National Drug Court

This is another follow the money story. National Drug Court Association is very aggressive in seeking federal dollars, retaining federal dollars, expanding federal and state dollars. There were two very negative reports that came out this year. I read both. They are many negative aspects of Drug Courts that cannot be denied. How does the National Drug Court Association respond? With both barrels blasting, not giving an inch. I found there rebuttals very unprofessional and narcissistic. They did not accept any criticism period. Sounds familiar, huh? Here is a link to the rebuttel and negative reports.

One of the main criticisms I see that are valid, is the HUGE amount of money that is being expended on these programs, the same amount could help a ton more people in need of treatment in communities by offering help to more people. Only a select few are accepted into Drug Court. In fact research shows the more violent and troubled offender actually gain more from Drug Court than the more light weights that they like to accept. This makes their numbers look better if they select the cream of the crop offenders.

So a few Drug Courts have started allowing more violent felons in. Good for them, bad for people going to AA! Yet it is still a smaller % of who they serve. They are also criticized for being prejudiced, serving more white middle class than lower income blacks and hispanics. I do know from the times I have sat in Drug Courts to observe, I did notice that the majority of participants were white. I found this odd knowing prisons have a higher percentage of minorities.

How can the Drug Courts improve if they cannot take any constructive criticism? It is in many ways like talking to AA members." We are saving lives!" They let the success they do have go to their head, which prevents them seeing the dark side of these organizations and government Drug Court bureaucracy.

From my own experience of talking with Drug Court personnel in my neck of the woods, they do take it all quite seriously and pride themselves in the small successes they do have. To witness in courts the Judge asking people what they are going to do for the holidays, what are they going to cook, how are the kids, etc etc is a very different approach to watch. I cant help but feel having a group trying not to be adversarial has to have some benefit. Until of course they fail a urine test, or rob a store then off to jail they go!

For the most part they are totally 12 steppers. There are some courts that say, yes you can go to an alternative-but you will still need a sponsor. SAY WHAT!? Only AA has sponsors! So this is some of the crazy crap we are dealing with. Plus I do agree that there is a ton of money going to Drug Courts that could vary well help the masses more than a select few.

http://www.nadcp.org/learn/setting-record-straight-criticisms-answered

I think the sponsor thing is most likely an attempt to keep people roped in, and feel important. That is why you have all these sponsors on a power trip. Also sponsors who have sponsee are to have sponsors. Even after 20 years of sobriety. Total mind control.

These courts put a lot on having a sponsor. I read where a judge sated that she never saw anybody succeed in her court without the benefit of having a sponsor. it really just makes you want to vomit.

If the courts told people they had to go to Mass every Sunday, there would be people up in arms. Yet they are allowed to dictate a Christian based religion to people who walk in their court, with no viable option.

Another thing I am noticing is that some Drug Courts are getting clever and stating technically you can have choice-But it has to first be approved by staff. It is obvious to a participant they would be making waves if they do ask. This is plain wrong! There should be zero preference.Period.

Below is part of a response by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals to criticisms of the drug courts throughout the United States of America. The full response can be found here >> http://www.nadcp.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/NADCP%20Initial%20Respons...

******************************************************************************
Respect for Science

Science has a reliable mechanism for challenging false statements and placing a check
on unbridled speculation. It is called peer review.

Scientists submit their writings to a neutral arbiter, typically a journal editor or
government program officer, who distributes the manuscript to objective experts in the
field. The independent experts must have no conflict of interest with the subject matter
of the arguments, nor may they have a personal or professional relationship with the
authors. They are “blinded” to the authors’ identity, and vice versa. This frees them up
to frankly critique the facts and logic in the treatise, and to recommend, up or down,
whether the arguments merit publication and dissemination.

Unshackled by such annoyances, DPA and JPI published their own “vanity press”
booklets, in which they could say whatever they wanted without fear of having their
sources confirmed or their facts checked. This is beyond unfair. It is recklessly
irresponsible.

Contact: West Huddleston, CEO at whuddleston@nadcp.org or Doug Marlowe, Ph.D.,
J.D., Chief of Science, Law and Policy at dmarlowe@nadcp.org

*******************************************************************************

Please note the last sentence that states “It is recklessly irresponsible”. Note that this statement is under the caption of RESPECT FOR SCIENCE.

Irrespective of drug court success or failure it seems an opportunity has presented itself in that the one of the authors of the above NADCP response includes the Chief of Science, Law and Policy at the NADCP. Mr. Doug B. Marlowe holds a Ph.D. in Psychology? as well as a J.D.

See Mr. Marlowe’s bio and introduction to NADCP here >> https://courts.arkansas.gov/drugcourt/2010_Drug_Court_Conference/Dr.%20D...'s%20Bio.pdf >> impressive bio.

Mr. Marlowe’s responsibilities with NADCP, in part is described as:
Responsible for translating the latest scientific findings into useful and understandable practice and national policy, addressing legal issues facing the drug court model and expanding NADCP’s role in the full problem-solving court arena.

Mr. Marlowe is our kind of guy. I would think he would be open to dialogue concerning the “disease concept of alcoholism” since he doesn’t to want condone anything “recklessly irresponsible” and Mr. Marlowe seems to profess a belief of “respect for science” and a good dose of “peer review”.

In addition, Mr. Marlowe should be helpful in addressing the constitutional issues of 12 step programs-he does have a law degree.

Question 1 – Mr. Marlowe, please provide definitive scientific evidence that alcoholism is a disease.

Question 2 – Mr. Marlowe, are you ensuring that the drug courts across the United State of America are not violating any aspect of the founding document of this great country, the United States?

Mr. Marlowe can be reached at:
dmarlowe@nadcp.org
610-299-7480 as provided by the bio

Furthermore, the Board of Directors of the NADCP are:
http://www.nadcp.org/board
(note there is a one-eyed judge from CA [stay out of LA County Jails] and in MI a judge that has a twin that sits on the same bench [I’d like to see that]).

So, Happy New Year, we have some prospects for a letter writing campaign.

p.s. >> link to other experts http://www.hbo.com/addiction/thefilm/bios/6411_douglas_marlowe.html

We are really getting somewhere. I will read these links in a bit. From what I have read thus far in National Drug Court responses, they seem to have an incredible PR compaign going on. More than I have witnessed in the past for people uniting behind government funding. They go WAY over the top in stating their questionable 'immense success'. Boy we could use that kind of campaign for fighting poverty, education and helping the homeless.

Drug courts have many issues. Probably one of the biggest is the idea that the state has any business criminalizing what we put into our bodies. Just imagine if other substances (such as alcohol) were like that. Just think what it would be like to be arrested, treated like a low life, tossed in jail, lose your job, kids in foster care, etc., etc for drinking alcohol (without committing any other crimes). Then enter drug courts. Now you have all these people facing potentially years in jail and loss of everything of value, but they are given the option of a drug court. This is very much like how AA suckers people who are feeling desperate into participating. This practice is reprehensible to the extreme. These people really don't have any good options other than to go along or face severe jail time. Frankly, the US has headed the charge on this point and have pressured most other nations into capitulating and joining their crusade.

We now have drug courts in Canada too. They have all the negative issues that yours do. In addition, there are NO drug courts at all in northern areas where there are high native populations, leaving them out in the cold once again. Then again, natives are represented in the prison system in a manner similar to the US's black and latino prison populations, basically treated as disposable and somewhat less than human.

Massive I agree with 99% of what you say, but your comment about young lesbians being 13th stepped by their sponsors doesn't make sense to me. In your comment/scenario, is the sponsor a woman or a man?

When I was in NA I only ever saw one person with an opposite sex sponsor (gay man and a straight woman, who was the sponsor). Even as a lesbian I was always told to pick a female sponsor. Men tried to 13th step me on the regular but never my sponsor, even when I had a gay female sponsor.

I almost wish I had had a male sponsor and he tried that. Would have left xA and never looked back the second that happened.

Did you actually ever see that happen??

Female sponsor/female sponsee. Both gay. Opportunity for 13th stepping.
Male sponsor/female sponsee. Male hetero/female gay. Opportunity for 13th stepping.
Every other combination of male/female/gay/hetero/sponsor/sponsee: There is ALWAYS an opportunity for 13th stepping. I did not say "invitation" - I said "opportunity".

It's not a gender issue or a sponsor/sponsee issue. It's an integrity issue. What hard to understand about that?

The attached case discusses the doctrines of "duty of care" and "Public Duty" as they relate to parolees committing crimes and who can be held responsible (immunity). The case has numerous cites on the issues. This case was in the state of Washington. These issues/conclusions will be state specific.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6366405553288434270&q=%22alc...

A telling excerpt:

[9] The State argues that it owed no duty to Taggart or Sandau as opposed to the general public, and that therefore the public duty doctrine bars their claims based upon negligent parole supervision. We hold that the State has a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect against reasonably foreseeable dangers posed by the dangerous propensities of parolees, and that if injury to Taggart and Sandau was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of paroling Brock and Geyman, then this duty extended to Taggart and Sandau. We therefore reverse and remand the trial courts' dismissals of Taggart's and Sandau's negligent supervision claims. In each case, unless qualified immunity is otherwise found to bar those claims, a jury should be allowed to determine whether injury to Taggart or Sandau was reasonably foreseeable.

The public duty doctrine provides that "no liability may be imposed for a public official's negligent conduct unless it is shown that `the duty breached was owed to the injured person as an individual and was not merely the breach of an obligation owed to the public in general (i.e., a duty to all is a duty to no one).'" Taylor v. Stevens Cy., 111 Wn.2d 159, 163, 759 P.2d 447 (1988) (quoting J&B Dev. Co. v. King Cy., 100 Wn.2d 299, 304, 669 P.2d 468, 41 A.L.R.4th 86 (1983), overruled in Taylor). Numerous exceptions to the doctrine are recognized. Bailey v. Forks, 108 Wn.2d 262, 268, 737 P.2d 1257 (1987) (identifying four exceptions). These exceptions 218*218 generally embody traditional negligence principles, and may be used as "focusing tools" to determine whether the public entity had a duty to the injured plaintiff. Taylor, 111 Wn.2d at 166. The question whether an exception to the public duty doctrine applies is thus another way of asking whether the State had a duty to the plaintiff.

The controlling case is Petersen v. State, 100 Wn.2d 421, 671 P.2d 230 (1983). There, the plaintiff had been injured when her car was struck by another vehicle driven by a recently released Western State Hospital psychiatric patient. We held that "the State had a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect against the dangerous propensities of a state hospital patient". 100 Wn.2d at 432. In reaching this holding, we recognized an exception to the common law rule that a person has no duty to prevent a third person from causing physical injury to another. 100 Wn.2d at 426. The exception is stated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315:

There is no duty so to control the conduct of a third person as to prevent him from causing physical harm to another unless
(a) a special relation exists between the actor and the third person which imposes a duty upon the actor to control the third person's conduct, or
(b) a special relation exists between the actor and the other which gives to the other a right to protection.

An online resource to analyze all of the links to any particular subject or person. Currently it is getting very active:

http://www.silobreaker.com/marty-mann-11_86860333