What will happen if one turns self into doc or hospital for cocaine problem?

[an_army_of_one]

A friend of mine is addicted to coke. They want to stop but they don't want to check into a rehab place or are unsure of how they want to quit. But what they do know is that they don't want to do any life changing drastic decisions for a couple of weeks because they want to finish the school semester.

If they tell a psychiatrist about their addiction, does the doctor have the legal right to force the person into some kind of treatment immediately? Or can they let the person wait a couple of weeks while still taking the drug with the idea that in January they will be able to enter a rehabilitation facility or some other kind of treatment?

From what I can tell they try to be as safe as they can technically be with an illegal drug like Coke so I don't think that they might die or od of some kind of thing in the next month.

Thanks!

also this takes place in Arizona USA incase there are different laws in different states/countries.

[klonopinz]

klonopinz insanity screamed:

" As long as the doctor doesn't think you might be an immediate harm to yourself or others, he can't disclose any information, but he can simply let Swiy know he doesn't treat this particular problem in any other way than rehab, and that if you don't want then you can go find another doctor."

[Ilsa]

my cat strongly advocates trying to quit on swiy's own, but doc's really can't force someone into treatment against their will unless the patient appears to pose a danger to themselves or others. my cat also knows a couple ppl that were baker-acted in florida, but that legislation is determined by state government, and florida is one of the only, if not the only state that allows for this:

United States

Involuntary commitment is governed by state law and procedures vary from state to state. Involuntary commitment is typically used against people diagnosed with, or alleged to have, a mental illness, particularly schizophrenia.[citation needed] In some jurisdictions, laws regarding the commitment of juveniles may vary, with what is the de facto involuntary commitment of a juvenile perhaps de jure defined as "voluntary" if his parents agree though s/he may still have a right to protest and attempt to get released. However, there is a body of case law governing the civil commitment of individuals under the Fourteenth Amendment through U. S. Supreme Court rulings beginning with Addington v. Texas in 1979 which set the bar for involuntary commitment for treatment by raising the burden of proof required to commit persons from the usual civil burden of proof of "preponderance of the evidence" to the higher standard of "clear and convincing" evidence.[12]
An example of involuntary commitment procedures is the Baker Act used in Florida. Under this law, a person may be committed only if he or she presents a danger to himself or others. A police officer, doctor, nurse or licensed mental health professional may initiate an involuntary examination that lasts for up to 72 hours. Within this time, two psychiatrists may ask a judge to extend the commitment and order involuntary treatment. The Baker Act also requires that all commitment orders be reviewed every six months in addition to insuring certain rights to the committed including the right to contact outsiders. Also, a person under an involuntary commitment order has a right to counsel and a right to have the state provide a public defender if they cannot afford a lawyer. While the Florida law allows police to initiate the examination, it is the recommendations of two psychiatrists that guide the decisions of the court.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involun...#United_States


to be on the safe side, swiy should avoid anything that could be perceived as psychotic, suicidal or homicidal and there shouldn't be an issue

[Ilsa]

actually, while it can be tricky to get a (mostly)healthy, semi-functional individual into treatment against their will, this article describes legislation passed in washington state in 2001 that allows for involuntary commitment up to 5 months of homeless addicts. so swibetsym makes a valid point: if willing doctors are involved it can be done with disturbing ease , and as the war on drugs escalates the severity of legislation such as this will escalate correspondingly in all likelihood.

[an_army_of_one]

thanks, swim has gotten help, happily accepted all responses!

[klonopinz]

an_army_of_one,

klonopinz clonazepam wispered:
"...

That's great! Swim is glad your friend got help; hopes Swiyfriend stays well and, and is glad that all responses given were, at least, "happily" sensed. Stay in touch with him if you think it positively helps.

"

[Ilsa]

Originally Posted by betsym

There's enough risk for swim to keep her "habits', if she had any, to herself and to keep them from getting out of hand. Swim also would not go near a psychiatrist or any "head" doctors because she wouldn't trust anyone to get that close to her and then use what she may say against her. "Abuse of power", where doctors institutionalize somebody against their will and then force them to take all kinds of drugs and sedatives, shock treatments, does happen, especially to individuals with no family or relatives to fight for them. Maybe swim has watched too many movies where this happens, but what with so much corruption, she isn't taking any chances!

Swim doesn't doubt that there may be some very good places for those struggling with addiciton but peeps just need to know what their rights are and make sure that somebody else, a family member, friend, lawyer, or aquaintence knows where swiy is and checks on them occasionally.

swim doesn't thinkn swiy has seen too many movies it's a slippery slope: oonce one doc slaps a label on some unfortunate soul they can easily be marked for a long time to come. swim also thinks placing control in the hand s of th emedical establishment can lead ppl into a very irresponsible mentality and perpetuate the whole cycle of addiction by leading ppl to believe that controlling use/abuse isn't possible.

[e4rolls]

SWIM believes that treatment for cocaine addiction by an institution is not usually effective. It gets you clean for X amount of days and then SWIY is back out in the world around the same people, places and things that have always triggered SWIY to use cocaine.

SWIM's been fighting his own coke addiction for 4 years and has been thru 3 mental health facilities only to return to useing coke each time.
SWIM's best friend has a crack cocaine addiction and has also been thru a 90 day treatment program and went back to useing crack 1 week after getting out.

SWIM has had more success with Narcotics Anonymous (NA) and was able to stay "clean" for 11 months until SWIM decided to go back to useing.

SWIM recommends that SWIY's friend not enter into a costly treatment program or waste time in a mental health facility. Cocaine is only a psychological addiction and the intense mental cravings dull with time and abstinence but will never completely disappear. SWIM believes that a good support group like Narcotics Anonymous will be the most effective way to stop useing the coke and remain abstinent for any length of time.
Just SWIM's opinion of course.

[General Grievous]

e4rolls,

swim agrees...swim did a year of drug court for cola..and it was easy to stop it was MUCH MUCH harder to quit weed....once swiy gets out of rehab the usual triggers will get swiy back hitting the white grl...but in swims opinion its str8..its not smack! lol