I agree with this. I say you can get narcan twice, but the 3rd strike and you're outNever said the problem would go away, but I am in favor of legalizing all drugs. Not your job or the governments to control what I put in my body.
just curious,Never said the problem would go away, but I am in favor of legalizing all drugs. Not your job or the governments to control what I put in my body.
from the way you spell im gonna guess youre on drugsjust curious,
what part of the country are you live ?
yup, I pretty much butchered that one pretty goodfrom the way you spell im gonna guess youre on drugs
it is very close to that in Austin at least.. except when I was at ASH (Austin State Hospital), the worst of the worst would get 90 days sometimes..I have a family member who works in mental health care and they've told tales of having someone in and back out six or eight times because they would get arrested, come and get showered cleaned up, on their medications then go see the judge and the judge would say I don't see any reason for them to go to a clinic that they don't want to go to, it looks like they're doing just fine.
The person with then walk out, not take their medicine and be arrested again within a few weeks.
They finally were able to get this person in front of a judge as they came in when they were arrested, unshowered, unmedicated and as loony as they come, then the judge signed off on a 30 day involuntary inpatient treatment for them.
Not sure what the answer is, but what we have now isn't it.
Perhaps one thing that would help would be required training for judges who are going to be on those courts to understand the basics of the various mental disorders and the ramifications thereof.
Aaron Z
i have zero interest in wasting my time with trivial punctuation marks a comma is about all youll get from meyup, I pretty much butchered that one pretty good
....and it is "I'm" and "you're"
just curious,
what part of the country are you live ?
On my way to work I drive by a large abandoned psychiatric complex that was closed down in the 90s and I know of several more in a relatively small radius, all abandoned.
It's my understanding that up until the 80s-90s, a large percentage of people with deep psychiatric problems were treated or held at those places, whereas the emphasis is now on medication.
Walking through downtown New Haven, it's clear that a large percentage of homeless people are quite disturbed mentally and/or on drugs. From a limited government point of view, what is the proper way to deal with those people?
Looks like the couple in pic is your Mum & Pops-Are I live in the state of West motherfuckin’ Virginia
Looks like the couple in pic is your Mum & Pops-
ya, butchered that, I own itAre I live in the state of West motherfuckin’ Virginia
ya, butchered that, I own it
I think when your state opens up drug use full tilt, your opinion will change on this a little bit
Once again you missed my point
Let me tell you a little secret, the people that want to do drugs are already fucking doing drugs. Think a crackhead gives a fuck if crack is illegal? Or a meth head cares that meth isn’t legal? (lots of them around here, as well as opioid and heroin addicts)
I could find any type of drug I wanted if I so desired, just so happens that I don’t. Been down that road and tried all kinds of shit, mainly go for alcohol, weed and mushrooms/acid, tried coke and other hard drugs but it wasn’t my thing. Never liked pain meds honestly. Xanax on the other hand…LOL. And to quote Bill Hicks “I had a real good time doing drugs”.
Point being is that drugs are ubiquitous and legalizing them would not only greatly stop overdose deaths, as people would know what they’re getting, as opposed to shooting up heroin laced with fentanyl and dying. Would also lower the price of drugs because of the added cost right now via the risks involved.
Plenty of fully functional, normal people drink like a fish when they go home, or smoke like cheech and Chong when they get off work but they still get up and go to work everyday and lead fairly normal lives. How many people are on pain management, benzos or other similar pills and manage to function normally despite being “on drugs” all the time?
Some people who drink alcohol end up winos, some people who some weed end up losers in their moms basement, some meth heads have rotted out teeth and are skinny as a rail. It’s not drug’s fault that some people are irresponsible with them no more than it’s GM’s fault that you plowed over an old lady driving home drunk.
As with many things in society, we place the blame on the wrong thing. Blame the individual, not the substance. No different than “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.
I’m not crazy, you’re the one who’s crazy
Once again you missed my point
when you see the masses converge on your town, you will see the drugs are the catalyst to the mental illness
Yes, we all get it, drug users do what drug users do. When you can shoot up in front of a police officers (like Seattle) you will see it up close and the time to end result will be quicker time frame because of the condensed nature of the problem
and I am not talking about recreational pot stores
So we are all waiting on your next post, about how drug users will do drug things
Its a tough question, with no easy solution. I can name the problems I see currently with the experience I have in the present system of community mental health centers. If you're curious, I can elaborate later this evening after the tractor is out of the barn and I got some free time.On my way to work I drive by a large abandoned psychiatric complex that was closed down in the 90s and I know of several more in a relatively small radius, all abandoned.
It's my understanding that up until the 80s-90s, a large percentage of people with deep psychiatric problems were treated or held at those places, whereas the emphasis is now on medication.
Walking through downtown New Haven, it's clear that a large percentage of homeless people are quite disturbed mentally and/or on drugs. From a limited government point of view, what is the proper way to deal with those people?
Beings you have already stated that you have gone the drug routSo lock up the crazy people who can’t handle their shit in a mental institution? What I’ve been saying this whole time, but we can’t do that anymore because 99% of them are gone.
I’d say that the mental illness is the catalyst for drug use in most cases, not the other way around. The “problem of homelessness” and bums shooting up on the street is 90% people like that belong in an institution. They used to be hidden from view and dealt with but now that’s “wrong”. Hence why we have bums talking to themselves and shitting in a doorway on the street.
It ain’t the drugs, it’s the person.
My BIL comes from a good SoCal family, private schools, bankers, he's a lawyer, etc., and his older brother died a couple years ago on the streets. They had a trust set up for him, if he wanted to stay in a hotel, or eat in a restaurant there was money available for him to do that, but he was crazy as shit and would prefer to dumpster dive and drink wine and do who knows what else with the other zombies. Broke Bills heart that he couldn't get his brother under control. They use to be able to commit people like that, but he was not a danger to anyone so he lived on the streets.I'd be ok with large scale public funded "boarding house". Basically turn those mental hospitals into voluntary homeless shelters. If they still prefer to live on the street then fawk em.
Sadly, this is probably more common than not. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. At some point natural selection needs to work its magic.My BIL comes from a good SoCal family, private schools, bankers, he's a lawyer, etc., and his older brother died a couple years ago on the streets. They had a trust set up for him, if he wanted to stay in a hotel, or eat in a restaurant there was money available for him to do that, but he was crazy as shit and would prefer to dumpster dive and drink wine and do who knows what else with the other zombies. Broke Bills heart that he couldn't get his brother under control. They use to be able to commit people like that, but he was not a danger to anyone so he lived on the streets.
That and "If you don't know who the black sheep is in your family, its you." Lucky for me it's my younger sister. She's not crazy, but has just lived her life by lowering her standards. She's one paycheck, or major car repair away from being homeless, breaks my heart but she's chosen this path.Sadly, this is probably more common than not. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. At some point natural selection needs to work its magic.
Its me. Not like psychotic, can't earn a living shit. More like reckless, zero fawks given could win a Darwin award at any given moment. And I wouldn't trade the lifestyle for anything.That and "If you don't know who the black sheep is in your family, its you." . . . .
seriously tho.. I worked at the Austin State Hospital for a few years.. eventually I was a Texas Certified Peer Support Specialist..
a large percentage of people I would see, would be homeless.. but there are lots of kinds of stats you could place them under..
if I didn't have parents with money, I would probably be homeless.. or living on someone's couch
Then they have the same right to liberty as everyone else. With that comes responsibility for one's actions. So cite/fine/imprison them for the misdemeanors they commit, just like for everyone else. And if they are too whacko, then right there is the justification for institutionalizing them.First you'll have to get this overturned.
O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in mental health law ruling that a state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends. Since the trial court jury found, upon ample evidence, that petitioner did so confine respondent, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's conclusion that petitioner had violated respondent's right to liberty.[1][2][3]
What if I'd like to mind your business?The proper way to deal with any group of people is by minding your own damn business.