DreamOn,

All of my comments have a basis in research literature; which isn't to say that all researchers are in agreement.

Anyway, there are two client groups - people with mental illness and disorders; and people with substance abuse problems. Where there is overlap it is in the group whose mental illness or disorder emerges or worsens after drug use; and it is also *theorized that some people develop a mental illness first and then self-medicate with various drugs. Some researchers and clinicians would say that theories about the last group are baloney. I am undecided either way.

What I have noted is that the only point at which many substance abusers consider reduction of or abstinence from drug use is when they are about to confront the beak on various police charges. Then it is panic stations while their solicitor tries to sham up a case for seeking a mental health exit (that would be a Section 32 under the MH Act).

What irks me most about all of this isn't that people get into a pickle using drugs and need assistance to reduce or abstain. I have endless compassion for those people. However, good, law abiding people who happen to have a mental illness or disorder are lumped along with a lot of irresponsible, self-indulgent, selfish smarties who are quite astute about how to avoid responsibility for the outcomes of behaviour in which they choose to indulge and which they have no intention of modifying. The more we pander and excuse, the less likely people are to alter their behaviour and the associated draining of health resources.

There is no shortage of alcohol and drug services for people with addiction problems but they are unlikely to work unless the person chooses to work with them.

Now what were you saying about my comments? Which particular bit did you find offensive - please be specific.

Well, to be specific again re one of your offensive remarks:

" ... the best that can be done is to add antipsychotic and various other sedating medication in the hope of rendering them harmless to others. ... "

otherwise known as the chemical straight jacket.

To say your comments are based on research without citing is meaningless and will be no doubt be noted as such by other quality information handlers in this place.

Now, whilst I am not an expert, there is no evidence that I am aware of that suggests all people with a psychosis are a danger to others and the last person I spoke to regarding that was the legal member of the w.a. mental health oversight committee, as a matter of professional interaction.

Or perhaps you would care to cite evidence to the contrary?

And of course, to state S32 also is meaningless unless you also advise which state's law you are referring to.

..

Re LAW, it is contrary to the Australian system of the Rule of Law to suggest that people ought not make use of their legal avenues to the fullest extent. Perhaps you can cite the provision in question and express a view as to how it is failing the public interest?

As for self medicating, I offer the following for your consideration. One of the common characteristics in a number of mental health conditions is that the pathology induces repetitive, fixed states of consciousness. This can be observed by P.E.T. as sparse areas of limited brain activity.

On the basis of qualitative research with the afflicted, a common theme that comes from probes re: why continued illicit substance abuse is that it is in attempt to have different thoughts and different feelings, which even though it usually comes at the cost of co-morbidity, is a temporary relief of sorts.

Regrettabley, currently available antagonists tend to compound the problem of "all blue mondays," which is understandable when you inhibit the biochemical electrical potential of neuronal pathways.

Thus, from time to time, people will seek, for example, illicit stimulants.

DreamOn: Whether we like it or not, medication is the basis of treatment for people experiencing a psychosis or behaving in unpredicatable ways due to other causes (eg: some dementias).

http://www.eppic.org.au/docs/Fact3recovering.pdf

<"The current atypicals are much more effective against the psychosis of schizophrenia than against the other, more enduring aspects of this disorder, e.g. negative symptoms and cognitive dysfunction.
At present, the atypicals use a “pharmacological shotgun” strategy to treat aspects of the disease in all patients.">

Shitij Kapur and Gary Remington (2001) ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS: New Directions and New Challenges in the Treatment of Schizophrenia: Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto

What do you think actually happens when someone who is psychotic comes into contact with MH services ?

What do you recommend for treatment to relieve their distress and ensure a safe resolution ?

Do you propose that ED staff just light up a toke?

Daily Pot Smoking May Hasten Onset of Psychosis:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091220144936.htm

Daily Consumption Of Cannabis Predisposes To Appearance Of Psychosis And Schizophrenia, Study Finds:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090325132328.htm

There are many references available through University libraries (as the first I provided) but you might not be able to access. In any case, if you are going to go to bat with some POV on these topics, please do some searches for yourself.

I am sure you mean to be kind, but you can't see that you are advocating for increased harm and despair, especially for people who try to provide support and care to others with addiction problems.

Pynchme, dreamOn, this is all fine, but if I may just attempt to swing things back to the point of the original article. Which was that no one is doubting that there are potentially negative sequelae to using psychotropics (legal or illegal) but that simple prohibition DOES NOT WORK, and that we need to seek alternative ways of dealing with those sequelae.

This has been proven time and time again, in countless societies in different centuries. Those posters that have proposed that drug use would increase with decriminalisation (not legalisation), provide zero evidence for such a claim. Because there is none.

Yes, I quite agree *Stick*

I note that *PynchMe* has degenerated into incoherence and hasn't risen to the challenge of my responses, which is perhaps not surprising.

People like (her) would ban all woman from having a drink because some drink pregnant and develop children with fetal alcohol syndrome;
Or everyone else coz some people drink to excess and have their brains shrink;
Or ban everyone from smoking durries coz some people die of corony heart disease;

..

(JESUS! had a mate croak from exactly that not so long ago. Was moving slabs in the garden with his young bloke (who does part time emergency services work)) when he fell back, gurgled, clutched his chest and died. His young fella worked his bod with CPR and got him going again , but he spewed upon reanimation and it went into his lungs and he promptly died again, finally, and for the second time!)))

Small Song:
" Koffy, Koffy, what a Hell of a way to DIE
Koffy, Koffy, what a Hell of a way to DIE
Koffy, Koffy, what a Hell of a way to DIE
and he aint gonna smoke no more! "

..

*PynchMe*

You don't seem to know the difference between a citation and a quote, from say a web site, which whilst interesting, is not was called for to establish evidence to substantiate fact.

And on your "Science Daily" link, there is a study which demonstrates the exact opposite of what you're trying to prove.

CLUELESS!

Having said that, and as I know and have earlier expressed, some people (the minority) are unable to imbue certain substance less they develop serious adverse health effects and they if they know, are well advised to stay clear of it.

However, that is not a reasonable basis in my view for prohibition of certain substances, like weed. Neither is the fact that some people will abuse it a reasonable basis to ban all people from its legal consumption.

The balance point is what is called, mature, consenting, adult responsibility.

DreamOn,

Uou'll note that I referred to the first reference from a *University library that I provided, not the first link that I provided - which was just an example of hand outs for clients and carers re: that taking medication is the basis of treatment recommended for them.

I used Science Daily because of it's ready accessibility - I was being polite (since another poster once complained about being unable to access references I provided). However, if one has access to a Uni library, Science Daily will point out the items that one might search. Whether or not you choose to equip yourself with some information is up to you.

I am well aware that some researchers have made different findings (hence my comment that not all researchers are in agreement) and have no trouble considering all information available rather than just that which supports some point I am making.

As for being a wowser, I'm not. You might recall my post where I said I could go with the government itself distributing drugs. I think I am actually in favour of it. However, I am not going to sit idly by and see misinformed people like yourself insist that drugs are predominantly harmless and that mental health services should somehow miraculously pick up any slack for poor lifestyle choices. Drugs are not harmless, no matter who distributes them - insisting that we'll all be happily dancing around maypoles in flowered fields does not remove the reality that carers, children, babies and others do and will continue to suffer.

My further point is that people with addictions who want to be less dependent on drugs should access specific services rather than trying to label drug use, and some consequent behaviours, as MH problems (bear in mind the overlap that I described).

I realize that many people with addictions have suffered a past trauma etc etc - except in few cases, drug and alcohol services and a range of private providers are the most useful ports of call for assistance.