If you spend much time at the local police department, you might notice a steady stream of people coming in to give urine samples. In many cases, it is a condition of their parole or plea-deal that they submit to random sampling. They are sent a text and they have a certain amount of time to respond and submit a sample to show that they are drug free.
It seems reasonable to me that if a violent offender is offered leniency on the expectation that they will remain meds-compliant for anti-psychotic or antidepressants then a similar monitoring plan should be implemented as a matter-of-course.
It is amply documented that medicines used for mental health issues have a very high degree of patient non-compliance. The drugs have side-effects (weight gain, sleepiness, difficulty in climaxing during sex). The patient has little evidence that they are working (even if it is crystal clear to those around them). They will undoubtedly have a half dozen "friends" who tell them that they don't need no steenkin' drugs.
You might point out that there is nothing to stop the violent person from having a bottle of the pills available and taking one when he gets the text and then to lolly-gag as long as possible so it shows up in his urine.
I have no qualifications in pharmaceuticology but I believe that there are many substances that are partially metabolized by the liver and then excreted via the kidneys into the urine. I believe this is a MUCH slower process than the direct oral-blood-urine path. Five minutes of fishing around on the internet uncovered one such pathway "Glucuronidation".
I hate to give Big Pharma any more money, but it would be valuable to society if some of the heavy-hitters like Risperdone (currently off-patent and not profitable) were compounded with suitable "chemical urine markers" to indicate that the patient had been meds-compliant many hours before they got the text informing them it was time for their random urine drop.
Yes...it is possible to monitor compliance accurately through lab testing. But such testing isn't simple and basic like your fundamental 'pee test' and it costs....a lot. Which is why it's not generally used for basic screening.ReplyDelete
Maybe it would help to TELL them that we are monitoring compliance with the test, and only really send the sample for analysis if they are obviously out of line. The ones who don't take their meds will probably not appear for testing anyway.ReplyDelete
I would respectfully disagree. The company I retired from developed a real time instrument to make sure medicines were taken as directed in clinical trials. There was a chemical marker in the pill that would show up in the patient's breath after so many minutes. The test subject then blew into what was a fancy breath analyzer that took their picture and time stamped the event, uploading the information via the internet. I ran the validation studies for our FDA submission and it worked pretty well. Considering how much money is wasted in testing because the subject doesn't follow protocols it was a no-brainer.ReplyDelete
Sounds like it should be simple, then.ReplyDelete
There is also a fair amount of evidence that SSRI (selective serotonin uptake inhibitors) taken by young men for depression causes violent outbreaks. Many of the mass shootings by alienated young men, like school shootings, turn out to involve SSRIs.ReplyDelete
One of the characteristics of mental illness is that patients rarely exhibit just one symptom. There is a lot of co-morbidity.Delete
My personal take on it is that if somebody is depressed enough to have intentions of taking their own life, then they have already breached the societal and moral inhibitions against taking any human lives.
A seriously depressed person can be so debilitated that they are a sobbing puddle of meat. There is a period in their recovery when they have enough get-up-and-go to load a gun and use it but before they have the bubble back near the center of the sight-glass.
The issue is when the meds make your behavior worse, not better. And pushes the patient over the edge. Psychology is more black art than science. And their solution to almost everything is to write a prescription.Delete
I find any suggestion expanding the powers of state into personal life to be abhorrent.ReplyDelete
Life is messy.Delete
Pick one of the three options:
1.) Violent offenders never go to prison. And if they are not going to be locked up, then why even send cops to arrest them.
2.) Violent offenders always go to prison to protect the general public. You have to admit that this option is very intrusive on the personal life of the violent felon.
3.) A middle-ground where the convicted felon is allowed back into society as long as there is concrete evidence that he is following "the plan" as defined by the consensus of the medical community.
The current practice is to attempt to have one foot on the dock and the other in the canoe. The therapy (admittedly weak beer) works for some but not others. A major cause of failure is med-compliance.
I have worked with people who relied on meds to keep their poop-in-a-group. It was clear to everybody when they went off-meds. Most of them became total pricks-of-misery to their co-workers. But there was no solid evidence.
This comment has been removed by the author.Delete
This is still a no win situation... People don't realize how sick they are, and 'rely' on 'friends' to tell them they're good... sighReplyDelete
i used to take a medReplyDelete
didn't think it was working so said, 'i don't think it's working so i'm gonna stop taking it.'.
my family, 'GASP!'.
i kept taking it.
you cannot see yourself.
Interesting.... I can provide another data point:Delete
As a child, due to a humorous event, my school persuaded my family to put me on ritalin. After a few months, I could not see that it had any effect, and out of curiousity, I quit taking it while pretending to continue. There was no gasp from *my* family, but there was a day when, in conversation with my mother, I volunteered that I could not see that it had any effect. She strongly supported that she could see a great effect. I responded: Really? Then perhaps you can tell me when I stopped taking it? She had no response to that. Perhaps others cannot see you either.
This seems tome to violate the precepts of freedom and liberty. If they're going to be taking their meds, they have to see the importance of it, and drive it themselves. If they don't, and there are no consequences, who cares, or should care. if there *are* consequences, in a free society, *EVERYONE* must be held accountable for their actions. You use force against someone's will *only* when they have used force against someone else's will *first*. If they go off their meds and hurt someone, the meds are none of your business, *hurting* someone *is* your business. *That's* the crime you must deal with. Meds are just a tool they can use or not use, at their discretion, if they think it will keep them from being killed or incarcerated for the unacceptable behavior they think they might engage in without them. If they are unable or unwilling to control their own behavior, then *after* they commit the crime, their physical ability to commit it again must be forcible taken from them.ReplyDelete
Suppose you were a judge and a parent asked you to issue a protective order to keep a pedophile more than 440 yards from the school yard where said pedophile was "stalking" their child. You would refuse to issue the protective order because...the pedophile (who served his time and is back on the street) MUST decide that is a good idea?
Yeah, I know protective orders are not every effective, but stalking can be a precursor to violent crimes. The guy has a history. If the pervert is reported to be hanging on the school-yard fence then consequences for the pervert can escalate before a kid gets hurt.
I would not presume to meet public criteria as a sitting judge, but will so for the sake of argument, as asked:Delete
Restraining orders do little, or, if unserved (the norm in these cases), nothing at all. I question their justification for existence. I might issue one anyway.... would have to hear all sides first. If this fellow is actually "stalking", a crime in many places, I might try to light a fire under enforcement, and failing that, might encourage the mother to arm herself. As the mother, I think I'd burn up some color toner and post the perps likeness conspicuously throughout town, complete with name and address, but I'm asked to be the judge, not the mom. The pervert is where he is at choice. I have no sympathy for him if he gets accidentally eviscerated.
The police exist largely to protect criminals from the general public, from vigilante groups. Judges exists to encourage combatants to engage in reason and diplomacy, and to get everyone to agree to a uniform set of norms. When police fail to do their job, we get lynch mobs, and when judges fail to do their jobs (which includes earning the trust and respect of all involved, a high bar) we get turf wars.... and rightly so.
I further reflection, I do see that children should be treated differently than adults. The danger here is I, and likely others, will take violent exception to being treated as children, chattle, or slaves. If someone is "of age", and must be treated as "a child", then they *must* be legally conserved, by their actual parents, or a community appointed and trusted conservator. The conservator then bears *full* responsibility for the behavior of the conserved. Again... I, and likely others, will take violent exception to any attempt at being conserved.ReplyDelete
Would you require women with dependent children receiving welfare to be placed under a "conservator"? How about the dead-beat dad?Delete
Neither of them seems to be outraged at being "treated like children", that is, taken care of.
Not trying to stir the pot, just curious.
Interesting.... I suppose I see everyone who is "dependant" upon charity, to be effectively conserved already. To some extent this is true of every mother dependant upon her husband. Every domestic partnership involves some form of voluntary subbordination I suppose.... but "voluntary" is the key.Delete
To actually answer your question, I do not believe there can be any way for "welfare" to exist in a free state, as "charity" cannot be compelled, and monies given voluntarily for a purpose cannot ethically be repurposed. The 10th ammendment expressly prohibits federal welfare.
To your observation: quite so: Not only are they not outraged at being treated as children, they *are* outraged at being treated as adults. The old saying is that democrats want the government to be your mommy, and republicans want the government to be your daddy. Seems few want to grow up.
The thing is, when no one takes care of children, they effectively become adults, in the sense that they are now completely responsible for their own welfare... food, water, shelter, clothing, defense. They become completely free, if only free to die. Some step up to it, others die. As I father trying to find my rightful relationship with my daughter, I concluded that she was my responsibility, and that I was to protect her, perhaps even from herself, perhaps even against her will. But she is not my chattel, she is her own, and I hold her in trust until the day she claims herself from me. A tricky relationship. We do the best we can with what little we have.
My brother once told me that there is only one way to *fail* as a parent, and that is to give up.
Why do you automatically assume a deadbeat dad? That's the feminist/tptb narrative.Delete
I get paid over $180 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I just got paid $ 8550 in my previous month It Sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it.ReplyDelete