• Tedesche@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      1 year 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

        • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year 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.

  • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year 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~

        • rtxn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That was one of my favourite episodes of DS9. I should start watching it again.

          • BlinkerFluid@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            It does but… how are you going to screen everyone, are you going to leave it up to police discretion?

            How does that work out most of the time?

    • pigup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year 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.

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year 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.

    • MelonYellow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year 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.

      • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I have lived on the streets, lived in rooming houses and been a social worker. I have seen the worst, and most often that’s happened when people are forced into compliance … ie: jump through these 20 hoops to be “free”.

        • Shazbot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Given your experience what do you believe would be a good starting point towards caring for these individuals? What issues and solutions do you see that aren’t addressed? I understand I’m an outsider looking in on this issue, avoiding the mentality ill homeless like many others. But if my vote can go towards a better solutions I’d like to learn about them.

    • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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.

  • DarkGamer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

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

    • stangel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • DarkGamer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago
        • 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.
  • centof@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year 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

  • jerome@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    IS THIS THE EPISODE OF TREE HOUSE OF HORRORS WHERE FLANDERS IS SUPREME LEADER AND LOBOTOMIZES THE TOWN