• Snapz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year 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.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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

  • Tedesche@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    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
      65
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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.

    • ZzyzxRoad@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

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

        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.

  • centof@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    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

  • xc2215x@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year 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.

      • FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean it’s implied that they are going to make the mentally unstable pay for their own forced ‘help’.

          • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Literally how US healthcare works. If you pass out on a street and some kind soul calls you an ambulance, where the hospital has to perform life saving surgery, you’re on the hook for every penny despite all of this happening without your consent. Of course there’s recourse to have most of that debt forgiven because you didn’t choose this, whereas fuck that poor shmuck who elected to have their cancer treated.

            In other countries they’re just happy you’re alive and able to walk out in one piece.

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

    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?