Thursday, November 15, 2012
Texas Governor Wants Drug Tests for Welfare, Unemployment Applicants
By Join Together Staff | November 14, 2012 | 3 Comments | Filed in Community Related, Drugs & Legislation
Texas Governor Rick Perry this week called for drug tests for residents seeking welfare or unemployment benefits, the Associated Press reports.
Perry and Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst want to expand a bill that will come before the state legislature next year that would mandate drug testing for “high-risk” welfare applicants, and would ban them from using public funds to purchase alcohol, tobacco or lottery tickets. Perry and Dewhurst want the rules to also include those applying for unemployment benefits.
“Texas taxpayers will not subsidize or tolerate illegal drug abuse. Every dollar that goes to someone who uses it inappropriately is a dollar that can’t go to a Texan who needs it for housing, child care or medicine,” Governor Perry said in a news release. “Being on drugs makes it much harder to begin the journey to independence, which only assures individuals remain stuck in the terrible cycle of drug abuse and poverty.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas opposes the measure. Executive Director Terri Burke said in a news release, “How sad that our state’s highest elected officials have embraced this mean-spirited measure that would punish innocent children for their parents’ conduct. This proposal is a costly, ineffective, inhumane and punitive effort by state government based on stereotypes about our state’s neediest Texans.”
A Florida law that required welfare applicants to undergo drug testing was halted last year after the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida sued the state to stop it. About 2.5 percent of the 4,000 adults tested before the program was stopped tested positive for drugs. Almost 2,500 people refused to take the drug test.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Laws to Crack Down on Serving Intoxicated People in Bars Largely Ignored
By Celia Vimont | November 13, 2012 | 1 Comment | Filed in Alcohol &Government
Laws prohibiting bars and restaurants from serving intoxicated people can be an effective way to reduce alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes and violence, but the provisions in most states are poorly drafted and rarely enforced, according to two experts on alcohol policy.
James Mosher, JD, and Elizabeth Dahl, JD, of Alcohol Policy Consultations, say the enforcement of well-designed service of intoxicated persons (SIP) laws would provide significant public health and safety benefits. Mosher spoke at the recent American Public Health Association annual meeting.
Only Florida and Nevada do not have SIP laws, and Wyoming’s law applies only to drive-through sales, according to Dahl. Other states have some form of SIP law, although the specific provisions vary widely.
“Law enforcement largely ignores these laws,” Mosher notes. “One reason for this is they are usually so poorly drafted that there’s little likelihood of conviction.” A 2007 report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded that states have limited resources to enforce the laws, and the provisions of the laws tend to make collection of proof overly burdensome. The report also found that cultural norms that tolerate excessive drinking or that support the idea that bars are appropriate places for patrons to become intoxicated present a challenge for effective SIP enforcement.
New Mexico is one of the few states with an effective SIP law, Dahl says. In that state, if a patron is stopped after leaving a bar or restaurant with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .14 or higher, a rebuttable presumption is established that the patron was intoxicated when served at the establishment. The bar or restaurant can rebut the presumption with evidence that the server could not reasonably know about the patron’s intoxicated state. After three violations in one year, the establishment can lose its license. According to Dahl, New Mexico implemented a targeted program to enforce its SIP law and combined it with DUI checkpoints and dedicated DUI enforcement. As a result, the state experienced a substantial reduction in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes.
This contrasts sharply with the laws in other states. “In many states, you can’t use the BAC of a patron to infer they became intoxicated in the bar—you need to prove that through direct observation of a witness, which makes it harder to prove,” Mosher says. “You have to send undercover officers into bars and have them sit and watch to see if a violation occurs.”
SIP laws that do not require actual knowledge of intoxication are easier to enforce, Mosher says. “Some states use a ‘reasonable person’ standard – would a reasonable person in like circumstances know that the patron was intoxicated? This constitutes the legal definition of negligence and is an appropriate approach for drafting SIP laws.” According to Mosher, SIP laws are more likely to reduce patron intoxication if the penalties focus on suspending and revoking the licenses of repeat offenders rather than relying on criminal penalties. Administrative sanctions are typically easier than criminal sanctions to impose.
The authors suggest that an effective way to reduce Driving Under the Influence (DUI) incidents is to focus on the relatively small percentage of drinking establishments that repeatedly serve intoxicated patrons. Law enforcement often knows which ones these are because of the repeated calls for service that typically occur. After every DUI arrest or crash, the offender should be asked where they were drinking as a routine part of the investigation. The data can be compiled to identify potential problem establishments. Law enforcement can meet with the owner and manager, alert them to the problem, and suggest Responsible Beverage Service programs that focus both on management policies and staff training. If problems persist, a targeted law enforcement effort can be initiated. This approach can greatly reduce the costs of SIP law enforcement and focus limited resources on the establishments most likely to be SIP law violators.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
HARMONY FOUNDATION COLORADO
About
Nonprofit Residential Drug and Alcohol Treatment Center
MissionTo Provide the Foundation for Sustained Recovery from the Diseases of Alcohol and Drug Addiction
Company OverviewHarmony is a residential drug & alcohol treatment center in Estes Park, CO, about 1.5 hours from Denver. We offer comprehensive recovery services to individuals and their families.
DescriptionHarmony Foundation is a residential drug and alcohol treatment center nestled in the Colorado Rocky Mountains near Estes Park, Colorado. We provide treatment for chemical dependency using the bio-psycho-social 12-step model: Body, Mind & Spirit. Our 30-day program is gender separate and individualized to meet clients' needs. Harmony provides a foundation for lifelong recovery for approximately 650 men and women each year.
General InformationHarmony is a residential drug & alcohol treatment center in Estes Park, CO, about 1.5 hours from Denver. We offer comprehensive recovery services to individuals and their families.
Founded1969AwardsHarmony is accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) and the National Association of Addiction Treatment Providers (NAATP). Our Alumni Services are part of the Treatment Professionals in Alumni Services (TPAS) association.ProductsHarmony offers an affordable 30 day residential program, family program, and aftercare services. Insurance Accepted.
Harmony has treated approximately 25,000 men and women for addiction since 1969.
1600 Fish Hatchery Road
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Phone
(866) 686-7867Email info@harmonyfoundationinc.com
Website http://www.harmonyfoundationinc.com
A Few Doctors Linked to Many Prescription Drug Deaths in Southern California
By Join Together Staff | November 12, 2012 | 1 Comment | Filed in Community Related, Healthcare & Prescription Drugs
A small number of doctors are linked to a large percentage of prescription drug-related deaths in Southern California, according to an investigation by the Los Angeles Times.
The newspaper found that in almost half of the 3,733 deaths from prescription drugs in four Southern California counties, those who died had a doctor’s prescription for at least one drug that caused or contributed to the death. In many cases, deaths were caused by use of multiple drugs, sometimes prescribed by more than one doctor. In some cases, prescription drugs were mixed with alcohol or illicit drugs.
The investigation found 71 doctors, or 0.1 percent of all practicing physicians in the four counties, wrote prescriptions for drugs that caused or contributed to 298 deaths. Each of those doctors prescribed drugs to three or more patients who died, the newspaper found. Four of the doctors had 10 or more patients who died from prescription drug overdoses.
Most of the 71 doctors linked with three or more fatal overdoses were pain specialists, general practitioners or psychiatrists. They tended to work alone, without the scrutiny of peers. Four have been convicted of drug offenses in connection with the prescriptions they wrote; a fifth is awaiting trial on charges of second-degree murder in the overdose deaths of three patients, the article notes.
The other doctors have not faced criminal prosecution related to their practice of medicine. Most have clean records with the Medical Board of California, which licenses and oversees doctors.
Experts said the findings should lead to closer scrutiny of physicians’ prescribing practices. R. Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said, “Do I think this has the potential to change the game in the way it’s being looked at and being addressed, both at the state and federal level? Yes, I do.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)