We didn't see it coming- knew nothing about it until the consequences started to appear. This is true for a concept known as 'Drug Court.' I was not too surprised to learn it originated in Florida- known as far back as when I was in High School as the #1 drug-and-crime pit of the United States of America. A website states: “The first Drug Court was in Miami-Dade County, Florida, in 1989.. Tired of the same faces and the same cases repeatedly appearing before the court...” It's an example of how the road to hell is not always paved with good intentions- individuals who did not effectively do their jobs decided to shirk off their responsibilities and make it somebody else's problem. And that is exactly what the consequences have become.
Perhaps there are some who take this approach as a second chance- to make positive changes in their lives, behaviors, decisions. However, it should bear noting that Drug Court is widely known as the 'Get out of jail free card'- clearly showing the majority do not take it seriously. When individuals are given no real penalties for drug-related offenses, and instead are given probation or 'treatment,' it is not an incentive to make changes; instead, it is a green light to sneer at 'the system,' beat the system, and continue what they have been doing. Drug Court does not work.
Can it get worse? Of course it can. And it has. Health care providers have a different type of incentive. While I am sure there are many health care providers who do not take this unethical approach, providers can benefit from prescribing medications, and can benefit from encouraging their patients to apply for SSDI. Providers have the opportunity to gain a nice range of benefits from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing the companies' drugs, and are often able to look forward to longterm 'customers' when the people start receiving SSDI.
I'm sure most would agree: SSDI should be reserved for people who have medical issues; but that is not the approach some providers take. Before recently, individuals with drug/alcohol problems were labeled with a psychiatric disorder, prescribed medication, and urged to 'go on Disability.' With changes in the DSM, 'substance abuse' itself is considered a qualifying condition. From what I've seen, in most cases it is not the people's fault- they simply take lousy advice from their providers. How many addicts/alcoholics would prefer to build better lives for themselves- if they didn't have health care providers telling them they should not?
When this approach is taken, what does it come to mean for others in the community? I will give you a few examples. One individual, upon noticing that I noticed a large number of 'meds' on his kitchen table, nonchalantly remarked: 'It musta been all that crank.' Awhile later he made the news: he chased tenants around with a knife, and when someone called the police he threatened them with the knife, too. A second individual orchestrated a particularly brutal, senseless murder of an innocent teenager- after having 'delusions' the teen planned to commit a crime. Another individual who'd been receiving 'treatment' at an outpatient clinic- consisting of nothing but 'meds'- raped a woman at knifepoint. And another started to believe her child was 'possessed by demons,' and set fire to their house to try to kill him; the youngster managed to escape, but the house burned to the ground. And these are only a few examples of how putting individuals with substance-abuse problems on medications and sending them out into the community does not work- and puts other people in danger.
Naturally, anyone who wants to overcome an addiction and sincerely wants to build a better life deserves help so they can do so. Unfortunately, 'help' often comes in the form of telling individuals they need not do anything, and enabling them to continue their destructive lifestyles. One individual comes to mind: in his early forties, he had two college degrees and had completed a course to become a medical assistant; claiming he didn't know what he wanted to do with his life, he later remarked, laughing: 'All I had to do was tell them I'm an alcoholic and I'm depressed- and I get everything for free!' He added with all the government benefits he received, his only expense was five dollars toward his housing- and said he made more than that from an afternoon of 'canning.' (collecting cans to return to stores for deposits).
Another program that may appear positive on the surface: (c/p)- In 1997, Anawim Housing contracted with the City of ** to operate Shelter Plus Care. The program provides rental subsidies, supportive assistance, and coordination with social services for homeless families and individuals with severe mental illness, HIV/AIDS, or chronic substance abuse. If individuals need and want help to get on their feet, it would be a good thing- but that is not what is occurring. Instead, individuals with 'severe mental illness' from 'chronic substance abuse' not only endanger themselves but others in the community as well. In recent years, I've seen what used to be a relatively nice, safe community turn into a drug-and-crime pit- all kinds of outrageous behaviors that the rest of us must either tolerate or leave. Where exactly are our rights? It appears we have none.
The shelters systems are affected, too- and, from what I've read, it varies from place to place. Instead of meeting the problems head-on, the local idea was to simply build more shelters. Many years ago, I learned how individuals misuse these resources- “payday” is when individuals hole up in cheap motels, 'do drugs' until their money runs out, and then return to the shelters and other resources to provide for their everyday needs. A different state has an entirely different approach: individuals who stay at homeless shelters must put a certain amount of their income into a fund to save up for their own apartments, they must pay rent to stay at the shelters, and, if they have substance abuse problems they must obtain help for those issues- they do not receive an ongoing free ride.
Changes need to be made- but they won't be. Lifelong locals do not grasp the magnitude of the problem- and won't listen to the rest of us. But look at it this way: we can go back decades ago to when individuals were complaining about young mothers and their children receiving welfare- one young woman said people often remarked that if she 'hadn't made “poor choices”,' she wouldn't be a single mother needing government assistance. You may have seen the email FWD a few years ago from another young woman stating people who receive food stamps should be made to live on 'rice and beans.' Single mothers and low-income families cannot receive government assistance unless everyone in the household over age 16 either works, attends school, or looks for a job. There are also programs to help mentally-challenged adults learn skills, and a school for the blind that has shifted its focus away from education and onto job-readiness. Seems the only healthy adults who are not required to do anything in their own behalf, have a lifetime of 'freebies' courtesy of our tax dollars, and continue their destructive ways of life, are those who are exempt from responsibility due to 'substance abuse.'
If anyone who has the ability to do so truly wants to make changes to improve people's lives and the community as a whole, start by eliminating Drug Court- impose real penalties for criminal actions connected to substance abuse. Second, eliminate substance abuse- and its alleged mental health implications- as a qualifying condition for SSDI. And third, if there are agencies that want to provide genuine help for these individuals, help them get on their feet and lead healthy, productive lives- and stop offering a lifetime of aid to those who wish to do nothing in their own behalf. Call it, perhaps, the old-fashioned concept of personal responsibility- while no one 'chooses' to become an addict or an alcoholic, no one would be in that position if they had not taken the first steps in that direction; thus, help should be reserved for those who truly want to make positive changes in their lives. And I'd venture to say that most, if presented with those options, would have the ability to do so. The way the system is rigged these days not only pushes addicts/alcoholics into permanent defeat- but it affects everyone around them.
To illustrate how the system these days lacks priorities: while individuals who commit substance-abuse-related offenses are often given probation, and perhaps told they must go to 'treatment' or attend 'meetings,' not too many years ago I knew an individual who was looking at a number of 'weekends in jail' because he could not afford to pay a parking ticket.
Perhaps there are some who take this approach as a second chance- to make positive changes in their lives, behaviors, decisions. However, it should bear noting that Drug Court is widely known as the 'Get out of jail free card'- clearly showing the majority do not take it seriously. When individuals are given no real penalties for drug-related offenses, and instead are given probation or 'treatment,' it is not an incentive to make changes; instead, it is a green light to sneer at 'the system,' beat the system, and continue what they have been doing. Drug Court does not work.
Can it get worse? Of course it can. And it has. Health care providers have a different type of incentive. While I am sure there are many health care providers who do not take this unethical approach, providers can benefit from prescribing medications, and can benefit from encouraging their patients to apply for SSDI. Providers have the opportunity to gain a nice range of benefits from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing the companies' drugs, and are often able to look forward to longterm 'customers' when the people start receiving SSDI.
I'm sure most would agree: SSDI should be reserved for people who have medical issues; but that is not the approach some providers take. Before recently, individuals with drug/alcohol problems were labeled with a psychiatric disorder, prescribed medication, and urged to 'go on Disability.' With changes in the DSM, 'substance abuse' itself is considered a qualifying condition. From what I've seen, in most cases it is not the people's fault- they simply take lousy advice from their providers. How many addicts/alcoholics would prefer to build better lives for themselves- if they didn't have health care providers telling them they should not?
When this approach is taken, what does it come to mean for others in the community? I will give you a few examples. One individual, upon noticing that I noticed a large number of 'meds' on his kitchen table, nonchalantly remarked: 'It musta been all that crank.' Awhile later he made the news: he chased tenants around with a knife, and when someone called the police he threatened them with the knife, too. A second individual orchestrated a particularly brutal, senseless murder of an innocent teenager- after having 'delusions' the teen planned to commit a crime. Another individual who'd been receiving 'treatment' at an outpatient clinic- consisting of nothing but 'meds'- raped a woman at knifepoint. And another started to believe her child was 'possessed by demons,' and set fire to their house to try to kill him; the youngster managed to escape, but the house burned to the ground. And these are only a few examples of how putting individuals with substance-abuse problems on medications and sending them out into the community does not work- and puts other people in danger.
Naturally, anyone who wants to overcome an addiction and sincerely wants to build a better life deserves help so they can do so. Unfortunately, 'help' often comes in the form of telling individuals they need not do anything, and enabling them to continue their destructive lifestyles. One individual comes to mind: in his early forties, he had two college degrees and had completed a course to become a medical assistant; claiming he didn't know what he wanted to do with his life, he later remarked, laughing: 'All I had to do was tell them I'm an alcoholic and I'm depressed- and I get everything for free!' He added with all the government benefits he received, his only expense was five dollars toward his housing- and said he made more than that from an afternoon of 'canning.' (collecting cans to return to stores for deposits).
Another program that may appear positive on the surface: (c/p)- In 1997, Anawim Housing contracted with the City of ** to operate Shelter Plus Care. The program provides rental subsidies, supportive assistance, and coordination with social services for homeless families and individuals with severe mental illness, HIV/AIDS, or chronic substance abuse. If individuals need and want help to get on their feet, it would be a good thing- but that is not what is occurring. Instead, individuals with 'severe mental illness' from 'chronic substance abuse' not only endanger themselves but others in the community as well. In recent years, I've seen what used to be a relatively nice, safe community turn into a drug-and-crime pit- all kinds of outrageous behaviors that the rest of us must either tolerate or leave. Where exactly are our rights? It appears we have none.
The shelters systems are affected, too- and, from what I've read, it varies from place to place. Instead of meeting the problems head-on, the local idea was to simply build more shelters. Many years ago, I learned how individuals misuse these resources- “payday” is when individuals hole up in cheap motels, 'do drugs' until their money runs out, and then return to the shelters and other resources to provide for their everyday needs. A different state has an entirely different approach: individuals who stay at homeless shelters must put a certain amount of their income into a fund to save up for their own apartments, they must pay rent to stay at the shelters, and, if they have substance abuse problems they must obtain help for those issues- they do not receive an ongoing free ride.
Changes need to be made- but they won't be. Lifelong locals do not grasp the magnitude of the problem- and won't listen to the rest of us. But look at it this way: we can go back decades ago to when individuals were complaining about young mothers and their children receiving welfare- one young woman said people often remarked that if she 'hadn't made “poor choices”,' she wouldn't be a single mother needing government assistance. You may have seen the email FWD a few years ago from another young woman stating people who receive food stamps should be made to live on 'rice and beans.' Single mothers and low-income families cannot receive government assistance unless everyone in the household over age 16 either works, attends school, or looks for a job. There are also programs to help mentally-challenged adults learn skills, and a school for the blind that has shifted its focus away from education and onto job-readiness. Seems the only healthy adults who are not required to do anything in their own behalf, have a lifetime of 'freebies' courtesy of our tax dollars, and continue their destructive ways of life, are those who are exempt from responsibility due to 'substance abuse.'
If anyone who has the ability to do so truly wants to make changes to improve people's lives and the community as a whole, start by eliminating Drug Court- impose real penalties for criminal actions connected to substance abuse. Second, eliminate substance abuse- and its alleged mental health implications- as a qualifying condition for SSDI. And third, if there are agencies that want to provide genuine help for these individuals, help them get on their feet and lead healthy, productive lives- and stop offering a lifetime of aid to those who wish to do nothing in their own behalf. Call it, perhaps, the old-fashioned concept of personal responsibility- while no one 'chooses' to become an addict or an alcoholic, no one would be in that position if they had not taken the first steps in that direction; thus, help should be reserved for those who truly want to make positive changes in their lives. And I'd venture to say that most, if presented with those options, would have the ability to do so. The way the system is rigged these days not only pushes addicts/alcoholics into permanent defeat- but it affects everyone around them.
To illustrate how the system these days lacks priorities: while individuals who commit substance-abuse-related offenses are often given probation, and perhaps told they must go to 'treatment' or attend 'meetings,' not too many years ago I knew an individual who was looking at a number of 'weekends in jail' because he could not afford to pay a parking ticket.