So if marijuana was legalised there would be no opioid crisis?

That is Unconventional Wisdom?

(Is that legalised marijuana Future (#1) at 37+% THC or Cheech and Chong's "Up in Smoke" street pot at 3-4%?)

(09-04-2020 05:16 PM)ruowls Wrote:  What are the two things with no redeeming qualities?
Tobacco and lawyers.

That comment is far too harsh, sir!
To paraphrase Rudyard Kipling:
"And a lawyer is only a lawyer, but a good Cigar is a Smoke."

(09-07-2020 07:54 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 05:16 PM)ruowls Wrote:  What are the two things with no redeeming qualities?
Tobacco and lawyers.

That comment is far too harsh, sir!
To paraphrase Rudyard Kipling:
"And a lawyer is only a lawyer, but a good Cigar is a Smoke."

One of my law professors was fond of pointing out that when lawyers were writing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, doctors were bleeding people with leeches.

(09-08-2020 03:13 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 07:54 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 05:16 PM)ruowls Wrote:  What are the two things with no redeeming qualities?
Tobacco and lawyers.

That comment is far too harsh, sir!
To paraphrase Rudyard Kipling:
"And a lawyer is only a lawyer, but a good Cigar is a Smoke."

One of my law professors was fond of pointing out that when lawyers were writing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, doctors were bleeding people with leeches.

That's awesome!

(09-08-2020 03:13 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 07:54 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 05:16 PM)ruowls Wrote:  What are the two things with no redeeming qualities?
Tobacco and lawyers.

That comment is far too harsh, sir!
To paraphrase Rudyard Kipling:
"And a lawyer is only a lawyer, but a good Cigar is a Smoke."

One of my law professors was fond of pointing out that when lawyers were writing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, doctors were bleeding people with leeches.

But that argument could be turned around as a statement of how much further medicine has come since then than has law.

Also, who are more likely to be known as leeches in 2020?

(09-08-2020 03:13 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 07:54 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 05:16 PM)ruowls Wrote:  What are the two things with no redeeming qualities?
Tobacco and lawyers.

That comment is far too harsh, sir!
To paraphrase Rudyard Kipling:
"And a lawyer is only a lawyer, but a good Cigar is a Smoke."

One of my law professors was fond of pointing out that when lawyers were writing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, doctors were bleeding people with leeches.

So the medical experts have always given poor advice.

(09-08-2020 05:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 03:13 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 07:54 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 05:16 PM)ruowls Wrote:  What are the two things with no redeeming qualities?
Tobacco and lawyers.

That comment is far too harsh, sir!
To paraphrase Rudyard Kipling:
"And a lawyer is only a lawyer, but a good Cigar is a Smoke."

One of my law professors was fond of pointing out that when lawyers were writing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, doctors were bleeding people with leeches.

But that argument could be turned around as a statement of how much further medicine has come since then than has law.

But of course!
Medicine, being a science, ought to get better over time.
It is sufficient for law, being human relationships, not to get worse. :)

Not sure how this will be twisted against me, but figured it was super relevant to a number of conversations.

Quote: Since its launch June 1, the STAR van has responded to more than 350 calls, replacing police in matters that don’t threaten public safety and are often connected to unmet mental or physical needs. The goal is to connect people who pose no danger with services and resources while freeing up police to respond to other calls. The team, which is not armed, has not called police for backup, Sailon said.

https://www.denverpost.com/2020/09/06/de...th-police/

Not meaningfully different from what I suggested. Note that it had been 'in the works' for years, and then conveniently gets put in place, 4 days after George Floyd.... though it isn't clear that they would have been called in his case. As I've repeatedly said, the money and power seems to be in the argument, not in the solution. I'm glad to see SOMEWHERE is trying to put positive actions behind the misguided outrage.

(09-09-2020 02:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Not meaningfully different from what I suggested. Note that it had been 'in the works' for years, and then conveniently gets put in place, 4 days after George Floyd.... though it isn't clear that they would have been called in his case. As I've repeatedly said, the money and power seems to be in the argument, not in the solution. I'm glad to see SOMEWHERE is trying to put positive actions behind the misguided outrage.

Regarding your suggestion - that’s correct. A lot of people outside of this board have suggested similar programs. We’ve seen some posters on here push back about the feasibility of this type of program, and now there is some pudding to look in for the proof.

Your response seems fairly confrontational to my post - not sure why it is.

1. When I try the link, it tells me I have reached my limit, although it is the first time I have tried this paper.

2. Ham did make a long case asking for mental health people to respond to some situations rather than cops.

3. I don't see Ham's response as being confrontational toward Lad.

4. I do see lad's response as being negative toward Ham, probably because of #3.

5. I could not see the date of the article, but assuming 90 days since inception, isn't that about 4 calls a day?

(09-09-2020 02:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Regarding your suggestion - that’s correct. A lot of people outside of this board have suggested similar programs. We’ve seen some posters on here push back about the feasibility of this type of program, and now there is some pudding to look in for the proof.

Your response seems fairly confrontational to my post - not sure why it is.

Probably because you clearly expected it, so you see it, even if its not there?

(09-09-2020 08:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-09-2020 02:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Regarding your suggestion - that’s correct. A lot of people outside of this board have suggested similar programs. We’ve seen some posters on here push back about the feasibility of this type of program, and now there is some pudding to look in for the proof.

Your response seems fairly confrontational to my post - not sure why it is.

Probably because you clearly expected it, so you see it, even if its not there?

Saying the program wasn’t meaningfully different implies I was suggesting it was different from what you have talked about. I was providing support for your position by providing evidence that a program like what you’ve talked about repeatedly.

(09-10-2020 05:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Saying the program wasn’t meaningfully different implies I was suggesting it was different from what you have talked about.

Only if this is what you're looking for, as you specifically said you were.

If instead you just read what I wrote and don't expect it to be 'twisted against you', then it simply says that they're doing essentially what I suggested.... and although IMO they're 'years' later than they should be (because its such a political hot button) but at least somebody somewhere is doing something meaningful rather than just 'raging'.

That's what I said; That's what I meant. Period.

Funny Lad... You say you posted this because it provides support to my position... and yet you feel 'confronted' when I note that it supports my position?

Quite honestly, my pointing that out was actually intended more for people like OO, Tanq and Numbers who are skeptical of these ideas. As I recall, you said almost nothing about it. I recall being somewhat disappointed (and I think I said so) that you didn't engage in that conversation. 93 did a little bit.

So quite literally, nothing was said or implied about you.

(09-10-2020 08:51 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-10-2020 05:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Saying the program wasn’t meaningfully different implies I was suggesting it was different from what you have talked about.

Only if this is what you're looking for, as you specifically said you were.

If instead you just read what I wrote and don't expect it to be 'twisted against you', then it simply says that they're doing essentially what I suggested.... and although IMO they're 'years' later than they should be (because its such a political hot button) but at least somebody somewhere is doing something meaningful rather than just 'raging'.

That's what I said; That's what I meant. Period.

Funny Lad... You say you posted this because it provides support to my position... and yet you feel 'confronted' when I note that it supports my position?

Quite honestly, my pointing that out was actually intended more for people like OO, Tanq and Numbers who are skeptical of these ideas. As I recall, you said almost nothing about it. I recall being somewhat disappointed (and I think I said so) that you didn't engage in that conversation. 93 did a little bit.

So quite literally, nothing was said or implied about you.

Skeptical? Yes.

Opposed? Maybe. It depends on the funding. If it is to be funded by taking funds from the cops, I would likely oppose that.

I was wondering if something like this is employed anywhere in the world. Who do people in Sweden, Germany, England, Australia, Brazil call when Uncle Joe is off his meds and acting crazy?

I also don't see how this would have made any difference in the incidents that people are currently rioting about. Police were called in Minnesota because of a counterfeit bill. In the Blake incident, they were called for a trespasser. In the Prude incident, they were called on a missing person. Would these people have been sent instead of cops on those calls?

so it seems to be an solution that does not address the problems.

(09-10-2020 09:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Skeptical? Yes.

Nothing wrong with this. Who knows. What I initially said is that i was trying to take a 21st century approach to the issues, and it seems that addiction, mental health, desperation and greed are broad categories of causes of crime.

Addiction: we need to do a better job of ending the cycle for addicts. They take what seems to be a massive amount of police and crime resources. I think this can be addressed through changes to policing and prosecuting.

Mental health: similar to the above. All is unpredictable, not all is dangerous.

Desperation: this needs to be addressed by politicians... mostly by ending the politically driven segregation of minorities. It's done to give those people 'power', and we'd need to find a different way to respect minority rights the way the EC protects small states from the power of large ones. The courts do this on a large scale, but there needs to be smaller protections as well. I'm open to hear solutions... but what we're doing is making the problem for minorities worse, not better.

Greed: this is human nature. I'll tell you one thing though, socialism or any version thereof whereby taxes are close to 100% above some level doesn't stop greed... it merely stops legal means of securing greater wealth. The greedy will still get 'more'.

If you have an opportunity to earn 100mm legally but only get to keep say $10mm, or you can earn 20mm illegally/by buying protection or just taking your idea to a country with less opportunity etc... Lots of people will do that.

Quote:Opposed? Maybe. It depends on the funding. If it is to be funded by taking funds from the cops, I would likely oppose that.

It's not a binary question to me. In the example given, it's not clear if the new programs (outside of one-time start-up costs) costs more or less than the 'old' way.. and its not clear if it is more effective... i.e. are we including the cost to society and property values of petty criminals or incarceration etc... I wouldn't take money away from cops unless i was also taking responsibilities away from them.

Quote:I was wondering if something like this is employed anywhere in the world. Who do people in Sweden, Germany, England, Australia, Brazil call when Uncle Joe is off his meds and acting crazy?

Most UK police aren't armed. I strongly suspect that when Uncle Joe is off his meds, the first responders are unarmed. I can't speak to the other places... and only anecdotally about this place. I've been there, but didn't look to see who responded to crimes.

Quote:I also don't see how this would have made any difference in the incidents that people are currently rioting about. Police were called in Minnesota because of a counterfeit bill. In the Blake incident, they were called for a trespasser. In the Prude incident, they were called on a missing person. Would these people have been sent instead of cops on those calls?

so it seems to be an solution that does not address the problems.

This was why I spoke about 'outrage' and also 'it wasn't clear they'd be called' in the Floyd case. It's not constructive and often gives false reports of the facts in order to support the 'problem'. If the problem is real, you don't need to 'make up' examples.

911 dispatches police based on what is reported. A counterfeit bill likely gets one cop. A counterfeit bill with a guy acting weird may get 2-3. Add a report of a gun in there and you get 6+.

My suggestion is that rather than sending in all 'swiss-army knife' cops trained in everything, that we increase specialization... and still send the appropriate response based on the situation.

This is already being done where you have specialized 'hostage negotiators' or other skill sets, and of course there are all sorts of 'social workers' within the whole system... and of course I'm generally talking about larger places. In small towns, as you said... it's more of... 'c'mon George... what are Linda and the kids going to think?'

(09-10-2020 11:07 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-10-2020 09:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Skeptical? Yes.

Nothing wrong with this. Who knows. What I initially said is that i was trying to take a 21st century approach to the issues, and it seems that addiction, mental health, desperation and greed are broad categories of causes of crime.

Addiction: we need to do a better job of ending the cycle for addicts. They take what seems to be a massive amount of police and crime resources. I think this can be addressed through changes to policing and prosecuting.

Agree. I support a change in drug policy

Mental health: similar to the above. All is unpredictable, not all is dangerous.

This is one point of difference. As the elder brother and caretaker of a delusional woman, I had cause to interact with the police more than once. When you get a call from a woman reporting a rapist in her apartment, who do you send? When you get 100 calls on 200 days, it becomes clear that probably cops are not needed. The shift sergeant started taking her calls himself, so he would not waste the valuable time of actual cops who were needed for real crimes. I presume under your system, the 911 operators would be notified at some point, next time you get a call about a rapist from Jane Smith, don't send cops send mental health experts. In this particular case, since my sister was herself a psychotherapist, the MHE would likely be treated with disdain and dismissal, as I am when she calls me and I don't run over immediately.

In any case, this is the situation where I don't know how and when you rsystem will know who to dispatch -cops or counselors. Just because the reported rapist was imaginary the first 99 times doesn't mena it is imaginary this time.

Desperation: this needs to be addressed by politicians... mostly by ending the politically driven segregation of minorities. It's done to give those people 'power', and we'd need to find a different way to respect minority rights the way the EC protects small states from the power of large ones. The courts do this on a large scale, but there needs to be smaller protections as well. I'm open to hear solutions... but what we're doing is making the problem for minorities worse, not better.

Greed: this is human nature. I'll tell you one thing though, socialism or any version thereof whereby taxes are close to 100% above some level doesn't stop greed... it merely stops legal means of securing greater wealth. The greedy will still get 'more'.

If you have an opportunity to earn 100mm legally but only get to keep say $10mm, or you can earn 20mm illegally/by buying protection or just taking your idea to a country with less opportunity etc... Lots of people will do that.

Quote:Opposed? Maybe. It depends on the funding. If it is to be funded by taking funds from the cops, I would likely oppose that.

It's not a binary question to me. In the example given, it's not clear if the new programs (outside of one-time start-up costs) costs more or less than the 'old' way.. and its not clear if it is more effective... i.e. are we including the cost to society and property values of petty criminals or incarceration etc... I wouldn't take money away from cops unless i was also taking responsibilities away from them.

Reasonable, but the report we are reference seems t have taken away about 4-6 calls a day city wide.

Quote:I was wondering if something like this is employed anywhere in the world. Who do people in Sweden, Germany, England, Australia, Brazil call when Uncle Joe is off his meds and acting crazy?

Most UK police aren't armed. I strongly suspect that when Uncle Joe is off his meds, the first responders are unarmed. I can't speak to the other places... and only anecdotally about this place. I've been there, but didn't look to see who responded to crimes.

But the UK police are still police, with power to arrest and subdue. Would your mental health experts have the power to take people into custody and reman them somewhere? What is they had to wrestle the person to the ground and restrain them? Do they call for the caps and wait in their car for the muscle to arrive? What is the out of control crazy guy is hurting people or themselves while we wait?

Quote:I also don't see how this would have made any difference in the incidents that people are currently rioting about. Police were called in Minnesota because of a counterfeit bill. In the Blake incident, they were called for a trespasser. In the Prude incident, they were called on a missing person. Would these people have been sent instead of cops on those calls?

so it seems to be an solution that does not address the problems.

This was why I spoke about 'outrage' and also 'it wasn't clear they'd be called' in the Floyd case. It's not constructive and often gives false reports of the facts in order to support the 'problem'. If the problem is real, you don't need to 'make up' examples.

911 dispatches police based on what is reported. A counterfeit bill likely gets one cop. A counterfeit bill with a guy acting weird may get 2-3. Add a report of a gun in there and you get 6+.

My suggestion is that rather than sending in all 'swiss-army knife' cops trained in everything, that we increase specialization... and still send the appropriate response based on the situation.


wouldn't this be akin to staffing ERs with specialists rather than generalists? Your medical experience may be of help here. I am not adverse to the idea of specialists, but doesn't that imply a need for another type of specialist - the one who decides which specialty is needed for each call?

This is already being done where you have specialized 'hostage negotiators' or other skill sets, and of course there are all sorts of 'social workers' within the whole system... and of course I'm generally talking about larger places. In small towns, as you said... it's more of... 'c'mon George... what are Linda and the kids going to think?'

OO

I've edited not to change anything you said, but merely to shorten and make more clear my responses

(09-10-2020 01:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  [quote='Hambone10' pid='16985637' dateline='1599754079']

Mental health: similar to the above. All is unpredictable, not all is dangerous.



In any case, this is the situation where I don't know how and when you rsystem will know who to dispatch -cops or counselors. Just because the reported rapist was imaginary the first 99 times doesn't mena it is imaginary this time.

I agree... If you don't know, you send a cop. If its a rapist/attacker there at the time, you're probably sending more than 1, probably more than 3. Once they arrive and see what's going on, the counselor stays and everyone else (maybe except one) goes.

Quote:It's not a binary question to me. In the example given, it's not clear if the new programs (outside of one-time start-up costs) costs more or less than the 'old' way.. and its not clear if it is more effective... i.e. are we including the cost to society and property values of petty criminals or incarceration etc... I wouldn't take money away from cops unless i was also taking responsibilities away from them.
[quote]
Reasonable, but the report we are reference seems t have taken away about 4-6 calls a day city wide.

[/quote]
Understood... its still early... it's not just about the 4-6 calls though, it's about getting better outcomes. That can include everything from public perception to drops in crime rates to drops in officer related deaths (including officers) or reductions in recidivism or drug use etc. That's why I'm frustrated at the delays. Things that take years to 'study' before anything is put in place mean they often span elections... with purpose. They are often forgotten or at least turned over to people who don't want to fix them/aren't responsible for them so they don't support them.

Quote:[quote]

Most UK police aren't armed. I strongly suspect that when Uncle Joe is off his meds, the first responders are unarmed. I can't speak to the other places... and only anecdotally about this place. I've been there, but didn't look to see who responded to crimes.


[quote]
But the UK police are still police, with power to arrest and subdue. Would your mental health experts have the power to take people into custody and reman them somewhere? What is they had to wrestle the person to the ground and restrain them? Do they call for the caps and wait in their car for the muscle to arrive? What is the out of control crazy guy is hurting people or themselves while we wait?

[/quote]

That's why I talked early on about 'defunding police' to anyone that was really serious about it really only meant redefinining roles. I'm not even engaging those who want to eliminate police. That's a non-starter.

I'd say they would have powers similar to UK police with far more emphasis than their US peers on de-escalating and far less on subduing. Let me use your own example... I may get details wrong but it doesn't matter... I think you'd call and say, my sister is out of control again... can you send someone... they'd ask if she was armed or had a history of physical aggression... if you say yes, they send a cop and the counselor. If no, MAYBE they send the counselor alone, who assesses the situation and makes the call to engage or to stay back and wait. If you don't know (maybe its a crazy neighbor instead of your sister) then they send both. As I said, when in doubt, send the cop.... I'm just suggesting that if you suspect its mental health that you include a mental health specialist.

Let me give an example... One of the issues we've been facing in healthcare finance is an inability to meet government requirements regarding 'quality' which often includes simple things like people 65+ getting osteoporosis screening. In our Behavioral Health group, it was suggested that insurers call members to remind them to follow up or keep their appointments or take their meds... and BH experts noted that if a random person called or god forbid, sent a text to someone with some version of paranoia/anxiety telling them to get to the doctor, it could trigger an event. Depending on the patient, the call/text/letter needed to come from their providers office... someone they knew and associated with their issues and not some random person. These were highly trained people, but not BH experts. That's how I see cops. They usually don't REALLY know how to manage people having events or episodes... even with some training and good intentions.

Quote:wouldn't this be akin to staffing ERs with specialists rather than generalists? Your medical experience may be of help here. I am not adverse to the idea of specialists, but doesn't that imply a need for another type of specialist - the one who decides which specialty is needed for each call?

I think that's already happening... and its some combination of 911, police dispatch and officers on the scene providing additional information continuously so as to tailor the response.... same in an ER where you have 911/the ambulance/ the triage nurse/the NP/PA and then the MD.

there are lots of differences between what happens in an ER and what happens with police and I don't want to get too far off into the weeds.... but you bring up part of my original point.

The mantra of a doctor is 'first, do no harm'. An ER doc would generally hold a patient or keep them stable and wait on the expert... unless they absolutely had to do something right then... and even then, it would rarely be a 'surprise'... hey doc... multiple GSW on the way in... I've called the surgeon on call and they're on the way. OR being prepped, OR nurses ready to take over...

That's what I see happening... but they're going to the scene rather than waiting for them to come in... and if the call is something like 'a guy walking naked down the street', then you notify so they're ready, but don't dispatch (at least not code 3) the armed police. They're on their way without speeding or sirens unless they hear different from the counselor.



I think the experience of the UK plus our own data suggests that there is a significant number of calls where cops are acting as counselors rather than subduers... even when arrests for things like possession or intoxication are involved... and I'm betting you can triage those calls as you would in an ER easily ranking them on a 1-5 or similar scale... a 1 means you send a kitten in, a 5 you send the whole lion pride. A 2, you send a kitten with a single lion back-up, a 3 they have 2 lions, a 4 you send 4 lions with a kitten back-up. The bottom line is that a big part of de-escalation is removing the threat of escalation... and a guy armed to the teeth is going to struggle to do that... no matter how nicely he talks... especially to someone who isn't all there from either mental health issues or drug usage... and with other cops and sirens all around. I'm not talking about a paradigm shift in law enforcement... I'm talking about an annual review and resource re-allocation based on best practices. A six-sigma analysis.

First, it is really nice to have a civil exploratory conversation.

But now, some explanation:

My sister, at the time, lived in another county, about 40 minutes away, so it was never me initiating calls to cops. After a number of calls, the cops asked her if there was a family member they could talk to, and she gave them my number. The cops told me about all the calls - I did not know that she had been calling cops. I knew she was driving the condo management crazy by insisting they clear "these people" out of her basement, when she had no basement. Eventually a public relations officer called, and nicely and politely, without saying it directly, let me know that if the family did not do something about it, they would.*** So we contacted a lawyer, and got a guardianship of her, and then moved her to senior residential living, where among other things, we were able to control her intake of pain meds - opiates, as in opiate crisis.

It was not "rapist" every time. sometimes it was "thief", sometimes it was "trespasser", sometimes it was "squatter", Sometimes it was "harasser", sometimes he was stealing the A/C. Once she called me at 2:00 to come over because "the man" and a friend were stealing her dishes.

I give all this detail to ask the question - how will 911 know who to send? it is easy to say if a guy is rolling around naked in the street, send mental health officers. It is easy to say, if a guy is pointing a gun at a bank teller, send armed cops. But I think most of the calls, like the ones my sister would make, are just not easy to classify.

THAT is my big question. How would this work?

Second question: other than mental health, what other specialists do we deploy to take some responsibility off police?

Third question: how do we fund the extra people and multiplying lines of interdepartmental actions?


*** Makes me wonder what happens when the family is nonexistent, uncaring, or unable to do anything about it. I have no doubt that if I was not willing and able(for now, anyway) to support her and take care of her, she would be living under a bridge somewhere and arguing with e the imaginary man all the time. Streets are full of them - she would just be the one with the 4 degrees and the five languages.