlier.

To the OP:

I too have spent time in a state owned and funded psych facility, this one for women as that is my sex.


I am so sorry you have had inpatient (involuntary) treatment and from having known a fair few people in all walks of life been in state owned psych and treatment facilities here in Australia you are most def not alone in this.

These facilities exist as mist definitely a last resort. Family and friends struggle with hard core addicts and I identify as a junky quite comfortably, we are very hard to cope with and are far to involved with self and drugs to realise families are not able to stop caring and won't just let you keep up your ha but if they love you. What else can they do? It's easier sometimes to be the junkie than their helpless family just waiting for the worst to happen.

The problem I'm having with replying to this thread is it is really about you and what you experienced being held in a facility and how it affected you personally.

Having a friend or a safe place to share this is the one thing that would help you work through it.

There are many support groups available on line Adult Chair is excellent ) or in person however it's sometimes too much angst opening up to strangers no matter how amazing they eventually end up being.


I had a pretty brutal experience in Brisbane when I was at the worst of the worst of addictions.

I got taken to this place as I attempted to end my life , too much shit and too much pain, couldn't get off the drugs ya know.

The way the bastard treated me there is something I'll never forget. I won't ever say it either as years later a friend who has schizophrenia and another who has been in rehab both explained a few things about psych nurses and facility staff so as a prison centre this would apply to that article most likely.


Psychiatric and addiction centres that are not voluntary are not meant to be places where the patients are made comfortable and are not friendly and respectful deliberately. Not because addicts are scub or any other term or done they use. This is because the people charged with the supervision of people who are drug affected, possibly scared , will take any chance to leave and will try to be dominant require very harsh and domineering carers.


It's the same with midwives really. They are horrible creatures and are in no way incident of women who are in agony as they have to be in control for them.



I hope that you never find yourself in one of these places ever again and if you need to have addiction or mental health help that you go to a voluntary place and make it your decision. You will see it is so different and so much more successful as it is you making your decisions for you in your own way.





I do some volunteer work with addicts where I live and I have had the benefit of getting very good support myself through some wonderful people over the years from this particular website.


I still find that having relatable people who I know are also having drug issues and other things in their lives the thing most needed.



So to OP and other people including Mr Temp ban ( I think I have joined the dots mate and if thats you I just realised you won't know who I am lol- pm me and say gday if you want to have mates who arent so keen to dispatch you).


That's all I'll say here.