Many believe there was clear evidence that Loughner was deeply disturbed and potentially dangerous. His troubling behavior only was more obvious after high school (read earlier in my the chapter) but once he reached adulthood, it became much harder for others to step in and have him committed for treatment against his will. The fact that police were called several times without any lasting intervention shows how poorly the system handles serious mental health problems. Barriers such as the strict rules for involuntary treatment, the high cost of care, and the lack of resources often leave families and schools with few real options. At the same time, people with severe mental illness may refuse help, making it even more difficult to get them the support they need. Altogether, these challenges show how warning signs can be noticed again and again without leading to meaningful action or prevention. How can a system be redesigned to better balance individual rights with the urgent need for intervention when someone poses a clear risk to themselves or others?

The research on marijuana use and schizophrenia illustrates this perfectly. A person may have a genetic or biological vulnerability, such as dopamine dysregulation or a family history of schizophrenia, but marijuana use can act as an environmental trigger that increases the likelihood of symptoms emerging. This makes me reflect on how “choice” and “risk” are not the same for everyone (what may be harmless for one person could be life-altering for another.) I also think this issue is often overlooked, especially because marijuana is widely used recreationally and is often perceived as a ‘lesser’ or a safer substance compared to others. How can public health efforts balance education about marijuana risks while avoiding stigma toward individuals already vulnerable to mental health disorders?

The “Scared Straight” program assumes that exposing teens to violence will keep them out of trouble, but research methods show why we can’t just trust intuition. Studies using control groups found that kids who went through these programs often became more likely to commit crimes. This shows that exposure to violence isn’t a healthy deterrent, it can actually model aggression and harm development. Being a good consumer of research means valuing evidence over gut feelings. What kinds of research methods are most effective for testing whether interventions truly help or harm children?