Author Topic: Woman's relapse could change drug laws forever!  (Read 1519 times)

Offline dizzle (OP)

  • that nizzle
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • SA_Chat+
  • **
  • Join Date: Aug 2015
  • Location: chi-tizzle
  • Posts: 689
  • Reputation Power: 40
  • dizzle is now getting very popular.dizzle is now getting very popular.dizzle is now getting very popular.dizzle is now getting very popular.
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:July 25, 2018, 09:15:05 PM
Woman's relapse could change drug laws forever!
« on: October 10, 2017, 11:02:05 PM »
So I was sent this incredible article by an attorney that is very close to me. I'd like to share it with  you all and also (hopefully) hear your opinion on it. Here's the link. I'll copy/paste it here as well for ease.

Julie Eldred was ordered to stay sober as a condition of probation after repeatedly stealing to get heroin. She thinks that's unconstitutional—and she's not alone.



If addiction is a disease, is it fair to punish people for showing symptoms of it? That's the question raised by a case going before the Massachusetts Supreme Court next week, one that has national implications for the intersection between drugs and the law in the Trump era.
Last year, Julie Eldred was ordered to remain drug-free as a condition of probation after being convicted
on a stolen property (larceny) charge. This wasn't the first time the 29-year-old's heroin addiction got her into trouble; according to the Boston Globe, Eldred did two months in state prison in 2013 over a previous opioid-related probation violation. The charge she pleaded guilty to more recently consisted of stealing jewelry to get money for drugs.

This time, less than a week into court-mandated medication treatment, Eldred relapsed again—and got slapped with ten days in jail after testing positive for the powerful opioid fentanyl. The woman's attorney, Lisa Newman-Polk, argues that it makes sense for a court to mandate someone like her client receive care. But requiring that Eldred essentially be cured within days—and subjecting her more than once to a cell when she failed—was unconstitutional, according to the attorney.
As Newman-Polk summed up the case, "While a court may order a probationer to attend and adhere to treatment, a court cannot constitutionally order a medical/mental health outcome."
If Eldred prevails, drug courts, parole and probation systems in Massachusetts might be prevented from punishing people in similar situations—and a legal precedent set recognizing addiction as a disease that impairs self-control.


As you might expect in a country where a drug war has been raging for the better part of a century, the case is drawing high-profile amicus briefs on both sides. Those supporting Eldred include the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, the Massachusetts Medical Society, the University of Pennsylvania's Charles O'Brien (who helped write the diagnostic criteria for addiction) and even President Barack Obama's former "drug czar" Michael Botticelli. Bolstering the state are groups like the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, addiction psychiatrist and American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Sally Satel, and Richard Nixon's former "drug czar" Dr. Robert DuPont.

In many ways, the case is an old-school clash between law and medicine. The medical establishment—including the Surgeon General and the American Medical Association—has long accepted addiction as a medical rather than a moral problem. But Congress and the courts continue to treat drug possession like a crime, and to support the use of punitive measures like prison.
Newman-Polk seems uniquely qualified to lead the defense. She's worked as a public defender, outpatient social worker and mental health professional in a prison, where she saw the many ways the system can harm people with addiction. Social work training emphasizes the research showing that establishing an honest, nonjudgmental and supportive relationship is the key to successful therapy. Legal pressures, however, often work at cross-purposes with that. How can you trust and open up to counselor who might report to your probation officer? What is "nonjudgmental" when relapse often results in literal judgment and jail?
"All this punishment was having utterly no positive impact," Newman-Polk told me of her client. "I think the constitutional argument here is that if this is a medical and mental health condition, how in the world can the court order away a symptom? If we could simply order away a symptom with punishment, we would have a cured nation."
Eldred's case seemed like a natural way to press for change because she is not denying she screwed up: She admitted the initial theft and accepted responsibility. According to Newman-Polk, when her client relapsed, she was genuinely trying to comply with probation—and did everything asked of her, including attending outpatient therapy and seeing a doctor for medication.

"It's just so crazy how my brain works," Eldred, who was already coping with the aftermath of prior relapse after three solid years of recovery, told me when recalling her slip-up in 2016. Shame, she said, powered her drug use. "I'd had everything in order, and as soon as I picked up for the last time, I lost everything," she said. "I was just so disappointed in myself… The disease just crept up on me and said, 'Just do it one last time, you'll be OK.'
"As soon I used, I said 'Why did I do that?'" she said.
When she relapsed, Eldred returned to her doctor, who determined her opioid maintenance medication dose was too low, and raised it, she recalled. Nonetheless, the judge ordered her to jail after the drug test came back positive.
Newman-Polk—and those who support her client—consider this a violation of the Eighth Amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishment. In this case, they say, the government is punishing someone for behaviour they cannot control. Advocates note that addiction is defined by the federal government's own National Institute on Drug Abuse as "a chronic, relapsing brain disease that is characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful consequences" and that it is similarly described in psychiatry's diagnostic bible, currently the DSM 5.
As former drug czar Botticelli—who is himself in recovery—put it in an email, if this is how addiction is defined, "incarcerating people based solely on them having a relapse when they have not committed another crime is antithetical to our understanding of addiction." He added that people should be held accountable if they avoid treatment, "but the expectation should be that they are in treatment, not that they are relapse free."

Eldred's behaviour clearly fits the pattern of continued use in the face of harm, the hallmark of addiction. Her story is also rife with involuntary addiction risk-factors. Adopted shortly after birth, Eldred said, she was told she'd probably been exposed to cocaine in utero. This suggests both genetic risk and an environmental exposure that may have further increased her potential for addiction.
Indeed, even as a young child, Eldred told me, she was so agitated and unable to focus that she was given medication to regulate her stress. But despite therapy from an early age, she said she never felt right and couldn't succeed at school. After all, she added, she been diagnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression and an anxiety disorder—all of which raise the odds of addiction.
"I have the most amazing parents ever," Eldred said of the people who raised her. However, she noted, "I felt as though I didn't deserve the love I got—and it's so strange to feel that way at five or six." So when she tried opioid pain pills with a friend at 15 or so, she recalled, "It was almost like something in my body saying Oh my God—this is what I've been missing."
Under such circumstances, it's hardly surprising someone might persist despite negative consequences associated with drug use.
Massachusetts, meanwhile, has argued that Eldred's relapse was "willful," and that the legal system needs to have the threat of jail-time in its arsenal for offenders like her.

"It is critical that we improve access to substance use treatment services across the board, and for some, the court system can be an important part of their recovery journey," state attorney general Maura Healey's office said in a statement. "Research shows that drug-free testing can help probationers reach recovery goals, and testing can help defendants remain engaged in treatment and avoid long-term incarceration."
In their brief, prosecutors argued the evidence supporting the idea that addiction is a disease is invalid. For example, scans showing differences between the brains of people with addiction and others are often said to prove that the condition is a disease and that drug use has become involuntary. However, other things like driving and falling in love also appear to involve demonstrable brain changes. These activities, of course, aren't seen as pathological or necessarily involuntary.
As Satel of the American Enterprise Institute put it, "My colleagues and I believed it was very important to argue against the claim that people addicted to drugs are incapable of responding to contingencies; that is to sticks and carrots." She added, "Persistent seeking and using drugs are human actions—not uncontrollable products of brain activity—and the literature on the responsiveness on such actions, even in the presence of addiction-related brain changes, provides overwhelming support for the ability of addicts to change their behaviour in response to incentives."

As I see it, the data does show that addiction can respond to incentives—it is rare to see people shooting up in court, for example. But it responds unpredictably, takes time to change, and is far more responsive to rewards than to punishment. This does not mean that addiction is not a medical problem: depression and ADHD can also change in response to the environment; that doesn't mean those changes are simply chosen, nor that people can just snap out of it if they try hard enough.
Addiction is a condition of impaired choice—not one involving zombies devoid of free will. This makes litigating these issues difficult: drug policy scholar Mark Kleiman, a professor of public service at New York University, told me he "hopes both sides lose." He sees completely ruling out punishment when people with addiction interact with the justice system as being as absurd as relying exclusively on punishment.
Of course, the United States tends to err overwhelmingly on the punitive side. Samuel Bagenstos, who served as the principal deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights under President Obama, noted that the last time the Supreme Court took up these kinds of arguments, in 1962, the nation's highest Court tilted liberal.
In that case, Robinson v. California
, a man was convicted of a drug crime simply because he had tracks on his arms and a past history of drug use. The Court ruled that this was impermissible because it punished him for the state of being addicted, saying this was like punishing someone for "being mentally ill, or a leper," and left him open to arbitrary conviction at any time. But since then, it's often seemed like any behaviour has been fair game when it comes to crime and punishment in America.

Massachusetts may choose another approach.
"This is saying that we know more about the science now than when other courts rejected these arguments," Bagenstos told me, adding, "It really is punishing someone for who they are when you are punishing a drug addict for taking drugs."
« Last Edit: October 10, 2017, 11:32:20 PM by dizzle »

Offline Thoms

  • "Is a sex God"
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • SA_Chat+
  • **
  • Join Date: Jul 2015
  • Location:
  • Posts: 802
  • Reputation Power: 24
  • Thoms is now quite familiar.Thoms is now quite familiar.
  • Last Login:May 27, 2018, 01:32:26 AM
  • Welcome to our community forum ...
Re: Woman's relapse could change drug laws forever!
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2017, 12:07:24 AM »
I was only able to read about the first third of that, I do plan to come back to it sometime today. I see a few things that popped out to me, as a junky that the normies wouldn’t think about. She is stealing to support a habit because the black market keeps the cost of heroin ridiculously high. With reliable supply and reasonable cost heroin could be affordable to addicts and I’m sure theft would go down. The drug isn’t the problem. The problem is the prohibition of the drug.
Fear and self loathing in thoms.

Offline dizzle (OP)

  • that nizzle
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • SA_Chat+
  • **
  • Join Date: Aug 2015
  • Location: chi-tizzle
  • Posts: 689
  • Reputation Power: 40
  • dizzle is now getting very popular.dizzle is now getting very popular.dizzle is now getting very popular.dizzle is now getting very popular.
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:July 25, 2018, 09:15:05 PM
Re: Woman's relapse could change drug laws forever!
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2017, 06:04:53 AM »
Yes, Thoms that is accurate.


I remember I read a quotation by one of the people that was involved opposing the early days of the drug war, and it went something like "all the negative consequences of opiate use can be traced back to the drug laws themselves"


For example, if heroin weren't illegal, there wouldn't be bad cutting agents in it like fentanyl or vein killing stuff like Tiapentene or diphenhyramine, etc., the physical consequences wouldn't exist nearly to the point they do now. We wouldn't have abscesses and infections like we do now. We wouldn't have OD's and HIV/HEP C like we do. That simply wouldn't exist. If it did, it would be FAR FAR FAR less.


The financial consequences can be traced back to the fact they are illegal. If they were legal the dealers wouldn't be able to charge so much for it, hence users wouldn't spend every last cent on it. They'd be able to be actual members of society, they'd be able to go grocery shopping, they'd be able to stop off at a nice restaurant for dinner if they wanted. God, I remember being a homeless junkie and literally dreaming of going to get an italian beef sandwich for lunch/dinner. They're only like $8 but whenever I got $ I had to spend it all on dope, then I'd scrounge up $.50 for a honey bun or something.


The societal consequences, lets call them the social ones, of course trace back to the drug laws by giving everyone the impression that "drugs are bad", and that anyone that does them are bad. Well those people are not all bad, they sometimes have to do bad things because they need the drugs, again, if they weren't so expensive they wouldn't have to rob and steal for them. If people didn't look down their noses at them for using maybe they'd not be so depressed and wouldn't dive even deeper into heroin. Maybe if they weren't treated like a piece of garbage by those around them they wouldn't feel like a piece of trash. This ties into the emotional consequences.


And, who can forget the legal consequences? As I said, if we didn't have to pay insane amounts of $ for drugs (financial consequences), and if we didn't lose our jobs for taking drugs (societal consequences) we wouldn't have to do illegal shit for money. This, of course, neglects the fact that it's simply illegal to even possess the drugs themselves. So we wouldn't have possession felonies, so we wouldn't get kicked out of our houses and disownedorced/children taken away, we wouldn't have any of that terrible shit happen.


So physical, emotional, financial, legal and societal problems all stem from the drug laws themselves. It sickens me that hardly anyone in our society realizes that. Nope, we're just junky losers to most of them that are too weak to quit and are failures at life.


I'll even go as far as saying that some people don't want to see us succeed. They know what we are and if we are doing well in life they want to see that torn down. I've got a very personal story about that but I'll save that for another time. Sorry for that rant....







Offline MoeMentim

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • SA_Chat+
  • **
  • Join Date: Nov 2015
  • Location:
  • Posts: 471
  • Reputation Power: 13
  • MoeMentim is new on the scene.
  • Last Login:Today at 12:07:34 PM
  • Our Harm Reduction & Safe Using forum
Re: Woman's relapse could change drug laws forever!
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2017, 11:14:34 PM »
Amen.  I've been in an alcohol cycle for the last couple years which in many ways has been worse than my prior h habit but the reason i can hold it together better than i could on h is because it's cheap, legal and has no adulterants.

Offline Esoteric Anhydride

  • I <3 Mods
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • SA_Chat+
  • **
  • Join Date: May 2015
  • Location:
  • Posts: 469
  • Reputation Power: 0
  • Esoteric Anhydride has hidden their reputation power
  • Last Login:Today at 10:04:27 AM
Re: Woman's relapse could change drug laws forever!
« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2017, 03:29:29 AM »
@dizzle - ya man I've been saying that shit for years -- "Instead of spending money on enforcement, why not make money via marketing and taxes?" And now look at how much money states like Colorado are making -- shit tons!!1!

I'm not suggesting that we start selling heroin OTC like liquor, but de-criminalization would be a proper start and it would certainly save the states and the gvmt. a lot of money on enforcement and investigations. I know I've been reading for years that most junkies, if they don't die of overdose or a blood-borne infection, frequently I guess "grow out" of "the life" and turn their shit around. It's a lot harder to do that though with a felony record; all drug-related felonies do is create "career" criminals and busy POs.


This system sucks. We have a long ways to go in learning to keep those with health problems out of the correctional systems where people wind up fucked. for. life.

Offline Raine

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • SA_Chat+
  • **
  • Join Date: Jun 2015
  • Location: NOLA
  • Posts: 119
  • Reputation Power: 4
  • Raine is new on the scene.
  • Gender: Female
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 08:07:29 AM
  • Do no harm but take no shit
Re: Woman's relapse could change drug laws forever!
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2018, 12:51:20 AM »
@dizzle  aawesome article. Do you know if anything has changed/moved on in that case yet?

Your follow-up comment basically covered points I have stated and restated over the years.
I completely agree with you, I'm just not up to saying it as eloquently as you, most days!

Offline Snout

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Nov 2015
  • Location: The state of WA
  • Posts: 294
  • Reputation Power: 20
  • Snout is now quite familiar.Snout is now quite familiar.
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:August 14, 2018, 08:36:11 PM
Re: Woman's relapse could change drug laws forever!
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2018, 04:53:47 AM »
Dizzle, id like to hear the story you alluded to. Thanks.
I myself have found a real rival in myself,
I am hoping for a re-arrival of my health- wilco

Offline DreamerOnTheRun

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Dec 2015
  • Location: Palm Harbor, FL
  • Posts: 164
  • Reputation Power: 7
  • DreamerOnTheRun is new on the scene.
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:April 15, 2018, 08:45:03 AM
  • d8, GG249, M30, d4, A215, p|d
Re: Woman's relapse could change drug laws forever!
« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2018, 04:50:05 PM »
I'm gonna follow this closely, God how I'd love for this to be brought to the Supreme Court.
Too strange to live, too rare to die.

 




TERMS AND CONDITIONS

In no event will d&u or any person involved in creating, producing, or distributing site information be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, punitive, special or consequential damages arising out of the use of or inability to use d&u. You agree to indemnify and hold harmless d&u, its domain founders, sponsors, maintainers, server administrators, volunteers and contributors from and against all liability, claims, damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from the use of any part of the d&u site.


TO USE THIS WEBSITE YOU MUST AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ABOVE



Founded December 2014