144 points
*

Define mental illness, define addiction, define help, define force.

permalink
report
reply
58 points

A broad funnel ending in jail.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-11 points

Is jail my penis or my asshole?

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

It depends. Define define.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Seriously… No hyperbole, I’d imagine the majority of people that would enthusiastically vote for trump in this next electron after he led a violent insurrection to try to end American democracy (and had actual discussed plans for the military to shoot American civilians if the overthrow were successful and there was an opposition movement) actively suffer from a listed disorder and are in need of treatment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That’s the whole point of the bill, it gives those definitions. You could read it yourself if you want.

permalink
report
parent
reply
89 points

They’re gonna use this to jail and subjugated the unhoused populations aren’t they?

permalink
report
reply
36 points

Yes. This is written to police the homeless exclusively.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I mean, I don’t disagree with the principle (haven’t read it to see if it’s actually feasible though).

Either a homeless person suffering from addiction and mental health issues seeks help, and gets better, or they can’t get better and go to prison where they are sheltered and fed and kept off the streets where they probably would die in a few years anyways, or commit a crime that may harm someone and go to prison anyways?

It depends if the state is willing to pay for that help, because if not it’s just a law to shuttle everyone into prison.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Federal courts have already ruled that you can’t throw people in jail for being homeless, so I don’t see that happening. The headline mentions treatment which doesn’t have to be in-patient necessarily.

I’m definitely on the fence here as I’m no fan of authoritarianism, but on the other hand I’m no fan of homeless meth addicts living in a clapped out RV on the side of the road, stealing catalytic converters by night and standing in the road shouting at cars by day. Something has to give here as people like this have been taking advantage of this messy situation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Federal courts have already ruled that you can’t throw people in jail for being homeless,

No, that doesnt stop them from making up some bullshit charge though. This is America, afterall.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Not really. This is California, which is very different from the rest of America. Especially when it comes to policing the homeless.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
72 points
*

The new law, which reforms the state’s conservatorship system, expands the definition of “gravely disabled” to include people who are unable to provide themselves basic needs such as food and shelter due to an untreated mental illness or unhealthy drugs and alcohol use. Local governments say current state laws leave their hands tied if a person refuses to receive help.

The law is designed to make it easier for authorities to provide care to people with untreated mental illness or addictions to alcohol and drugs, many of whom are homeless.

I work in mental health in another state, and I’ve been wishing for a law like this since I started my career. I don’t believe people who have any sort of mental illness should be forced into treatment, but laws enacted at the behest of rights groups for the mentally ill have gone too far (although it’s certainly better that we have those laws than don’t). Some people are so sick they’re their own insurmountable obstacle to care, and that would be fine if their condition only affected them, but it often doesn’t. For their sakes and that of those around them, I agree some people should be forced to get their issues treated.

permalink
report
reply
77 points

I have a nosy neighbor that also happens to be a social worker. She made my life hell last year by getting cops involved in a situation that didn’t necessitate them, and additionally forced me to go through all sorts of hoops and psychological examinations to prove my state of mind. This law, despite it’s good intentions, makes me super nervous after having gone through that BS

permalink
report
parent
reply
39 points

This should be everyone’s fear, it feels like just anther witch hunt.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

It is rational to fear that this authority would be abused, based on the long history of abuses of authority in the USA.

We should react this way anytime any law is passed that gives the govt more authority to restrict our freedom.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

But the witches actually exist in this scenario. If you’ve spent any time living on the west coast over the past decade, you’ve surely seen these people with uncontrolled mental illness roaming the streets and causing havoc.

What sort of solution would you propose for people so deep into mental illness that they can’t or won’t get themselves out if it? Demanding that they continue living on the streets isn’t a very humane solution either.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

It’s always “I believe that (subordinate group) should get basic rights, but… (and then something about being inconvenienced).”

It says at the end of the article that there’s already a law that does that for certain diagnoses and at a judge’s discretion. I don’t see why it would ever need to go farther than that. I’ve worked in and been in mental health and addiction facilities and they already use mental health diagnoses and medication to subjugate people living through homelessness and the disease of addiction. Conservatorship is not the answer to someone not being able to pay rent. It will be used to diagnose people who are not mentally ill just to keep them from being an “eyesore.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that. You also can’t force someone into addiction treatment and expect it to magically work. It’s their life, they have to want to quit. We’re going to waste so many resources forcing people into addiction treatment and it won’t do anything except to make them resentful of the system. Even worse, if you lock someone away who doesn’t want to quit and their tolerance for drugs goes down, then they get out and use, they will definitely OD. So many people die or nearly die that way after getting out of jails and prisons for victimless crimes like addiction and homelessness.

The answer is making treatment more available to people. Then giving them a place to live and resources to live on while they find jobs and reintegrate into society. Only having (forced) treatment will accomplish nothing and likely make the problem worse while allowing authoritarianism into California. This law is fucking disgusting, dehumanizing, and scary. We should be ashamed of ourselves as a society that this is how we treat our most vulnerable as a society.

ETA: This is how available addiction and mental health treatment is to Californians with Medi-Cal: it’s not. Miles of red tape and bureaucracy that people with no resources or transportation are somehow supposed to navigate, just to have an indefinite wait list at the end of it. Ask me how I know. If treatment were made available to meet people where they are, it would be far more effective, if paired with reentry programs that actually treat them like people.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

and then something about being inconvenienced

Holy privilege. Tell me you’ve never lived in an area with schizophrenic zombies roaming the streets.

The answer is making treatment more available to people.

These people do it have the mental capacity to accept treatment. They literally cannot make a decision about anything.

We’re not talking about someone with depression here, we’re talking about people whose higher brain functions are not working at all.

You’re looking at this through the limited range of your own mental health experience, not realizing how radically different it is for the level of mental psychosis big-city homeless have.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

You know the church is going to step in and fuck up the chances of these people ever getting real help, right?

The people with the least won’t have the resources to get proper treatment and religious groups will get license to, “have God fix them.” Next, religious groups will start seeking ways to expand what is considered mental illness applying their own christian morality. Before you know it the gays will be forced into conversion therapy or some archaic equivalent.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I am reeeeeeally sick of the way every time an article comes out about a California law, someone from Indiana or Mississippi or whatever hellhole comes out of the woodwork to explain how it will be abused because they think all of America is like their own little hellhole.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Lol at the thought that the religious right hasn’t a foothold in California.

permalink
report
parent
reply
59 points

expands the definition of “gravely disabled” to include people who are unable to provide themselves basic needs such as food and shelter

So if you can’t afford rent in CA, you are gravely disabled.

Sounds like a ‘great’ idea. All cops have to do is say you misuse drugs or alcohol or get a someone to diagnose you with a mental illness and BAM your no longer free. I see no possible way for this to be abused. /s

permalink
report
reply
19 points

If I ever lose my job I’m moving to CA before my meds wear off.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Interesting how you dropped the second half of that sentence to try to hammer it into your point about “oh em gee teh gubmint is gunna git me”.

The new law, which reforms the state’s conservatorship system, expands the definition of “gravely disabled” to include people who are unable to provide themselves basic needs such as food and shelter due to an untreated mental illness or unhealthy drugs and alcohol use.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

How is ‘unhealthy’ defined?

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB43

How about you read the bill yourself instead of asking some dipshit on the internet to tell you what to think?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Looks like they addressed exactly that in the second paragraph of their comment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

I agree. While this sounds great on paper, there’s a chance for it to get abused. And we all know that it will end up being abused.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

In Canada, we recommend MAID (medical assistance in dying) if you can’t afford food and shelter.

I wish I was kidding. The government literally recommends you use their suicide chambers if you can’t pay your bills and have a mental illness.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Do they accept medical tourists?

Asking for a friend…

permalink
report
parent
reply

Forcing people to get help doesn’t help if that help isn’t actually available. I’ve had several issues over the years seeing a therapist because there is so much demand and very few therapists. Most of my appointments are rescheduled 6 months away, multiple times because I show up and the doctor is called away.

permalink
report
reply
23 points

theres few therapists, even less good therapists.

Good therapists exists, but unless you are incredibly lucky, its a chore and financial burden trying to find them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Not to mention therapists working in the public sector do not get paid well, have the largest case loads, and get the most severe cases. It’s very easy to burn out within a few years and many quickly move into private practice.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

More like unless you’re incredibly rich you will never be able to afford one.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 18K

    Posts

  • 480K

    Comments