New California law aims to force people with mental illness or addiction to get help
New California law aims to force people with mental illness or addiction to get help
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a bill that makes it easier for authorities to compel treatment for people with mental illness or addiction issues. The proposal is partly aimed at addressing the state’s growing homelessness crisis.
Define mental illness, define addiction, define help, define force.
A broad funnel ending in jail.
Is jail my penis or my asshole?
It depends. Define define.
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.
That's the whole point of the bill, it gives those definitions. You could read it yourself if you want.
They're gonna use this to jail and subjugated the unhoused populations aren't they?
Yes. This is written to police the homeless exclusively.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
If I ever lose my job I'm moving to CA before my meds wear off.
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.
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.
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.
Do they accept medical tourists?
Asking for a friend...
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.
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.
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.
More like unless you're incredibly rich you will never be able to afford one.
It could be good if it gets mentally ill people help more often. The issue that could happen is if it is used to claim people are mentally ill who are not.
Maybe if you hadn't axed mental health services in the 80s this paradox wouldn't have arisen.
Forcing people is always the best way to get good results. 🙄
*** EDIT - Too many here seem to have forgotten that asylums were shut down in the 70's and mental health patients shunted onto the streets to live without support networks in place.
Stop trying to recreate those monstrosities.
What's the other option? Brand them as "undesirables" and let them suffer until they either get help on their own or go on a killing spree? People who are steadfast against law enforcement have been calling for better care for the severely mentally ill so incidents don't have to end with a shootout. Getting them into care is an important step.
There is a not unreasonable argument that allowing the mentally ill to "choose" to become addicted junkies living on the street in an extremely hostile and dangerous environment is not exactly the epitome of merciful empathy.
You're right, it's not. Locking them back up isn't the solution, though.
Sometimes we need a proverbial kick in the ass to get moving though this is a very complicated issue. My crazy hoarding obese pain pill addicted neighbor has zero family to help her. She definitely needs someone to intervene but there is no legal way to do so.
As a Californian who also works in the ED, there are levels to mental illness. Clearly you haven't seen the worst of it.
Also who paying for the help? If state then fine but your telling these people to get help our else and not paying for it then fuck you.
No one wants to recreate that.
People were invisible, subjected to random unfounded experiments, abused, etc.
There's an opportunity to keep the program in the light, and get people serious help.
No one wants to recreate that.
Well we the people don't but I'd be rich if I bet that the police and the governments involved do. Maybe even the healthcare institutions that would be receiving them.
Keep the program in the light
This is it. The modern day ability to record and hold accountable could be used to prevent a return to Institutionalization ala pre-70s America.
Which monstrosity? The one where people with mental health issues but choose not to treat them are left homeless because the state can't do anything to compel treatment?
Sure is neat what Newsom doesn't veto.
While this might be an important tool to help many who need it, I can't help but wonder if this essentially criminalizes opting out of capitalism. Anyone that is homeless and uses drugs or has a mental illness can now be involuntarily committed, denying them the right to decide on that sort of life.
How many people are going homeless while giving themselves a plethora of other issues all in the name of sticking it to capitalism??
Maybe not capitalism in name but some vague idea of "the system". The system that raised rents and lowered their wages and forced them into homelessness, and continually punishes them for being so. Addiction and other anti-social behaviors could be an act of rebellion against the pressures of this system. Not all of those pressures are capitalistic, some are just basic requirements for any society, but a large chunk of them are.
Opting out of capitalism does not give you the right to set up shanty towns in public spaces, or leave needles and feces all over the place. This law is necessary to give our public spaces back to everyone.
- We've criminalized merely existing in public spaces for too long, and I'm not aware of viable and accessible alternatives if one cannot afford shelter.
- One need not leave needles and feces about to be committed under this law.
- I'm troubled by the stereotypes regarding homeless people being promoted in this thread.
They're criminalizing mental illness. That's California for you.
IS THIS THE EPISODE OF TREE HOUSE OF HORRORS WHERE FLANDERS IS SUPREME LEADER AND LOBOTOMIZES THE TOWN
I don't know, I can't hear over you yelling
Love what I'm seeing out of California
the part where smarmy lemmy posters recoil but people with actual drug addiction experience think "hey, yea thats a good idea". did you guys know there's a reason you aren't in charge?
It's what needs to happen.
People who can not abide by the social contract (whether by mental illness, addiction, or otherwise) can not be given the same freedom as people who can. They will likely abuse it for their own destructive aims. They need to be forced into rehabilitation, or, if they can't be rehabilitated, a separate housing place.
But...
Those services they need are either overwhelmed or don't really exist in many places, because none of us taxpayers want to spend the money to actually build them, or allow them next to our house. Which is fucked up. And it's clear that nobody is going to willingly increase their taxes to do something about it. So, what then?
I think it needs to be declared like wartime. Set aside a certain area, get as many help people as possible, and move these people over to basically a modified refugee camp, with what basically amounts to martial law to keep the peace as much as they can. Yes, it'll be tents and sleeping bags, which is not good, but they need something. Don't be like the NYC hospital law that sends them in for three days and lets them go back out to the street, because that helps nobody.