I’m in favour of legalizing all drugs. If someone wants to self harm I’m not opposed to it. Leaving needles on the street, harassing people due to the effect of drugs, etc is not acceptable, full stop.
I didn’t mention lengthily prison terms. Trust me I’m quite compassionate. However, if the law allows someone who’s mentally I’ll to have free reign, something is wrong. We can and should do better. That doesn’t mean building a lot of underfunded shelters in one area.
Let me ask you. What would you do if you had the authoritarian ability to make decisions? I’m curious.
In the case of addiction:
1) Start by legalizing and/or decriminalizing drugs in respect of the addition issue so as to remove any issue w/people reporting bad dealers/bad stuff to police.
2) Try to create legal and regulated supplies of most recreational drugs that have reduced potency/ill-effect and come with 'reasonable' dosages and warning and where possible are made less addictive.
3) Addiction Treatment must be available virtually on demand; if someone is ready to get help, they should be on a 3-5 month wait list; they should have an inpatient (if required) or outpatient program ready to receive them pretty much the same day; I'd happily eat the cost of the odd unused bed/spot.
4) Address poverty and low-education attainment as these are often linked both to addiction and to particularly bad outcomes w/same. We need to get everyone proper housing, raise them minimum wage; provide a decent disability benefit for those who genuinely can't work, and double-down efforts to ensure virtually everyone graduates High School and is literate and numerate. For those who did drop out there should be free, no-wait list access to return to school programs.
5) If someone, while High/Intoxicated does something criminal, when clearly not in their right mind; they must be detained, and given sufficient treatment to return them to sobriety as quickly as possible. Once sober, they have to admit culpability for their actions, do something, however modest in service of same (such as apologizing in writing to an affected party); and must agree to remain sober thereafter. If means treatment, they must agree to same; or face detention of some form, until they do.
But the emphasis should be on releasing people back into the community where feasible, and to provide a second chance.
Third chances should be much harder to come by; but the focus should remain on assisting the person, if they're willing to receive such assistance; if not, society must be protected.
If there is a repeat problem, on-going, if serious instances of violence are involved, or if someone is persistently refusing help; then long-term confinement should be considered.
****
In respect of mental health not involving addiction the idea would be very similar, except that it is proactive therapy and/or medication that is in order.
Again, if a person can be returned to a lucid state, accept some responsibility for misdeeds and the importance of accepting help and staying lucid if at all possible............then they can be returned the community, at least
for an offense that is overly serious or is a first intervention scenario.
Likewise as to persons with addiction, those that refuse help, and repeatedly cause criminal trouble, ought to be considered for longer-term involuntary commitment; but careful consideration should be given
to other less aggressive options if practical. (for instance compelling someone to live with a parent; or placing them in a semi-open setting w/supervision and assistance available.)
