> I agree with Glasser It [Prop. 36] will allow the
state to
> define acceptable
> treatment rather than the individual to whom the
> treatment is being
> imposed upon.
>
> Now, a person who has a drug addiction (provided
> they have the means
> to pay for it) can choose to enter a treatment
> program or not. They
> may determine which treatment program and who treats
> them. These are
> important "rights" to maintain.
(. . .)
> Making laws that trap people into being the
>objects of paternalistic
>professionals or the state mandated "care" is not
>the way to go IMHO.
>The approach certainly seems to be aimed at
>controlling the "social
>junk" rather than creating community for them.
A note on this. Glasser is right when he says "coerced treatment is an oxymoron," as any addiction specialist could tell you. Mark Shuckit once told me, showing refreshing ideological bluntness, that most users for whom it works have sought treatment out of the exhaustion and ruin, as they see it, of many years. They are "ready." This, at the end of the addiction business cycle, is what hedges success rather than the content of the treatment program. Moreover, since the bio-psycho-social medical model accounts for relapses, there's no way it could be used in good faith to justify coerced treatment.
Alec
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/