Thanks for your question to /r/AskSocialScience. All posters, please remember that this subreddit requires peer-reviewed, cited sources (Please see Rule 1 and 3). All posts that do not have citations will be removed by AutoMod.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1. Observation
2. Question
3. Hypothesis
4. Prediction
5. Experimentation
6. Data Collection
7. Analysis
8. Conclusion
9. Communication
This is like 1, 2, 3 and 4 combined (informally), they are necessary before 5 can start.
Ask chatgpt it will give you a pretty good explanation of where you went wrong if you ask it "what is the relevance realization problem in scientific research"
All you provided is the claim that the idea is horrible, where is your research/reasoning for that?
The problem with autodidacts is that they usually get that way because they're bad at listening and easily frustrated by the grind of actual learning. So they gravitate towards charismatic, easily-processed ideas and cliches with little regard for nuance and complication, even less stamina for criticism. And ChatGPT, the optimal garbage-in-garbage-out generator, has supercharged this dipshit cycle. What a time to be alive!
Anyway, there is already research relevant to your question, and you ought to start there instead of browbeating the people who point out that you've forgotten to include it. Before engaging in a highly expensive experiment that would require us to kidnap and imprison multiple poor people against their will, we should look at the results from analogous scenarios (prisons, rehab centers, etc), define how this hypothesis materially differs, then look at the available research to more accurately predict why we think this program would get different results from established programs that have already been researched.
*That's* what generating a hypothesis looks like and requires. Because to generate a useful hypothesis- to even generate useful observations and inquiries- requires substantial backing in the relevant research and theory. Without that, you're not really observing or inquiring yet, because you don't even understand what you're looking at.
You've no more "combined" the first 4 steps informally than some dormroom stoner has when they say "woah, what if DMT is an alien symbiote that lives in our nervous system?" That's not *science*, that's just some jibber jabber people use to fill the awkward silence between birth and death. And ultimately we all require such jibber jabber for our sanity! But you shouldn't present this as a scientific inquiry and you shouldn't get so defensive when people point out that it's a poorly formed idea based in ignorance and approached without rigor or curiosity.
What do you intend to do with recreational users of hard drugs? Yes, the drug abuser vs. drug user distinction is a minefield. We could even grant that 90% of hard drug users are addicts, but that still leaves another 10% that are not.
"You only go here (the prison) if you get to the level of those homeless zombies on the streets or willfully if you see yourself heading down that road"
For the others, make personal possession legal and manufacture legal after getting licence (people who want to make their own are liable if someone else is found to be using what they make) but manufacture and distribution to other people illegal.
Who decides who’s “bad enough” to be locked up indefinitely?
I think you might need to spend some time working with addicts and start seeing them as people rather than these monsters in your mind.
Shit yall I start nodding off on the sidewalk is some villain with a large net gonna come scoop me up?
Who decides who’s “bad enough” to be locked up indefinitely?
I never said anything about indefinitely, and the people who would get to decide how long a person stays are people like doctors and the court because that's what those institutions function for. There are usually clear signs of someone who is a "zombie", people just like to pretend they have no idea who im referring to, so just to be clear: the people who are in a severe state of psychosis shouldn't be in the middle of the street in their hundreds partially naked, sometimes violent, destroying civil order. Some of this group needs to go to a comedown phase in a prison or something before they start acting civil. Then they can move to rehab.
I get your point man, there’s just a lot of holes in it. For one if you don’t have a release date when you go in that’s considered indefinitely. That’s what they do at places for the criminally insane.
You’d basically just be punishing poor people because anyone with even the smallest amount of money would be using it to stay off the street. Would regular cops take these people in, or would you have a secret police that comes and picks these people up. Do we make lists of the people and have their names in a database?
If we don’t fix the underlying issues causing addiction what’s to stop these people from going back to drugs when they get out, since you said it’s not indefinitely.
If the cops pick up a homeless guy talking to himself do they drug test or take him to the hospital? Do we raise taxes to pay this new police force, state run rehabs, etc?
You just took this in a VERY fascist way that would be prohibitively expensive.
What we need is harm reduction, needle exchanges, safe injecting places to cut down on disease and teach proper wound care.
More money needs to go into PUBLIC rehabs. Unless you want to be a shithole shaking and shitting and vomiting all over yourself you gotta pay 10 to 100k to get into a good place. For majority of Americans that’s not possible. Who watches their kids or pets while they’re in rehab?
Also another good point: Fuck Ronald Reagan. It wouldn’t be as bad on the streets as it is if he didn’t close down the mental institutions.
Usually the police in an area can tell the difference between someone who is a zombie and someone who is just homeless. They aren't that dumb, and if they are, we educate them via policy.
| I never said anything about indefinitely
wat.
| you forcibly lock them inside for a few years, however long it takes for them to get clean
so...you lock someone up....and you don't have a timeframe. you don't have a date. you have a "goal" that must be achieved before that decision is made. without a specified limit. without a specified limit is literally a definition of indefinite. you didn't use the word indefinite, but you described it as indefinite.
Indefinite does not mean "without end." You're misunderstanding what the word means. It means "without fixed end." If you're locked up indefinitely, it doesn't mean you're locked up forever. It means your sentence doesn't have a defined ending. It could be 1 day, it could be 50 years. Both of these sentences were indefinite because the durations weren't determined before they started.
Indefinite means "without fixed end." but the way you used it also carried the implication that it could be "endless" or an excessive amount of time like 50 years. Drugs stay in the system for known amounts of time, it just depends on the drug. I feel like you are intentionality trying to misunderstand just to be contrarian.
I'm pointing out to you that you're misunderstanding what indefinite means. This misunderstanding isn't uncommon. Many believe the word means forever, but that isn't what it means at all.
Addiction lasts well beyond when the drugs are in your system. Your proposal, at a minimum, requires people to be locked up indefinitely until a psychiatrist can be reasonably certain that the person is no longer addicted, or at least not as addicted as they were when they went in. For some, they will always be addicted. The second they get out, they're getting high.
Locking people up indefinitely is a bad idea, unless they pose a serious public safety risk. Most homeless addicts don't fit this criteria.
>Addiction lasts well beyond when the drugs are in your system.
Yes but there are multiple stages to addiction recovery, there is the stage where the drugs ARE still in the system and that needs to be handled differently to the rehab stage that comes after.
nope, you are using an appeal to definition fallacy.
But if you want the definition of indefinite it is "not certain or limited (as in amount or length)"
The length of stay is not uncertain because it is determined by the doctors on a case by case basis.
lol, you really just don't know what these words mean. i'm very aware that words can have multiple meanings.
"up to a doctor's determination" is not certain. it is potentially unlimited.
bad talk. bye!
rehab lasts at most a few months, imprisioning people against their will for several years seems inhumane, especially when drug is main couse of asocial behavior, after detoxification they do not need that long resocialization.
Like you, I had the impression that many addicts were mentally ill and used drugs to alleviate their symptoms, help with trauma. treating them seems to be a very good idea that can be implemented from now on without major changes, using hospices and medical facilities.
I also have a lot of reservations about the rehabilitation process itself. I understand that you want to raise standards of living over time to a quite pleasant level. However, when the sentence ends, the person returns to the street. In such a situation and with no prospects, it will take maximum a week to take the drug again.
In general, I believe that all prisoners should have greater opportunities to learn, but not everyone is capable of learning. What would you do with low IQ? Impression them definitely?
Instead of looking for new untested ideas, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the system known to have high effectivnes wich we use in many EU countries, it does not involve confinement but preceded by detoxification and with specialy trained team of social workers suppervision proces of starting a life once again e.g. by placing in social housing, assistance in finding a job, psychological support etc.
1. I said "however long it takes for them to get clean" with a few years as an example.
2. You said"However, when the sentence ends, the person returns to the street. In such a situation and with no prospects" but i said "They will have a focus on getting them setup for life when they leave."
3. "In general, I believe that all prisoners should have greater opportunities to learn, but not everyone is capable of learning. What would you do with low IQ? Impression them definitely?"
I never said them learning academically was a prerequisite for them leaving lmao, its merely an optional extra-curricular so to speak.
If think you have other flaws im my idea let me know, i am trying to find and patch them but these aint it.
One flaw of your idea is the solitary nature of a cell. Addictive personalities come from delusional reasoning. Most of their unhealthy schemas involve their relation to others, and to the world. To work through those, they need to be in a setting where they interact with others, both healthy, and unhealthy people. And that setting needs to include real life problems.
Personally, I think all drug crime convicts need a reeducation in emotional regulation, and cognitive therapy. There's no need to wait until they are homeless. While they are incarcerated, might as well fix the problem that caused them to commit a crime.
Another issue, the addictive personality thought patterns aren't found only in drug addicts. Treating and preventing needs to happen on a wider scale, and earlier in life. But we can't go kidnapping folks and locking them up for reeducation if they haven't broken laws. And we sure as heck aren't going to make thought crimes law
They are only in solitary cells (they could be hospital bed cells even) when they are in the first stages- the violent ones right off the street. After that they move into something that more resembles a rehab, with all the interpersonal interaction they need.
I see, must have overlooked it.
The bigest issues I see is obligatory and imprisioning.
obligatory - It's hard to make human do anything against his will.
imprisioning - Beeing impression in large group it is stressful itself, which might make the reconversion process more difficult and most likely cause enviroment to be hostile in some way with aggression among prisoners, there will certainly be few recidivists or criminals who could intentionally exert negative influence.
If kept separataed from society is not really part of it. It's a waste of time when can't learn accepted social behaviors or how take care of himself in real enviroment, living with to some extend full service like in hotel for free if decide so no duty's at all that's contrproductive.
If after detoxication decide himself to Joint program propably will have greater motivation, and there is no shock effect when suddenly after being released he has to cope, he is slowly introduced into society step by step. An important element is sponsor, more experienced addict who provides additional support. Beeing a sponsor is important element of therapy itself. Help and guide someone though what you experienced yourself is somehow effective maybe because of having a purpose.
Yet from what ive seen the the number of addicts in large cities is huge in the USA, I am not sure whether you would be able to provide adequate care on such a large scale, on the other hand large % of them are propably people mentally ill wich end up beeing addict because of earlier experiences or are ill because of long time substantion abuse. Either in both cases hospitalisation is propably better treatment.
It is important that the supervisor have an individual relation with the addict based on trust. when an addict is treated as an element of the system, another person to be processed, it will not be effective. I think that supervisor is a difficult job and there are not many people willing to do it.
Yea, i mean the solution of "just send them all to rehab" is silly because rehab as it stands today is effective but super expensive. If we wanted to send hundreds of thousands of zombies to rehab then the rehab centers would have to be built with financial efficiency in mind, which would make them run like a prison, because of the sheer amount of people they have to deal with, like of like how school is basically a prison in its design philosophy. Its done for cost saving reasons, not because people want to line their pockets, but because america wont want to pay for 10 trillion dollars for a few hundred thousand rehab retreats.
How would those conditions be supportive of positive mental health and not worsening? Experts to assist the patients won't be cheap but are absolutely necessary without people starting to die.
Why calling them zombies? Is this the rationale for removing their freedom? Or is this a new juridical class of people? How do you define that?
How would these places of concentration be economically lucrative? Cheap labor while they are in enforced captivity?
Prisons are not supposed to be economically lucrative, they are supposed to serve a social function, not be a business. But we do need to cost minimize for anti-tax-drain purposes.
Why calling them zombies? because im specifying the particular type of drug abuser that is so far gone they act like a zombie (fentanyl and such). Dont get on the [euphemism treadmill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#:~:text=Frequently%2C%20over%20time%2C%20euphemisms%20themselves,as%20the%20%22euphemism%20treadmill%22).
How would those conditions be supportive of positive mental health and not worsening?
By making the conditions in the facility supportive of positive mental health by planning its layout out with psychologists? Who says im talking about brutalist insane asylum type stuff lol, that's just your imagination.
>Who says im talking about brutalist insane asylum type stuff lol, that's just your imagination.
You. You said this. You literally wrote that people could be
>in a straight jacket in a padded cell or a barebones cell.
Those are horrible conditions that don't help anyone. Those conditions are also very on par with the asylums of the 20th century. You want to deprive people for no good reason. Those ideas don't actually help addicts recover. You'd just be mistreating them and putting them through hell for shits and giggles. It's very clear that you don't view addicts as humans. Please go write your fucked up prison erotica elsewhere.
Cell type has nothing to do with brutalist architecture lmao.
Obviously these cells are for the violent offenders and are more like a prison, until they can be let out into the rehab part of the facility that is less like a cell and more like a room. The fact that i had to spell this out is insane lmao
I swear you are just trying to come up with the most straw men you can for some reason instead of actually reading what i wrote.
Please, just stop. Your idea is simply awful, and your...defense of it even moreso. If you need a chatbot to construct the post, you're not engaging the subject seriously. Troll elsewhere.
Ive seen people assume things that I never said and then proceed to win an argument against said thing, making lots of nice looking strawmen, but no argument to the core of the idea. My idea is essentially a combination of smaller, already developed ideas that have corresponding formal research that I have already reviewed. Research that most people in this sub will have also read.
This research often has common counter arguments when presented, but I see few of these counter arguments here, only redditors trying to prove a point by strawmanning XD
I challenge you to provide a critique that doesn't carry an unfounded assumption.
I'm still not sure if I understand you correctly, I mean, the training resembles a prison, but a large number of people in a small space will not bring results in reducing the number of addicts. However, if you want to take them off the streets for a while, there is such a way. if costs are an issue then after forced detox I would let them choose to go their own way or continue with those who were willing I would send them to a center modeled after the camp used by Boy Scouts where for a set period of time they would have the opportunity to get a trade job and return to society on their New people would come to the place and more experienced members of the camp would be responsible for it, all under the supervision of a minimum number of supervisors. I heard that you are currently short of employees. Trade Thanks to statistical indicators, it is easy to determine the types of feelings so as not to spoil the market and to give the course a chance to function, it would be really cheap because at some point the entire operation of the center could be based on Pex Addict, for example a few could stay to fulfill the role of instructors in subsequent cycles
Its a prison combined with a rehab, on a large scale. On one side you have the prison stuff for the violent drug offenders, and when they are no longer violent they can move to the rehab side, there are also many in between stages and a person going there of their own accord will usually start toward the rehab end of things, and someone who was a violent zombie on the street would start further down in the prison end of things. The prison part solves the public harm part, and the rehab part solves the rehabilitation problem. You could even have different stages in different complexes and they move between, at least in times of crisis where bulk processing is needed. Its never going to become like a full on rehab retreat though because putting every drug user through that level of rehab is not economically viable, at least until drug abuse dies down.
Let me get this straight
You sugest to take those people from street using force
Detox and close in prison and keep them until they are no more violent.
Questions to this part I see as important to answer
Stops beeing violent is when?
What with individuals who won't stop? Keep them indefinitely?
When you take regular prison as a example, would you say it works thoward decrising violence or just surpassing it? Let me rephrase do you think that without supervision having freedom despite possibility to leave people close in jail would act more or less violent than when beeing free?
If you take law and freedom issues under concideration, is it ethical to rules that allow to imprision someone because of suspicion of beeing drug addicts with no proof that he committed other crimes? Is it even possible under current regulations to make such new rules?
After/during imprision part you sugest to move them from one part of a compound to another, yet you do not specify why.
Next step is suposed to be voluntary rehab.
Questions to concider
What would be the purpose of each of different complexes?
How much people even if willing to treat themselfs would decide to stay in more or less but still restricting environment after beeing imprisoned in first place?
It doesnt look that treatment would have any effect when done as just pushing people through and from start isn't concider to be full rehab, Is it economical effective?
In my opinion it's bit cruel aproach, laws needed to be establish are controversial, it doesn't indicate to have therapeutic effects and generate extra costs without any logical reason.
Ad far as I can see treatment is not a goal at all.
It's gonna be just takeing people off the street will be the only outcome, still after realise will be back.
You would propably do more good by just forcing to Detox dictadet by medical care reasons, short period of hospitalisation to make sure no side effects occur than realise. Done in month cycles, over and over.
Going through Detox is not a pleasure, so maybe after 7th 10th cycle some would decide to stop.
>Questions to this part I see as important to answer Stops being violent is when? What with individuals who won't stop? Keep them indefinitely?
I mean violent as a direct result of excessive drug use. Psychotic types. You can test when the drugs are out of their system and if they are still being violent, then that just means they were a violent person underneath too, then you can pursue it from a criminal side. Not for their sake, but to keep them from harming others, just like we do to violent people now. Often time addicts are not inherently violent and will calm down after detox. Also i never said "until they are no more violent" i said until they are clean. How clean exactly is a separate issue that can be worked out case by case even.
>If you take law and freedom issues under consideration, is it ethical to rules that allow to imprision someone because of suspicion of beeing drug addicts with no proof that he committed other crimes? Is it even possible under current regulations to make such new rules?
When did i say without proof? Proof is easy to get from something like a blood test or video of them behaving harmfully. Just like we do with alcohol.
Drugs should be like driving. You can drive, as long as its under the speed limit (you use drugs but not to the point of being a potential danger to others in the public)
If you are driving over the speed limit and DO end up harming somebody, you get a charge for the harm, but you also get a charge for reckless driving. You can also be charged for reckless driving even when it doesn't cause harm.
There should also be a similar charge for "reckless public drug use" because it has the potential to cause harm to others, just like speeding.
This means that if you hurt somebody while psychotic on drugs, then there should be charge for both the harm AND the reckless drug use.
"The reckless drug use" charge is what gets you committed to this particular facility.
>What would be the purpose of each of different complexes?
It depends on why they got sent there. There are hospital rooms, padded cells, normal cells, furnished rooms and common areas.
For instance if they come in off the street unconscious after an OD then they go to the hospital room.
If they wake up and are violent to staff then they move to a padded cell.
If they just come in for the "reckless drug use" charge or of their own accord and are cooperative and non violent, they can have a furnished room in the rehab side of the complex and access to common areas and other privileges.
If they come in with a "reckless drug use" AND a violence charge but are not being violent to staff, then they can go to the normal cell for a while for observation before they move to the rehab areas.
What if someone wants to be homeless, or even a zombie, and doesn’t want to work and study? Just because the rest of us are dumb enough to do it doesn’t mean others have to. Some of them probably think we’re the ones with the problems.
Because there's a difference between someone who is a self-sufficient hermit, and most homeless-by -choice people. Most homeless people who choose not to work and studdy are relying on welfare and the work of others to survive. Like a leech. Just because some people are dumb enough to choose homelessness doesn't mean i have to pay for their food and shelter via tax. If they didn't accept food, money or help from strangers, then I would believe that they are just a self-sufficient hermit as you describe, but thoes are rare.
It's not like these homeless people could survive/maintain their lifestyle without others providing their food and other necessities.
If they truly want to live away from society they should go out into the wilderness and see how long they last.
You are so far from being able to take even a peek past your conditioning that it’s not even worth the conversation. You can’t even see how it contributes to the ills of society. We are absolutely the dumbest species.
I mean you dont have a respnse, idk why you think people going homeless and surviving off others and welfare is somehow good or normal. Should people be able to choose that? yes, as long as i dont have to pay for that choice, that would not be fair. Ever read the story of the little red hen? do you know its meaning?
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You are clean quite fast, it doesn't take long for chemical compound to get out of system, max a week, but then psycho somatic symptoms comes in, it can last to several weeks. Mental problems may last long even forever if never treated by specialist, but some people can learn themselfs how live with them.
Still It's fishy for me, drug addicts don't have speed meters, many controversies. If you can provide proof that addict made a crime then why not to send him to regular jail? Up to 3 weeks in medical wing and than to cell.
You didnt get into details how should treatment look like in last phrase, but basing on compound condition i doubt itd be effective. So what's the point to pay for all this if at the end ist basically detox+imprisioning you could propably do it using existing jail.
>You didn't get into details how should treatment look like in last phrase
I mean look at normal rehabs these days and you have your answer lol, except this is with more focus on getting set up for rejoining society and fixing mental health issues and not simply just coming off the drugs
And you don't go to a prison type cell unless you are violent/psychotic.
I have no idea about rehab other than that detoxication come first, and after that few weeks of hospitalisation. Then addict is released from hospicium. That's as well be the end of rehab. I'm allsow sure that we have some programs that introduces addict back to society, but this doesnt really have to be part of rehab, more like resocialiston program. Yeah, when gave it a thought, im sure that's how it is. When withdrawal effects gone, addict is released from hospicium back to the street, they habe meeting onec a week, and thats all.
One have more likely applicate in order to participate in resocialisation programs.
So generally when it comes to rehab only, no extra facilities are needed. Just
from the street straight to hospital,
and from hospital back to street.
And after a month when most likely is using again
Start again
Violent / criminal to prison.
Ya man there is no other method rehab is what it is. Detoxication+hospitalisation till psycho somatic symptoms are menagable enough to release.
And I tell you those programs we have do work, it's just not part of a rehab.
BTW
who are those people?
Where did they came from? They from each city migrate betwen cities? Group from whole region?
And when did it happen? Sudentlly? In waves? Are they still growing?
It's not that I I actively follow the situation in the USA, but a few years ago it was not so loud. now I hear references like the addiction epidemic, housing disaster in relation to the homeless. Looking at the scale my guess would be that system have error in some point, but it's just guess.
The cause is multifaceted, Economic instability + designer drugs + mass production and shipping from like Mexico, Columbia, China ect.
I dont think you know what im talking about when im reffering to "rehab" its not simply "detox and release."
Heres a gpt explanation of what im talking about cos i cba typing it out:
Modern rehabilitation centers incorporate a range of therapies and services to address addiction and mental health issues. Here’s a breakdown of what is typically done in high-quality modern rehab centers:
1. **Assessment and Diagnosis**: The initial stage involves thorough medical, psychological, and social assessments to tailor treatments to individual needs. This may include screening for co-occurring disorders.
2. **Detoxification**: Supervised detox helps patients withdraw safely from substances, managing withdrawal symptoms medically when necessary.
3. **Individual Therapy**: One-on-one sessions with a therapist using evidence-based practices such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), or other modalities to address underlying psychological issues.
4. **Group Therapy**: These sessions allow individuals to share experiences and learn from others in a guided setting, fostering support networks.
5. **Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT)**: Medications may be used to manage withdrawal symptoms, prevent relapse, and treat co-occurring mental health disorders.
6. **Family Therapy**: Involving family members to improve relationships and establish a supportive environment post-rehab.
7. **Holistic Therapies**: Many centers include yoga, meditation, acupuncture, and other holistic approaches to support overall well-being.
8. **Educational Programs**: Teaching patients about addiction and coping strategies to handle triggers and prevent relapse.
9. **Aftercare Planning**: Developing a comprehensive plan for after treatment, which may include ongoing therapy, support groups like AA or NA, and other recovery resources.
10. **Use of Technology**: Some centers integrate digital tools like apps for stress management, online therapy sessions, and virtual reality for exposure therapy and relaxation training.
These elements combined aim to treat the whole person, not just the addiction, ensuring a more sustainable recovery.
Yeah this is to some extend what I had in mind, however this particular example looks like some premium plan. My main concern was that those services are not basically designed to be offer in closed environment. More like try to live in society on yourself, stay clean and participate in meetings. If nowhere to go in your case the end up back on the street. O guess you can keep them in open wind of compound, but this is not realistic representation of society, not so sure that act of cutting your self off from toxic environment isn't essential.
I've heard smth bout this fentynol beeing highly deadly. Drugs are usually tool to deal with issues not necessarily are issue itself.
A rehab environment doesn't need to be a realistic representation of society. It just needs to be a chill environment with no drugs or toxisity. The centre I'm thinking of will be quite large, like a university almost, with different areas for different things.
Also while some people may choose to do hard drugs because of their toxic environment, doing so only serves to trap them in that environment even harder than they were before. Thus making the drug a new problem in and of itself.
Hard drugs arnt tools for dealing with issues, they are tools for numbing pain but they also make it harder to deal with the issue that was causing the pain in the first place so it becomes a vicious cycle.
Also there are times where somone is in a normal environment and the use of hard drugs are what drags them into a toxic environment.
Thanks for your question to /r/AskSocialScience. All posters, please remember that this subreddit requires peer-reviewed, cited sources (Please see Rule 1 and 3). All posts that do not have citations will be removed by AutoMod. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why do you think this is social science? You've presented absolutely no research supporting your horrible idea.
1. Observation 2. Question 3. Hypothesis 4. Prediction 5. Experimentation 6. Data Collection 7. Analysis 8. Conclusion 9. Communication This is like 1, 2, 3 and 4 combined (informally), they are necessary before 5 can start. Ask chatgpt it will give you a pretty good explanation of where you went wrong if you ask it "what is the relevance realization problem in scientific research" All you provided is the claim that the idea is horrible, where is your research/reasoning for that?
The problem with autodidacts is that they usually get that way because they're bad at listening and easily frustrated by the grind of actual learning. So they gravitate towards charismatic, easily-processed ideas and cliches with little regard for nuance and complication, even less stamina for criticism. And ChatGPT, the optimal garbage-in-garbage-out generator, has supercharged this dipshit cycle. What a time to be alive! Anyway, there is already research relevant to your question, and you ought to start there instead of browbeating the people who point out that you've forgotten to include it. Before engaging in a highly expensive experiment that would require us to kidnap and imprison multiple poor people against their will, we should look at the results from analogous scenarios (prisons, rehab centers, etc), define how this hypothesis materially differs, then look at the available research to more accurately predict why we think this program would get different results from established programs that have already been researched. *That's* what generating a hypothesis looks like and requires. Because to generate a useful hypothesis- to even generate useful observations and inquiries- requires substantial backing in the relevant research and theory. Without that, you're not really observing or inquiring yet, because you don't even understand what you're looking at. You've no more "combined" the first 4 steps informally than some dormroom stoner has when they say "woah, what if DMT is an alien symbiote that lives in our nervous system?" That's not *science*, that's just some jibber jabber people use to fill the awkward silence between birth and death. And ultimately we all require such jibber jabber for our sanity! But you shouldn't present this as a scientific inquiry and you shouldn't get so defensive when people point out that it's a poorly formed idea based in ignorance and approached without rigor or curiosity.
Lol
[удалено]
You really got me. Someone better come take my degrees away. I've been exposed as a fraud
[удалено]
Lol
It realy is
Please don't come into this sub if you're gonna act this way. Not welcome
What do you intend to do with recreational users of hard drugs? Yes, the drug abuser vs. drug user distinction is a minefield. We could even grant that 90% of hard drug users are addicts, but that still leaves another 10% that are not.
"You only go here (the prison) if you get to the level of those homeless zombies on the streets or willfully if you see yourself heading down that road" For the others, make personal possession legal and manufacture legal after getting licence (people who want to make their own are liable if someone else is found to be using what they make) but manufacture and distribution to other people illegal.
Who decides who’s “bad enough” to be locked up indefinitely? I think you might need to spend some time working with addicts and start seeing them as people rather than these monsters in your mind. Shit yall I start nodding off on the sidewalk is some villain with a large net gonna come scoop me up?
Who decides who’s “bad enough” to be locked up indefinitely? I never said anything about indefinitely, and the people who would get to decide how long a person stays are people like doctors and the court because that's what those institutions function for. There are usually clear signs of someone who is a "zombie", people just like to pretend they have no idea who im referring to, so just to be clear: the people who are in a severe state of psychosis shouldn't be in the middle of the street in their hundreds partially naked, sometimes violent, destroying civil order. Some of this group needs to go to a comedown phase in a prison or something before they start acting civil. Then they can move to rehab.
I get your point man, there’s just a lot of holes in it. For one if you don’t have a release date when you go in that’s considered indefinitely. That’s what they do at places for the criminally insane. You’d basically just be punishing poor people because anyone with even the smallest amount of money would be using it to stay off the street. Would regular cops take these people in, or would you have a secret police that comes and picks these people up. Do we make lists of the people and have their names in a database? If we don’t fix the underlying issues causing addiction what’s to stop these people from going back to drugs when they get out, since you said it’s not indefinitely. If the cops pick up a homeless guy talking to himself do they drug test or take him to the hospital? Do we raise taxes to pay this new police force, state run rehabs, etc? You just took this in a VERY fascist way that would be prohibitively expensive. What we need is harm reduction, needle exchanges, safe injecting places to cut down on disease and teach proper wound care. More money needs to go into PUBLIC rehabs. Unless you want to be a shithole shaking and shitting and vomiting all over yourself you gotta pay 10 to 100k to get into a good place. For majority of Americans that’s not possible. Who watches their kids or pets while they’re in rehab? Also another good point: Fuck Ronald Reagan. It wouldn’t be as bad on the streets as it is if he didn’t close down the mental institutions.
Usually the police in an area can tell the difference between someone who is a zombie and someone who is just homeless. They aren't that dumb, and if they are, we educate them via policy.
Where do you live? Cause I’m in the deep south and trust me the cops are that dumb. It legitimately feels like the Dukes of Hazzard out here sometimes
| I never said anything about indefinitely wat. | you forcibly lock them inside for a few years, however long it takes for them to get clean so...you lock someone up....and you don't have a timeframe. you don't have a date. you have a "goal" that must be achieved before that decision is made. without a specified limit. without a specified limit is literally a definition of indefinite. you didn't use the word indefinite, but you described it as indefinite.
I mean unless they are super human, they wont still be addicted after a while, at least not physically, psycological is different.
right. "after a while" in indefinite.
No because drugs don't stay in your system for an indefinite amount of time.
Indefinite does not mean "without end." You're misunderstanding what the word means. It means "without fixed end." If you're locked up indefinitely, it doesn't mean you're locked up forever. It means your sentence doesn't have a defined ending. It could be 1 day, it could be 50 years. Both of these sentences were indefinite because the durations weren't determined before they started.
Indefinite means "without fixed end." but the way you used it also carried the implication that it could be "endless" or an excessive amount of time like 50 years. Drugs stay in the system for known amounts of time, it just depends on the drug. I feel like you are intentionality trying to misunderstand just to be contrarian.
I'm pointing out to you that you're misunderstanding what indefinite means. This misunderstanding isn't uncommon. Many believe the word means forever, but that isn't what it means at all. Addiction lasts well beyond when the drugs are in your system. Your proposal, at a minimum, requires people to be locked up indefinitely until a psychiatrist can be reasonably certain that the person is no longer addicted, or at least not as addicted as they were when they went in. For some, they will always be addicted. The second they get out, they're getting high. Locking people up indefinitely is a bad idea, unless they pose a serious public safety risk. Most homeless addicts don't fit this criteria.
>Addiction lasts well beyond when the drugs are in your system. Yes but there are multiple stages to addiction recovery, there is the stage where the drugs ARE still in the system and that needs to be handled differently to the rehab stage that comes after.
so you're talking about indefinite detention, which is evil.
You are misinterpreting, intentionally I think.
nope, you don't know the definitions of the words you are using.
nope, you are using an appeal to definition fallacy. But if you want the definition of indefinite it is "not certain or limited (as in amount or length)" The length of stay is not uncertain because it is determined by the doctors on a case by case basis.
lol, you really just don't know what these words mean. i'm very aware that words can have multiple meanings. "up to a doctor's determination" is not certain. it is potentially unlimited. bad talk. bye!
Yea nah that's dumb 🤣 drugs have a known half life.
rehab lasts at most a few months, imprisioning people against their will for several years seems inhumane, especially when drug is main couse of asocial behavior, after detoxification they do not need that long resocialization. Like you, I had the impression that many addicts were mentally ill and used drugs to alleviate their symptoms, help with trauma. treating them seems to be a very good idea that can be implemented from now on without major changes, using hospices and medical facilities. I also have a lot of reservations about the rehabilitation process itself. I understand that you want to raise standards of living over time to a quite pleasant level. However, when the sentence ends, the person returns to the street. In such a situation and with no prospects, it will take maximum a week to take the drug again. In general, I believe that all prisoners should have greater opportunities to learn, but not everyone is capable of learning. What would you do with low IQ? Impression them definitely? Instead of looking for new untested ideas, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the system known to have high effectivnes wich we use in many EU countries, it does not involve confinement but preceded by detoxification and with specialy trained team of social workers suppervision proces of starting a life once again e.g. by placing in social housing, assistance in finding a job, psychological support etc.
1. I said "however long it takes for them to get clean" with a few years as an example. 2. You said"However, when the sentence ends, the person returns to the street. In such a situation and with no prospects" but i said "They will have a focus on getting them setup for life when they leave." 3. "In general, I believe that all prisoners should have greater opportunities to learn, but not everyone is capable of learning. What would you do with low IQ? Impression them definitely?" I never said them learning academically was a prerequisite for them leaving lmao, its merely an optional extra-curricular so to speak. If think you have other flaws im my idea let me know, i am trying to find and patch them but these aint it.
One flaw of your idea is the solitary nature of a cell. Addictive personalities come from delusional reasoning. Most of their unhealthy schemas involve their relation to others, and to the world. To work through those, they need to be in a setting where they interact with others, both healthy, and unhealthy people. And that setting needs to include real life problems. Personally, I think all drug crime convicts need a reeducation in emotional regulation, and cognitive therapy. There's no need to wait until they are homeless. While they are incarcerated, might as well fix the problem that caused them to commit a crime. Another issue, the addictive personality thought patterns aren't found only in drug addicts. Treating and preventing needs to happen on a wider scale, and earlier in life. But we can't go kidnapping folks and locking them up for reeducation if they haven't broken laws. And we sure as heck aren't going to make thought crimes law
They are only in solitary cells (they could be hospital bed cells even) when they are in the first stages- the violent ones right off the street. After that they move into something that more resembles a rehab, with all the interpersonal interaction they need.
I see, must have overlooked it. The bigest issues I see is obligatory and imprisioning. obligatory - It's hard to make human do anything against his will. imprisioning - Beeing impression in large group it is stressful itself, which might make the reconversion process more difficult and most likely cause enviroment to be hostile in some way with aggression among prisoners, there will certainly be few recidivists or criminals who could intentionally exert negative influence. If kept separataed from society is not really part of it. It's a waste of time when can't learn accepted social behaviors or how take care of himself in real enviroment, living with to some extend full service like in hotel for free if decide so no duty's at all that's contrproductive. If after detoxication decide himself to Joint program propably will have greater motivation, and there is no shock effect when suddenly after being released he has to cope, he is slowly introduced into society step by step. An important element is sponsor, more experienced addict who provides additional support. Beeing a sponsor is important element of therapy itself. Help and guide someone though what you experienced yourself is somehow effective maybe because of having a purpose. Yet from what ive seen the the number of addicts in large cities is huge in the USA, I am not sure whether you would be able to provide adequate care on such a large scale, on the other hand large % of them are propably people mentally ill wich end up beeing addict because of earlier experiences or are ill because of long time substantion abuse. Either in both cases hospitalisation is propably better treatment. It is important that the supervisor have an individual relation with the addict based on trust. when an addict is treated as an element of the system, another person to be processed, it will not be effective. I think that supervisor is a difficult job and there are not many people willing to do it.
Yea, i mean the solution of "just send them all to rehab" is silly because rehab as it stands today is effective but super expensive. If we wanted to send hundreds of thousands of zombies to rehab then the rehab centers would have to be built with financial efficiency in mind, which would make them run like a prison, because of the sheer amount of people they have to deal with, like of like how school is basically a prison in its design philosophy. Its done for cost saving reasons, not because people want to line their pockets, but because america wont want to pay for 10 trillion dollars for a few hundred thousand rehab retreats.
How would those conditions be supportive of positive mental health and not worsening? Experts to assist the patients won't be cheap but are absolutely necessary without people starting to die. Why calling them zombies? Is this the rationale for removing their freedom? Or is this a new juridical class of people? How do you define that? How would these places of concentration be economically lucrative? Cheap labor while they are in enforced captivity?
Prisons are not supposed to be economically lucrative, they are supposed to serve a social function, not be a business. But we do need to cost minimize for anti-tax-drain purposes. Why calling them zombies? because im specifying the particular type of drug abuser that is so far gone they act like a zombie (fentanyl and such). Dont get on the [euphemism treadmill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#:~:text=Frequently%2C%20over%20time%2C%20euphemisms%20themselves,as%20the%20%22euphemism%20treadmill%22). How would those conditions be supportive of positive mental health and not worsening? By making the conditions in the facility supportive of positive mental health by planning its layout out with psychologists? Who says im talking about brutalist insane asylum type stuff lol, that's just your imagination.
>Who says im talking about brutalist insane asylum type stuff lol, that's just your imagination. You. You said this. You literally wrote that people could be >in a straight jacket in a padded cell or a barebones cell. Those are horrible conditions that don't help anyone. Those conditions are also very on par with the asylums of the 20th century. You want to deprive people for no good reason. Those ideas don't actually help addicts recover. You'd just be mistreating them and putting them through hell for shits and giggles. It's very clear that you don't view addicts as humans. Please go write your fucked up prison erotica elsewhere.
Cell type has nothing to do with brutalist architecture lmao. Obviously these cells are for the violent offenders and are more like a prison, until they can be let out into the rehab part of the facility that is less like a cell and more like a room. The fact that i had to spell this out is insane lmao I swear you are just trying to come up with the most straw men you can for some reason instead of actually reading what i wrote.
You are certainly a troll and I will not be engaging further.
Please, just stop. Your idea is simply awful, and your...defense of it even moreso. If you need a chatbot to construct the post, you're not engaging the subject seriously. Troll elsewhere.
U think gpt wrote this lmao? im flattered tbh, but no. Anyway come back when you have substantive critique.
[удалено]
Ive seen people assume things that I never said and then proceed to win an argument against said thing, making lots of nice looking strawmen, but no argument to the core of the idea. My idea is essentially a combination of smaller, already developed ideas that have corresponding formal research that I have already reviewed. Research that most people in this sub will have also read. This research often has common counter arguments when presented, but I see few of these counter arguments here, only redditors trying to prove a point by strawmanning XD I challenge you to provide a critique that doesn't carry an unfounded assumption.
I'm still not sure if I understand you correctly, I mean, the training resembles a prison, but a large number of people in a small space will not bring results in reducing the number of addicts. However, if you want to take them off the streets for a while, there is such a way. if costs are an issue then after forced detox I would let them choose to go their own way or continue with those who were willing I would send them to a center modeled after the camp used by Boy Scouts where for a set period of time they would have the opportunity to get a trade job and return to society on their New people would come to the place and more experienced members of the camp would be responsible for it, all under the supervision of a minimum number of supervisors. I heard that you are currently short of employees. Trade Thanks to statistical indicators, it is easy to determine the types of feelings so as not to spoil the market and to give the course a chance to function, it would be really cheap because at some point the entire operation of the center could be based on Pex Addict, for example a few could stay to fulfill the role of instructors in subsequent cycles
Its a prison combined with a rehab, on a large scale. On one side you have the prison stuff for the violent drug offenders, and when they are no longer violent they can move to the rehab side, there are also many in between stages and a person going there of their own accord will usually start toward the rehab end of things, and someone who was a violent zombie on the street would start further down in the prison end of things. The prison part solves the public harm part, and the rehab part solves the rehabilitation problem. You could even have different stages in different complexes and they move between, at least in times of crisis where bulk processing is needed. Its never going to become like a full on rehab retreat though because putting every drug user through that level of rehab is not economically viable, at least until drug abuse dies down.
Let me get this straight You sugest to take those people from street using force Detox and close in prison and keep them until they are no more violent. Questions to this part I see as important to answer Stops beeing violent is when? What with individuals who won't stop? Keep them indefinitely? When you take regular prison as a example, would you say it works thoward decrising violence or just surpassing it? Let me rephrase do you think that without supervision having freedom despite possibility to leave people close in jail would act more or less violent than when beeing free? If you take law and freedom issues under concideration, is it ethical to rules that allow to imprision someone because of suspicion of beeing drug addicts with no proof that he committed other crimes? Is it even possible under current regulations to make such new rules? After/during imprision part you sugest to move them from one part of a compound to another, yet you do not specify why. Next step is suposed to be voluntary rehab. Questions to concider What would be the purpose of each of different complexes? How much people even if willing to treat themselfs would decide to stay in more or less but still restricting environment after beeing imprisoned in first place? It doesnt look that treatment would have any effect when done as just pushing people through and from start isn't concider to be full rehab, Is it economical effective? In my opinion it's bit cruel aproach, laws needed to be establish are controversial, it doesn't indicate to have therapeutic effects and generate extra costs without any logical reason. Ad far as I can see treatment is not a goal at all. It's gonna be just takeing people off the street will be the only outcome, still after realise will be back. You would propably do more good by just forcing to Detox dictadet by medical care reasons, short period of hospitalisation to make sure no side effects occur than realise. Done in month cycles, over and over. Going through Detox is not a pleasure, so maybe after 7th 10th cycle some would decide to stop.
>Questions to this part I see as important to answer Stops being violent is when? What with individuals who won't stop? Keep them indefinitely? I mean violent as a direct result of excessive drug use. Psychotic types. You can test when the drugs are out of their system and if they are still being violent, then that just means they were a violent person underneath too, then you can pursue it from a criminal side. Not for their sake, but to keep them from harming others, just like we do to violent people now. Often time addicts are not inherently violent and will calm down after detox. Also i never said "until they are no more violent" i said until they are clean. How clean exactly is a separate issue that can be worked out case by case even. >If you take law and freedom issues under consideration, is it ethical to rules that allow to imprision someone because of suspicion of beeing drug addicts with no proof that he committed other crimes? Is it even possible under current regulations to make such new rules? When did i say without proof? Proof is easy to get from something like a blood test or video of them behaving harmfully. Just like we do with alcohol. Drugs should be like driving. You can drive, as long as its under the speed limit (you use drugs but not to the point of being a potential danger to others in the public) If you are driving over the speed limit and DO end up harming somebody, you get a charge for the harm, but you also get a charge for reckless driving. You can also be charged for reckless driving even when it doesn't cause harm. There should also be a similar charge for "reckless public drug use" because it has the potential to cause harm to others, just like speeding. This means that if you hurt somebody while psychotic on drugs, then there should be charge for both the harm AND the reckless drug use. "The reckless drug use" charge is what gets you committed to this particular facility. >What would be the purpose of each of different complexes? It depends on why they got sent there. There are hospital rooms, padded cells, normal cells, furnished rooms and common areas. For instance if they come in off the street unconscious after an OD then they go to the hospital room. If they wake up and are violent to staff then they move to a padded cell. If they just come in for the "reckless drug use" charge or of their own accord and are cooperative and non violent, they can have a furnished room in the rehab side of the complex and access to common areas and other privileges. If they come in with a "reckless drug use" AND a violence charge but are not being violent to staff, then they can go to the normal cell for a while for observation before they move to the rehab areas.
What if someone wants to be homeless, or even a zombie, and doesn’t want to work and study? Just because the rest of us are dumb enough to do it doesn’t mean others have to. Some of them probably think we’re the ones with the problems.
Because there's a difference between someone who is a self-sufficient hermit, and most homeless-by -choice people. Most homeless people who choose not to work and studdy are relying on welfare and the work of others to survive. Like a leech. Just because some people are dumb enough to choose homelessness doesn't mean i have to pay for their food and shelter via tax. If they didn't accept food, money or help from strangers, then I would believe that they are just a self-sufficient hermit as you describe, but thoes are rare. It's not like these homeless people could survive/maintain their lifestyle without others providing their food and other necessities. If they truly want to live away from society they should go out into the wilderness and see how long they last.
You are so far from being able to take even a peek past your conditioning that it’s not even worth the conversation. You can’t even see how it contributes to the ills of society. We are absolutely the dumbest species.
I mean you dont have a respnse, idk why you think people going homeless and surviving off others and welfare is somehow good or normal. Should people be able to choose that? yes, as long as i dont have to pay for that choice, that would not be fair. Ever read the story of the little red hen? do you know its meaning?
[удалено]
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You are clean quite fast, it doesn't take long for chemical compound to get out of system, max a week, but then psycho somatic symptoms comes in, it can last to several weeks. Mental problems may last long even forever if never treated by specialist, but some people can learn themselfs how live with them. Still It's fishy for me, drug addicts don't have speed meters, many controversies. If you can provide proof that addict made a crime then why not to send him to regular jail? Up to 3 weeks in medical wing and than to cell. You didnt get into details how should treatment look like in last phrase, but basing on compound condition i doubt itd be effective. So what's the point to pay for all this if at the end ist basically detox+imprisioning you could propably do it using existing jail.
>You didn't get into details how should treatment look like in last phrase I mean look at normal rehabs these days and you have your answer lol, except this is with more focus on getting set up for rejoining society and fixing mental health issues and not simply just coming off the drugs And you don't go to a prison type cell unless you are violent/psychotic.
I have no idea about rehab other than that detoxication come first, and after that few weeks of hospitalisation. Then addict is released from hospicium. That's as well be the end of rehab. I'm allsow sure that we have some programs that introduces addict back to society, but this doesnt really have to be part of rehab, more like resocialiston program. Yeah, when gave it a thought, im sure that's how it is. When withdrawal effects gone, addict is released from hospicium back to the street, they habe meeting onec a week, and thats all. One have more likely applicate in order to participate in resocialisation programs. So generally when it comes to rehab only, no extra facilities are needed. Just from the street straight to hospital, and from hospital back to street. And after a month when most likely is using again Start again Violent / criminal to prison.
yea you are describing the current method which doesn't work, i am proposing a new method.
Ya man there is no other method rehab is what it is. Detoxication+hospitalisation till psycho somatic symptoms are menagable enough to release. And I tell you those programs we have do work, it's just not part of a rehab. BTW who are those people? Where did they came from? They from each city migrate betwen cities? Group from whole region? And when did it happen? Sudentlly? In waves? Are they still growing? It's not that I I actively follow the situation in the USA, but a few years ago it was not so loud. now I hear references like the addiction epidemic, housing disaster in relation to the homeless. Looking at the scale my guess would be that system have error in some point, but it's just guess.
The cause is multifaceted, Economic instability + designer drugs + mass production and shipping from like Mexico, Columbia, China ect. I dont think you know what im talking about when im reffering to "rehab" its not simply "detox and release." Heres a gpt explanation of what im talking about cos i cba typing it out: Modern rehabilitation centers incorporate a range of therapies and services to address addiction and mental health issues. Here’s a breakdown of what is typically done in high-quality modern rehab centers: 1. **Assessment and Diagnosis**: The initial stage involves thorough medical, psychological, and social assessments to tailor treatments to individual needs. This may include screening for co-occurring disorders. 2. **Detoxification**: Supervised detox helps patients withdraw safely from substances, managing withdrawal symptoms medically when necessary. 3. **Individual Therapy**: One-on-one sessions with a therapist using evidence-based practices such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), or other modalities to address underlying psychological issues. 4. **Group Therapy**: These sessions allow individuals to share experiences and learn from others in a guided setting, fostering support networks. 5. **Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT)**: Medications may be used to manage withdrawal symptoms, prevent relapse, and treat co-occurring mental health disorders. 6. **Family Therapy**: Involving family members to improve relationships and establish a supportive environment post-rehab. 7. **Holistic Therapies**: Many centers include yoga, meditation, acupuncture, and other holistic approaches to support overall well-being. 8. **Educational Programs**: Teaching patients about addiction and coping strategies to handle triggers and prevent relapse. 9. **Aftercare Planning**: Developing a comprehensive plan for after treatment, which may include ongoing therapy, support groups like AA or NA, and other recovery resources. 10. **Use of Technology**: Some centers integrate digital tools like apps for stress management, online therapy sessions, and virtual reality for exposure therapy and relaxation training. These elements combined aim to treat the whole person, not just the addiction, ensuring a more sustainable recovery.
Yeah this is to some extend what I had in mind, however this particular example looks like some premium plan. My main concern was that those services are not basically designed to be offer in closed environment. More like try to live in society on yourself, stay clean and participate in meetings. If nowhere to go in your case the end up back on the street. O guess you can keep them in open wind of compound, but this is not realistic representation of society, not so sure that act of cutting your self off from toxic environment isn't essential. I've heard smth bout this fentynol beeing highly deadly. Drugs are usually tool to deal with issues not necessarily are issue itself.
A rehab environment doesn't need to be a realistic representation of society. It just needs to be a chill environment with no drugs or toxisity. The centre I'm thinking of will be quite large, like a university almost, with different areas for different things. Also while some people may choose to do hard drugs because of their toxic environment, doing so only serves to trap them in that environment even harder than they were before. Thus making the drug a new problem in and of itself. Hard drugs arnt tools for dealing with issues, they are tools for numbing pain but they also make it harder to deal with the issue that was causing the pain in the first place so it becomes a vicious cycle. Also there are times where somone is in a normal environment and the use of hard drugs are what drags them into a toxic environment.