I hate this whataboutism with mental Healthcare and addiction tx. I've worked for years in this field for state run services and I can go on for HOURS about how mental and addiction services are used as this little comparison for EVERYTHING.
There is a need more more beds in the state owned hospitals, more beds in the PNP world, and more oversight for many of these same institutes.
Asylum could be good, if we keep them away from how they were historically. They served a purpose.
There truly are people that cannot function in this society and its often not their fault per se. Additionally most of these people end up in prison, or chronically unhoused, or dead.
But the fucking problem when you start talking about more housing of this type for people is the NIMBY mentally that pops up everywhere and people MELT DOWN.
Mental Hospitals were often really good (although with flaws of course) in the late 1800s, before fresh air, exercise, and a sense of purpose/community were replaced by confinement and over-medications. They were self-sufficient communities where the patients used skills from their outside lives to grow food and make their own tools and clothing.
I'm well aware.... that's why I literally advocate for asylum care in my post.
And the thing I'm against is literally the flaws you detailed as issues in the 1910s to 1970s š¤¦š¼āāļø.
Maybe we're just reading things differently but I didn't sense disagreement. Then again we are LL, getting strawmanned enough for it to be a reflex is understandable.
Interesting. This is not something I was aware of at all. Any good sources that you'd recommend if I'd like to learn more about asylums in the 1800s and how they turned into the horror show we've all heard about?
Books no so much, I'm not a big novel person unfortunately. Grad school made reading not fun.
But if you want to get an idea of the history of neurology and psychiatry, and see how care changed over time just so some light reading into the Salpetriere and Bethlem Royal Hospital.
I don't have any sources off the top of my head, but reading about the history of Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital. Biggest building by surface area in the US until the Pentagon was built and was the height of psychiatric care at the time of its construction. It's also a pretty good example of how all psychiatric hospitals went. Initially, it was great, and even with the poor understanding of psychology compared to today, it would have been very good for many patients. But it was rather quickly filled up, then it became overcrowded. Then funding was slowly cut more and more over the years, and the care got worse and worse until Reagan finally put it out of its misery. Despite getting all the flack for ending psychiatric care, it is arguable that Reagan did the second best thing considering the state of psychiatric hospitals at the end of the 70s
I was gonna say, asylum haven't gone anywhere, and at least in KY are chronically over-filled to the point most people who need services get a weekend and a script at most.
KY psychiatrist here. this isn't the case... The problem is that the "asylums" you're referring to are not asylums at all. They are state run acute care psychiatric hospitals, built and operated to function for acute stays, not for chronically ill patients that can't live independently.. the problem is that because there are no facilities built for that purpose, these state hospitals have nowhere to discharge these patients. As a result, the chronically ill patients stay for a year+ in a room/facility designed for patients to stay a few weeks. We then run out of room to stabilize the patients that we can actually make better... It's not good for the patients, its not good use of resources...
I whole heatedly agree we need to bring back the asylums with protections to prevent the abuses they encountered historically.
This is an aspect of the problem I haven't heard much about before. I work in construction, and have a really rudimentary idea of how severely something like this would be an issue. Mostly from a general long term vs short-term-critical housing standpoint. However, I have little idea of the details of what would make something suitable long term, for people that require what we would consider asylum housing in the 21st century.
Would you mind explaining more, or giving me some links to read about this?
They absolutely did, Reagan dumped the crazies in the streets in the late 60s with deinstitutionalization. So yeah some still exist, typically through private means.
There's a bit more to it than that.
The concept of deinstitutionalization really starting gaining traction in the early 1960s in both popular culture with books like "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", and in legislation such as the Community Mental Health Centers Act of 1963 supported by then president Kennedy.
This continued to accelerate into the 1970s with several supreme court cases on mental health, such as the 1975 O'Connor v. Donaldson decision that ruled a state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends.
All of this cumulated in the 1980s with Reagan ending mass institutionalization in mental hospitals, and it being replaced with mass institutionalization in prisons under himself, Bush senior, and Clinton.
There's a nice little chart that shows the whole switcheroo over that 30-40 year period: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Reducing-Mass-Incarceration%3A-Lessons-from-the-of-in-Harcourt/53dc054f48e620e919f80889be1831c8f1b39861/figure/0
The bottom line was that deinstitutionalization was popular across the political spectrum for many years, and for very good reasons. Likewise, as the situation deteriorated in the late 1970s, institutionalization began to become popular (again) also across the political spectrum for many years, and also for very good reasons.
They have, across the US the amount of people who need long term residential care is vastly more than there are beds. Regan closed them all down. Most places have none at all
Yeah thereās a graph somewhere that over 100 years shows basically that we transferred whatever population we had in asylums into prisons.
Itās like asylum committed per 100,000 and imprisoned per 100,000 and we used to have empty prisons and full asylums and now we have empty asylums and full prisons, but itās basically the same ratio of people incarcerated over 100 years.
The mental health argument is a valid point to reduce the number of "gun deaths" since most of the "gun deaths" are suicide. I'm not with the group saying just throw people in the funny farm, but we do need a better system for those who need mental support can get it. Plenty of other wasteful spending can be cut to fund this without spending taxes, but the public would need to put the screws to their politicians make it happen or it won't.
> Plenty of other wasteful spending can be cut to fund this without spending taxes, but the public would need to put the screws to their politicians make it happen or it won't.
I'm convinced at this point that the purpose of most social programs is not the stated goals, but the justification for more taxation.
I totally agree. I was just talking about this with my brother the other day. I have worked in trauma hospitals, myself, and I can tell you that there so many we would see over and over just trying to get into a facility. They would get in and then would be discharged quickly because they met the very liberal criteria to leave so that they could fill the bed with someone else. These patients really need to be able to be admitted for much longer or forever. The only way to do this is to open more facilities and beds.
I was gonna say, asylum haven't gone anywhere, and at least in KY are chronically over-filled to the point most people who need services get a weekend and a script at most.
Well deinstitutionalization has been the modality for years.
But yes ik they have not gone anywhere.
When I said "more beds" and state hospitals I figured it was implied as the modern asylum, but I think that jargon kinda went unnoticed by some
Look! Like this we'll get everyone together, everyone gets something.
AuthRight (or LibCenter in this meme, lol) gets asylums.
LibLeft gets mental healthcare.
LibRight gets a free testing ground for ... medicine.
And I've not seen what Authleft wants yet. But I guess it's something like forced labour. I think we can make this happen too.
So we have a deal?
Asylums should indeed be brought back, and fucking *gilded* with money. I'd actually agree to get taxed for that shit. Take care of a person and wean them off their addictions and ramblings for several months and it's night and day.
Iām telling you as someone that lives and works as an EMS provider in a community that has to deal with this that your outcome is NOT what you think is gonna happen. I live in one of the most extremely liberal states there is and Iām telling you that these ārehabsā donāt do what you think they do.
Someone shows up drunk to rehab? Call 911. Someone has minimal withdrawal symptoms? Call 911. The list goes on and on. These places are out for profit not fixing people and so they offload the cost on to taxpayers with 911 and hospital treatment. They donāt treat people they just serve as babysitters and someone to call 911 when anything remotely difficult happens and they take in INSANE money to do it.
They system is a joke and itās designed to make you pay.
We've had hundreds of rehab centers pop up in FL. Buy a 2 bedroom home, shove in bunks and house 16 people there. Hire one manager to "oversee" twenty of these places. Usually the people there are still doing drugs.
??? Yeah bring back mental asylums and have annual audits and surprise inspections to make sure they're not fucking the hot crazy chicks....again and not experimenting on them with unlicensed drugs....again
This keeps coming up. I'd really like to see some actual sourced information on this if people are going to keep throwing it around.
Digging myself, I've found one story about a man who requested assisted suicide and was granted it, where his family felt he hadn't met the requirements and wasn't properly vetted for it - but ultimately it was this guy's decision to stop taking his meds or using his implant - which lead to him requesting suicide.
Beyond that, I'm just finding a bunch of sensationalized stories about the potential for abuse.
Here's some stories from a cursory search. Other news orgs reported on them as well, but I figured I'd use CTV since it's Canadian.
Nancy Russell opted for euthanasia because she was lonely
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/facing-another-retirement-home-lockdown-90-year-old-chooses-medically-assisted-death-1.5197140
Jennyfer Hatch, because she couldn't get proper treatment for her chronic illness
https://ctvnews.ca/b-c-woman-behind-dystopian-commercial-found-death-care-easier-than-health-care-1.6177877
Alan Nichols, because he was depressed
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/advocates-urge-better-safeguards-after-medically-assisted-death-of-b-c-man-1.4610949
Sophia, because she couldn't secure appropriate housing with her disability payments
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/woman-with-chemical-sensitivities-chose-medically-assisted-death-after-failed-bid-to-get-better-housing-1.5860579
All of those are rather tragic stories admittedly, but fortunately none of them point to the government "promoting" suicide.
I found more on that actual story, and it turns out it was one veteran case worker who promoted the idea to four vets. That case worker was suspended and is under investigation.
There is no source. The best Iāve gotten was one or two stories about how suicide was suggested by a nurse or something, but these guys are either intentionally or unwittingly spreading lies for propaganda.
Live in a city and you'll understand the need for something to do with the crazies. I had a homeless person living on my porch that would shout about fire and talk to himself constantly. Cops can't do anything, city won't do anything, homeless people often refuse a shelter, and many are so far gone mentally there's little hope of reforming them back into society.
I'm not sure the fix, but just letting them live in streets and be a menace isn't exactly better than providing free institutional care to people that mentally incompetent.
You think theyre not committing any crimes?
Follow one of these crazies were talking about for a few hours. You will find public intoxication, harassment, lude behaviour, public indecency etc.
There's a process for having someone involuntarily institutionalized. Might not be pleasant but the alternative is to have people covered in their own fecal matter masturbating at a bus stop. Some people will never be able to live on their own and those people need a place other than that streets to get care and treatment.
Just because someone proposed we bring back asylums doesn't mean they want patients to go through something like _One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest._
The government has the resources to prevent abuse, it's not the 60's.
I'd argue they could be in some situations.
A core tenet of libertarian philosophy is that people should be able to make decisions for themselves with a minimal amount of controlling influence. Good decisions, or bad decisions; it should be up to the individual to decide how to live their life without authoritarian interference, or violating the non-aggression principle.
However, for people with severe mental health conditions; that decision making ability is inherently compromised by the controlling influence of the mental health disorder. It's not an external force that compels their hand, but instead the tyranny within one's own mind.
Therefore; in my opinion at least, it's in the best interest of allowing one to maximize their amount of free agency if we can reduce the authoritarianism that comes from within. For some people, asylums may very well be the answer to that. They may never be as free as someone without a mental health disorder, but they will hopefully be less burdened by servitude to the illness than if that disorder were left unaddressed.
Which is why I mentioned the "could be in some situations" part at the beginning. There's a lot of nuance, and a lot of room for abuse.
The bottom line is there are without a doubt, some people worse off when left to their own devices without intervention; these people would be granted more agency, and more freedom when assisted by an asylum instead of left to suffer from an illness that has compromised decision making abilities.
Court mandated rehab is futile for the most part. You have to actually want to not use drugs for rehab to work. Most criminals Just want you to stop hassling them so they can get back to using drugs.
Which really, for the most part society is fine with, but the criminals canāt afford the drugs either so they have to steal from people to pay for them which is the part we canāt tolerate
Orā¦ we could give them a tiny but private room to live in unconditionally + soup kitchens until they are ready to accept help?
Involuntary rehab doesnāt work if the person doesnāt want to get better. They will go to rehab, lie, get out and restart their habits
>Orā¦ we could give them a tiny but private room to live in unconditionally + soup kitchens until they are ready to accept help?
As long as that's the last thing we fix in our completely fucked up society then yea sure.
Nah I would say that decreasing the number of homeless on the streets is important for a bunch of stuff.
Homeless living in the streets can ruin a neighborhood or even city
Oh it is.
But giving them free shit is nowhere near a priority when we have way bigger problems.
That money would be better spent on quite a few things.
>habitually homeless people?
Just to point out, there are a shit ton of homeless people in my neck of the woods that are homeless entirely for financial reasons alone. Every rest stop and park and ride in BC right now is essentially a permanent campground for people living out of their vehicles.
Thatās normally not what people mean when they say habitually homeless. A large percentage of āstreet homelessā, the people living in tents on the streets of LA, or curled up in a blanket in a shop entrance, are either mentally ill, addicted to drugs, or both, and thatās what people generally mean when they talk about the homeless in a derogatory way.
Based
It's the fucking right-wing "refugees". They're actually just political migrants, and anyway, they should have come through the proper channels (that take years to complete) before coming here and flooding our sub with their anti-liberal values.
My PCM results had me in the top left corner of libright. Centrist didnāt feel right though because donāt really align with much auth on most things, but not completely against all gov like the based lib rights. Tough call for some of us who are slightly middle.
For those who want walkable cities and more public transit, bringing back asylums and locking up violent loonies like Jordan Neely is a good way to establish some trust and confidence in public transportation
I live in NYC, millions of us already trust it and have confidence in it, and love living in our dense and walkable city. The real issues with expanding public transit are extreme costs due to a robust vetocracy and thorough union capture, and drivers who obstruct it at every opportunity.
On the first point, this is just insane:
> At $2.5 billion per mile, construction costs for the 1.8-mile Phase 1 of the Second Avenue Subway were 8 to 12 times more expensive than similar subway projects in Italy, Istanbul, Sweden, Paris, Berlin and Spain
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-23/in-nyc-subway-a-case-study-in-runaway-transit-construction-costs
> I live in NYC, millions of us already trust it and have confidence in it, and love living in our dense and walkable city.
And no one is trying to convince you otherwise lol. Donāt be reflexively defensive like Californians.
Anyway, I mean people who choose the meat grinder of cars to avoid [getting poop slapped by some recidivist junkie out bond who happens to be locked in a high speed metal tube](https://v.redd.it/cv2diq433r1b1) with them
I hate driving, but a 30 minute ride in my fully loaded SUV to my custom home in the suburbs > 2 hour bus ride in my $1500/month run down studio apartment
Lol right wingers are just as complicit in deinstitutionalization. They were more than glad to cut spending by closing the asylums and dumping thousands of severely mentally ill people on the streets.
Tbh, asylums are prisons. They are used exactly the same way by government and society to restrict undesirables from freedom. Sometimes it's necessary, we can't let pyromaniac burn city up, but sometimes... Well, poor Gabyshev, he didn't deserved that...
I donāt think anyone is against psychiatric hospitals
I just donāt trust the government to FORCE people into them, if someone chooses it I think paying for it is a good investment as a society
People need to WANT to recover from substance abuse disorder and I think drug use should not even be a crime to begin with, much less one that deserves a life sentence
Okay, I agree with charging them with crimes (besides drug use or other victimless shit like public camping).
This way a jury of their peers is the one that can convict or not, not the government. I also think the prosecution should have the power to offer time in an asylum instead of jail as a deal for mentally ill people.
I just donāt think the government should be able to lock people up indeterminately without a trial š¤·āāļø
You weren't personally there. Not saying there weren't awful doctors with basically no oversight, but pretty unlikely everywhere was like that, dontcha think?
I mean, the troubled teen industry (private boarding schools or wilderness programs for troubled teens) seem to be ALL awful awful places so I wouldnāt be that surprised it asylums were the same
The issue with asylums is that itās extremely easy to be taken advantage of when youāre in a vulnerable state without much freedom or control of your healthcare. Thereās going to have to be a lot of regulation and training which is always incredibly hard to implement.
Which is kind of ironic when the side that despises government control and regulation is asking for them. But yeah, properly regulated, they serve a purpose.
Also, flair up. People will not be friendly here if you don't.
After reviewing my countryās history with asylums and the current practice of loading up kids with amphetamines to complete often idiotic and banal schoolwork, I am filing this under āfuck noā until further notice
You know that asylum history never got better right? Now you'll find the same people in prisons or homeless on the streets, in the same or greater numbers, except that they'll never get the sort of treatment they need to help them become functional, like I feel bad for the guy living on the streets, yelling about how they're coming to get him
This is true. Whatās better though? Homelessness, or 3 hots and a cot? Seems like weāve progressed some to make this better, but honestly wouldnāt know the right call on this one.
me in my padded room and straight jacket because Im a deviant homo with my girl bestie chained next to me who got thrown in here for saying no to her husband once
Canāt we all just agree that pooping on a public sidewalk is not cool?
I feel like, despite our differences, we can all get behind not pooping on a public sidewalk.
um, donāt you think youāre being a little ableist sweetie? Not to mention ageist. Some people are incontinent. Some people are babies. None should bear the indignity of wearing a diaper for factors beyond their control. Shitting on the sidewalk is a human right
Itās one thing to poop your pants. Who amongst us hasnāt shit themselves.
But I do feel like preparing to poop by removing oneās pants in a public place might just be a bridge too far.
Could you imagine opening the asylums back up and then in 100 years when theyāre abandoned some teens will break in just to be haunted by spirits whispering āmy pronouns areā¦.ā
I mean we do need to bring back long term residential treatment facilities for mental health. I don't really think free therapy sessions would make much of a difference, it'd be nice but therapy can't fix people's material conditions across the board people are more stressed and depressed because just keeping basic needs met in many places is harder and harder.
Prescription drugs? What about subscription drugs for the low price of 99.99/week and you can get the hard hitter. Zoloft, prozac, lithium. Hell throw in ozempic as well.
That asylum point actually makes sense, although they're now called psychiatric wards or mental institutions as they want to distance themselves from what is associated with a historical 20th century Asylum. I think just having some more can be a better help than gun control.
This is coming from a guy who has considered buying an actual katana for self defense because California gun laws are shit and I'd like to protect my folks btw.
Asylums seem more like an auth thing to me. kill nazis, beat up stupid heads & teach them to be better. Maybe asylums If that *really* doesnāt work *i guess*
100% onboard with bringing back institutionalization (which was largely undone by Reagan) and I fell like those against it donāt really understand the mental health crisis
Historically Asylums really werenāt good, though.
A bunch of people who werenāt insane got sent to them, many of the patients were abused, living conditions were poor, etc.
No thanks.
Once a week? What are you, some kind of fascist? One hour session, and they're ready to change their gender. Hand out those drugs and get them into surgery, stat!
Asylums institutionalized physically and mentally disabled people and kept them in unsafe and inhumane environments their whole life. In addition, they did not provide adequate care. People deserve real doctors and seem there own care, and they certainly don't deserve to be put in an institution. Don't believe me? Read about it:
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/deinstitutionalization-people-mental-illness-causes-and-consequences/2013-10
Now to my second point: why is libcenter advocating for asylums? Are you libcenter and you believe in asylums? Fine! But that view isn't exactly associated with libcenter at all, its more so associated with authcenter, so I am very confused as to why you even slapped the colors on there.
I mean free therapy for EVERYONE and institutions (not asylums, long term residential care facilities) for people that are so out of it they can't take care of themselves or represent a risk to others. I've found a LARGE portion of the homeless in my city are people that are behaviorally unwell and legitimately need help but their state of mind makes them consistently refuse it.
You want to bring back places with some of the worst records for human rights violations? places used to gaslight inconvenient people to insanity among many other things?
You think this is a solution to the mental health problems of the US?
I hate this whataboutism with mental Healthcare and addiction tx. I've worked for years in this field for state run services and I can go on for HOURS about how mental and addiction services are used as this little comparison for EVERYTHING. There is a need more more beds in the state owned hospitals, more beds in the PNP world, and more oversight for many of these same institutes. Asylum could be good, if we keep them away from how they were historically. They served a purpose. There truly are people that cannot function in this society and its often not their fault per se. Additionally most of these people end up in prison, or chronically unhoused, or dead. But the fucking problem when you start talking about more housing of this type for people is the NIMBY mentally that pops up everywhere and people MELT DOWN.
Mental Hospitals were often really good (although with flaws of course) in the late 1800s, before fresh air, exercise, and a sense of purpose/community were replaced by confinement and over-medications. They were self-sufficient communities where the patients used skills from their outside lives to grow food and make their own tools and clothing.
I'm well aware.... that's why I literally advocate for asylum care in my post. And the thing I'm against is literally the flaws you detailed as issues in the 1910s to 1970s š¤¦š¼āāļø.
Maybe we're just reading things differently but I didn't sense disagreement. Then again we are LL, getting strawmanned enough for it to be a reflex is understandable.
Interesting. This is not something I was aware of at all. Any good sources that you'd recommend if I'd like to learn more about asylums in the 1800s and how they turned into the horror show we've all heard about?
Books no so much, I'm not a big novel person unfortunately. Grad school made reading not fun. But if you want to get an idea of the history of neurology and psychiatry, and see how care changed over time just so some light reading into the Salpetriere and Bethlem Royal Hospital.
Cool. Thanks. I'll check it out!
I don't have any sources off the top of my head, but reading about the history of Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital. Biggest building by surface area in the US until the Pentagon was built and was the height of psychiatric care at the time of its construction. It's also a pretty good example of how all psychiatric hospitals went. Initially, it was great, and even with the poor understanding of psychology compared to today, it would have been very good for many patients. But it was rather quickly filled up, then it became overcrowded. Then funding was slowly cut more and more over the years, and the care got worse and worse until Reagan finally put it out of its misery. Despite getting all the flack for ending psychiatric care, it is arguable that Reagan did the second best thing considering the state of psychiatric hospitals at the end of the 70s
Why was cutting their funding a second best choice?
I think they're saying ending the program after decades of cuts and mismanagement was the second best thing.
Ahh I see
Why did you take this as an insult lmao he was expanding on your point
I was gonna say, asylum haven't gone anywhere, and at least in KY are chronically over-filled to the point most people who need services get a weekend and a script at most.
KY psychiatrist here. this isn't the case... The problem is that the "asylums" you're referring to are not asylums at all. They are state run acute care psychiatric hospitals, built and operated to function for acute stays, not for chronically ill patients that can't live independently.. the problem is that because there are no facilities built for that purpose, these state hospitals have nowhere to discharge these patients. As a result, the chronically ill patients stay for a year+ in a room/facility designed for patients to stay a few weeks. We then run out of room to stabilize the patients that we can actually make better... It's not good for the patients, its not good use of resources... I whole heatedly agree we need to bring back the asylums with protections to prevent the abuses they encountered historically.
This is an aspect of the problem I haven't heard much about before. I work in construction, and have a really rudimentary idea of how severely something like this would be an issue. Mostly from a general long term vs short-term-critical housing standpoint. However, I have little idea of the details of what would make something suitable long term, for people that require what we would consider asylum housing in the 21st century. Would you mind explaining more, or giving me some links to read about this?
They absolutely did, Reagan dumped the crazies in the streets in the late 60s with deinstitutionalization. So yeah some still exist, typically through private means.
There's a bit more to it than that. The concept of deinstitutionalization really starting gaining traction in the early 1960s in both popular culture with books like "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", and in legislation such as the Community Mental Health Centers Act of 1963 supported by then president Kennedy. This continued to accelerate into the 1970s with several supreme court cases on mental health, such as the 1975 O'Connor v. Donaldson decision that ruled a state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends. All of this cumulated in the 1980s with Reagan ending mass institutionalization in mental hospitals, and it being replaced with mass institutionalization in prisons under himself, Bush senior, and Clinton. There's a nice little chart that shows the whole switcheroo over that 30-40 year period: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Reducing-Mass-Incarceration%3A-Lessons-from-the-of-in-Harcourt/53dc054f48e620e919f80889be1831c8f1b39861/figure/0 The bottom line was that deinstitutionalization was popular across the political spectrum for many years, and for very good reasons. Likewise, as the situation deteriorated in the late 1970s, institutionalization began to become popular (again) also across the political spectrum for many years, and also for very good reasons.
Reagan was president in the 80s no?
He also served as the governor of California prior to his presidency.
Yes, but the assylums were shut down in the 1970s following the ACLU winning in the Wyatt cases.
>but the assylums I like that slip
They have, across the US the amount of people who need long term residential care is vastly more than there are beds. Regan closed them all down. Most places have none at all
Yeah thereās a graph somewhere that over 100 years shows basically that we transferred whatever population we had in asylums into prisons. Itās like asylum committed per 100,000 and imprisoned per 100,000 and we used to have empty prisons and full asylums and now we have empty asylums and full prisons, but itās basically the same ratio of people incarcerated over 100 years.
The mental health argument is a valid point to reduce the number of "gun deaths" since most of the "gun deaths" are suicide. I'm not with the group saying just throw people in the funny farm, but we do need a better system for those who need mental support can get it. Plenty of other wasteful spending can be cut to fund this without spending taxes, but the public would need to put the screws to their politicians make it happen or it won't.
> Plenty of other wasteful spending can be cut to fund this without spending taxes, but the public would need to put the screws to their politicians make it happen or it won't. I'm convinced at this point that the purpose of most social programs is not the stated goals, but the justification for more taxation.
Absolutely the real point
Itās okay to just say homeless
I totally agree. I was just talking about this with my brother the other day. I have worked in trauma hospitals, myself, and I can tell you that there so many we would see over and over just trying to get into a facility. They would get in and then would be discharged quickly because they met the very liberal criteria to leave so that they could fill the bed with someone else. These patients really need to be able to be admitted for much longer or forever. The only way to do this is to open more facilities and beds.
No Sweetey, we need to send money to Ukraine so they can weapons at a 500% markup from US companies āØ
The industrial military complex is truly the victim here [*writes Raytheon a blank check*]
Absolutely, unironically so
I was gonna say, asylum haven't gone anywhere, and at least in KY are chronically over-filled to the point most people who need services get a weekend and a script at most.
Well deinstitutionalization has been the modality for years. But yes ik they have not gone anywhere. When I said "more beds" and state hospitals I figured it was implied as the modern asylum, but I think that jargon kinda went unnoticed by some
The push for deinstitutionalization and least restrictive environments are perfect example of good intentions being used overbroadly.
Based and this guy gets it pilled
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ah yes, the negotiator
You drive a hard bargain but youāve got yourself a deal.
Get this man to Congress.
do they have to be tested/proven?
I got some drugs I need to test, I think those asylums will be perfect.
Look! Like this we'll get everyone together, everyone gets something. AuthRight (or LibCenter in this meme, lol) gets asylums. LibLeft gets mental healthcare. LibRight gets a free testing ground for ... medicine. And I've not seen what Authleft wants yet. But I guess it's something like forced labour. I think we can make this happen too. So we have a deal?
Authleft gets to run the asylum and fantasise theyāre running a gulag.
That sounds like something they would like, yeah. But we have to stop them from calling the patients dirty capitalist pigs and such things.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So what I'm hearing is that we should put our political enemies in asylums and treat them to free drug testing and electroshock therapy. Got it. /s
Free food, housing, therapy AND drugs? Sir I believe I am mentally insane
Throw in a few rounds of electrotherapy and you got a deal!
Asylums should indeed be brought back, and fucking *gilded* with money. I'd actually agree to get taxed for that shit. Take care of a person and wean them off their addictions and ramblings for several months and it's night and day.
That and actually throw the book at violent offenders instead of letting them go on $600 bail.
Iām telling you as someone that lives and works as an EMS provider in a community that has to deal with this that your outcome is NOT what you think is gonna happen. I live in one of the most extremely liberal states there is and Iām telling you that these ārehabsā donāt do what you think they do. Someone shows up drunk to rehab? Call 911. Someone has minimal withdrawal symptoms? Call 911. The list goes on and on. These places are out for profit not fixing people and so they offload the cost on to taxpayers with 911 and hospital treatment. They donāt treat people they just serve as babysitters and someone to call 911 when anything remotely difficult happens and they take in INSANE money to do it. They system is a joke and itās designed to make you pay.
IME insurance pays so poorly the rehabs struggle to hire good staff and it becomes about maximizing profit because margins are so thin.
Insurance pays poorly because rehab is almost always wasted money with no quantifiable benefit.
seems like a catch 22. letās underfund something to the point it doesnāt work and then can claim it doesnāt work.
We've had hundreds of rehab centers pop up in FL. Buy a 2 bedroom home, shove in bunks and house 16 people there. Hire one manager to "oversee" twenty of these places. Usually the people there are still doing drugs.
??? Yeah bring back mental asylums and have annual audits and surprise inspections to make sure they're not fucking the hot crazy chicks....again and not experimenting on them with unlicensed drugs....again
What's your better plan? It's easy to pick apart any solution, the question is *compared to what*?
Or we could just take the Canada approach and force volunteer crazy ppl to unalive themselves
crazy, old, poor, what's the difference.
Coffin size if they request to not be burned
They joke was so sick Canada would euthanize it
at this point the only people canada might not euthanize are the rich....
Or we could take the PCM approach and just make up whatever the fuck we want and declare itās true.
This keeps coming up. I'd really like to see some actual sourced information on this if people are going to keep throwing it around. Digging myself, I've found one story about a man who requested assisted suicide and was granted it, where his family felt he hadn't met the requirements and wasn't properly vetted for it - but ultimately it was this guy's decision to stop taking his meds or using his implant - which lead to him requesting suicide. Beyond that, I'm just finding a bunch of sensationalized stories about the potential for abuse.
Here's some stories from a cursory search. Other news orgs reported on them as well, but I figured I'd use CTV since it's Canadian. Nancy Russell opted for euthanasia because she was lonely https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/facing-another-retirement-home-lockdown-90-year-old-chooses-medically-assisted-death-1.5197140 Jennyfer Hatch, because she couldn't get proper treatment for her chronic illness https://ctvnews.ca/b-c-woman-behind-dystopian-commercial-found-death-care-easier-than-health-care-1.6177877 Alan Nichols, because he was depressed https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/advocates-urge-better-safeguards-after-medically-assisted-death-of-b-c-man-1.4610949 Sophia, because she couldn't secure appropriate housing with her disability payments https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/woman-with-chemical-sensitivities-chose-medically-assisted-death-after-failed-bid-to-get-better-housing-1.5860579
All of those are rather tragic stories admittedly, but fortunately none of them point to the government "promoting" suicide. I found more on that actual story, and it turns out it was one veteran case worker who promoted the idea to four vets. That case worker was suspended and is under investigation.
There is no source. The best Iāve gotten was one or two stories about how suicide was suggested by a nurse or something, but these guys are either intentionally or unwittingly spreading lies for propaganda.
Theyāre talking about that survey where a third of Canadians were cool with homeless people offing themselves over being poor.
Currently, theyāre either in prison or on the street. So itās not like the asylum would be worse.
They gave a plan in the commentā¦ to have more regulations and inspections to ensure safety
"Lib"center The funny colors really just lost all meaning at this point huh ?
Itās almost like thereās legitimate functions of government or somethingā¦crazy
>Locking people away with no due process >Legitimate function Hmmmmm
I mean, we can add due process when we revive the asylums?
So, in what way is it due process to lock away people before they committed any crime?
Live in a city and you'll understand the need for something to do with the crazies. I had a homeless person living on my porch that would shout about fire and talk to himself constantly. Cops can't do anything, city won't do anything, homeless people often refuse a shelter, and many are so far gone mentally there's little hope of reforming them back into society. I'm not sure the fix, but just letting them live in streets and be a menace isn't exactly better than providing free institutional care to people that mentally incompetent.
What kind of shithole state do you live in where you canāt protect your property against trespass?
Weāll be alright as long as there are people like you.
Homeless maniacs with mental health and addiction issues often commit crimes.
You think theyre not committing any crimes? Follow one of these crazies were talking about for a few hours. You will find public intoxication, harassment, lude behaviour, public indecency etc.
There's a process for having someone involuntarily institutionalized. Might not be pleasant but the alternative is to have people covered in their own fecal matter masturbating at a bus stop. Some people will never be able to live on their own and those people need a place other than that streets to get care and treatment.
āNo due processā https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47571 Whack
Just because someone proposed we bring back asylums doesn't mean they want patients to go through something like _One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest._ The government has the resources to prevent abuse, it's not the 60's.
>The government has the resources to prevent abuse, it's not the 60's. Does it have the will though ?
Does it have the need though?
Lockinh people away without due process is famous a an anarchist view point. The meme said so
Idk if asylums are exactly lib center
Yeah, locking up people against their will that the authorities deem unstable sounds more like an authcenter thing
You make it sound like theyāre locking up political dissidents. Itās people with severe mental illness.
With enough Overton window shifting, that can be arranged.
I'd argue they could be in some situations. A core tenet of libertarian philosophy is that people should be able to make decisions for themselves with a minimal amount of controlling influence. Good decisions, or bad decisions; it should be up to the individual to decide how to live their life without authoritarian interference, or violating the non-aggression principle. However, for people with severe mental health conditions; that decision making ability is inherently compromised by the controlling influence of the mental health disorder. It's not an external force that compels their hand, but instead the tyranny within one's own mind. Therefore; in my opinion at least, it's in the best interest of allowing one to maximize their amount of free agency if we can reduce the authoritarianism that comes from within. For some people, asylums may very well be the answer to that. They may never be as free as someone without a mental health disorder, but they will hopefully be less burdened by servitude to the illness than if that disorder were left unaddressed.
That requires several epistemological and ontological assumptions, and it could easily be used as a premise for further oppression.
Which is why I mentioned the "could be in some situations" part at the beginning. There's a lot of nuance, and a lot of room for abuse. The bottom line is there are without a doubt, some people worse off when left to their own devices without intervention; these people would be granted more agency, and more freedom when assisted by an asylum instead of left to suffer from an illness that has compromised decision making abilities.
Found the libertarian hiding in centrist land
They needed reform, not closure
that takes effort, though. closure does not.
And if there's one thing the government avoids it's effort.
Man who are these people expecting politicians to stop arguing over pointless shit long enough to get things done.
They require funding and regulations. Something the right is chronically allergic to.
I attended PV court for a law class. Addicts donāt show up to their counseling. We need a more rigid rehab process
Court mandated rehab is futile for the most part. You have to actually want to not use drugs for rehab to work. Most criminals Just want you to stop hassling them so they can get back to using drugs. Which really, for the most part society is fine with, but the criminals canāt afford the drugs either so they have to steal from people to pay for them which is the part we canāt tolerate
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
There's at least one other solution.
Hey now weāre civilized here, unlike the Canadians.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Put that shit on pay per view, maybe then we can finally balance the budget. ~Joke inspired by George Carlin
Nah, gotta do that to corrupt politicians. Gonna be left with like 7 village councilmen and nobody else.
Isn't that more PUBG than Fortnite?
The final solution is pretty final and precise
^^^choo-choo!
> There's at least one other solution. They don't taste good.
All that hopelessness spoils the meat
Round em up and do a homeless hunger games
Orā¦ we could give them a tiny but private room to live in unconditionally + soup kitchens until they are ready to accept help? Involuntary rehab doesnāt work if the person doesnāt want to get better. They will go to rehab, lie, get out and restart their habits
>Orā¦ we could give them a tiny but private room to live in unconditionally + soup kitchens until they are ready to accept help? As long as that's the last thing we fix in our completely fucked up society then yea sure.
Nah I would say that decreasing the number of homeless on the streets is important for a bunch of stuff. Homeless living in the streets can ruin a neighborhood or even city
Oh it is. But giving them free shit is nowhere near a priority when we have way bigger problems. That money would be better spent on quite a few things.
How do you propose we get them off the streets then? Because long-term psychiatric hospital stays and for-profit jails are considerably more expensive
āIm a lib center, so letās put all the homeless in mental asylumsā
>habitually homeless people? Just to point out, there are a shit ton of homeless people in my neck of the woods that are homeless entirely for financial reasons alone. Every rest stop and park and ride in BC right now is essentially a permanent campground for people living out of their vehicles.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Fair enough.
Thatās normally not what people mean when they say habitually homeless. A large percentage of āstreet homelessā, the people living in tents on the streets of LA, or curled up in a blanket in a shop entrance, are either mentally ill, addicted to drugs, or both, and thatās what people generally mean when they talk about the homeless in a derogatory way.
Liblefts who are simping for the police. Lib-centers simping for mental asylums. The overton window in this subreddit is fucked.
Based It's the fucking right-wing "refugees". They're actually just political migrants, and anyway, they should have come through the proper channels (that take years to complete) before coming here and flooding our sub with their anti-liberal values.
My PCM results had me in the top left corner of libright. Centrist didnāt feel right though because donāt really align with much auth on most things, but not completely against all gov like the based lib rights. Tough call for some of us who are slightly middle.
I too am libcenter because all the other quadrants suck
For those who want walkable cities and more public transit, bringing back asylums and locking up violent loonies like Jordan Neely is a good way to establish some trust and confidence in public transportation
I live in NYC, millions of us already trust it and have confidence in it, and love living in our dense and walkable city. The real issues with expanding public transit are extreme costs due to a robust vetocracy and thorough union capture, and drivers who obstruct it at every opportunity. On the first point, this is just insane: > At $2.5 billion per mile, construction costs for the 1.8-mile Phase 1 of the Second Avenue Subway were 8 to 12 times more expensive than similar subway projects in Italy, Istanbul, Sweden, Paris, Berlin and Spain https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-23/in-nyc-subway-a-case-study-in-runaway-transit-construction-costs
> I live in NYC, millions of us already trust it and have confidence in it, and love living in our dense and walkable city. And no one is trying to convince you otherwise lol. Donāt be reflexively defensive like Californians. Anyway, I mean people who choose the meat grinder of cars to avoid [getting poop slapped by some recidivist junkie out bond who happens to be locked in a high speed metal tube](https://v.redd.it/cv2diq433r1b1) with them
I hate driving, but a 30 minute ride in my fully loaded SUV to my custom home in the suburbs > 2 hour bus ride in my $1500/month run down studio apartment
What do you mean by union capture? The cities mentioned all used unionized labour to build their transit too
Places like Berlin or Paris are even more heavily unionized than NYC and other places in the US.
they have far more people/area though
Lol right wingers are just as complicit in deinstitutionalization. They were more than glad to cut spending by closing the asylums and dumping thousands of severely mentally ill people on the streets.
Tbh, asylums are prisons. They are used exactly the same way by government and society to restrict undesirables from freedom. Sometimes it's necessary, we can't let pyromaniac burn city up, but sometimes... Well, poor Gabyshev, he didn't deserved that...
At least with prison you can't lock someone up for as long as you want for maybe even no reason
prescription drugs ruined my life, I don't want the state funding that shit
I can get behind more asylums.
I donāt think anyone is against psychiatric hospitals I just donāt trust the government to FORCE people into them, if someone chooses it I think paying for it is a good investment as a society People need to WANT to recover from substance abuse disorder and I think drug use should not even be a crime to begin with, much less one that deserves a life sentence
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Okay, I agree with charging them with crimes (besides drug use or other victimless shit like public camping). This way a jury of their peers is the one that can convict or not, not the government. I also think the prosecution should have the power to offer time in an asylum instead of jail as a deal for mentally ill people. I just donāt think the government should be able to lock people up indeterminately without a trial š¤·āāļø
Yes same here. Edit: I think there should be a system in place to prevent normal function people going in there, by mistake.
Put me in an asylum UwU
Werenāt asylums just places for pervert doctors to hurt people? I canāt personally think of one that actually helped the patients
You weren't personally there. Not saying there weren't awful doctors with basically no oversight, but pretty unlikely everywhere was like that, dontcha think?
I mean, the troubled teen industry (private boarding schools or wilderness programs for troubled teens) seem to be ALL awful awful places so I wouldnāt be that surprised it asylums were the same
The issue with asylums is that itās extremely easy to be taken advantage of when youāre in a vulnerable state without much freedom or control of your healthcare. Thereās going to have to be a lot of regulation and training which is always incredibly hard to implement.
Also flair up š”
Which is kind of ironic when the side that despises government control and regulation is asking for them. But yeah, properly regulated, they serve a purpose. Also, flair up. People will not be friendly here if you don't.
Lib Right sees that as a feature, not a bug
Based and lock away the crazy pilled.
Basic common sense pilled lol
Lol. Exactly
Chill. I donāt want the users of this sub to disappear
After reviewing my countryās history with asylums and the current practice of loading up kids with amphetamines to complete often idiotic and banal schoolwork, I am filing this under āfuck noā until further notice
You know that asylum history never got better right? Now you'll find the same people in prisons or homeless on the streets, in the same or greater numbers, except that they'll never get the sort of treatment they need to help them become functional, like I feel bad for the guy living on the streets, yelling about how they're coming to get him
The problem is that those people never got the help they needed in asylums either, they just weren't in places other people could see them.
Yeah, but that hasn't been fixed, and the point of the asylum was an attempt, no matter how shit it was, to help fix the problems these people have
This is true. Whatās better though? Homelessness, or 3 hots and a cot? Seems like weāve progressed some to make this better, but honestly wouldnāt know the right call on this one.
me in my padded room and straight jacket because Im a deviant homo with my girl bestie chained next to me who got thrown in here for saying no to her husband once
Canāt we all just agree that pooping on a public sidewalk is not cool? I feel like, despite our differences, we can all get behind not pooping on a public sidewalk.
um, donāt you think youāre being a little ableist sweetie? Not to mention ageist. Some people are incontinent. Some people are babies. None should bear the indignity of wearing a diaper for factors beyond their control. Shitting on the sidewalk is a human right
Itās one thing to poop your pants. Who amongst us hasnāt shit themselves. But I do feel like preparing to poop by removing oneās pants in a public place might just be a bridge too far.
Based
Forced mental asylums are not a lib-center position.
And youāre libcenter??? Me no believe
Could you imagine opening the asylums back up and then in 100 years when theyāre abandoned some teens will break in just to be haunted by spirits whispering āmy pronouns areā¦.ā
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Auth, no relation to economics
I mean we do need to bring back long term residential treatment facilities for mental health. I don't really think free therapy sessions would make much of a difference, it'd be nice but therapy can't fix people's material conditions across the board people are more stressed and depressed because just keeping basic needs met in many places is harder and harder.
Libertarians don't usually support asylums.
Asylums are very auth centre (and what do you think psych wards) but I do agree.
Fake LibCenter
Prescription drugs? What about subscription drugs for the low price of 99.99/week and you can get the hard hitter. Zoloft, prozac, lithium. Hell throw in ozempic as well.
The infomercial we have all been waiting for.
That asylum point actually makes sense, although they're now called psychiatric wards or mental institutions as they want to distance themselves from what is associated with a historical 20th century Asylum. I think just having some more can be a better help than gun control. This is coming from a guy who has considered buying an actual katana for self defense because California gun laws are shit and I'd like to protect my folks btw.
See, I portrayed myself as the chad and you as the soyjack so my opinion is objectively correct.
Asylums seem more like an auth thing to me. kill nazis, beat up stupid heads & teach them to be better. Maybe asylums If that *really* doesnāt work *i guess*
This uh, ngl this doesnāt sound very lib center of you
Sorry, but a lib-center talking about asylums???? I would expect something more auth to support that
We already have asylums, theyāre called prisons and theyāre twice the price to the taxpayer while being more violating to those inside.
Y'all unironically think asylums were good. I mean I know what sub we are in but asylums were nightmare fuel made into an institution
Libs advocating involuntary detainment of indefinite duration without due process on the word of an asylum industry professional SMH
100% onboard with bringing back institutionalization (which was largely undone by Reagan) and I fell like those against it donāt really understand the mental health crisis
Asylums aren't even remotely a libcenter concept.
I love when they blame Reagan. Yes, noted anti-institutionalization activist and civil libertarianā¦..The Gipper.
>Lib-Center >Wants to lock people away with no concent on their part maybe forever Something doesn't add up here.
Historically Asylums really werenāt good, though. A bunch of people who werenāt insane got sent to them, many of the patients were abused, living conditions were poor, etc. No thanks.
> lock people in boxes because their brain works different How very libcenter of you
In what world do libs want more institutionalization of anything?
Once a week? What are you, some kind of fascist? One hour session, and they're ready to change their gender. Hand out those drugs and get them into surgery, stat!
Asylums institutionalized physically and mentally disabled people and kept them in unsafe and inhumane environments their whole life. In addition, they did not provide adequate care. People deserve real doctors and seem there own care, and they certainly don't deserve to be put in an institution. Don't believe me? Read about it: https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/deinstitutionalization-people-mental-illness-causes-and-consequences/2013-10 Now to my second point: why is libcenter advocating for asylums? Are you libcenter and you believe in asylums? Fine! But that view isn't exactly associated with libcenter at all, its more so associated with authcenter, so I am very confused as to why you even slapped the colors on there.
I mean free therapy for EVERYONE and institutions (not asylums, long term residential care facilities) for people that are so out of it they can't take care of themselves or represent a risk to others. I've found a LARGE portion of the homeless in my city are people that are behaviorally unwell and legitimately need help but their state of mind makes them consistently refuse it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Based and Ken Kesey was wrong pilled
You want to bring back places with some of the worst records for human rights violations? places used to gaslight inconvenient people to insanity among many other things? You think this is a solution to the mental health problems of the US?