• dreadgoat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You are underestimating the type of people this law is targeting. Nobody who is just stressed out is going to be forced into an institution (although I agree the law should be carefully written to guarantee that). This is meant to get people who are full-on batshit insane off the streets and in an environment where they at least have a CHANCE of getting sorted out.

    For example, I have a friend who is psychotic. No, I’m not misusing the word or exaggerating, this is a person who is sincerely and obviously psychotic, diagnosed as such by a psychiatrist, sees and hears things that are not there, believes that the government is all rape-demons from hell that are out to harvest our sanity.
    When unmedicated, that is.
    Once medicated, she is like “holy shit clarity thank god, keep giving me the medicine.” But if there’s ever a lapse, we go right back to the rape-demons from hell trying to force pills down her throat and the only way to save her is to, essentially, violate her by being the rape-demon from hell that forces pills down her throat. Which is of course very illegal but people care enough about her to do it anyway.

    It would be very nice for it to NOT be illegal to save people from the rape-demons from hell, to have a support system in place aside from what is basically a secret cabal of friends and family as a safety net should this person end up somewhere alone and unable to access their meds.

    • treefrog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think you’re underestimating who this law will target.

      Addicts it says. Yes, people with other chronic mental health conditions too. But it sounds to me like California’s plan to deal with the opioid crisis is to start locking addicts in rehab facilities until they figure out how to be treatment wise if they’re not already (this is a term meaning, play the treatment game with therapists without doing the work).

      Treatment really requires people to be willing. And unless they’re an immediate danger to themself or others, I don’t agree with forcing people into treatment. On both moral grounds and practical ones.

      If this is an alternative to prison or jail, for crimes aside from drug charges, then great! But from what I could gather from the article, this isn’t really what’s going on.

      • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It looks like they are also trying to implement funding for medical treatment as well, which is why the plan can be delayed up to two years.

        But there are grey areas to being an immediate danger to themselves or others. If someone is walking into traffic because they are too high to be aware of their surroundings or a schizophrenic homeless man is randomly yelling at people in a park he lives in, there is a danger.

        • DarkGamer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I would agree such people are a danger to themselves or others, but this law goes beyond that. Here’s the text of it if you’re interested. One need only be using drugs or alcohol or have a mental illness while being homeless.

          • (A) Danger to self.
          • (B) Danger to others.
          • © Grave disability due to a mental health disorder.
          • (D) Grave disability due to a severe substance use disorder.
          • (E) Grave disability due to both a mental health disorder and a severe substance use disorder.

          What is a grave disability?

          Being “gravely disabled” means that someone is no longer able to provide for their own food, clothing, or shelter because of a mental health disorder. WIC § 5008(h). A person may be considered gravely disabled if, for instance, they are no longer eating enough to survive, or they have become unable to maintain housing.

          So being homeless is being gravely disabled and can be used as a reason to forcibly commit the homeless if they use drugs or have a mental condition, regardless of whether they are a danger to themselves and others.

          • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            But it is along with mental health issues or substance abuse problems. It isn’t like only being homeless gets you into custody.

            And custody includes putting a roof over a person’s head.

            I don’t see how leaving these people in their current condition is the humane option.

            • treefrog@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Actually it defines being unable to provide your own shelter as the litmus test for being gravely disabled.

              This law is designed to force homeless people into treatment so CA can look good by getting homeless people off the streets. There’s softer and cheaper ways to do this, outlined in my many posts above. But it basically comes down to using housing as an incentive for treatment. Real housing staffed with social workers. Not locked down treatment facilities which don’t work well because patients get wise to treatment when it’s forced down their throats.

              • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                But it isn’t just being gravely disabled that puts you into custody.

                And people keep asking for a kinder method, but what do you do when a person refuses the kinder method? From the looks of it, it sounds like California is trying to build the real housing staffed with social workers to go along with compulsory treatment.

                • treefrog@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  It’s being gravely disabled while having a substance use disorder or mental illness. So being depressed because my wife died and I lost my house because of the medical and funeral bills around my wife’s death is enough. Being caught with a bottle while homeless is enough.

                  I’m not against forcing people with chronic mental illness, especially untreated psychotic disorders, into treatment.

                  But this law casts a wide net and it will be abused. Because it’s not designed to help people, but to clean up CA’s image as having too many homeless drug addicts on the streets.

                  • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Per your example, I would hope the state steps in to help the guy down on his luck. And if he says no to help due to depression and possibly starting to become suicidal, then it is absolutely a good idea for the state to force him to get treatment before he becomes worse.

                    How is letting him drink himself to death on the street the humane option?

            • DarkGamer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              This law might do more good than harm, I’m just concerned about its potential to be abused. Certainly there are a lot of homeless people who aren’t capable, need help, and aren’t getting it.

              • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The law is definitely going to be used for surprise sobriety checks in cities as an excuse to begin to remove homeless encampments. However, it creates a standard of care to deal with some homeless as being sick instead of committing a crime.

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

        And unless they’re an immediate danger to themself or others, I don’t agree with forcing people into treatment.

        The schizoid homeless this law is targeting ARE imminent dangers to themselves and others.

        • treefrog@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Read the bullet points someone posted in these comments.

          Just being homeless and having a substance use disorder is enough.

          It goes way behind a psych hold.