Get treatment. Fast.

This is paranoid claptrap. You won’t find a more liberal, progressive, socialist bunch than those who board the DSM and the APA and it’s been that way for decades, yet there are no such attempts or plans for your 1984 scenario. Of course any country ought to be diligent against such efforts, but there have been no such efforts.

“Suppose I go to a school board meeting to protest the suspension of a kid whose poptart scared a teacher? That the local precrime prevention department is local protects me how? Is schizophrenia still a lifestyle choice? I forget. Is it an odd day or an even day? And what if the local entrail reader gets his dates wrong and I’m exhibiting symptoms on the day it’s not a lifestyle choice?”

More paranoid claptrap. What possible refutation is there of your dystopian sci-fi scenario? Bring it back up when your Precrime Prevention Departments are formed.

“I recall a behavioral psych prof pounding the lectern and insisting there’s no such thing as a freudian shit…er, slip. Probably a regular event. So do I get to pick the ratrunners or the witchdoctors to judge as to whether I’m likley to commit a crime?”

Freud was an idiot, refuted a looong time ago. You’re talking nonsense here, conflating crime with mental illness and science fiction.

“If you think this kind of power in anybody’s hands is a good idea, you probably think you’ll be te [sic] one with the power. The rest of us aren’t likely to be so sanguine.”

Ah, the ever-present strawman argument. Anyone who has read my posts over the years realizes this is no where near what I could or would think and it certainly isn’t revealed in my above post. They’d also know that no one on this blog is a greater critic of psychiatry and psychology than I am. There is little point in barking at me for beliefs and ‘thinks’ I don’t have and never had.

When you’re schizophrenic, it’s always an odd day.

But you never notice it, and don’t care.

Hundreds of millions of people have died after eating their products. Sometimes 80 years or more later, but still dead now.

Isn’t there a syndrome name for that ?

Then you throw insults at me for making all the statements you agree with.

You sound conflicted, and should seek treatment

In fact, you sound crazy to me. Perhaps you need some ‘down time’ in a facility ?

BTW, recall that the second greatest serial killed in American History (second only to the K.G., or He Who Must Not Be Named) has motives that were along the same lines.

If your education and experience tells you that the federal level Obamacare and IRS apples translate comparably into county-level involuntary commitment oranges, well, then absolutely nothing in America could feel safe or legal to you.

There are orgs that have existed for decades that have reform language and law ready to go, have for many many years. go look them up, learn what they suggest, then comment on how it’s all impossible.

As one of those “therapists” I’m tempted to invite you kiss my ass, but I won’t take this unfounded insult personally.

The fact is that the initiation of involuntary commitments is as or more likely to be done by therapists than family members. Business considerations have never been a factor in the 300 involuntary commitments I’ve either initiated or testified on.

If anything, a clinician might be corrupted by bribes from family NOT to initiate proceedings. I’ve been offered dozens of times.

Oh, wait. The DSM board is already 99% liberal – has been for decades – and yet they haven’t used the system to go after guns.

I understand concerns about liberal infiltrations and revolution from within, but this is sounding a little paranoid.

No one has called for this, certainly not me. Commitments are done by psychiatrists both inside and outside of the government and are only approved/disapproved by government judges. It is neither routine nor casual. I have personally participated in over 300 involuntary commitments.

“It MUST be a high hurdle, rigorously subjected to limitations, and control of arbitrary decisions, etc. And biased towards respect for the privacy and rights of the individual at all times.”

Well, duh. You make a strong argument against…. against nobody. Who has called for less than this standard? Certainly not me.

“I repeat, you can not make crazy illegal.”

Who said one can? Certainly not me. Involuntary commitment is a civil action, not criminal. They are not charged with any crime simply for being mentally incompetent at the time of evaluation, though commission of a crime is often the reason they were taken into custody in the first place. But no one here has called for “making crazy legal.”

“And you can not rule by the exception.”

No one has suggested you can, certainly not me.

“And you can not legislate the total safety of society for anyone or everyone.”

No one has suggested you can, certainly not me.

“I have no straw man.”

Going through your post line by line reveals it is 100% straw man. Perhaps your definition of ‘straw man’ is as bad as your reading comprehension skills and your ignorance about involuntary commitments?