Jack, where did you learn to suck cock the way you do?

Oh, and Jack, someone who is driving drunk that hasn't been in an accident get arrested because they represent a danger. So when you come up for air before you swallow another load think about that.

You still haven't demonstrated that the group you wish to target "represent a danger".

Yes I have Putin, but of course you never make logical claims or accept any evidence that contradicts your point of view. You're transparent as always.

The drunk driver is breaking the law. The paranoid schizophrenic is not. It is against the law to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Hence the term DUI - Driving Under the Influence or DWI - Driving While Intoxicated. There is no law called LWMI (Living While Mentally Ill) and any attempt to pass a law like that would be declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Epic. Fucking Fail.

By the way, involuntary institutionalization is against the law as well unless a person has been found by a court of law to be a threat to themselves or others. So trying to automatically institutionalize a group of people without reviewing each and every individual case is unconstitutional as well.

Draugnnar, So if you have no problem making drunk driving against the law because they pose a danger then you have no logical grounds to make it against a law for an unmedicated paranoid schizo to resist institutionalization because they represent a danger as well. The exact same principle is at work. The drunk driver poses a potential threat and faces punishment, a fine etc. The paranoid schizo who refuses to medicate should face institutionalization as I mentioned in a previous post you did not respond to so I will repost it here.

We need a law that would automatically subject anyone with paranoid schizo to immediate institutionalization unless they began taking a regime of prescribed medicate. This law would render your previous ADA superfluous. The law would allow paranoid schizos out if they were properly medicated and signed an agreement allowing random drug tests and warrantless searches of their domiciles just like a parolee. They would have to voluntarily wave their 4th amendment rights to avoid institutionalization in the same manner as a felon parole.
If they quit taking their meds and fail a drug test they get institutionalized. If you find them planning mass murder they get institutionalized. New law easily deals with the problem.

The reason they face this regime is the same as a drunk driver, the unmedicated paranoid schizo poses an imminent danger of violence to themselves or others. If you dispute this please post your article or evidence that claims that unmedicated paranoid schizos do not pose a threat because I'm posted numerous links showing the paranoid schizo of the mass murderers.

Various quotes-

" it is my contention that individuals with schizophrenia are no more dangerous than the average person except when they are actively psychotic, unmedicated, unable to recognize that they are ill and are using drugs and alcohol."

"Can an unmedicated Psz be a good parent? The short answer is no. She'll more than likely be a danger to herself and to her potential child."

"Paranoid schizophrenic Jeffrey Arenburg, who has spent nearly two years in a U. S. prison, is returning to Canada and citizens can only hope he's on his meds.
Arenburg, suffering from delusions and hearing voices in his head, shot to death popular CJOH sportscaster Brian Smith in August 1995."

By the way there is already a law like this on the books FYI.

The New York Times, June 1, 2010, ran a short article about a law called Kendra's Law. It was written in response to the murder of Kendra Webale, a 32 year old woman who was pushed to her death in front of an on coming subway train. This tragedy occurred eleven years ago. The man who pushed her to her death was an unmedicated man who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. Essentially, the law requires that those with paranoid schizophrenia who have shown a pattern of violence when unmedicated be medicated whether they want to or not. It also requires that they be followed closely by mental health workers.

You are wrong Draugnar. There are laws in every state for involuntary commitment.
Here are some. Alabama-LA. CODE § 22-52-10.4

(a). A respondent may be committed to inpatient treatment if the probate court finds, based upon clear and convincing evidence that:

(i) the respondent is mentally ill;

(ii) as a result of the mental illness the respondent poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to self and/or others;

(iii) the respondent will, if not treated, continue to suffer mental distress and will continue to experience deterioration of the ability to function independently; and

(iv) the respondent is unable to make a rational and informed decision as to whether or not treatment for mental illness would be desirable.

(b) If the probate judge finds that no treatment is presently available for the respondent's mental illness, but that confinement is necessary to prevent the respondent from causing substantial harm to himself or to others, the order committing the respondent shall provide that, should treatment for the respondent's mental illness become available at any time during the period of the respondent's confinement, such treatment shall be made available to him immediately.

For outpatient:

ALA. CODE § 22-52-10.2. A respondent may be committed to outpatient treatment if the probate court finds, based upon clear and convincing evidence that:

(i) the respondent is mentally ill;

(ii) as a result of the mental illness the respondent will, if not treated, continue to suffer mental distress and will continue to experience deterioration of the ability to function independently; and

(iii) the respondent is unable to make a rational and informed decision as to whether or not treatment for mental illness would be desirable.'

California-For both inpatient and outpatient:

CALIF. WELF. & INST. CODE § 5250. If a person is detained for 72 hours under the provisions of Article 1 (commencing with Section 5150), or under court order for evaluation pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) or Article 3 (commencing with Section 5225) and has received an evaluation, he or she may be certified for not more than 14 days of intensive treatment related to the mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism, under the following conditions:

(a) The professional staff of the agency or facility providing evaluation services has analyzed the person's condition and has found the person is, as a result of mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism, a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled.

(b) The facility providing intensive treatment is designated by the county to provide intensive treatment, and agrees to admit the person. No facility shall be designated to provide intensive treatment unless it complies with the certification review hearing required by this article. The procedures shall be described in the county Short-Doyle plan as required by Section 5651.3.

(c) The person has been advised of the need for, but has not been willing or able to accept, treatment on a voluntary basis.

(d)

(1) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (h) of Section 5008, a person is not "gravely disabled" if that person can survive safely without involuntary detention with the help of responsible family, friends, or others who are both willing and able to help provide for the person's basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter.

(2) However, unless they specifically indicate in writing their willingness and ability to help, family, friends, or others shall not be considered willing or able to provide this help.

(3) The purpose of this subdivision is to avoid the necessity for, and the harmful effects of, requiring family, friends, and others to publicly state, and requiring the certification review officer to publicly find, that no one is willing or able to assist the mentally disordered person in providing for the person's basic needs for food, clothing, or shelter."

CALIF. WELF. & INST. CODE § 5008(h)(1) "gravely disabled" means either of the following:

(A) A condition in which a person, as a result of a mental disorder, is unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter.

(B) A condition in which a person, has been found mentally incompetent under Section 1370 of the Penal Code and all of the following facts exist:

(i) The indictment or information pending against the defendant at the time of commitment charges a felony involving death, great bodily harm, or a serious threat to the physical well-being of another person.

(ii) The indictment or information has not been dismissed.

(iii) As a result of mental disorder, the person is unable to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings taken against him or her and to assist counsel in the conduct of his or her defense in a rational manner.

For outpatient via assisted outpatient treatment*

5346. (a) In any county in which services are available as provided in Section 5348, a court may order a person who is the subject
of a petition filed pursuant to this section to obtain assisted outpatient treatment if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence,
that the facts stated in the verified petition filed in accordance with this section are true and establish that all of the requisite criteria
set forth in this section are met, including, but not limited to, each of the following:
(1) The person is 18 years of age or older.
(2) The person is suffering from a mental illness as defined in paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 5600.3.
(3) There has been a clinical determination that the person is unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision.
(4) The person has a history of lack of compliance with treatment for his or her mental illness, in that at least one of the following
is true:
(A) The person's mental illness has, at least twice within the last 36 months, been a substantial factor in necessitating
hospitalization, or receipt of services in a forensic or other mental health unit of a state correctional facility or local correctional
facility, not including any period during which the person was hospitalized or incarcerated immediately preceding the filing of
the petition.
(B) The person's mental illness has resulted in one or more acts of serious and violent behavior toward himself or herself or another,
or threats, or attempts to cause serious physical harm to himself or herself or another within the last 48 months, not including
any period in which the person was hospitalized or incarcerated immediately preceding the filing of the petition.
(5) The person has been offered an opportunity to participate in a treatment plan by the director of the local mental health
department, or his or her designee, provided the treatment plan includes all of the services described in Section 5348, and the
person continues to fail to engage in treatment.
(6) The person's condition is substantially deteriorating.
(7) Participation in the assisted outpatient treatment program would be the least restrictive placement necessary to ensure the
person's recovery and stability.
(8) In view of the person's treatment history and current behavior, the person is in need of assisted outpatient treatment in order to
prevent a relapse or deterioration that would be likely to result in grave disability or serious harm to himself or herself, or to
others, as defined in Section 5150.
(9) It is likely that the person will benefit from assisted outpatient treatment.
* Standard only applies in counties that have adopted provisions established by Assembly Bill 1421 (2002) (a.k.a. Laura’s Law); otherwise mandated outpatient treatment only permitted via conservatorship process.]

New York-New York

For inpatient:

60-day involuntary treatment based on medical certification:

N.Y. MENTAL HYG. LAW § 9.05(b) A certificate, as required by this article, must show that the person is mentally ill . . . [and] the condition of the person examined is such that he needs involuntary care and treatment in a hospital . . . .

N.Y. MENTAL HYG. LAW § 9.37(a) The director of a hospital, upon application by a director of community services or an examining physician duly designated by him or her, may receive and care for in such hospital as a patient any person who, in the opinion of the director of community services or the director's designee, has a mental illness for which immediate inpatient care and treatment in a hospital is appropriate and which is likely to result in serious harm to himself or herself or others.

If a hearing on the patient's need for treatment during the 60-day involuntary treatment:

N.Y. MENTAL HYG. LAW § 9.31(c). If it be determined [by the court] that the patient is in need of retention, the court shall deny the application for the patient's release. If it be determined that the patient is not mentally ill or not in need of retention, the court shall order the release of the patient.

N.Y. MENTAL HYG. LAW § 9.01. As used in this article: "in need of care and treatment" means that a person has a mental illness for which in-patient care and treatment in a hospital is appropriate. "in need of involuntary care and treatment" means that a person has a mental illness for which care and treatment as a patient in a hospital is essential to such person's welfare and whose judgment is so impaired that he is unable to understand the need for such care and treatment.

N.Y. MENTAL HYG. LAW § 9.01. "need for retention" means that a person who has been admitted to a hospital pursuant to this article is in need of involuntary care and treatment in a hospital for a further period.

N.Y. MENTAL HYG. LAW § 9.01. "likelihood to result in serious harm" or "likely to result in serious harm" means

(1) a substantial risk of physical harm to the person as manifested by threats of or attempts at suicide or serious bodily harm or other conduct demonstrating that the person is dangerous to himself or herself, or

(2) a substantial risk of physical harm to other persons as manifested by homicidal or other violent behavior by which others are placed in reasonable fear of serious physical harm.

Case Law. Although not explicitly in the state’s code, a strong majority of the New York courts addressing the issue have held that in order to retain a patient for involuntary psychiatric care under New York law a hospital must establish that the patient is (1) mentally ill; (2) in need of continued, supervised care and treatment; and (3) that the patient poses a substantial threat of physical harm to himself and/or others. E.g., Anonymous v. Carmichael, 727 N.Y.S.2 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

For outpatient:

N.Y. MENTAL HYG. LAW § 9.60(C). Criteria for Assisted Outpatient Treatment. A patient may be ordered to obtain assisted outpatient treatment if the court finds that:

(1) The patient is eighteen years of age or older; and

(2) The patient is suffering from a mental illness; and

(3) The patient is unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision, based on a clinical determination; and

(4) The patient has a history of lack of compliance with treatment for mental illness that has:

(I) At least twice within the last thirty-six months been a significant factor in necessitating hospitalization in a hospital, or receipt of services in a forensic or other mental health unit of a correctional facility, not including any period during which the person was hospitalized or incarcerated immediately preceding the filing of the petition or;

(II) Resulted in one or more acts of serious violent behavior toward self or others or threats of, or attempts at, serious physical harm to self or others within the last forty-eight months, not including any period in which the person was hospitalized or incarcerated immediately preceding the filing of the petition; and

(5) The patient is, as a result of his or her mental illness, unlikely to voluntarily participate in the recommended treatment pursuant to the treatment plan; and

(6) In view of the patient's treatment history and current behavior, the patient is in need of assisted outpatient treatment in order to prevent a relapse or deterioration which would be likely to result in serious harm to the patient or others as defined in section 9.01 of this article; and

(7) It is likely that the patient will benefit from assisted outpatient treatment; and

(8) If the patient has executed a health care proxy as defined in article 29-C of the Public Health Law, that any directions included in such proxy shall be taken into account by the court in determining the written treatment plan.

Drunk driving is an action and is actual two actions (drinking and driving) and neither is against the law individually. Only together is it against the law. Not taking medication is inaction. So you want to arrest someone for *not * doing something. Yes I have a problem with that and your *original* argument was *all* PS sufferers should be subject to involuntary search and seizure. If you can show they are willfully not taking their meds, then I might consider it. But you have no right to search there property if you have no evidence of them not taking their meds and that is what you have proposed repeatedly.

And you need to reread what I wrote. I said without a court order it was against the law to involuntarily institutionalize... Guess what? Laws on the books are enforced by courts so that *confirms* what I said and proves me *right* now doesn't it moron?

Should emac comes back to the aide of sane and socially responsible individual, someone let me know. I have muted him until then.

"Essentially, the law requires that those with paranoid schizophrenia who have shown a pattern of violence when unmedicated be medicated whether they want to or not."

You have ignored a key difference between this and your proposed law - exhibiting a pattern of violence. Your law simply assumes all are violent, when in fact most are not.

Compared to other mental disorders, paranoid schizophrenics are less violent. There is a perfectly good explanation of this. Many paranoid schizophrenics exhibit negative symptoms such as social withdrawal.

"Monahan & Applebaum (2000), as part of the MacArthur Risk Assessment Study, estimated the prevalence of community violence in discharged patients by diagnosis. Violence was measured from multiple sources every 10 weeks for a year. Of the 17% of patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, 9% were violent in the first 20 weeks after discharge. This compares with a violence prevalence of 19% for depression, 15% for bipolar disorder, 17.2% for other psychotic disorders, 29% for substance misuse disorders and 25% for personality disorder"

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-4130-7_2

"" it is my contention that individuals with schizophrenia are no more dangerous than the average person except when they are actively psychotic, unmedicated, unable to recognize that they are ill and are using drugs and alcohol.""

Use of drugs & alcohol is a big contributing factor to violence in paranoid schizophrenics. But once again your law doesn't take this into account.

What the use talking to idiots.