6 ms·

I wonder if all countries are this ideologically dogmatic. On one hand, you have PragerU. On the other hand, you have organizations like this that insist we nee

by Aunche 4y ago

I wonder if all countries are this ideologically dogmatic. On one hand, you have PragerU. On the other hand, you have organizations like this that insist we need to give severe drug addicts private hotel rooms that they can trash. You hear a lot about Finland's success with homelessness being credited to housing first. However, they also are very aggressive with compulsory psychiatric treatment, which this author would consider unethical.

Sharlin 4y ago
Finland definitely does not have aggressive compulsory psychiatric treatment. About the only case where you can get involuntarily admitted is if you actively try or threaten to harm yourself or others.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  Oh, we've got plenty of that, but still can't do much if anything about it. Lots of talk from both sides on how to handle it, but no real action because none of the "solutions" address the problem.
usednet 4y ago
There’s nothing contradictory with compulsory psychiatry, providing housing, and ending the war on drugs. The US’ hardcore line on drugs has clearly been an abject failure and its time to reverse the damage we’ve done before its too late.
- nverno 4y ago
  It's gotten a whole lot better since the 90's, but still a long way to go.
- luckylion 4y ago
  Compulsory psychiatry is controversial, though. While "Housing First" (and potentially with some unconditionality attached) is controversial on the right, compulsory psychiatry is controversial on the left (and I think more so than Housing First on the right).
  - ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
    In the US, I guarantee that compulsory psychiatry would become corrupt in just a couple of years. You'd find people being sent to institutions for the mildest of infractions. Back in the 1970s, there was a movie I watched, starring Alan Arkin, called The Other Side of Hell[0]. It was modeled on The Patuxent Institution[1], which has known some controversy[2]. There's a story (I think the movie references it), where someone was admitted for thirty days, for losing their shit at a traffic stop, and ended up doing thirty years. It's a Real Bad Place. I met someone that did nine years, there, but he earned it. [0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078043/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078043/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patuxent_Institution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patuxent_Institution [2] https://www.petition2congress.com/ctas/citizens-against-cruel-unusual-punishment-at-patuxent-institution https://www.petition2congress.com/ctas/citizens-against-crue...
    - luckylion 4y ago
      Yeah, Germany has had similar cases, and then of course there's the Rosenhan Experiment [0]. That's why it's controversial. Housing First is controversial because it, too, will be corrupted if there's no additional action, and will mostly become the housing component of a UBI, likely with significantly higher costs as some people will not be able to function in the provided housing, damage it, and at the same time have the right to an undamaged home. Putting people behind bars is less controversial on the right, spending the budget on social causes for eternity is less controversial on the left. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        > some people will not be able to function in the provided housing, damage it, and at the same time have the right to an undamaged home. At some point along that path, it seems reasonable for a society to say “okay, your next home is one that you cannot damage with lots of sturdy metal and concrete furnishings”.
        4y ago
qlm 4y ago
People who are arguing that drug addicts be given hotel rooms are not on the other end of the spectrum. That's a center-left policy at most. It's a massively inefficient "solution" that does nothing to address the issue. Provide housing, don't give a ton of money to hotel chains.
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  Arguments for hotel rooms right now are often referring to purchasing actual hotel buildings and running them as shelters with private rooms - California and Washington have both done this on occasion.
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
  >”That's a center-left policy at most.” I don’t like this kind of thinking. We should be evaluating the idea on its own merit, not tying to frame it as something acceptable because it is centrist - a word which is rapidly loosing any distinction.
  - NoGravitas 4y ago
    I believe gp was suggesting it is unacceptable because it is centrist.
honkycat 4y ago
> However, they also are very aggressive with compulsory psychiatric treatment, which this author would consider unethical. Based on what? You think the author would be against additional mental health resources for homeless people? I highly doubt it.

by Aunche 4y ago

Sharlin 4y ago

Finland definitely does not have aggressive compulsory psychiatric treatment. About the only case where you can get involuntarily admitted is if you actively try or threaten to harm yourself or others.

zdragnar 4y ago
Oh, we've got plenty of that, but still can't do much if anything about it. Lots of talk from both sides on how to handle it, but no real action because none of the "solutions" address the problem.

usednet 4y ago

There’s nothing contradictory with compulsory psychiatry, providing housing, and ending the war on drugs. The US’ hardcore line on drugs has clearly been an abject failure and its time to reverse the damage we’ve done before its too late.

nverno 4y ago
It's gotten a whole lot better since the 90's, but still a long way to go.
luckylion 4y ago
Compulsory psychiatry is controversial, though. While "Housing First" (and potentially with some unconditionality attached) is controversial on the right, compulsory psychiatry is controversial on the left (and I think more so than Housing First on the right).
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
  In the US, I guarantee that compulsory psychiatry would become corrupt in just a couple of years. You'd find people being sent to institutions for the mildest of infractions. Back in the 1970s, there was a movie I watched, starring Alan Arkin, called The Other Side of Hell[0]. It was modeled on The Patuxent Institution[1], which has known some controversy[2]. There's a story (I think the movie references it), where someone was admitted for thirty days, for losing their shit at a traffic stop, and ended up doing thirty years. It's a Real Bad Place. I met someone that did nine years, there, but he earned it. [0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078043/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078043/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patuxent_Institution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patuxent_Institution [2] https://www.petition2congress.com/ctas/citizens-against-cruel-unusual-punishment-at-patuxent-institution https://www.petition2congress.com/ctas/citizens-against-crue...
  - luckylion 4y ago
    Yeah, Germany has had similar cases, and then of course there's the Rosenhan Experiment [0]. That's why it's controversial. Housing First is controversial because it, too, will be corrupted if there's no additional action, and will mostly become the housing component of a UBI, likely with significantly higher costs as some people will not be able to function in the provided housing, damage it, and at the same time have the right to an undamaged home. Putting people behind bars is less controversial on the right, spending the budget on social causes for eternity is less controversial on the left. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      > some people will not be able to function in the provided housing, damage it, and at the same time have the right to an undamaged home. At some point along that path, it seems reasonable for a society to say “okay, your next home is one that you cannot damage with lots of sturdy metal and concrete furnishings”.
      - 4y ago

qlm 4y ago

People who are arguing that drug addicts be given hotel rooms are not on the other end of the spectrum. That's a center-left policy at most. It's a massively inefficient "solution" that does nothing to address the issue. Provide housing, don't give a ton of money to hotel chains.

lazyasciiart 4y ago
Arguments for hotel rooms right now are often referring to purchasing actual hotel buildings and running them as shelters with private rooms - California and Washington have both done this on occasion.
BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
>”That's a center-left policy at most.” I don’t like this kind of thinking. We should be evaluating the idea on its own merit, not tying to frame it as something acceptable because it is centrist - a word which is rapidly loosing any distinction.
- NoGravitas 4y ago
  I believe gp was suggesting it is unacceptable because it is centrist.

honkycat 4y ago

> However, they also are very aggressive with compulsory psychiatric treatment, which this author would consider unethical. Based on what? You think the author would be against additional mental health resources for homeless people? I highly doubt it.