Posted on 04/19/2022 12:28:41 PM PDT by NoLibZone
Six weeks after Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled a far-reaching effort to push more people into court-ordered treatment for severe mental illness and addiction, homeless advocates are calling it legally misguided and immoral as the proposal's first public hearing at the state Capitol has been delayed.
More than three dozen organizations and individuals, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Disability Rights California and the Western Center on Law and Poverty, signed an April 12 opposition letter raising serious concerns with Assembly Bill 2830, one of two nearly identical measures moving through the Legislature to implement Newsom's Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment Court. The groups often have significant sway among liberal legislative Democrats, the kind of influence that could hinder Newsom's hopes for a new law to be in place by July 1.
Newsom touted the CARE Court framework last month as an innovative strategy to guide an estimated 7,000 to 12,000 people into housing and much-needed treatment. Under the proposal, family members, behavioral health care providers and first responders, among others, could petition a civil judge to initiate a CARE plan for eligible individuals who lack medical decision-making capacity.
The governor said that CARE Court would focus on the most vulnerable Californians suffering from severe mental health conditions such as schizophrenia and individuals who have cycled in and out of hospitals and jails. The program would be voluntary and include assistance from both a public defender and a so-called supporter, a person who would serve as a personal guide through the recovery process.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
OK , so let’s help them!
“no that would be wrong!
Gotta strangle any good ideas coming out of Sacramento in their crib (as rare as they may be in CA) right LA Times?
Lunatics.
Guess what? They are homeless because they have ALREADY gotten “treatment”. ECT destroys people. Major Tranquilizers cause major irreversible brain damage. This is not crazy conspiracy nonsense. These “side effects” are listed in the data sheets.
It’s anecdotal, but an old friend of mine from grade school died homeless in LA last year. His problem was meth, don’t think he ever sought treatment.
So,does taking a dump in a grocery store isle qualify?
Or, is that a cultural thing?
the ACLU opposes Newsom on this?
Interesting to see.
Lost in the shuffle, could be, what does the ACLU think should be done with people lying around and urinating and defecating and using drugs in the streets and parks?
Organizations such as ACLU, if successful, would simply enable the status quo to continue.
I must say I don’t know all the laws dealing with homeless and vagrants and such. But, it seems to me, that opposing these efforts just allows the status quo of people living in filth and ruining the public environment for the rest of us.
I also am no fan of Newsom, but, I’m as curious as anyone to see how his plan might work, if allowed to proceed.
When and where I was a child, Tampa in the sixties, there were few homeless people. One reason was there were lots of buildings called flop houses where someone would stay for a few dollars a week. This is because those buildings had been completely paid for. LBJ’s urban renewal did away with all those buildings and replaced them with buildings that had high rents that were subsidized. People went from being able to make it on their own with a few odd jobs to having to deal with government handouts big enough they could buy drugs and alcohol. At about the time I noticed the increase in homelessness caused by LBJ and urban renewal there was a lawsuit that caused the government to dump all of the people who were in mental health care onto the streets. Overnight there were plagues of homeless and those homeless drove ordinary people away from city center because the city went from safe to dangerous in about a week. Now, it appears the pendulum has swung back, and we’ll be arresting the homeless and sentencing them to treatment. What is old is new again.
ECT is rarely used these days
The crazy homeless are usually off their meds. When they get back on they do pretty well
>>Newsom touted the CARE Court framework last month as an innovative strategy to guide an estimated 7,000 to 12,000 people into housing and much-needed treatment.
>>Newsom has pledged to spend up to $14 billion on solutions to California’s homelessness crisis
So his solution is going to cost the taxpayers between $1,166,666 and $2,000,000 per drug-addled homeless bum.
Might be cheaper to just let them overdose.
Fentanyl destroys people too. I’ve seen people come back from heroin, cocaine, and meth but I’ve NEVER seen anyone come back from fentanyl.
The best you can do with these people is humanely house them and God bless him (in the Southern sense) that’s what Newsom is attempting to do.
The good NEWS for Leftists is this.
In California, even if Newsom does trip over a good idea,
there are plenty enough Liberals around to stop him from
implementing one.
What is more immoral, leaving them on the streets or getting them into treatment? I’ll side with Newsome on this, homeless mentally ill people need to be put back in institutions and give an actual treatment.
I know someone who was prescribed Diazepam for anxiety. It was a nightmare, and detoxing from it was even worse.
That is some freaky stuff, and docs seem to prescribe it willy nilly.
I don’t know about California, but here in NY, for leftists “helping homeless/drug addicts” means - giving them free needles, giving them free heroin, giving them a “supervised” place to shoot-up, and then sending then to their government paid-for apartment.
They should tell these liberal advocacy agencies who are opposing this that the homeless voted for Trump. Their “caring” would instantly cease.
ACLU badgered Reagan to close mental hospitals.
They are slowly coming to realize that the “socialization of the severely mentally ill” was a bad idea then and is a failure now. The system of mental hospitals is going to end up having to be re-created; sure, there were some pretty horrific abuses visited on inmates and that should never have been permitted or condoned - but shutting down all of the sanitariums was *not* the right move.
As someone once said, the purpose of committing the mentally ill to sanitariums wasn’t just to protect society from them but to protect *them* from society.
It went back further to Nixon, IIRC.
This as reported is incoherent. If it’s “voluntary,” what’s the Court have to do with it?
Allowing these weirdos to freeze to death in a cardboard box with a needle in their arm is not a good solution. Then again …
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.