ENG3 Force Works Efficiency as A Treatment for Drug Addicts Proposal Paper Now that you have written your proposal and exploratory paper for essay #2, you

ENG3 Force Works Efficiency as A Treatment for Drug Addicts Proposal Paper Now that you have written your proposal and exploratory paper for essay #2, you will need to write your annotated bibliography. An annotated bibliography focuses on the sources you will use to write essay #2. You should have six sources, and each source must have an annotated entry for your annotated bibliography. For each source, you will need to (1) state the source as it would appear in your works cited; and (2) write two paragraphs: (a) paragraph 1 will summarize the source, and (b) paragraph two will explain what this sources add to your paper or why you wish to use this source. The next document will give examples of an annotated bibliography or give further instructions on how to write you annotated bibliography. Remember, the sources you use for your annotated bibliography will be the sources you use for essay #2. If a source doesn’t appear in the annotated bibliography, then you can use it for essay #2. Also, you must download sources–the actual sources and not links to sources–with your annotated bibliography. You can cut and paste your sources into a word document file and then download the file, but I need your actual sources, and please do not give me links.You should complete practice test for fallacies and the practice test for four types of argument. We will eventual have a fallacy and four-types of argument tests.The exploratory paper is attached below. I have 3 sources so you need to find 3 more on “if force would work as a treatment on drug addicts.” The annotated bibliography file below is a rubric like example you have to follow. 1
Ravneet Braich
April 26, 2019
English 3
L. Palsgaard
Exploratory Paper
The issue that we are discussing today is if force works as a treatment for drug addicts.
Basically, this is asking if we had the ability to force drug addicts whether it be with a legal
sentence or being surprise tested when going to work. This issue is up for debate due to the fact
that this can either be a good thing or a bad thing because we don’t know if this would actually
work. Forcing people to do things especially addicts, can be rather hard let alone the aspect of
forcing someone to do something being illegal. We all know when someone becomes an addict it
can be very difficult to get them to stop. Now a lot of things play into part with this, one thing
would be does the addict want help. This is when this issue arises, can force actually work as
treatment for drug addicts?
The underlying issue is for drug addicts to get help, but sometimes it’s not that easy.
Loved ones often care about the addicts and want them to get help but most relapse and some
just simply don’t want help. There is a very a little percentage of addicts who actually get the
help they need and stay sober. There are so many drugs in the U.S. that are illegal, and people
have been exposed to them causing them to become addicted. Like I mentioned before, once
someone goes down that path it can be hard to pull them out. Some may argue that addicts aren’t
aware of what’s best for them and forcing them to get treatment is the best method. Now with
this we don’t know if this way of treatment is actually going to work. It could work for the time
being but how long are you going to force someone to do something. This can lead to the
2
treatment being a success or can lead to a relapse. Some events leading up to this issue would be
the rise of illegal drugs being sold. If we can force addicts to stop then the drug market will fall
because there won’t be as many users as before. Another event is the amount of crime that is
committed by addicts. Drugs have a very different effect on the brain causing people to act out or
do things they normally wouldn’t do. Most crimes unfortunately are committed by people under
the influence. So, if forcing someone would work as a treatment that could potentially be less
crime. Some people involved in this controversy would be maybe the addict themselves, people
who are in the business of selling drugs, and people who are strong believers of not forcing
anybody to do anything they don’t want to do.
I would like to believe that most Americans would like to see less addicts around the
world, and this is why we need to know if force would work as a treatment. People that would be
for this issue would be former addicts that have gotten help and now live better lives than they
did before, people who knows addicts that don’t realize that they need help like loved ones, and
basically anyone who realizes how negatively drugs can impact someone’s life. People for this
motion understand that forcing an addict can be a way for them to get treatment. In Sally Stael’s
article, “For Addicts, Force Is the Best Medicine,” she states that a judge had told Robert
Downey Jr., that she was going to punish him in a way he didn’t like, but it might save his life.
This statement goes along with my statement that sometimes forcing someone can be a way to
get treatment that they don’t realize they need. People for this issue also understand that
ultimately the addict can become clean, live a longer and healthier life, have a stable job, and
become more socially acceptable.
When dealing with a debatable topic, you can expect that there will be people against this
issue mainly because it’s up for debate if force would actually work as a treatment. However,
3
this is not the only reason why someone could be against this. Another issue could be the forcing
aspect itself because it is against the law to force someone to do something unless it goes the
legal way, like a legal sentence. In the article written by Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation,
“Involuntary Commitment for Substance Use Disorders,” it states that some people may argue
that unless a crime has been committed, treatment should always remain a choice even if the
ability to choose is compromised. This statement goes hand in hand with the fact that it isn’t
right to force someone to do something. It is also arguable that there is a 50/50 chance that force
works as a treatment.
Between the pros and cons there is a middle, these are those people who are half and half
between the decision if they believe that force could or could not work as a treatment for drug
addicts. Some things that they would have to think about are both pros and cons which would
lead them to the position of being in the middle. Such as the benefits that the addicts may receive
from the forceful treatment and the fact that force treatment is not 100% guaranteed that it will
work. In the article written by Batya Swift Yasgur, “ Court-Mandated Substance Abuse
Treatment: Exploring the Ethics and Efficacy,” it states that some people are opposed to coerced
treatment because any benefit can be derived if a drug user is forced by the law to enter
treatment. It also states that other people believe that this is a way for people to receive treatment
that they normally wouldn’t. In any debate there are always two sides and a middle, in this case
there is a fair amount of evidence to stand in the middle.
I chose this issue because I know of a few people of whose lives have been completely
destroyed due to drugs, but one that’s kind of close is my sister-in-law’s brother. He grew up in
Canada and became involved in some really bad drug related problems. He ended up losing
everything he had including his kids, house, and family. Drugs have become everything to him
4
and I don’t think he realizes it. My question is if force works as a treatment on drug addicts then
maybe people like him have a hope, even if that’s something they want or not.
Drugs have been around for so many years and along with that so have addicts. Drugs
have so many different effects on people’s brains and most of them are negative. Due to this fact
I believe that addicts should get any kind of help they can get, even if that means a forceful one.
Sometimes drug addicts don’t realize that they need help and perhaps forcing them could be the
only way. This is where I stand on the issue of force as a treatment for drug addicts.
5
Works Cited
Satel, Sally. “For Addicts, Force Is the Best Medicine.” The Wall Street Journal, 6
January, 1998. https://sallysatelmd.com/articles/1998/for-addicts-force-is-the-best-medicine/
Accessed April 26, 2019
“Involuntary Commitment for Substance Use Disorders,”. Hazelden Betty Ford
Foundation. 2017, July. https://www.hazeldenbettyford.org/education/bcr/addictionresearch/involuntary-commitment-edt-717
Accessed April 26, 2019
Yasgur, Batya Swift. “Court-Mandated Substance Abuse Treatment: Exploring the Ethics
and Efficacy,”. Psychiatry Advisor, 29 May 2018.
https://www.psychiatryadvisor.com/home/topics/addiction/court-mandated-substance-abusetreatment-exploring-the-ethics-and-efficacy/
Accessed April 26, 2019
6
For Addicts, Force Is the Best Medicine
The Wall Street Journal, January 6, 1998
By Sally Satel
Autopsy reports confirmed last week that actor and comedian Chris Farley died Dec. 18 of
an overdose of cocaine and morphine. Farley was 33, the same age at which his idol, John
Belushi, fatally overdosed on cocaine and heroin in 1982.
Two weeks before Farley’s death, another actor, Robert Downey Jr., came before a Los
Angeles County municipal judge in a Malibu courtroom on a drug-related charge. The judge,
Lawrence Mira, jailed him for six months, having gone easy on him after several earlier
convictions. “I’m going to incarcerate you in a way you won’t like,” Judge Mira told Downey,
“but it may save your life.”
Indeed it may. And if Farley had had the good fortune to be arrested and come before a
tough judge, he might well be alive today. As a psychiatrist who treats drug addicts, I have
learned that legal sanctions — either imposed or threatened — may provide the leverage
needed to keep them alive by keeping them in treatment. Voluntary help is often not
enough. After all, Downey and Farley had already been to some of the nation’s finest
rehabilitation centers, but their stays were far too brief. “Chris kept trying, and he would go
into rehab and he would come out, and sometimes he’d be really healthy,” Al Franken, who
worked with Farley on “Saturday Night Live,” told a reporter after his death.
It’s an all-too-typical story: Addicts avoid treatment for years or take it in small doses,
enough to refresh themselves before starting out on another binge. According to the
federally funded Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study, patients report being addicted for
10 to 15 years on average before first entering treatment. When they do enroll, only one in
seven completes a program. Downey, for example, once bailed out after a few days.
At the root of the problem are the misguided though well-meaning attitudes of many drugtreatment professionals. They believe in waiting until a drug user is “motivated” to get help,
allowing him to reject help until he is no longer “in denial,” and telling addicts that
treatment won’t work until they “want to do it for themselves.”
At the same time, the prevailing view holds that an addict is someone suffering from a
chronic illness, rather than someone whose behavior can be influenced by meaningful
consequences. The National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of
Health, even goes so far as to call addiction a “brain disease.”
In truth, drugs do affect the brain, but even many of my patients know that stopping is a
matter of personal responsibility. In encouraging users to take that responsibility, coercion
can be the clinician’s best friend. Without it, our work is often in vain.
In the methadone clinic where I work, many patients continue to use cocaine and heroin
while receiving counseling and group therapy. Short of ejecting them from the clinic, there
7
is little we doctors can do about this. But sometimes a patient will get a lucky break: He’ll
get arrested and put on probation with the requirement that he take frequent urine tests and
the stipulation that he goes to jail if he fails. With this threat hanging over their heads,
patients often test clean — no great surprise to anyone not steeped in therapeutic ideology.
Some addicts themselves recognize the benefits of coercion. One patient told me he planned
to get a job as a truck driver. “At least they’ll test my urine, and I’ll know someone’s
watching,” he said. This patient put his finger on the crying need for built-in controls and
individual accountability. When they’re there, imposed by a judge or an employer, I can do
my job better. The patient and I don’t waste time bargaining over how many drug tests he
can fail — “C’mon, doc, next week I’ll be clean.” I don’t have to risk straining the treatment
relationship by threatening the patient with discharge from the clinic.
Instead, with externally imposed limits and expectations, I am clearly the patient’s ally. We
are working together toward his recovery, developing strategies to resist temptation and
ultimately discovering larger reasons to stay clean, because we both know that there are
serious consequences for failing. And it’s a myth that addicts have to want treatment. Ample
evidence from large-scale studies shows that when they are compelled to treatment by
judges or mandated by their employers, these coerced addicts do at least as well as their
counterparts who voluntarily enter and complete the program.
It is also well documented that the longer a patient stays in treatment, the more likely he is
to avoid future criminal activity and drug use. For example, any patient — whether treated
voluntarily or under court order — staying 18 to 24 months in Phoenix House, a residential
community program, has a 90% chance of being employed and out of legal trouble and a
70% chance of being completely drug-free five to seven years after discharge. The Brooklyn,
N.Y., district attorney, who routinely sends nonviolent drug felons to mandatory residential
treatment programs instead of prison, finds they remain in treatment two to four times
longer than their noncoerced counterparts. They also fare better than their imprisoned
counterparts, whose rearrest rate one year after release is more than twice the rate of those
who have completed treatment. Treatment is one-third cheaper than incarceration, to boot.
The idea of “harm reduction” — decriminalization, along with medically supervised heroin
distribution, needle exchanges and other such measures — has been gaining currency in the
drug debate of late. But addicts would be better off if more of them were arrested and forced
to enroll in treatment programs. “I wish the cops could bust an addict for jaywalking or
littering,” a colleague of mine says, only half-jokingly. “At least then he would get placed in a
treatment program where the court would make sure he’d stay.” Civil judges can, without
arrest, commit some addicts to treatment for their own protection if they are clearly out of
control — as Farley appears to have been. More than half the states have statutes, seldom
used, that allow civil commitment for alcoholics and drug addicts on the basis of grave
disability or a threat to oneself or others.
To be sure, being forced into a program and losing autonomy — either in a residential, a jailbased or a probationary treatment program — can seem harsh. But the payoff is immense:
an opportunity to develop the social competence, trust in others and optimism about the
future that are the prerequisites for a life without drugs.
8
The payoffs for society are substantial, too. Numerous large-scale cost-benefit analyses
reveal that every dollar spent on drug treatment saves between $2 and $7 on law
enforcement, corrections, health care, lost productivity and welfare.
To my dismay, some of my treatment colleagues oppose coercion as “punitive.” I suppose it
may seem that way if one thinks addicts are helpless victims of a brain disease. But
addiction is a moral condition as well as a medical one. If we view it in this light, then
predictable consequences for failure and rewards for success are the essence of humane
therapy.
9
Involuntary Commitment for
Substance Use Disorders
Research by Hazelden Betty Ford
Toggle Link List
Considerations for Policymakers
Emerging Drug Trends—July 2017.
Overview
With fatal drug overdoses nearly tripling in the United States between 1999 and 2014,1 policymakers and others are
urgently struggling to implement new solutions to curb this crisis. Various forms of civil commitment laws have been in
place to protect individuals with a mental health disorder from hurting themselves or causing harm to someone else.
These laws allow the involuntary commitment of an individual by the courts contingent upon the presentation of
substantial and reliable evidence of potential harm. For individuals with severe substance use disorder, several states
are now considering involuntary commitment laws for the first time or proposing changes to existing laws that would
remove barriers to make commitment less difficult. 2-5 In at least two of these states, new involuntary commitment
policies specifically apply to opioid use. 6,7
The treatment gap—the difference between the need for and the utilization of treatment —for substance use disorder
in the United States stems from stigma, lack of available effective treatment services and the inability of some
individuals with substance use disorder to seek treatment voluntarily. Relatives and loved ones of an individual with a
substance use disorder often feel helpless and disempowered when that individual is unable, due to an impaired
brain, to make the rational decision to undergo and complete addiction treatment. Situations can escalate to the
point where relatives and loved ones feel unsafe or are afraid that the individual with the substance use disorder is at
great risk for overdose and/or death. Involuntary commitment laws for substance use disorder might be a way to
initiate the treatment these individuals need to avoid death and ultimately re-establish productive and healthy lives.
This view is counter-balanced, according to some, by the need to protect the privacy and freedoms of individuals with
substance use disorder. For those who emphasize this point, unless a crime has been committed, treatment should
always remain a choice—even if the ability to choose is compromised.
This report describes the current status of involuntary commitment laws in the United States to the best of our
knowledge and, more importantly, sheds light on several considerations for policymakers and others regarding such
laws. Few research studies have been conducted to systematically gather the viewpoints of stakeholders regarding
these laws or to assess their short- and long-term impacts. Certainly this is a fertile area for more research, but, while
we wait for those studies to reveal an evidence base, we must think carefully and sensibly about ho w these laws can
protect freedoms and at the same time promote health and safety.
The Current Status of Involuntary Commitment Laws
To the best of our knowledge, 37 states and the District of Columbia (DC) have laws in place that allow for the
involuntary commitment of individuals with a “substance use disorder,” “alcoholism” or both. 8 However, in most states,
these laws are seldom used, and many families, physicians and local judges are unaware of the option. An analysis
performed in 2015 showed that about 40 percent of states with civil commitment provisions for substance use either
never or rarely utilize these laws. 9 A judge might be reluctant to commit an individual to treatment without robust
precedent set by previous case decisions. Involuntary commit ment laws also vary greatly in terms of who can petition
the court to involuntarily commit an individual to treatment (e.g., a relative, treating physician, psychologist), how
difficult it is to get a petition approved, how long an individual can be committed (from one day to one year) and what
type of treatment is mandated (e.g., inpatient, outpatient, not specified). 8,9
10
As Figure 1 shows, five of the 38 states (including DC) specifically include “substance abuse” and “alcoholism” in the
statutory definition of mental illness or disorder, making the commitment of individuals with substance use issues the
same as the commitment of individuals with psychiatric disorders. The other 33 states have separate provisions for
the involuntary commitment of individuals with substance use disorders and alcoholism. This latter policy strategy is
intended to prevent criminal defendants who committed a crime while under the influence from being able to plead an
insanity defense. Thirteen states do not allow involuntary commitment at all for individuals with substance use
disorders.
Important Questions for Consideration
What evidence of potential harm is necessary to involuntarily commit an individual
with a substance use disorder?
States vary on requirements to involuntarily commit an individual with a substance use disorder. 8 Commonly required
is an evaluation of the individual by a physician or chief medical officer of the treatment facility prior to commitment
and a certificate from the physician accompanying the petition indicating that the individual needs intensive treatment.
Some states accept statements from psychologists, psychiatrists, physician assistants or addiction counselors, rather
than a physician. A few…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment