4 ms·

I live in Oregon and that 5 step plan isn't working out. I agree that addiction is first and foremost a health issue. However, relying on addicts to voluntaril

I live in Oregon and that 5 step plan isn't working out. I agree that addiction is first and foremost a health issue. However, relying on addicts to voluntarily enter treatment isn't working. We're seeing very few enter treatment - last I heard it was well under 10%. I think in the case of highly addictive drugs like opioids/fentanyl, and meth they should be made illegal again (Remember, Oregon essentially did your #1 above) however, instead of incarceration in a prison, we need some kind of treatment hospitals that are involuntary - something between a prison and a hospital with emphasis on treatment. We need to take a much more nuanced approach: some drugs are highly addictive (fentanyl, meth) - people can get hooked on them after only 1 or 2 uses, you want to prevent that as much as possible and that requires that they be illegal. Other drugs are not addictive: marijuana, LSD, shrooms, etc - making those legal is fine, but in the cases of the psychedelics you really want to encourage people to have guidance as much as possible.

pstuart 3y ago
I'm in the PDX area and am well aware of the problem. I agree on the involuntary institutionalization (both on the need and the fact that current treatment plans aren't working). When we talk about addicts in the area, we're pretty much talking about the homeless population. I've yet to see any census of sorts, but I'd wager that a significant portion of the homeless population is mentally ill. That also need to be revisited in the context of involuntary institutionalization. As far as opioids and meth go, making them illegal has been an abject failure. Let the addicts have their drugs (a la methadone clinics) but minimize the the dangers as well as the organized crime that thrives on their criminality.
- UncleOxidant 3y ago
  > As far as opioids and meth go, making them illegal has been an abject failure Because the emphasis has been on punishment not on treatment as a health problem. They have to be illegal if you want to be able to involuntarily hospitalize the users. Dealers of the addictive drugs should be punished (if they're not users and thus not addicted - if they're dealer/users they need to go through treatment first, punishment later if they continue to deal). If you live in the PDX area I don't need to tell you that our current system which relies on voluntarily submitting to treatment isn't working. Yes, mental illness plays a part, but in many cases it's tough to tell which came first: the mental illness or the drug use - the drug use makes the mental illness worse and the mental illness often leads to more drug use.
  - naasking 3y ago
    > They have to be illegal if you want to be able to involuntarily hospitalize the users. That's not true. People are confined all the time for being a danger to themselves or others, even if they're not using drugs.
    - UncleOxidant 3y ago
      Sure, but that's a lot harder to do. Making it illegal and making the penalty treatment would probably be a lot easier.
      - naasking 3y ago
        What's right and what's convenient don't always align.
notaustinpowers 3y ago
The biggest issue with implementing involuntary treatment hospitals is that there are very real, very established regulations that you cannot force a patient to do something they do not consent to, outside of very strict circumstances or court orders.
- UncleOxidant 3y ago
  > outside of very strict circumstances or court orders. Which is why I'm saying the highly addictive drugs need to be illegal - a court can then order treatment.
  - pstuart 3y ago
    Legality of substance abuse shouldn't be the factor for whether or not treatment can be compelled. My mother was an alcoholic and in and out of psych wards. They'd let her out the moment she could charm them and say she was ok. Fun times. But no illegal drugs involved, just plain old alcohol. And it's looking that alcohol has no "medical benefits" and is flat out bad for you. In the interest of the people wouldn't you agree that's reason to make it illegal?
  - naasking 3y ago
    Making drugs illegal is not the only way to do this. Probably not even the best way.
- xboxnolifes 3y ago
  You're just saying that the problem with legislation is you need to legislate. Yes, enforcing laws first requires writing them.

pstuart 3y ago

I'm in the PDX area and am well aware of the problem. I agree on the involuntary institutionalization (both on the need and the fact that current treatment plans aren't working). When we talk about addicts in the area, we're pretty much talking about the homeless population. I've yet to see any census of sorts, but I'd wager that a significant portion of the homeless population is mentally ill. That also need to be revisited in the context of involuntary institutionalization. As far as opioids and meth go, making them illegal has been an abject failure. Let the addicts have their drugs (a la methadone clinics) but minimize the the dangers as well as the organized crime that thrives on their criminality.

UncleOxidant 3y ago
> As far as opioids and meth go, making them illegal has been an abject failure Because the emphasis has been on punishment not on treatment as a health problem. They have to be illegal if you want to be able to involuntarily hospitalize the users. Dealers of the addictive drugs should be punished (if they're not users and thus not addicted - if they're dealer/users they need to go through treatment first, punishment later if they continue to deal). If you live in the PDX area I don't need to tell you that our current system which relies on voluntarily submitting to treatment isn't working. Yes, mental illness plays a part, but in many cases it's tough to tell which came first: the mental illness or the drug use - the drug use makes the mental illness worse and the mental illness often leads to more drug use.
- naasking 3y ago
  > They have to be illegal if you want to be able to involuntarily hospitalize the users. That's not true. People are confined all the time for being a danger to themselves or others, even if they're not using drugs.
  - UncleOxidant 3y ago
    Sure, but that's a lot harder to do. Making it illegal and making the penalty treatment would probably be a lot easier.
    - naasking 3y ago
      What's right and what's convenient don't always align.

notaustinpowers 3y ago

The biggest issue with implementing involuntary treatment hospitals is that there are very real, very established regulations that you cannot force a patient to do something they do not consent to, outside of very strict circumstances or court orders.

UncleOxidant 3y ago
> outside of very strict circumstances or court orders. Which is why I'm saying the highly addictive drugs need to be illegal - a court can then order treatment.
- pstuart 3y ago
  Legality of substance abuse shouldn't be the factor for whether or not treatment can be compelled. My mother was an alcoholic and in and out of psych wards. They'd let her out the moment she could charm them and say she was ok. Fun times. But no illegal drugs involved, just plain old alcohol. And it's looking that alcohol has no "medical benefits" and is flat out bad for you. In the interest of the people wouldn't you agree that's reason to make it illegal?
- naasking 3y ago
  Making drugs illegal is not the only way to do this. Probably not even the best way.
xboxnolifes 3y ago
You're just saying that the problem with legislation is you need to legislate. Yes, enforcing laws first requires writing them.