273
submitted 10 months ago by gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world 145 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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

[-] Happenchance@lemmy.world 58 points 10 months ago

A broad funnel ending in jail.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] moistclump@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

It depends. Define define.

[-] Snapz@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 89 points 10 months ago

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

[-] TryingToEscapeTarkov@lemmy.world 36 points 10 months ago

Yes. This is written to police the homeless exclusively.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 12 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 72 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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.

[-] TransientPunk@lemmy.world 77 points 10 months ago

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

[-] Uncaged_Jay@lemmy.world 39 points 10 months ago

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

[-] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago

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.

load more comments (14 replies)
[-] ZzyzxRoad@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] centof@lemm.ee 57 points 10 months ago

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

[-] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 19 points 10 months ago

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

[-] lordkuri@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] Syd@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

How is 'unhealthy' defined?

[-] lordkuri@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

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?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ZzyzxRoad@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago

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

[-] Reddit_Is_Trash@reddthat.com 11 points 10 months ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 45 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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.

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] xc2215x@lemmy.world 42 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago

They're targeting homeless people. This is gonna go bad real quick.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] tegs_terry@feddit.uk 33 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Maybe if you hadn't axed mental health services in the 80s this paradox wouldn't have arisen.

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 31 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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.

[-] rtxn@lemmy.world 42 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] TransientPunk@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

We should create sanctuary districts in every city where they can seek help and rehabilitation, while living free and retaining their dignity.

~it's a Star Trek reference in case you think I'm serious~

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (32 replies)
[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 26 points 10 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] pigup@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] MelonYellow@lemmy.ca 17 points 10 months ago

As a Californian who also works in the ED, there are levels to mental illness. Clearly you haven't seen the worst of it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago

Sure is neat what Newsom doesn't veto.

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social 11 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] AnonTwo@kbin.social 19 points 10 months ago

How many people are going homeless while giving themselves a plethora of other issues all in the name of sticking it to capitalism??

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social 9 points 10 months ago

I have no idea. I'm not suggesting people often become homeless because of ideological reasons, however many do opt out of the rat race and choose not to work and participate economically, which is functionally equivalent.

[-] petong@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

there is a difference between opting out of the rat race and screaming obscenities at people, defecating on the street, while strewing garbage everywhere.

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I believe one need not exhibit such behaviors to be involuntarily committed under this law.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] elscallr@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

They're criminalizing mental illness. That's California for you.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
273 points (96.3% liked)

News

22488 readers
3954 users here now

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.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS