Full Rights For Homeless and Starving people.

OldNotWIse · 04-09-2014 10:13am

conorh91 wrote: »

You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

A lot of the prison population are addicted to heroin, alcohol, or other drugs. Almost half of the heroin users operating in our society were introduced to heroin in the prison system.

My point is that it may be a lot cheaper in the long term, and almost certainly more sensible, to tackle to prisoners' underlying problems through a process of civil detention.

In other words, instead of putting them in prison and sending them to home economics, or woodwork, classes, why don't we take them away and force them to engage with psychiatric and addiction counseling services to find what what the hell is really wrong with them, and wy are they behaving the way they are.

They have no business being left to themselves, or imposing themselves on innocent victims, when they are under the control of their addictions.

It's Prison 2.0.

And here's an even crazier idea, we could call it "methadone" and it will be a miracle!

Why not?

Addiction is a physical and psychiatric illness, just like harmful and socially destructive forms of psychotic disease.

"You just can't" is not a compelling argument.

The right to liberty is a constitutionally enshrined right and therefore any interference with it will not be easily tolerated and there must be overriding considerations of the common good etc - funny I thought that was a good point. Also, heroin and methadone are different. You might consider educating yourself on the topics you wish to bellow from your high horse.

Permabear · 04-09-2014 12:37pm

This post has been deleted.

Valmont · 04-09-2014 12:54pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and, as we all know, the hallmark of an enlightened society is the imprisonment of people with physical and psychological illnesses.

As such, reclassifying addiction from a criminal to a psychiatric matter may still retain the possibility of imprisonment for the user. Currently it is relatively rare for someone to be sectioned for drug use or addiction and I don't think forced treatment is legal in the U.S, Ireland, or the UK but who knows how this might change if there is a large-scale policy shift?

Zubeneschamali · 04-09-2014 1:13pm

Valmont wrote: »

who knows how this might change if there is a large-scale policy shift?

If there is a policy shift, I think it will be in the opposite direction. Criminalising drugs did not work. Declaring war on drugs did not work.

Leaving drug users alone if they leave everyone else alone just might work.

conorh91 · 04-09-2014 9:15pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nobody said civil detention would be "easily" administered.

But just as the State guarantees liberty, the State is also constitutionally obliged to protect the human mind and personality of people living in this jurisdiction.

That, along with primary legislation, is why civil detention orders continue to be made in respect of the mentally ill.

Permabear wrote: »

Anti-drugs campaigners tend to rely on Trainspotting-style stereotypes to promote their message -- but in reality, most drug users are not addicts. Even those who are addicts tend to be functional people with jobs, families, friends, and homes. Conversely, many homeless people don't use drugs.

You seem to have interpreted my posts as supporting some form of indiscriminate civil detention régime for any and all drug users.

That's not what I support.

I support a civil detention régime for people whose addictions control their lives, and who have resorted to reliance on the State and/or crime in order to fund their addictions.

Regardless, you are advocating massive state intrusion into people's private lives, first so "we" can criminalize what they're putting in their bodies

No, to be clear, I am not necessarily in favor of criminalization of addiction or drug use.

But where it becomes a problem, I favor civil remedies as opposed to criminal sanctions.

If civil detention fails, then by all means, let that person resort to a life of dependence, preferably using drugs supplied by the State.

Annasopra · 04-09-2014 9:19pm

seamus wrote: »

I don't see how. It would result in increased pressure on social services and increased costs in policing, more pointless cases in the courts, etc etc. And for nothing, it won't result in less homelessness, if anything it will create a greater level of long-term homelessness because on top of an addiction problem, you've now given them a criminal record and taught them to be evasive of the authorities.

There's also the issue that while visually displeasing, homeless people out on the streets don't present any kind of great public danger. They're sometimes verbally abusive, but rarely involved in crimes against the individual.
If they're criminalised and forced into hiding, they will likely become far more paranoid and hostile and therefore a greater danger to the public at large, not to mention involved in greater levels of petty crime because they'll be less likely to reach out to public services for food and other assistance.

Its also institutionalising people. Haven't we learned enough in this country about that? Magdalenes, Industrial schools, Mother and Baby homes, Direct provision...

OldNotWIse · 05-09-2014 2:17pm

conorh91 wrote: »

Nobody said civil detention would be "easily" administered.

But just as the State guarantees liberty, the State is also constitutionally obliged to protect the human mind and personality of people living in this jurisdiction.

That, along with primary legislation, is why civil detention orders continue to be made in respect of the mentally ill.

You seem to have interpreted my posts as supporting some form of indiscriminate civil detention régime for any and all drug users.

That's not what I support.

I support a civil detention régime for people whose addictions control their lives, and who have resorted to reliance on the State and/or crime in order to fund their addictions.

.

I can see your point but I think wrt constitutional rights, the barrier is always going to be very high when it comes to restricting them. As an example, there are cases where applications to make an adult (who for example might be refusing medical treatment) a ward of court for the purpose of imposing treatment on them against their will have been refused because they have capacity to make informed medical decisions. I think (and I apologise I cannot remember the names) but there was a case where permission to forcefully sterilise a woman who did not have the capabilities to fulfill her duties as a mother if she became pregnant was also refused. Restricting constitutional rights is a tricky area. Just because someone is an addict or is a financial drain on society, that might not be enough to "get it over the line".

conorh91 · 05-09-2014 10:24pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Restricting constitutional rights is a tricky area. Just because someone is an addict or is a financial drain on society, that might not be enough to "get it over the line".

You're ignoring the State's failure to protect the human mind and personality, which also flows from the Constitution.

We're talking about balancing, and not "restricting" constitutional rights.

In any case, getting bogged down in whether or not it would be upheld by the High Court or the Supreme Court is pointless; the Constitution changes, and so does its interpretation, and none of us here are likely to have any influence over its interpretation.

The question is whether or not civil detention, in these circumstances, is an objectively sensible approach.

Annasopra · 06-09-2014 7:29am

conorh91 wrote: »

You're ignoring the State's failure to protect the human mind and personality, which also flows from the Constitution.

We're talking about balancing, and not "restricting" constitutional rights.

In any case, getting bogged down in whether or not it would be upheld by the High Court or the Supreme Court is pointless; the Constitution changes, and so does its interpretation, and none of us here are likely to have any influence over its interpretation.

The question is whether or not civil detention, in these circumstances, is an objectively sensible approach.

Of course not. Its effectively criminalising people for illness and homelessness.

StudentDad · 08-09-2014 2:28am

conorh91 wrote: »

The question is whether or not civil detention, in these circumstances, is an objectively sensible approach.

Yes we had a system like this, they were work houses, magdalene laundries etc.
Victorian notions of progress that wound up as slave prisons for those unfortunate enough to be poor.

This is your grand vision for helping homeless and destitute citizens of Ireland?

SD

kikidelvin · 08-09-2014 3:42am

All addicts should be given extra money on their benefit payments to cover the cost of their addiction ,so no more drug related crimes etc.All homeless people should be offered hotels,B&Bs all with full board ,no more homeless or hungry people problems solved.Plus a lot of jobs created.

GarIT · 08-09-2014 7:36am

kikidelvin wrote: »

All addicts should be given extra money on their benefit payments to cover the cost of their addiction ,so no more drug related crimes etc.All homeless people should be offered hotels,B&Bs all with full board ,no more homeless or hungry people problems solved.Plus a lot of jobs created.

Only at the cost of money we dont have. Full board in a hotel I'll lose all my money gambling ASAP I'll try to find an 'addiction' too.

Permabear · 08-09-2014 2:55pm

This post has been deleted.

conorh91 · 08-09-2014 3:34pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Of course not. Its effectively criminalising people for illness and homelessness.

Typical populist BS.

It's no more criminalizing them than an involuntary admission to a mental health hospital is criminalizing people with other psychological conditions.

These kinds of drug addicts are not free agents making free choices.

They are under the duress of their condition, just like others who are mentally unfit, and may pose a public danger, and may be detained against their wishes.

Addiction is recognized as a major mental health problem. It just happens that it's a lot more regular than the kinds of mental illnesses that may already result in civil detention.

kikidelvin · 10-09-2014 2:52am

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why on the dotted line of course.:D

kikidelvin · 10-09-2014 2:54am

GarIT wrote: »

Only at the cost of money we dont have. Full board in a hotel I'll lose all my money gambling ASAP I'll try to find an 'addiction' too.

Thats fine what addiction would you like to choose ?:D

Full Rights For Homeless and Starving people.

Comments