Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Involuntary commitment (IC) for the treatment of substance use disorders is a highly controversial and poorly understood practice, with California offering a striking example. The state's involuntary commitment laws, known collectively as Lanterman-Petris-Short, authorized IC for grave disability related to chronic alcoholism. These provisions remain shrouded in obscurity, and data on their usage are lacking. Amid the ongoing debate over the utility of IC as a tool to treat severe substance use disorders and legislation expanding IC for substance use disorders (SUDs) in California and other states, this article highlights the need to better study the use and effectiveness of existing legislation as well as to consider upstream interventions, such as expansion of community-based treatment models.
Weiner et al. (Fri,) studied this question.