OT: Krauthammer

"Larry Blanchard" wrote:

> It's a rare day when I agree with Charles Krauthammer, but I think
> he hit
> the nail on the head (ObWWR) with this column:
>
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-roots-of-
> mass-murder/2012/12/20/e4d99594-4ae3-11e2-b709-667035ff9029_story.html>

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.

I am afraid the folks in OZ had it right.

They bit the bullet and seem not to have regretted it.

As bitter a pill as it would be, it's one solution.

Lew

On 12/23/2012 11:27 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 18:01:19 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> He seems unreasonably sensible for a liberal.
>
> Chuckle.
>
> But he's the only columnist I've seen address the problem of the mentally
> ill running loose with involuntary commitment almost impossible.
>
> No, I don't think they should all be locked up if their problems can be
> controlled with medication. But how to ensure that they take that
> medication - that's the rub.

No, I suspect the "rub" occurs with the theory that there's a pill for
everything. We don't want to lock people up (or institutionalize them)
if we can just slip them a feel good (who feels good? Them or us?) pill
and send them off to mingle with the general population and do cool
things like head off to the mall or a school and...

Interesting reading here:

http://ssristories.com/index.php?p=school

for additional information, supporting documentation, etc, back it up to
the home page and spend some time exploring.

http://www.ssristories.com

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 13:54:13 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:

>ChairMan wrote:
>> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:40:00 +0000 (UTC), Larry
>>>>> Blanchard
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:47:16 -0500, krw wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The mentally ill have the *right* to be mentally ill.
>>>>>>> They can't
>>>>>>> be forced to take the meds.
>>>>>> I *do* hope you're being sarcastic.
>>>>> Nope. The ACLU made the courts uphold that "right". The
>>>>> stupid
>>>>> fucks.
>>>> How would you like it if someone held the right to drug
>>>> you as they
>>>> saw fit?
>>> I'd like it more than upholding his or anyone's right to
>>> go out and
>>> kill people.
>> Not to mention that some people just need to be drugged
>The notion of "the right to drug" seems fiend-ish to me.
>How about people who drink alot of alcohol and then go out and commit
>crime that they wouldn't otherwise do? Should we make alcohol illegal
>(to be on the safe side)?

Two different scenarios. Alchohol is no longer an excuse for
committing a crime. Generally it's considered that you had a choice
whether to imbibe or not. To my thinking if someone who is dangerous
to society chooses not to take the meds that would make them able to
be out in society, they have forfeited their right to be there.

Mike M

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 16:30:53 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 09:52:00 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
>
>> Almost always, they don't and they revert to their previous anti-social
>> behavior, sometimes for the worse. For example, Heroin mimics many
>> anti-psychotic drugs.
>
>That's one of the problems that concerns me. I've considered a system
>where the patient has to show up daily at a health facility and watched
>while he/she takes his/her meds, but I'm sure that would be expensive.
>Would it be more expensive than the three strikes method? I don't know.

The mentally ill have the *right* to be mentally ill. They can't be
forced to take the meds.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:40:00 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:47:16 -0500, krw wrote:
>
>> The mentally ill have the *right* to be mentally ill. They can't be
>> forced to take the meds.
>
>I *do* hope you're being sarcastic.

Nope. The ACLU made the courts uphold that "right". The stupid fucks.

--
You can either hold yourself up to the unrealistic standards of others,
or ignore them and concentrate on being happy with yourself as you are.
-- Jeph Jacques

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 18:01:19 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> > He seems unreasonably sensible for a liberal.
>
> Chuckle.
>
> But he's the only columnist I've seen address the problem of the mentally
> ill running loose with involuntary commitment almost impossible.
>
> No, I don't think they should all be locked up if their problems can be
> controlled with medication. But how to ensure that they take that
> medication - that's the rub.
>
> Is it possible for an improved mental health system to catch most of the
> dangerous ones before they act out? I don't know.

If they're harmless when unmedicated and harmless when medicated and
harmless when overmedicated and harmless when withdrawing from meds I
don't see any need to lock them up. But if they're dangerous in any of
those conditions it's another story.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:44:17 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > If they're harmless when unmedicated and harmless when medicated and
> > harmless when overmedicated and harmless when withdrawing from meds I
> > don't see any need to lock them up. But if they're dangerous in any of
> > those conditions it's another story.
>
> What if they're dangerous to themselves? If suicide is a crime, should
> we allow someone to commit slow suicide because of a mental illness? In
> some cases a person may not refuse treatment for as physical condition,
> should the same be true for a mental condition?

I dunno. Personally I think that in general the government should stay
completely out of decisions in which the primary risk to the person
making the decision, but if that person is nuts it's a harder question.

> Lots of questions but I don't have the answers. I just wish the
> politicians would address the issue instead of blaming it all on the NRA.
> No, I'm not a member :-).

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:31:11 -0500, Bill wrote:
>
> > Who gets to decide who's crazy and/or a menace to society? And who gets
> > to prescribe medication? And you wish to make it a crime for the
> > "patient" not to take it? I thought we had some conservatives here!
>
> There has to be some balance between the rights of an individual to do as
> they wish and the restrictions needed to protect society as a whole. the
> disagreement is where that point lies.
>
> If someone is diagnosed as needing medication to control their propensity
> to be dangerous, and then refuses to take that medication, I think they
> forfeit their rights in favor of the rights of society as a whole.
>
> As to who would do the diagnosing, the same members of the medical
> profession who do it now. There's no need for that to change.

The problem there is that "the same members of the medical community who
do it now" have a terrible track record. They can't tell when
somebody's faking or not faking and when presented a consistent set of
symptoms they can't present a consistent diagnosis. This is why the
courts won't let a doctor lock somebody up.

On 12/22/2012 11:58 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-roots-of-
> mass-murder/2012/12/20/e4d99594-4ae3-11e2-b709-667035ff9029_story.html

Saw that, and agree.

Problem is, the knee-jerks from both sides will put more weight toward
the source (he is a <gasp> "conservative", after all) than any
thoughtful consideration of the actual content he puts forth.

"You can't fix stupid", and that is preponderance of the extreme on both
sides of the issue ...

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 18:01:19 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> He seems unreasonably sensible for a liberal.
>
> Chuckle.
>
> But he's the only columnist I've seen address the problem of the
> mentally ill running loose with involuntary commitment almost
> impossible.
>
> No, I don't think they should all be locked up if their problems can
> be controlled with medication. But how to ensure that they take that
> medication - that's the rub.
>
> Is it possible for an improved mental health system to catch most of
> the dangerous ones before they act out? I don't know.

My wife, whose last job was Intake Clinician at a mental health hospital,
has a seemingly-effective solution.

As it stands now, when a person is involuntarily committed, they are
medicated, sometimes forcibly. The rub is, as soon as they start acting
normally, they have to be released. The mental health workers counsel the
about-to-be-released regarding the necessity to maintain their meds.

Almost always, they don't and they revert to their previous anti-social
behavior, sometimes for the worse. For example, Heroin mimics many
anti-psychotic drugs.

Anyway, the wife's suggestion is a variation of the "Three Strikes" rule.
The third time a whacko is involuntarily committed, he goes away to the Grey
Padded-Bar Hotel for a very long time. If that doesn't motivate the insane
to do the right thing, at least it will prevent downstream tragedies.

Special Note: If you are ever involuntarily committed, almost always the
intake facility offers you the chance to change your comitment to
"voluntary." You should swallow your pride, abandon the notion "I'm not
crazy," and take the offer. Here's why: If you are EVER "involuntarily"
committed you lose forever the right to own a gun. Any gun. Every gun.

Bill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

>
> The notion of "the right to drug" seems fiend-ish to me.
> How about people who drink alot of alcohol and then go out and commit
> crime that they wouldn't otherwise do? Should we make alcohol illegal
> (to be on the safe side)?

We tried that already. Didn't work very well.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:40:41 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:



>>
>The problem I see is that, with the right dose, you can make anyone "not
>a problem".
>Certainly some with power would exploit that. Bravo for the ACLU.
>

I bet you'd not say that if you were in the situation one of my
co-workers has with her brother. The ACLU has pretty much guaranteed
he is a drain on society rather than a happy productive member. But
he has rights, you know.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:27:13 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 18:01:19 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> He seems unreasonably sensible for a liberal.
>
>Chuckle.
>
>But he's the only columnist I've seen address the problem of the mentally
>ill running loose with involuntary commitment almost impossible.

That subject is starting to go around the media now, luckily.


>No, I don't think they should all be locked up if their problems can be
>controlled with medication. But how to ensure that they take that
>medication - that's the rub.

How about ensuring that someone volunteers to watch them daily?
Holding the person responsible for their health also responsible for
crimes if necessary. They won't allow lapses if they're tied to the
nutjob's crimes. Release the nutjobs to their care.


>Is it possible for an improved mental health system to catch most of the
>dangerous ones before they act out? I don't know.

All? No. Most? Maybe. A whole lot? Absolutely. And it is most
definitely worth the try. I'll bet it's more cost-effective in the
long run, too.

--
Learning to ignore things is one of the great paths to inner peace.
-- Robert J. Sawyer

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:31:11 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:43:57 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:40:00 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:47:16 -0500, krw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The mentally ill have the *right* to be mentally ill. They can't be
>>>>>> forced to take the meds.
>>>>> I *do* hope you're being sarcastic.
>>>> Nope. The ACLU made the courts uphold that "right". The stupid fucks.
>>> How would you like it if someone held the right to drug you as they saw fit?
>> I wouldn't, but then, I'm not crazy nor am I a menace to society.
>Who gets to decide who's crazy and/or a menace to society?
>And who gets to prescribe medication?

What, you want to change all _those_ laws, too?


>And you wish to make it a
>crime for the "patient" not to take it? I thought we had some
>conservatives here!

As per the shrink + judge's directions, yes. Menaces to society have
to be dealt with quickly and completely. And I'm a liberally moderate
conservative, as I've always been. ;)

--
You can either hold yourself up to the unrealistic standards of others,
or ignore them and concentrate on being happy with yourself as you are.
-- Jeph Jacques

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 18:01:19 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

> He seems unreasonably sensible for a liberal.

Chuckle.

But he's the only columnist I've seen address the problem of the mentally
ill running loose with involuntary commitment almost impossible.

No, I don't think they should all be locked up if their problems can be
controlled with medication. But how to ensure that they take that
medication - that's the rub.

Is it possible for an improved mental health system to catch most of the
dangerous ones before they act out? I don't know.

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:44:17 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

> If they're harmless when unmedicated and harmless when medicated and
> harmless when overmedicated and harmless when withdrawing from meds I
> don't see any need to lock them up. But if they're dangerous in any of
> those conditions it's another story.

What if they're dangerous to themselves? If suicide is a crime, should
we allow someone to commit slow suicide because of a mental illness? In
some cases a person may not refuse treatment for as physical condition,
should the same be true for a mental condition?

Lots of questions but I don't have the answers. I just wish the
politicians would address the issue instead of blaming it all on the NRA.
No, I'm not a member :-).

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 09:52:00 -0600, HeyBub wrote:

> Almost always, they don't and they revert to their previous anti-social
> behavior, sometimes for the worse. For example, Heroin mimics many
> anti-psychotic drugs.

That's one of the problems that concerns me. I've considered a system
where the patient has to show up daily at a health facility and watched
while he/she takes his/her meds, but I'm sure that would be expensive.
Would it be more expensive than the three strikes method? I don't know.

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:47:16 -0500, krw wrote:

> The mentally ill have the *right* to be mentally ill. They can't be
> forced to take the meds.

I *do* hope you're being sarcastic.

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:40:00 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:47:16 -0500, krw wrote:
>>
>>> The mentally ill have the *right* to be mentally ill. They can't be
>>> forced to take the meds.
>> I *do* hope you're being sarcastic.
> Nope. The ACLU made the courts uphold that "right". The stupid fucks.

How would you like it if someone held the right to drug you as they saw fit?
>
> --
> You can either hold yourself up to the unrealistic standards of others,
> or ignore them and concentrate on being happy with yourself as you are.
> -- Jeph Jacques

Bill wrote:
> Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:40:00 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:47:16 -0500, krw wrote:
>>>
>>>> The mentally ill have the *right* to be mentally ill. They can't
>>>> be forced to take the meds.
>>> I *do* hope you're being sarcastic.
>> Nope. The ACLU made the courts uphold that "right". The stupid
>> fucks.
>
> How would you like it if someone held the right to drug you as they
> saw fit?

I'd like it more than upholding his or anyone's right to go out and kill
people.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

ChairMan wrote:
> Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:40:00 +0000 (UTC), Larry
>>>> Blanchard
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:47:16 -0500, krw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The mentally ill have the *right* to be mentally ill.
>>>>>> They can't
>>>>>> be forced to take the meds.
>>>>> I *do* hope you're being sarcastic.
>>>> Nope. The ACLU made the courts uphold that "right". The
>>>> stupid
>>>> fucks.
>>> How would you like it if someone held the right to drug
>>> you as they
>>> saw fit?
>> I'd like it more than upholding his or anyone's right to
>> go out and
>> kill people.
> Not to mention that some people just need to be drugged
The notion of "the right to drug" seems fiend-ish to me.
How about people who drink alot of alcohol and then go out and commit
crime that they wouldn't otherwise do? Should we make alcohol illegal
(to be on the safe side)?

Bill wrote:

> The notion of "the right to drug" seems fiend-ish to me.
> How about people who drink alot of alcohol and then go out and commit
> crime that they wouldn't otherwise do? Should we make alcohol illegal
> (to be on the safe side)?

That's the question you should ask of those who want to outlaw guns.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:43:57 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:40:00 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:47:16 -0500, krw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The mentally ill have the *right* to be mentally ill. They can't be
>>>>> forced to take the meds.
>>>> I *do* hope you're being sarcastic.
>>> Nope. The ACLU made the courts uphold that "right". The stupid fucks.
>> How would you like it if someone held the right to drug you as they saw fit?
> I wouldn't, but then, I'm not crazy nor am I a menace to society.
Who gets to decide who's crazy and/or a menace to society?
And who gets to prescribe medication? And you wish to make it a
crime for the "patient" not to take it? I thought we had some
conservatives here!




> If
> I were, though, I might want my chemical balance adjusted so I didn't
> kill again. Wouldn't you? Asylums are a whole lot more humanistic
> nowadays, guys. I hear they've even done away with frontal lobotomies
> and most electric shock, rapes, and abuse.
>
> --
> You can either hold yourself up to the unrealistic standards of others,
> or ignore them and concentrate on being happy with yourself as you are.
> -- Jeph Jacques

Bill wrote:
> Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:43:57 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:40:00 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:47:16 -0500, krw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The mentally ill have the *right* to be mentally ill. They can't be
>>>>>> forced to take the meds.
>>>>> I *do* hope you're being sarcastic.
>>>> Nope. The ACLU made the courts uphold that "right". The stupid fucks.
>>> How would you like it if someone held the right to drug you as they
>>> saw fit?
>> I wouldn't, but then, I'm not crazy nor am I a menace to society.
> Who gets to decide who's crazy and/or a menace to society?
> And who gets to prescribe medication? And you wish to make it a
> crime for the "patient" not to take it? I thought we had some
> conservatives here!
>
The problem I see is that, with the right dose, you can make anyone "not
a problem".
Certainly some with power would exploit that. Bravo for the ACLU.

>
>> If
>> I were, though, I might want my chemical balance adjusted so I didn't
>> kill again. Wouldn't you? Asylums are a whole lot more humanistic
>> nowadays, guys. I hear they've even done away with frontal lobotomies
>> and most electric shock, rapes, and abuse.
>>
>> --
>> You can either hold yourself up to the unrealistic standards of others,
>> or ignore them and concentrate on being happy with yourself as you are.
>> -- Jeph Jacques
>

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:08:43 -0800, Mike M wrote:

> To my thinking if someone who is dangerous to society chooses not to
> take the meds that would make them able to be out in society, they have
> forfeited their right to be there.

Agreed.

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:31:11 -0500, Bill wrote:

> Who gets to decide who's crazy and/or a menace to society? And who gets
> to prescribe medication? And you wish to make it a crime for the
> "patient" not to take it? I thought we had some conservatives here!

There has to be some balance between the rights of an individual to do as
they wish and the restrictions needed to protect society as a whole. the
disagreement is where that point lies.

If someone is diagnosed as needing medication to control their propensity
to be dangerous, and then refuses to take that medication, I think they
forfeit their rights in favor of the rights of society as a whole.

As to who would do the diagnosing, the same members of the medical
profession who do it now. There's no need for that to change.

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:40:41 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> The problem I see is that, with the right dose, you can make anyone "not
>> a problem".
>> Certainly some with power would exploit that. Bravo for the ACLU.
>>
> I bet you'd not say that if you were in the situation one of my
> co-workers has with her brother. The ACLU has pretty much guaranteed
> he is a drain on society rather than a happy productive member. But
> he has rights, you know.

I should have qualified my "bravo" that it was only intended for the
"drugging" issue that was being discussed at the time. As a society, we
do have some problems.How much trouble would the mentally ill get into
if we better cared for them...and the same goes for a LOT of adolescents.

Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:40:00 +0000 (UTC), Larry
>>> Blanchard
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:47:16 -0500, krw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The mentally ill have the *right* to be mentally ill.
>>>>> They can't
>>>>> be forced to take the meds.
>>>> I *do* hope you're being sarcastic.
>>> Nope. The ACLU made the courts uphold that "right". The
>>> stupid
>>> fucks.
>>
>> How would you like it if someone held the right to drug
>> you as they
>> saw fit?
>
> I'd like it more than upholding his or anyone's right to
> go out and
> kill people.

Not to mention that some people just need to be drugged

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:43:57 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:40:00 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:47:16 -0500, krw wrote:
>>>
>>>> The mentally ill have the *right* to be mentally ill. They can't be
>>>> forced to take the meds.
>>> I *do* hope you're being sarcastic.
>> Nope. The ACLU made the courts uphold that "right". The stupid fucks.
>
>How would you like it if someone held the right to drug you as they saw fit?

I wouldn't, but then, I'm not crazy nor am I a menace to society. If
I were, though, I might want my chemical balance adjusted so I didn't
kill again. Wouldn't you? Asylums are a whole lot more humanistic
nowadays, guys. I hear they've even done away with frontal lobotomies
and most electric shock, rapes, and abuse.

--
You can either hold yourself up to the unrealistic standards of others,
or ignore them and concentrate on being happy with yourself as you are.
-- Jeph Jacques

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 17:58:01 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It's a rare day when I agree with Charles Krauthammer, but I think he hit
>the nail on the head (ObWWR) with this column:
>
><http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-roots-of-
>mass-murder/2012/12/20/e4d99594-4ae3-11e2-b709-667035ff9029_story.html>

He seems unreasonably sensible for a liberal. ('cept for not having a
problem with the concept of gun control. As he stated, it doesn't
change what the psychotics do, and they're the -only- ones doing the
mass murders.)

I'd much rather see concealed carry permits issued to multiple
teachers on each school campus. Gun Free Zones are a real, real
strong attraction to the crazies.

--
There is nothing more frightening than ignorance in action.

--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:40:00 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:47:16 -0500, krw wrote:
>
>> The mentally ill have the *right* to be mentally ill. They can't be
>> forced to take the meds.
>
>I *do* hope you're being sarcastic.

I *do* hope you've been listening to the lefties. That is *exactly*
their position, fully backed by the ACLU. Oren has made these points
here.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> It's a rare day when I agree with Charles Krauthammer, but I think he
> hit the nail on the head (ObWWR) with this column:
>
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-roots-of-
> mass-murder/2012/12/20/e4d99594-4ae3-11e2-b709-667035ff9029_story.html>

At another time a poster, in response to a Krauthammer article, said: "What
the fuck does a TV commentator know about economics or psychology?" (The
article to which he referred evidently had Krauthammer addressing both.)

I responded:

Charles Krauthammer

McGill University (Montreal) B.A. in Economics, with highest honors
Commonwealth Scholar, Politics, Oxford
Doctor of Medicine, Harvard
Chief Resident in Psychiarty, Massachusetts General Hospital
Board certified in psychiarty by the American Board of Psychiatry and
Neurology

Evidently more than you.