Breakdown In Civil Order

[Toni]

It used to be the case (and maybe still is) that you could have someone involuntarily committed for drug detox and/or for serious mental health crisis. 72 hr. hold. My inlaws tried that in desperation with my BIL who had serious substance abuse issues. It did not work.

My understanding is that it takes a threat of suicide to trigger such a lockup, but the only crazy I have any connection to is not in the US legal system and the problem isn't one of self-harm, anyway.

I understand that there are circumstances where it can work: say someone with serious bipolar disorder or schizophrenia feels better on their meds, to the extent that they believe they don't need the meds anymore, so they go off, lose their equilibrium and need hospitalization in order to stabilize again. This is me, making up the circumstance under which involuntary commitment might be worthwhile. I do know absolutely that it is an issue for some people with some psychiatric illnesses going off their meds, believing they are cured or feeling that the side effects are causing them more problems than the disease.

It's seeing the side effects as worse than the disease. Usually a false perception (their memories of the time off the meds are often inaccurate) and often the burden falls on those around. If you don't pose a danger to others I think it should be your choice, but I have very little tolerance for harm inflicted in such situations. Off your meds should be a major aggravating factor in any criminal case.

My understanding from a number of people, professionals and those taking medications for psychiatric illnesses is that the side effects of some meds can be pretty unpleasant and very difficult to manage.

 

[Elixir]

My understanding from a number of people, professionals and those taking medications for psychiatric illnesses is that the side effects of some meds can be pretty unpleasant and very difficult to manage.

I got the same understanding from people living with people taking medications for psychiatric illnesses. It’s a real problem trying to anticipate what the person might do next, and it’s not often something good.

 

[Jarhyn]

Never mind that for the VAST majority of primate existence, eating what you found was easy enough and few people ever actually participated in acquiring that food.

Seriously, bro, if you want to go back to a prehistoric existence, livingi n a cave and just hoping you don't get dysentery or starve to death, go find a mountainside to live on. There are plenty of spaces in the US that are untamed and you can live out your noble savage fantasy to your heart's content.

But don't think that you should be entitled to live your lotus-eater life while expecting other people to put in the hard work to keep you alive.

Ah, liberals. All heart, they are.

Jesus fuck, that was demented.

Nowhere on earth is there a place where people in America can just conveniently go find a mountainside to live on that is none of (cult), (protected park land), or (owned by someone else).

Actually, it is possible depending on your definition of "live". Pitch a tent at night, pack it up and move on by day.

The power to do that without eventually being stopped is an extreme luxury these days. The only place it is really possible, especially in a community environment, is in a homeless encampment, and even that is illegal in many/most places.

Yeah, it's not possible in a community environment.

Realistically, it's the sort of thing where so long as you stay under the radar little is likely to be done about it. People have a problem with homeless encampments because they're very much not staying under the radar.

I would hazard to say that 90% of the problem comes from 10% of the population, and that by dealing with that 10% of troublemakers will resolve said 90% of the issue.

Given that this 10% of troublemakers in any group is active in disregarding the rights of others, I am not bothered by disregarding their rights and saying "if you can't let people live freely out here, we won't let you live freely out here", and give them options for exile to a geographically confined place, incarceration to a built confinement, or rehabilitation in a confinement.

You have essentially created a false dichotomy: some people would take both paths, incarcerating the recidivist troublemakers who cause the vast majority of problems, while allowing the rest to just live their lives in the presence of assistance programs and safe(ish) sites for rough(ish) living.

Either way, though, society bears the burden: either the burden of housing and "rehabilitating" people who clearly would resist the effort, or by letting society bear the consequences of allowing them to continue bu the do, but I want neither and both: where society bears the burden through creating an available but unforced pathway to rehabilitation, where they are warehoused in a specific and less problematic region of any area they find themselves, and where the most problematic elements of the community are removed to more appropriate situations.