While it is inaccurate to claim that Reagan was solely responsible for the deterioration in and frequent absence of mental health services in this country, it is equally inaccurate to claim he had nothing to do with it.

When I wrote that deinstitutionlization was not a "Reagan-era" idea, I was responding those who were laying the blame for it at the feet of his presidency and conservative motives that were ostensibly intended to save money. In point of fact, it is far cheaper to warehouse the mentally ill in great big buildings than to help them live less restrictively in their communities.

Further, I do not disagree with those who say that our prisons have in many instances taken over where the mental hospital left off. However, I know a good deal of this field both due to mentally ill family members as well as clients involved with the community mental health system. Some of the mentally ill do actually belong in institutions, either psychiatric hospitals or prison. Most, of course, do not. Additionally, there are some mentally ill people who sincerely do wish to live on the streets -- frustrated loved ones can find that courts will not coerce them to do otherwise.

But in any event, nation-wide, when many mental hospitals started closing in the 60s and 70s, the community resources to absorb the patients simply did not magically appear. That was true before, during and after Reagan.

It's a stupid statement, and anyone who knows anything about the drug culture knows it is a lie.

That was simply a case of Clinton wanting to have his cake and eat it too.

He got the "young" vote, minute as it may be, by seeming to be "cool". And he avoided appearing like a druggie by claiming not to have inhaled.

I find it most amusing that at the time of Clinton's impeachment the President, the Vice President and the Speaker of the House were all admitted users of cannabis. Think of it, the three top leaders of the US were all admitted users of an illegal substance.

And yet, cannabis is still illegal, despite the fact that every truly educated person knows cannabis is far less dangerous and debilitating than is alcohol.

The conditions in "Supermax" prisons are deliberately and officially designed to torture the inmates. Humans, even prisoners, are social animals and to cut a human off from social contact is one of the worst things you can do to a person.

It's no accident that "shunning" was about the worst punishment that could be inflicted on someone in the early American settlements.

Deinstitutionalization's genesis begins in the anti-psychiatry movement, then Szasz in the 50s and 60s, and now Tom Cruise and the Scientologists. In 1963 the Community Mental Health Act was passed. That got the ball rolling. The failure of these policies is what we are discussing here, not the genesis.

I think some blame can be laid all around for that, but it is a no brainer that it comes down to funding. Not all clients can be safely put in the community based systems.

This paper is quite fair and objective.

http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html

When I wrote that deinstitutionlization was not a "Reagan-era" idea, I was responding those who were laying the blame for it at the feet of his presidency and conservative motives that were ostensibly intended to save money. In point of fact, it is far cheaper to warehouse the mentally ill in great big buildings than to help them live less restrictively in their communities.

Cost really depends on the level of care that the individual patient needs.

Why? Because in the big scheme of things I'll stack my 2 million nonviolent long term incarcerated felons against your few hundred Iraqis any day of the week. That's why. Greater good, and like all that bunk.....?

Tildeman and I agree on something.

We're just a couple of bomb throwers, eh Tildeman?

Kind of a Dick, Isn't He?

Who knew?

We in CT (at that time) knew. We read N.Y. papers. Giuliani was famous for vigourously pushing ... and then losing ... pretty much every freedom of speech case he could (he was trying to restrict it). His disdain for liberty, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights has a long pedigree.

Besides that he's an arrogant, self-absorbed a$$.

Perfect Rethuglican candidate for preznit....

Cheers,

If "liberals" are so concerned about our burgeoning prison population then perhaps one of you knowledgeable folks here could point out the federal level politicians of either party who have come out in favor of ending "The War On (some) Drugs".

-- Aycharaych

Bill Clinton, or his wife, aren't really liberals. In this country, the right wingnuts claim they are "crazed socialists". The beltway pundits echo this nonsense. In reality, they are moderate conservatives, like most Democrats. I posted a link to a recent study that you obviously didn't read or you wouldn't be asking this question again.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/prispop.htm

And yet when I raise the issue I can rarely get any liberals to respond at all.

Nonsense. Plenty of liberals think the drug laws draconian, the criminal justice system flawed, and prison conditions appalling. And plenty do stuff about it (such as pushing for drug law and sentencing reform, "Project Innocence" and the abolition of the death penalty, and prison projects).

But you also miss a larger point: The outcry about torture isn't because these people are our huggable, lovable Terra-ists and regular criminals be damned. It's because the same laws apply for all: The justly and the unjustly accused (or suspected ... or just turned in by their neighbours because their cats sh*t in the neighbours' rose bushes). And furthermore: It's because torture isn't just about what it does to any (suspected/accused/rumoured) miscreants, it's about what it does to us!

Cheers,

Well... It's not like he was saying they should sodomize them with a toilet plunger in a police station bathroom. Yeah, that liberal media makes everything sound so much worse...

... or aerate them with 42 bullet holes (some on the bottom of their shoes) to improve their circulation.

No. That would be unthinkable. And if it ever happened, I'm sure the appropriate action would be taken immediately....

Cheers,