Scary Times

Today's Berkshire Eagle held an editorial opinion that I find more than slightly disconcerting.

http://www.berkshireeagle.com/editorials/ci_24367051/our-opinion-law-and-mental-illness

Editorials are opinions, not arguments, yet by using the words argument and assert in the text, the writer tries to convince readers that the reasoning behind their support of a particular piece of legislation is solid.

This issue may be hitting too close to home for me. I have a mental illness that has historically gotten worse with medication, so I choose to be medication non-compliant.

I see this opinion as saying:

Mentally ill persons are prone to violent acts than the rest of the population only when they do not take medication as prescribed. Mentally ill people should not have the right to decide whether, or what, medications they take because they don't know what's best for themselves and society. If a mentally person chooses to not take medication, they must forfeit their right to live in society. We need to restrict the rights of the mentally ill because they might legally or even illegally purchase and use a gun when they are not in their right mind.

Now here's mine:

The Eagle misses that not all mental illnesses cause violent behavior. And sometimes, the drugs that are used to treat mental illness create violent urges. Is it right to take away the rights of a whole population just because of the few especially violent examples? And who, exactly will make the decision about which drugs for which patient? Should the State be able to coerce people into taking chemicals that can destroy their kidneys, livers, or other organs? Even when those people have not shown signs of violent ideations?  

And if one fourth of the people in prison are there because of mental health issues, how many of those were medication compliant? How many were receiving any kind of treatment prior to incarceration? How many are imprisoned for non-violent crimes? And what labels fit the other seventy-five percent of prison population?

Seems to me that this law is an example of paternalism out of control.

Rant over. Probably should have been working on the paper instead.