Are you for government enforced medication? Dean is.

I watched Dean's talk in Arnolds Park last night on C-span. I disagree with him on the issue of mandatory medication, as well as others. I also find his postion on the issue indicative of all his positions. The similarity is that by the time he is done talking about the issue you can't tell where he stands on it. But he does take credit for passing the law that brought mandatory medication into being in Vermont and that speaks louder than anything else he had to say about the issue. What also becomes clear through his comments is that he has absolutely no understanding of civil liberties as an issue only that they're an issue, to some people.

The rest of his talk was annoying too. He has his own version of the smirk which is a prudish little pursing of the lips. He doesn't come off as being particularly charismatic or interesting. In fact he comes off as a bore and a panderer.


http://c-span.org/ it is the dean video and the comment on mandatory medication starts at 46:40

[XanaDUer]

1. There is something else about him that make me uncomfortable...

Also death penalty.

[JohnKleeb]

2. very uncomfortable with that

IIRC Kerry opposes right, good for him and those who do.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

3. I watched it too

And I don't recall him saying how he felt about it one way or another, other than to say it was a difficult situation. He merely said that it was a pickle for the Courts to decide. Should they infringe on civil liberties of mentally ill people for their own good by making them take meds, or should they have their civil liberties and be let to continue on their downward cycle of destruction...he outlined the problem as it stands in VT but didn't say he was for taking away anyone's liberties.

6. He says "we passed a law which which says we may medicate

people without their consent..."

That means "I support this". Or in Dean's typical penchant for equivocation pehaps it could mean that he "supported" it. Bottom line he helped pass it, took credit for it and didn't disavow it as a mistake. Therefore he supports it. Not only that, but he shows no understanding of civil liberties as an issue. When he talks about this mandatory medication law all he says is that it is a civil liberties issue, but not why. I suspect he doesn't know.


His comments start at 46:40 in the video on c-span which I gave a link to.

[deutsey]

37. He also acknowledged the problem is

Do we medicate people in need of treatment against their will even though it benefits them and the larger community, or do we respect their civil liberties and preserve the principles of a free society above all?

It's a conundrum at the very heart of democratic, open societies, and I respected Dean on his knowledge of the subject and for the fact that he obviously is wrestling with this question.

Like you, I recommend everyone watch the CSPAN re-broadcast and make up your own mind about how Dean handled this.

73. And he also clearly stated where he stands on this problem

which is for forced medication and against civil liberties.

[aquart]

55. My stepbrother would go off his meds every Christmas so he could see God.

What happy, happy, happy holidays they were.

God bless his right to make everyone around him miserable.

[plurality]

60. so call in the cops to strap him down...

and load him up with thorazine, because it's more convienent. Just what I look for in a government.

[Sinistrous]

4. Since you think this is noteworthy

you abviously have not tried to get a child enrolled in grammar school. (Hint: they have to have several vaccinations.)

[gate of the sun]

16. this is not entirely true

you can get a child into school with a waiver stating religous reasons. I know because I used it and then you have to agree to take you child out of school if there is an outbreak of measles or something.

[ModerateMiddle]

24. oh, this is VERY different from that

this is about forcing someone to take mind altering medications. I do understand what a complicated issue it is, but it is a very slippery slope.... who decides which meds which person should be forced to take?

Vaccinations and who should take what isn't perfect, but it's a board of people who use extensive studies about whole populations.

Individuals being forced to take an anti-psychotic (for starters) is an ongoing thing - the patient must continue to take the medication. It isn't a one time deal.

[Upfront]

5. Saw the Speach

also and I noticed that Dean got some standing o's fron these Iowa folks. They seemed to like what he had to say. The forced meds were for mentally ill, and alcoholics who kept repeating the cycle. Go in to treatment, make progress, get released, stop taking their meds, and right back into treatment. Dean said it was a very tough problem, but the state had found this program of monitoring them helped keep them straight. It also saved the taxpayers some money. I found the speech clear as a bell and straight forward. Now if you were talking about Bush, I would agree with you. Sometimes I have no idea what he is talking about. Dean is by far the best man running, in my mind, but I would support any of them over dim-son. How about you?

[Cha]

8. Thanks for that clarification! There are so many muddy waters

around here concerning Dean that it's refreshing to see a Clear Stream!

10. You have as shallow an understanding of civil liberties as Dean

The issue isn't the handful of people who it is "targeted" at, the issue is the precedent it sets. The questions are how do you ensure that these people are being correctly diagnosed, how do you ensure that mandatory medication doesn't become a tool of repression, etc.

Then there is the more fundmental question of whether medicating a person solves the problem.

When Dean is talking about drug addiction and mental illness I would like you to remember that according to some in the government marijuana is addictive, and that hyperactivity is a mental illness.

Given the medical professions proven record of not knowing their heads from their asses I would never trust them to make state sanctioned decisions on what I should put in my body. Is this too harsh, no this is common sense.

The more I listened to Dean the more I was disturbed by his idea of what the state should be doing. The idea of having someone from the government show up at my door to check on my new born kid (another of Dean's great achievments in Vermont) makes me nauseous.

After I was done watching him I could only think that the difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party is the difference between A Brave New World and 1984 respectively.

[burr]

12. I have a feeling he wasn't discussing hyperactive kids or cancer patients.

mentally ill patients often reach a state where they cannot make these decisions on their own. This is when family members or close friends need to be brought into the loop. But when they reach this state, another caretaker often does have to make these medical decisions for the patient.

[dorktv]

92. I have a question for those who mention civil liberties over

the general populace, what about those like John Hinkley? This is a very difficult thing to decide, sometimes a person is a danger to the community unmedicated.

[w13rd0]

14. Hurm...

"Given the medical professions proven record of not knowing their heads from their asses I would never trust them to make state sanctioned decisions on what I should put in my body. Is this too harsh, no this is common sense."

Let me guess, all that stuff about bacteria and infection is nonsense too, right? Is there middle ground between Aschrofts "let god heal ya" position and your "so you've found out you have a stomach tumor, eat some berries and smoke some weed"?

[ModerateMiddle]

25. there is a significant difference

between rx'ing an antibiotic which has been proven to inhibit the growth of a specific bacteria and the nebulous variations in brain chemistry which are much harder to figure out. *sometimes* md's shotgun anti-biotics to speed up helping the patient get rid of an infection they don't fully recognize. but the mental health professionals are ALWAYS shotgunning when they rx psychotropics. They try one, then they try another. Each patient reacts differently. A real problem arises when one doesn't work and a doc adds another to the med-cocktail - but no one ever eliminates a med.

I do think that Dean understands that it is a very complicated issue, but I also agree with the original poster, that it's fairly clear that Dean signed a law that did this mandated medications thing, because of how he said it.

It's a scary idea.

32. good one

Do you really think think that doctors get it right 99% of the time? They are constantly making mistakes and misdiagnosing, probably more often than anyone would like to admit. Clearly medicine and science have learned alot, but there is a big difference between the science on infection and bacteria and that on addiction and mental illness.

Also generally speaking antibiotics don't alter your perceptions and you don't have to take them your whole life. But wait, did I miss something, were we even talking about antibiotics? No we were talking about psychiatric medication.

You've created a scarecrow argument. Everything you wrote was an attempt to put words in my mouth and you completely lost the context of what I was saying.

Do you really like Dean so much that you would resort to such childish arguments in defense of him?

[bearfartinthewoods]

43. are you at all familiar with this specific issue?

we are, because of my brother. he refuses the meds. you have no idea of the angst we go through, watching him dissapear into the maze his mind is becoming.

but...the meds have side effects. he prefers the madness over the meds. who has the right to take away his choice?

not having needed or taken the meds, i can't speak first hand but my brother says that the only reason the meds have an effect on the voices he hears is that they put them to sleep, just slightly less so than they put him to sleep. he's not speaking of physical sleep but a mental dampening.

he'd raher be alert and aware and fight with the voices than to have his mind so dulled. it sounds to me that these meds don't treat the illness but only mask the symtoms.

who benefits from the meds...the patient or society?

if we get to the point where the state can medicate us, against our will, for the good of society, it's over.

[dsc]

67. Is he living out in the streets?

I presume not. He is lucky to have a family who is both willing and able to help him out and keep him off the streets. In which case he is experiencing freedom. But if a patient is out on the streets then I think that is a very diffent story.

[Nicholas_J]

15. More Dean shiftiness

This is no different than the "ENFORCED" electro-shock treatment of the 1950's. or the "ENFORCED" prefrontal lobotomies used of schizophrenics and manic depressives.

No different than putting "enemy non-combattants into Guantanamo without access to lawyers of the legal system."

THe state should not have the right to FORCE any unwanted treatmeent on anyone.

This again from THE DOCTORS, who refused to not only allow methadone clinics in Vermont. But refused to aow methadone treatment in prisons in Vermont.

This is more trying to spin Deans decisions into some noble highminded purpose, when it is just more indication of his right wing nature.

They used the same excuses that some people were unable to make the decisions for themselves in order to slice out portions of their brains too.

[Upfront]

19. Dean said

when explaining the early child program, that the state employee went to the hospital and talked to the mother. The reason was to ask her if she wanted the service. So, if she didn't that was it. No reason to barf, as no one unwanted is coming to your door. Responding to your MJ statement, I don't care if your problem is booze, drugs, or just mental illness, I want you to get help, but as a tax payer who is watching good programs go down for lack of funding, I support any program that gets you out of the system. Not just for the dollers saved that could go to schools, roads, ect., but to help the person with the problem, have a life.

[ModerateMiddle]

26. I like his plan of hospital visits

I don't feel that was violating anything, it was just a very good program. You are right, as one being visited, it was up to you if you wanted anything further.

The medications thing is extremely complicated, and the possibilities for abuse are gargantuan.

[VoteClark]

7. I am for forced medication of Dean. Prozac and lots of Diphenhydramine

[Cha]

9. We already know how you are.

11. But you don't get to write the prescription

Only the "Doctor" writes the prescription.

[whirlygigspin]

13. take your pills grandma

or i'm callin the state troopers.

[genius]

23. Good idea

Though at the debate, he has the slow responses of someone already on medication.

[Nicholas_J]

52. My presciption is

sodium pentobarbitol (truth serum) every hour on the hour. So we might get to know what he really thinks.

[gate of the sun]

17. thanks for the info

I don't care for Dean anyway and am not surprised. I agree civil liberties are not a strong suit of his. I can't figure how he's managed to corral so many left minded folks.

[dsc]

18. as what I think is the only alchy who has posted here so far

I think I many know a little more on this suject than many of you. I am all for this. Certainly the devil is in the details here but rights are not absolute. What is being talked about here are severely mentally ill or addicted people who live in the streets and commit petty crimes or beg to survive. We are not talking about electro shock treatments or any other bizarre tales that Nick and Vote Clark may like to tell you. I know the insanity of addiction (unlike any of you). I know what it is like. It isn't freedom it is slavery.

I think that people who repeatedly thrive on their medications only to upon release stop taking them and live in the streets are in no way, shape, or form being helped by so called 'freedom' loving people who let them live that way. Walk a mile or two in their shoes and then see if you think it is so great, so free. and so American.

[msanger]

22. Dean seemed thoughtfull

when discussing the situation. He stated several times that it was a real dilemna -- should you medicate folks "for their own good" even though that is a violation of their free will OR do you let them get off their meds and spiral down until they need to be hospitalized again.

Having at least two friends who are fine when they are on meds and end up in serious trouble when they are off of them -- it seems to me that 'enforced' medication for somebody with a psychosis is not all that terrible.

On the other hand - I see why it is troubling.

what I liked about Dean was that he was willing to admit that it is a vexing problem, and at least admit that there is a problem. It is much easier for a politican to just waltz away from the hard issues.

[sandnsea]

30. I agree with your sentiments

It is a tough issue and I've seen the same thing, people going off meds, everybody has time and again I guess. Also, making medication mandatory might also put more pressure on a state to pay for it.

On the other hand, I'm sure there's a doctor or two who'd like to medicate me!!! And I'd rather be a loon, thank you very much. When we start medicating people, where do we draw the line? Not to mention the fact that some people just do not react well to medication and aren't any more functional than when they weren't on it. Cuckoo's Nest revisited.

I think I'd only support something like this with the most serious illnesses along with a fully funded support system to help with community integration.

31. Classic

What makes you think that your experience can be generalized and that it somehow gives you higher authority? These are classic fallacies. Try dealing with the argument in an upfront and honest way.

The attempt to focus on the worst cases is an example of failing to see the forest for the trees. A law of this kind will affect everybody not just the people living in the streets. The answer is not setting up a culture which accepts doctors shoving pills down our throats and giving us piss tests to make sure we aren't breaking the rules, but setting up community programs which are well funded to get people off the streets and into treatment. People don't end up on the street for lack of medication they end up on the streets because of social conditions. You could medicate everyone in america tomorrow and you would still have homeless and miserable people. As far as your comments about the limits of rights and the freedom of medication, you simply reinforce my belief that the defining ideology of "liberals" like Dean and yourself has more in common with Brave New World than with a world of freely associating human beings.

[sandnsea]

33. How do you get them off the streets in the first place??

How moral is it to let somebody wander around with their insanity without giving them the opportunity to even choose the medication in the first place? And you can't say a mentally ill person can make an informed consent to not choose medication, they can't. In order to get some people into facilities, there has to be laws allowing it. You can't do it now unless they are threatening to harm themselves or others. If we truly want to help, we have to have some methods to bring some of these people into facilities to get help. They don't just walk in all by themselves most of the time, won't matter how many programs you have set up to help them.

Too many people have watched loved ones deteriorate for too many years with no way to help. There has got to be a better way than saying they have the right to wander the streets as they choose and then turn around and rail at the system because they're hungry and homeless.

[Mairead]

35. Did and do you have to take antibuse or some similar drug to stay sober?

Because if you don't, then your experience is less relevant than you would have us believe.

[dsc]

53. I took librium while in detox

Anabuse in not terribly effective (though it is still the best drug we have) due to the fact that serious alcoholics will drink anyhow (in late stages we are sick much of the time anyway) and thus only fairly well motivated people actually derive benefit from it. The only time I considered taking it was at a friends wedding when I was around 3 months sober. Instread I drove myself there and left the reception for a meeting and then came back. Had I still had health insurance I probably would have taken the easy way out.

But as to the central point. There are a body of homeless who are that way due to being seriously mentally ill and refusing to take their meds. These people do much better when they are on them and then when they are let go they don't take the meds and fall back into their old homeless patterns. It seems to me there are only two humane things to do here. One, put them in institutions and take away all their freedom or two, make them take their meds via governmental force. Two seems the better choice.

[plurality]

62. or, if they're homeless because they choose it

then let them stay homeless. It is the government's job to protect its citizens from foreign nations and each other, not from themselves.

[dsc]

63. that is an honest position

I don't agree with it but it is honest. I don't think many people in this thread who are arguing against forced meds agree with you on that though. That is the problem.

[plurality]

65. well you could definitely call me a libertarian democrat

I accept the role of the government to provide services to help people but not the right to force them. And let's not forget that this law isn't about raving lunatics being able to skip out on their meds. If you get committed they can force you to take medicine. This is about forcing people that forcing people that are stable enough to not be committed to take medicine.

74. being homeless is not a mental illness n/t

.

[dsc]

80. please point out where I said that

I expect an apology.

[bearfartinthewoods]

44. you may know about the anti alchy drugs but

you might want to read up on the side effects of the psychotropic drugs he is talking about for schizophrenia.

[genius]

20. It is so sad that some Democrats are actually supporting this man

I wish I could convince them to look at the issues. The trouble is that his positions are so extreme that if we don't expose them, Bush will prior to the general election and then the Democrats will stay home. If he gets the nomination, the Democrats will have already lost and the Republicans will have won.

[Duder]

21. Yeah Bush will expose him...

[MercutioATC]

28. Nice post, Duder

:)

[Zorba607]

27. Honestly

I'm bipolar and have done some shitty things when unmedicated. That's not to say I want forced medication, but the mentally ill are legally incapable of making choices for themselves. Shouldn't there be some point at which they are medically incapable of taking care of themselves? I can tell you that family is inadequate and unable to make these choices. Why else would the mentally ill continually lapse into these self destructive phases knowingly?
I also have seen my uncle, one of the most intelligent and caring people I have known, completely unable to resist heroin of his own accord. I've seen much of my family destroyed because of his addiction, largely due to the inability of my family to afford treatment and the unwillingness of the state to care for him. These are sicknesses. I understand that this is a slippery slope but to condemn a canidate for taking a stand is, to me, foolish.

29. There is a difference

between the state supplying the resources for people to make these decisions on their own and forcing these decisions on them. When Dean talks about this issue he necessarily focuses on the worst cases and uses them as a justification for giving the government the power to force medication on them forgetting the implications to the rest of the population. Having the government force people to take medication or having people spiral out of control are not the only options and seeing Dean set the debate up in these terms brings to light his disregard for civil liberties as well as logic.

The "mentally ill" is a subjective category created by human beings. Some are worse off than others, but legal language does not have these nuances and in the end the reading of any law, and hence what the standards of mental illness are, would be in the hands of government officials and judges. I personally wouldn't trust any one "professional" to make these decisions why would you even think about allowing the government to make these decisions. The reason I say the medical profession, and the phychiatric one in particular, are incompetent is that you can go from doctor to doctor (as I and many others have) and get many different diagnoses. Which one is correct?

Clearly there are some standards of mental illness which require supervision, but where is the line drawn? The real problem is not the small amount of people that are not taking their pills, but the vastly larger group of people who couldn't get medication even if they wanted it, or the lack of facilities and resources for treatment. Add to this a general lack of concrete knowledge on mental illnesses and the drugs used to fight them and what you have is a well meaning disaster both for the people categorized as mentally ill (no doubt some incorrectly) and for civil liberties.

[Mairead]

36. There's a moderately good solution

And that's to legally require that anyone in danger of forced medication be given legal and psychological representation that is separate from 'the system'. I.e., they or their family can name someone, or if there is no family and the person can't manage, the advocates are selected by lot. And that lawyer and psychologist/psychiatrist must agree to the meds, and the commitment must be revisited at appropriate intervals (which can be a day, a week, a month, or three months, depending on diagnosis).

When thinking about this issue, we should keep in mind that one of the tools of the Soviet state was psychiatric diagnosis and imprisonment: anyone against the state must be nuts and in need of thorazine.

And we should also keep in mind Thomas Szasz's famous example. He brought a woman into the classroom and elicited a dreadful history of loss, deprivation, and hopelessness. After she had gone, he asked the class for their reactions. All diagnosed her in various ways, focusing on the things that seemed most meaningful to them. Not one of them took the view that Szasz himself did: she was deeply unhappy because she had suffered a deprived, brutalised life. She had no psychiatric disability, she wasn't nuts, she was reacting appropriately to real, crushing events in her life. Fix up her life, and she'd be fine! (which isn't to deny that there are people, like yourself, who have brain-chem problems --my mum did, too-- but that diagnosis is not always appropriate or helpful, and can be misused along a continuum ranging from stupid to malign)

[gottaB]

34. transcribed for closer scrutiny

Let me, let me tell what we should do about the homelessness in this country. A lot of it is what we've done in our state but there's more to be done.

There are two catagories of homeless, basically. One are families and individuals who are reasonably healthy and who are one paycheck away from disaster. The paycheck los--gets lost, the family splits up, some catastrophe happens and they're out on the street.

That's not hard to stop. We have a program in our state where if you are about to be put on the street we will pay your rent for one or two months. Because it's a lot cheaper for the state to pay the rent of a family for a couple of months than it is to let them be thrown out, and then try to find housing for them, and have to go to the shelter and all that stuff. So it's just a sensible program. If you had a program like that in the federal government it would cost a little more money but it would save us a fortune.

Secondly, two thirds of the homeless either have a substance abuse program , a mental illness, or both. That's a much more difficult crowd. Here's what we do about that in our state--and we don't do it as successfully as we should but at least we do it.

Many of those people can help themselves if they have a little help. So we have set up single room occupancy type situations, with staff 24 hours a day for social services. They can support a number of people who just need to be reminded to take their medications, helped a little bit trying to get a job, or with SSI, or whatever. That can be helped.

Then we have a very hardcore group of people --and this is a very difficult issue, and it's a constitutional issue--who are either seriously impaired alcholics, or seriously mental ill, mentally ill. They go to the state hospital, they stop tak--they take their meds `cause we can make them. They come out after a while they stop taking their meds. And then, and then they relapse. And every time they relapse it's a cycle that goes down and down and down.

We passed a law which is very controversial, because many believe it's a an in an in infringe, ah infringemen, infringement on civil liberties. And it's one of those areas that's really tough. We passed a law that says we made Medicaid people without their consent --or mandatory medication-- when they're out of the hospital. Now here's the dilemma that--with this kind of a law--and it's being held up by the courts because the civil liberties are being de debated. If this is this a violation of civil liberties? It probably is to manda--to medicate people against their consent. On the other hand if we don't do it they have a relapse, they go to the hospital, and everytime they come out they're a little worst off than they were, and it goes around and around and around.

So it's a really tough issue. Because if we medicate them against their consent they do all right, but if, if and--and that may well be an infringement on civil liberties. If we don't medicate them against their consent we know they're going to go down and down and down and down. And do they have choice to do that? And that's a very, very difficult issue.

We've got to have adequate funding, of course. But adequate funding is not enough for programs that don't work. One of the things that we did in our, that we did when I was governor, is we--and I had a Republican ah, Human Services Secretary who was incredibly helpful, because he benchmarked human services. He gave us goals. Reduction in teenage pregnancy. Reduction ah in alcohol abuse. Uh reduction in drug use. Reduction in dropout rates. And we could measure every county against the money we were giving them to--in terms of what they were doing. And, when the, when the trends weren't the way were supposed to be we went in and looked. Why? Are people not doing their jobs? Or are they not getting enough money? Or is there some extra factor?

That's what we need to do with the homeless and mental, mental illness and substance abusers, which are all closely tied together. We've got to figure out what works, fund the programs that work, stop funding the programs that don't work

It can be done, but it's going to take a real serious committment on the part of the United States government and the President of the United States to do it.

[deutsey]

38. Thanks

It's amazing how perceptions change when they're placed in context.

I could say: "Kerry says we should all support Bush!!!!" http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20011014/LN_003.htm

There'd be a modicum of truth to that (he did say that we need to get behind Bush on the war on terrorism), but that's not true in the larger context in which he was really saying that we need to unite as a nation after 9/11. Whether we liked it or not, Bush was the "leader" of our country when that happened. It wasn't the time to be bashing anyone; it was a time to unite. Kerry, of course, is one of the leading critics of Bush's handling of the war, and I respect him for that (even though I'm a Dean supporter).

When I see posts like the original thread-starter, I always think of that lyric by Timbuk3: How well do we use our freedoms to choose the illusions we create?

[acerbic]

39. Based on that, a very simple question to all the stubborn repeaters:

Which candidates have a different position on this issue than Dean's? Which of them oppose forced medication ALWAYS, IN ALL POSSIBLE CASES?

Waiting...

[acerbic]

42. Yoo-hoo?!? Which candidates have a different position on this issue

...than Dean's? Which of them oppose forced medication ALWAYS, IN ALL POSSIBLE CASES?

Still waiting...

[Le Taz Hot]

40. Thank you for the complete transcript

Dean acknowledges that this was a difficult decision to make -- and it is. I've worked with mentally-impaired and substance abuser parolees. I KNOW how difficult this question is. Oftentimes the failure of the patient to seek or maintain needed medication have dire effects on their families -- most notably, their children. And I can't even begin to tell you what a sad state of affais that turns into, watching these kids be broken up and scattered to various foster families throughout the county.

Having said that, and just for the record, these incindiary, highly subjective, flame-bait threads continue to bring down the discourse at this site. I no longer recommend DU to anyone.

[bread_and_roses]

78. If this is flame-baiting

then what is a fit subject for debate? You do not think this is a serious issue? I will throw in my hat here, as I too have worked with people who struggle with substance abuse, mental illness, and homelessness for all the causes mentioned here. But I do not think one has to have that direct experience to take a stand on this issue. If the law is as presented here, it is a violation of civil liberties, pure and simple. The end does not justify the means.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

41. Thanks for posting the actual words

rather than just people's interpretation of them. What I read is that Dean acknowledges that this is a very difficult issue, and has an impact on the rights of the people affected by it.

Does anyone have more information about the law that was passed in Vermont? I would be curious to read about that, and also what the discourse was at the time and what people think about it now. Anyone have that info?

I live in a town where we see a lot of people who are obviously in the cycle Dean talks about, unable or unwilling to use medication that works on their own. The idea of forced medication does make me uncomfortable, because of the potential for abuse, but I would like to know more about what the law allows and how it is being used in Vermont.

The anti-Dean among us will of course say that this is part of Dean's plan to medicate everyone who doesn't agree with him, but unless they can show that the Vermont law was used in this way, I ain't buying it.

I agree that we should lean on his record as much as his current stated positions <except where his position has evolved -- Kucinich people should understand this>, but let's hear about how this particular law impacted people as well.

[plurality]

45. tired of this cop-out

'Dean acknowledges this is a difficult issue' -So what!

If Bush decided tomorrow that it was time to lock up all the 'mentally ill' liberals and forcibly medicate them to 'cure' them of their 'liberal insanity', would it make this decision any less evil and fucked up if Bush acknowledged that his decision was a difficult one? If Hitler had come out and said it was a 'difficult decision' to try and wipe out the Jews and other undesirables (mentally insane included), would his decision have been any less abhorent? I'm tired of excuses for totalitarianism. If people would rather be homeless than medicated fine!

But let's get to the heart of this matter. I've seen what this decision can lead to. In Texas there is a criminal case going on where a schizophrenic person killed someone. The state had no cares about medicating or treating this person before he committed his crime, he tried to get it. But now that he's on trial (and obviously insane) the state is FORCING him to take medication so that he will be sane enough to stand trial so THEY CAN EXECUTE HIM! Feed on that for awhile before you allow the state more control over our already overly regulated lives.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

47. What does that have to do with Dean, and Vermont?

And please tell me what the positions of the other candidates are on this issue.

[plurality]

48. I don't think the other candidates have a position yet

Since they aren't aware that it is an issue, but we all know what Dean's position is and it is fair game.

And what does what have to do with Dean and Vermont? You need to be more specific if you want me to answer your question..

[acerbic]

54. So one candidate has the courage to talk about a difficult issue

...to which there is no good and perfect solution, so you do all you can to twist his quite reasonable position into "I-will-medicate-anyone-I-like-anytime-anyhow", evade direct questions about the blatant pretense that the other candidates' positions are somehow different ...and whine about "cop-outs". Amazing. Puke-inducing but amazing.

[plurality]

59. Nice evasion, but I don't think it's working

The other candidates don't have a position on this issue because IT SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE! As I recall this nation is about FREEDOM, and forcing people to take medicine is completely antithetical to freedom. Try an make Dr. Mengele (oops Dean) into some kind of saint over this all you want, but his position is draconian. And it is absolutely a cop-out to try and excuse this abominable position by saying it was a 'difficult choice'. I'm sure it was a 'difficult choice' for Johnson to invade Vietnam and for any other politician to commit to destructive and freedom denying positions but that still doesn't make it a GOOD CHOICE. And then to try and change the subject by asking what the other candidates positions are on an obscure law the Dean put into practice is absolutely pathetic. But on second thought I would like to know what their positions are on this, and I would like them to make them public, because I'm certain most would find this policy to be heresy in a nation built on FREEDOM, and it would go a long way to showing what a fraud Dean is.

[acerbic]

64. Wow. That's rabid...

Try an make Dr. Mengele (oops Dean)

Now I know what all freepshits will call him if he becomes President.

[plurality]

66. why not

I'm sure Mengele would whole heartedly support Dean's position on state enforced medical 'treatment'.

[gottaB]

68. 14f13--close but no cigar

Well, it's very sensationalistic. People forget the about Nazi persecution of the mentally ill, or they have an outlook like it was all because of a super bad attitude, and they don't see the connections to the erosion of civil liberties and politics of scapegoating.

A list of readings from those opposed to psychiatry and its abuses.

People who view doctors and medicine favorably will be prone to see Dean's position as compassionate. They see his acknowledgement of the issue of civil liberties as a sign of his sensitivity.

Civil libertarians are likely to gag on the fact that Dean supports a law while acknowledging that it infringes on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. For them, the relationship to Nazi eugenics and euthenasia is not fortuitous, because it shows how a policy can be argued for the good (eu-) of the people, but because it denies a persecuted group their freedoms, it corrupts and destroys the foundation of democratic society.

Personally, I am troubled by Dean's views of civil liberties and the Consititution. However, the comparison to Mengele strikes me as extreme and unfair. The basic point is worth making, but if you fall back on name-calling, the message falls on deaf ears.

[Le Taz Hot]

69. Now Dean is Mengele???

Good God!

And my "Ignore" list grows.

[AfricanDonkey]

87. Who cares what the other candidates stances are, WHAT is Deans?

I have read through this entire thread and I want an answer myself. This issue is very distrubing though I dont know much about it and I will reserve my judgement. There is the question at hand though, you are pushing for members of the DU to support Howard Dean and yet you dodge the question as "what about the other candidates" Dean is the front-runner and we don't care about the other candidates we want to know about Howard Dean's position!

[plurality]

90. it's called a red herring

he/she's come to a point where he/she's unable to successfully defend his/her position (Dean is the savior of the Democratic party) using sound logic, so now he/she must resort to distractions (What are the other candidates positions?) to take the heat off of Dean. Despite the repetition of the red herring it's still not working.

[Egnever]

94. Check post 34

your answer is there.

[bearfartinthewoods]

46. they take their meds `cause we can make them

they take their meds `cause we can make them

yeah....thanks for the transcript.

if the state can make "them" take their meds, they can mayke 'you' take your meds. this doesn't scare anyone?????

[Mairead]

51. Yes, exactly. Massachusetts has (or had ) an involuntary committal law

that can be and has been abused:


Susan Rockwell who specialized in civil rights law at Howard University, was detained for two and a half days at Cape Cod Hospital. "I was very aware how much my rights were being violated," she says. "It was very degrading knowing what they were doing to me and not being able to do anything about it."

Upset about a dying friend, Rockwell went to Cape Cod Hospital to attend a support group meeting. She was anxious and a bit disheveled, wearing a soiled down coat that belied her achievements as a law school graduate and former librarian.

Based on her appearance and a brief conversation, an emergency room doctor ordered attendants to put her in a four-point restraint. Denied her pleas to call her psychiatrist - who says she would have argued against forced treatment - Rockwell was injected with drugs and rushed to the psychiatric ward. She woke up the next day in a locked room. A kind nurse brought her a cupcake with a candle; it was her 45th birthday.

http://www.boston.com/globe/specialreports/1997/may/spotlight/day2.htm


If they can do that to a lawyer who's merely feeling sad and stressed out, what could they do to the rest of us?

75. "we made Medicaid people without their consent "

what he actually said here is "we may medicate people with out there consent"

I like how you mangle the one part of the transcription that is at issue.

[gottaB]

77. I gave it the old college try

If you want to discuss it further you should clean it up and present it in a way that suits you. As best I could at the moment I listened for actual sounds, because I believe the hems and haws and stutters may be revealing. Of what I won't speculate. Well, it bugged me when I noticed the mistake. You may choose to understand it as natural given the homophony and less than ideal sound transmission, or you may choose to read more into it.

Interesting how you mangle "them"?

85. them their there

that isn't interesting that's a typo. I'm sure nothing malicious was intended in your transcription, but it did have the effect of mitigating what Dean actually said. I agree that the hems and haws may be revealing.

[Mairead]

83. That's a bit picky, don't you think?

I found it a funny but totally obvious minor transcription error.

[DrFunkenstein]

49. I'm For Government Enforced Medical Marijuana For Republicans

Whether or not they are sick. Just to loosen the butt cheeks.

[genius]

50. This is one of many reasons I'm not for Dean

This guy has no concept of civil liberties.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

58. A person ...

...with no concept of civil liberties wouldn't tell you that he's wrestling with the concept. He said it's not an easy, black and white issue. He certainly realizes how important civil liberties are, and anyone who saw him talk about this issue this week would know that. You are taking the fact that you disagree with him on this issue and blowing it up to astronomical proportions on how he must feel about civil liberties.

[killbotfactory]

56. I would say it's okay...

If the person being medicated is a danger to the community...

Beats throwing them in jail.

[Albert Einstein]

57. Nice guy.

Why is he campaigning for the DEMOCRATIC nomination? Even our most conservative people are more liberal than he is.

[janx]

61. Well, now that we have seen the exact quote in context,

we know that this is a mistaken assumption about Dean.

Thanks, everyone, for a thought-provoking discussion.

76. the "transcription" was incorrect

see post 75 and WATCH the video

[dsc]

81. No it isn't

that is what he said.

86. If he truly said

"we made medicaid people" then he has problems with the english language.

[DemBones DemBones]

70. What a dangerous idea this is. If Dr. Bill Frist were

suggesting it, everyone would be outraged but since Dr. Howard Dean suggests it, his supporters think it's fine. That's possibly as frightening as his position on this.

If Dennis Kucinich supported forcing people to take psychotropic drugs against their will, I would stop being a Kucinich supporter faster than you can say "thorazine" or "behavior control room."

[VoteClark]

71. LOL, that is why you are a Kucinich Supporter and not a Dean Supporter

Dean supporters don't care how Dean stands on the issues. They just support him. Many already have sent money to him, it is cheaper to defend him then to admit that you were incorrect in supporting him. I have switched back and forth between Dean, Kerry, and Gephardt at first. But after I heard about Clark, I settled on him, on the off chance he doesn't enter the race, I would support Kerry. I think Kerry has done some stupid things that keep me a little away from him, but he is best dog in the race right. Kucinch I agree with him on the issues, but honeslty don't think he can win.

J4Clark

[Egnever]

95. or maybe we actually agree with him

Speak for yourself there honcho. Just because you dont agree with his stances does not mean other people dont. Its pretty insulting that you think you know what dean supporters think. When you clearly arent one of us.

[Mairead]

82. "If {this were Kucinich} I would stop being a Kucinich supporter"

Ditto, DB, ditto.

The only way anyone should be subject to forced medication is under the close supervision of genuine legal and medical advocates. Too many people are medicated today 'for the convenience of the authorities' rather than for any benefit they themselves derive from it.

[acerbic]

84. A simple question:

In congress Kucinich has taken time to introduce a bill to ban space based mind control weapons that don't exist. Has he bothered to do anything to ban forced medication that exists in USA (not only Vermont)? Yes or no?

[plurality]

89. Red herring

try and damage control all you want but it's not working. politicians aren't omniscient, he doesn't have a position on this issue because he probably isn't even aware that it's an issue, most people aren't. it's only now that big brother Dean has shown his commitment to civil liberties that people are aware of this.

[acerbic]

93. So you'd prefer a President who isn't even aware of this issue

...but is concerned about space based mind control weapons? Sheesh. :eyes:

BTW, why don't any of these Kucinich supporters who are so extremely concerned about this issue simply tell Kucinich and make him aware of it? Can anyone explain that?

[plurality]

96. and I'm sure...

that you were out there beating on Congress's door to get a law passed for forced medication before Dean mentioned it right?

Currently the law of (most) of the land doesn't force people to take medication who don't want it, so if a candidate doesn't have a position on it, they are for the status quo, which I support. So as of now all candidates except Dean are by default anti-forced medication.

As for your mind control question.
1)Kucinich is on the commitee that deals with Pentagon appropriations so he might actually know if something like this were in the works.
2)Mind control programs have been implemented by this government before. LSD was created by the CIA in one of these programs known as MK-ULTRA. So maybe this actually is something that should be worried about, seeing as how Kucinich probably has information you don't and you're just some internet jockey I'll take his words over yours.
3)Seen any of the recent DARPA programs lately? I wouldn't put it past them to have something like this in the works.
4)We ALREADY have space based mind control systems. Their called TV satellites.

[acerbic]

97. Thank you for that admission

Currently the law of (most) of the land doesn't force people to take medication who don't want it, so if a candidate doesn't have a position on it, they are for the status quo, which I support.

Currently the status quo is that states are free to pass laws to force some people to take medication who don't want it, so that's what Kucinich, Kerry etc. support according to you.

4)We ALREADY have space based mind control systems. Their called TV satellites.
So does Kucinich want to ban TV satellites? Maybe a subject for a new thread... :evilgrin:

[plurality]

98. no the status quo

in this nation is that people are free to make their own decisions about such things, according to the US Constitution, which would mean forcing people to take medicine against their will is unconstitutional.

[acerbic]

101. So, why isn't Kucinich proposing anything to repeal those unconstitutional

state laws, as you say? The issue seems to be extremely important to his supporters: doesn't he just care at all himself?

[Mairead]

99. I haven't the faintest idea

[Mairead]

100. Don't exist? Who says?

I don't know whether they exist or not. I do know that there were research programs for various weapons that could be called 'mind control'.

[disgruntella]

72. i hesitate to keep this thread alive, but...

Was there any indication in Dean's remarks that "mandatory medication" or whatever you want to call it is something he would introduce on the federal level, or even a part of his platform?

If not, the original post is a *bit* melodramatic...

I am not a Dean supporter, I am an undecided Democrat.

[janx]

79. Of course not. Dean is concerned about its being unconstitutional.

I watched it twice. This is just more sheer desperation on the part of some people who don't want him to get the nomination.

It is unbecoming of them and does not do much for the candidates they support, unfortunately.

[AfricanDonkey]

88. Why is asking legitimate questions anti-dean or melodramatic?

I am an undecided democrat too but why is it that anyitme anyone asks a question about Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards or anyone else its an honest question and everyone chimes in.
But when someone asks a question about Howard Dean, its "outrageous", "melodramatic" and "out of line"?
I believe that there is a double-standard going on here at the DU and to be honest I like Howard Dean's honesty and I want to support him but I do not like double standards. It reminds me of my home town. If you even dare ask a question about the government, they dont answer you but take double the daily tithe or perhaps kill some livestock.

[Duder]

91. Well, I don't know about where you come from but where I come from...

...when people have a legitimate question they usually don't include their own answer with it.