Policy Project Part One ( Historical background) Insntruction and example of what i need was attached

SB2098 Historical Background 10

Running head: SB2098 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Senate Bill 2098: Mental Illness or Chemical Dependency Treatment Evaluation

Historical Background

Group Name

Names of all authors

University of North Dakota

February 9, 2015

Introduction

Chemical dependency and mental illness have been present throughout our nation’s history. In some cases, it is necessary to commit individuals with these diagnoses to either a public or private facility for treatment when there is reasonable risk of serious harm to self or others. North Dakota law delineates guidelines for voluntary, involuntary, and emergency commitments of individuals. Specifically, the North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) Chapter 25-03.1 establishes commitment procedures for individuals with mental illness or chemical dependency (North Dakota Legislative Council [NDLC], 2001). Senate Bill 2098, Mental Illness or Chemical Dependency Treatment Evaluation, is attempting to amend various components of NDCC 25-03.1, including allowing addiction counselors to sign the petitions necessary for civil commitment (SB 2098, 2009). Thanks! An introduction is always a great idea.

What Historical Problems Led to the Creation of the Policy?

Early drug use in the United States did not operate under the stringent regulations we see today. For example, shamans, or medicine men, strongly influenced the distribution of drugs in our country. Prior to the 20th century, these men traveled the country and freely sold hallucinogenic drugs to individuals unaware of the drugs’ compositions (Levinthal, 2008).

Over 150 years ago, many people started using drugs due to curiosity—long before that!. Many did not know what they were actually consuming. Opium, for example was widely used in social circles. It was cheap and used by all ages, from newborns to the elderly. Another example of society’s relaxed approach toward drug use was (keep past events in the past tense) that in the late 1800s, heroin was legal and considered safe. It was used to treat coughs, chest pains, and other respiratory illnesses. Alarmingly, at this time one of the main ingredients of Coca Cola and cold remedies was cocaine (Levinthal, 2008). All in all, society thought drug use was a natural occurrence and nothing of concern.

In regards to alcohol in the beginning of the 20th century, neither the public nor the government considered it a drug. There was excessive drinking during this time period as there were no regulations to stop this behavior and it was considered socially acceptable. Though regulations on drug use had been passed in the early 1900s, it was not until between 1945 and 1960 that drug use was considered bad by society. At this time, society viewed people who were using illegal drugs to be criminals, urban poor, and nonwhite this is an awkward paraphrase from Levinthal (Levinthal, 2008).

How Important have these Problems Been Historically?

Although much of American history had adopted a laissez-faire approach to drug use, society gradually saw it as a problem and employed greater efforts to regulate different substances (Karger & Stoesz, 2008). Early in the 1900s, Americans began implementing more strict regulations on certain substances or banned them all together. In order to ensure consumers knew what they were ingesting into their bodies, The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 required that contents of a product must be explicitly labeled. The Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914 took regulation a step further by completely banning substances such as cocaine, heroin and marijuana. Pushing the regulation even further, Prohibition banned alcohol in 1919 as many religious groups believed it negatively interfered with family life. Prohibition was unsuccessful and was overturned in 1933, making alcohol legal once again (Karger & Stoesz, 2008).

Specifically targeting drug distribution and penalties, the Narcotic Control Act of 1956 established mandatory jail time for any drug related offense other than first time possession. Furthermore, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 established the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) (Hart, Ksir, & Ray, 2009). In the 1980s, President Reagan implemented policies to drug screen federal employees and enacted The War on Drugs. This program utilized two main strategic efforts including the interdiction of drug supplies and the implementation of treatment programs. These efforts and others have attempted to place more regulation on drugs and alcohol in order to create a safer society (Karger & Stoesz, 2008).

In regards to mental illness, the policy of institutionalization was adopted during? most of the 1900s. Early sentiment toward this began in the 1840s when activist Dorothea Dix convinced states to provide special institutions for the mentally ill. Many Americans believed the best way to deal with mental illness was to provide inpatient care by housing such patients in various hospital settings. It was not until the Community Mental Health Centers (CMHC) Acts of 1963 and 1965 that the federal government became involved mandating a shift toward community-based care emerged (Karger & Stoesz, 2008).

How was the Problem Previous Handled?

The problem of chemical dependency has continued to create great debate in the United States. In recent years, a tension between treatment and punishment of substance users has been prevalent throughout the nation. In 2001, jails were overpopulated and the government proposed $420 million for prison construction and $327.5 million for interdiction. At the same time, only $127 million was allocated for treatment (Karger & Stoesz, 2008). Today prisons are still over-populated by drug offenders. However, many people are favoring treatment as opposed to imprisonment. For example, in 2003 New York passed a bill that offered non-violent drug offenders treatment over imprisonment; as a result, New York closed two prisons due to an inmate population decrease. Many states, such as Maryland and Wisconsin, have tried to pass similar bills (Associated Press, 2004).

Avoid leaps and returns in your chronology. Failing to adhere to a clean chronological telling of your story is disruptive to your reader and wreaks havoc with ‘cause and effect’ logic and arguments. (Your previous paragraph took your reader to the 21st century, this next returns to the 1980s, and the following goes even further back.)

In addition to treatment, interdiction, and imprisonment, prevention education is an approach utilized by American society. The 1980s saw a rise in programs such as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) and DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education). Another recent drug prevention movement is the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. This campaign delivers anti-drug advertisements to the masses through television, radio, and internet. It utilizes the strength of advertising to bolster anti-drug attitudes. Other prevention programs from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) include Drug Free Communities and Random Student Drug Testing (ONDCP, 2005).

Similarly, the realm of mental health has seen a paradigm shift toward community-based care versus institutionalization. With the passage of the CMHC Acts of 1963 and 1965, long-term hospitalization of individuals with serious mental health concerns has decreased while community-based centers have increased. For example, while 560,000 individuals were institutionalized in 1955, only 125,000 were in 1981 (DuBois & Miley, 2008; Karger & Stoesz, 2008). Though community-based mental health services were the focus in the 1960s and 1970s, the 1990s and beyond have incorporated a diverse mental health delivery system that includes the options of either community-based care or hospitalization (Karger & Stoesz, 2008).

What is the Historical Background of the Policy?

Though North Dakota’s? mental health system employs both community based-care and long-term hospitalization, a third option remains for individuals with severe mental illness and chemical dependency: civil commitment. The general guiding principle is that, without inpatient care, some individuals with severe mental illness or chemical dependency are at risk of harming themselves or others (Karger & Stoesz, 2008). North Dakota, like the other 49 states, has enacted laws permitting civil commitments of individuals. This can occur in an institution (“inpatient”), in the community with close supervision (“outpatient”), or in a psychiatric unit in a prison (“criminal”) (Stavis, 1995). NDCC 25-03.1 establishes North Dakota’s guidelines for voluntary, involuntary, and emergency commitments for individuals with mental illness or chemical dependency (NDLC, 2001).

When Did the Policy Originate?

NDCC 25-03.1 originated in 1977 (NDLC, 2001).

How has the Original Policy Changed over Time?

Since 1977, several amendments have been made to NDCC 25-03.1. In 1989, the terminologies of “drug addict” and “alcoholic individual” were replaced with “chemically dependent person;” in addition, it specified application procedures for involuntary treatment and allowed preliminary hearings to be waived by the parties involved. Then, in 1993 the policy was amended to clarify an individual’s right to a preliminary hearing, create procedures for discharge petitions, and allow the state to be reimbursed for payments made for individuals found to have sufficient funds (NDLC, 2001).

What is the Legislative History of the Policy?

In the current 61st Legislative Assembly, SB 2098, Mental Illness or Chemical Dependency Treatment Evaluation, is attempting to amend components of NDCC 25-03.1. This bill was introduced to the Senate by the Human Services Committee at the request of the North Dakota Department of Human Services (SB 2098, 2009). Presently, only physicians, psychologists, and psychiatrists have the authority to sign the petitions necessary for commitment. SB 2098 would allow addiction counselors to endorse a petition for commitment based on their evaluations. The Department of Human Services views the current omission of addiction counselors as an oversight in the rule (McLean, 2009). According to Senator Schneider of District 42, the bill has been uncontroversial—it passed the Human Service Committee and Senate unanimously and awaits approval from the House of Representatives (personal communication, February 3, 2009).

References

Associated Press. (2004). Successful Rehab Leads to N.Y. Prison Closures. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews /2004/successful-rehab-leads-to-ny.html.

DuBois, B. & Miley, K. K. (2008). Social work: An empowering profession (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Hart, C. L., Ksir, C., & Ray, O. (2009). Drugs, society, & human behavior (13th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Karger, H. J. & Stoesz, D. (2008). American social welfare policy: A pluralist approach (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Levinthal, C. F. (2008). Drugs, behavior, and modern society (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

McLean, A. J. (2009). Testimony: Senate Bill 2098 – Department of Human Services to the Senate Human Services Committee. Retrieved February 3, 2008, from http://www.nd.gov/dhs/info/testimony/2009/senate-human-services/sb2098-01-14-09-commitment-for-treatment.pdf.

Mental Illness or Chemical Dependency Treatment Evaluation. S. 2098, 61st Legislative Assembly of North Dakota. (2009).

North Dakota Legislative Council. (2001). Mental illness commitment procedures – Background memorandum. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/57-2001/docs/pdf/39028.pdf.

Office of National Drug Control Policy, (2005). Prevention Programs. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/PREVENT/ prevention_programs.html.

Stavis, J. (1995). Civil commitment: Past, present, and future. Quality of Care Newsletter, 64. Retrieved February 6, 2009, from http://www.cqc.state.ny.us/counsels _corner/cc64.htm