Active interventions is one thing, forced detox is another. This involves restricting someone's freedom of movement, subjecting them to a very unpleasant experi

Active interventions is one thing, forced detox is another. This involves restricting someone's freedom of movement, subjecting them to a very unpleasant experience, and then dropping them back off in the same community with a massive drug craving and a lower tolerance. You'd want to see evidence of incredible effectiveness to be willing to engage in something like that, but the evidence just isn't there: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395915003588?casa_token=929dHt6rV9MAAAAA:zFGx71k2uvrahUN9dN2nDrRfv_7hszGbe_UERvWw_CY1ztAQEJK5p0biXzzJ6hE7idJOq3xiwg https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095539591... > Evidence does not, on the whole, suggest improved outcomes related to compulsory treatment approaches, with some studies suggesting potential harms. Given the potential for human rights abuses within compulsory treatment settings, non-compulsory treatment modalities should be prioritized by policymakers seeking to reduce drug-related harms. Note that this systematic review looked at compulsory treatment methods besides just detox, but none of the results were that impressive.