this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
273 points (96.3% liked)

News

23376 readers
2133 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.
  • (C) 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 -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Being suicidal is already a means we have of placing people on a psych hold.

And yes, the state should intervene by offering help before the situation gets to this point, but we don't actually have these social safety nets.

If we did, and if we had means of getting people open to housing as an incentive for treatment, we could get a lot of willing people off the streets, into treatment, and housed, without force.

This would serve 90% of people on the streets, in my experience from being in this situation myself and around other homeless addicts/mentally ill.

For the reminder, we already have these laws. If a person is an immediate danger to themselves or others, it's very easy to get a psych hold. Do we really need to extend this to everyone on the streets using substances to make their existence a bit more comfortable?

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 2 points 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.