re: CA law aims to force people with mental illness or addiction to get help

quote:

---

depends on their hue


-Depends on their voting record if we talking poli board


-Depends on their sexuality if we talking soccerboard

---

quote:

---

And as the article states, this is costing productive members of society, in CA alone, $20 billion a year.

---

I can tell you right now without even digging into it, that the folks proposing this law doesn't give a damn what something is or isn't costing taxpayers. So that motive is a non-starter

So the next logical step would be 'power'

quote:

---

According to a 2015 assessment by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 564,708 people were homeless on a given night in the United States. At a minimum, 140,000 or 25 percent of these people were seriously mentally ill, and 250,000 or 45 percent had any mental illness. By comparison, a 2016 study found that 4.2 percent of U.S. adults have been diagnosed with a serious mental illness.

---

Again, Roggie has no idea what he's talking about.

quote:

---

And substance use facilities are either privately opened and unaffordable to the average Joe or state facilities are completely full.

---

Yep. If you aren’t rich yourself or have a wealthy family backing you it’s a tough road to handle serious, debilitating mental health issues. The treatment options and centers for it are often extremely expensive. I had a family member suffering from some pretty serious issues and last I heard their immediate family has paid in the six figs out of pocket for treatment over the years.

They felt (and were probably right) that the alternative for this person was living on the street and likely in prison or dead within a year or two.

quote:

---

do you trust anyone in power in Calif. not to pass a law like this with no agenda beyond what's good for people? The term "slippery slope" as applied here is very very dangerous.

---

There is, in fact, a concerning aspect of this, which would be the scope of implementation and what qualifies.

The question is whether the good outweighs the bad.

quote:

---

But it's working so well for private prisons!

---

As for comparisons, I would say it is apt…to a degree.

Both fruit, but different types.

You could technically call a prison sentence an “involuntary admission”, although the determining factors are less nebulous than you would see with psychiatric institutions.

I would contend that the qualifications for prison are far more defined and the action tends to be, in the majority of cases, self-inflicted by an individual’s actions.

Are the sentences standard across social strata? Absolutely not, but they are more defined.

Psychiatric involuntary admission is somewhat more “hazy” and less defined. Evidence isn’t truly needed and the word of a psychiatrist would carry excessive weight.

The comparison is there, although I disagree with how closely they could be linked.

Different discussion entirely.

Only someone WITH mental illness would live in California in the first place.

quote:

---

The reason most of them use drugs is due to their mental illness Roger.

---

Not accurate in my experience. I have been around a lot of addicts and when they are clean and in sober living they are overall as normal as general society. There are a few that are crazy but some of that is due to the prescriptions they are given like Suboxone.

Look at the brother of Sampson that they OT located. The dude was pretty normal until the drugs got a hold of him.

quote:

---

Is it a possible abuse situation? Sure, but it is clearly out of control and there may not be any other option at this point.

---

The majority of it is drug abuse. Sure there are some with mental health issues. I saw it firsthand when I lived in LA and there were a few you could clearly tell were crazy but the vast majority were drug zombies. Skid Row is full of a mixture but I still think the prevailing problem is drugs more so than just pure mental illness.

There is no humane way of solving the drug issue.