Prop 1 - Yea or Nay? (2014, credit card, salaries)

[moguldreamer]

$6.38 Billion buys a lot of one-way bus tickets.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by moguldreamer

$6.38 Billion buys a lot of one-way bus tickets.

That, of course, works both ways.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Do you really think that forced rehab somehow works? In California merely using drugs is not a crime and you can't be locked up for it: Robinson V California "It is unconstitutional for a state to punish a defendant for drug addiction, which is a status rather than an act, when the defendant has not engaged in any illegal conduct involving drugs in the state"

Incarceration for drug use is punishment; rehab is help. In that regard, forcing people to get help when they can't help themselves is humane. I would be a hundred percent against locking ppl up and a hundred percent for sending them to rehab. It's our obligation and privilege to fellow human beings to help each other.

But of course, severe mental illness is the even bigger factor. Of course mental illness isn't a crime either, but people still need help, and when they are incapable of making decisions for themselves, their "rights" don't really do them any good. Nobody has the right to suffer. I have a sister-in-law who's suffered from severe schizophrenia for 25 years and has a terrible life bc she doesn't even recognize she needs help and refuses offers of help. But when she's been properly medicated and in support groups, she's done very well. Sadly, she no longer accepts treatment and lives her life unable to work bc of 24/7 paranoia and anger. She's been banned from driving and now from ride share companies so barely gets around except by cab once in a while. She's been banned from certain stores who had to call police on her for threatening them. Yet she thinks everyone's out to get her. The fact that loved ones are powerless to help her is heartbreaking. We absolutely need to force the mentally ill and/or addicted to get help so that they can have the productive and happy lives they deserve. Otherwise, we are complicit in their suffering.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by tstieber

Incarceration for drug use is punishment; rehab is help. In that regard, forcing people to get help when they can't help themselves is humane. I would be a hundred percent against locking ppl up and a hundred percent for sending them to rehab. It's our obligation and privilege to fellow human beings to help each other.

But of course, severe mental illness is the even bigger factor. Of course mental illness isn't a crime either, but people still need help, and when they are incapable of making decisions for themselves, their "rights" don't really do them any good. Nobody has the right to suffer. I have a sister-in-law who's suffered from severe schizophrenia for 25 years and has a terrible life bc she doesn't even recognize she needs help and refuses offers of help. But when she's been properly medicated and in support groups, she's done very well. Sadly, she no longer accepts treatment and lives her life unable to work bc of 24/7 paranoia and anger. She's been banned from driving and now from ride share companies so barely gets around except by cab once in a while. She's been banned from certain stores who had to call police on her for threatening them. Yet she thinks everyone's out to get her. The fact that loved ones are powerless to help her is heartbreaking. We absolutely need to force the mentally ill and/or addicted to get help so that they can have the productive and happy lives they deserve. Otherwise, we are complicit in their suffering.

First I want to say I appreciate your post, it proves people can disagree without being disagreeable! In your first sentence you seem to imply that there is a difference between being locked up for a crime vs being locked up for forced drug rehab. Well, California used to have a "civil commitment program" where people who had broken the law but were addicted to drugs or alcohol could be sent to a 'rehab' rather than a jail - the problem is the rehab was run in a prison and it came with a 7 year tail, so if you spend your time in the rehab (2 years I think it was) and you are released you will be put back in rehab if you test positive and that lasts for 7 years. Drug addicts were doing more time than carjackers or robbers. California repealed the law and made it unlawful to arrest or commit anyone solely for an addiction.

In order to help the mentally ill today, it requires a judge or police officer to state that they are a danger to themselves, others, or are gravely disabled due to a mental disorder, but that only puts a 72 hour hold on them during which time a qualified mental health professional, such as a psychiatrist, licensed psychologist, or licensed clinical social worker has to decide whehter or not to release them or extend the hold to 14 days Personally I think the requirements for commitment should be less rigid because far too often a 72 hour hold leads to release because they pump the individual full of psych drugs and they have to let them go because their behavior is under control- and then more often than not the person quits taking the drugs.

I agree with the need to have more flexible laws regarding confinement but I'm also aware of how badly that can go. In the 1940's My great aunt was detained for being drunk in public a few times, she would then be released to her husband, then one night she decided to run around drunk and naked...that was enough for the cops, they arrested her a judge declared her insane based on the police report and she was sent to Napa State Hospital, after a few years they decided they needed guinea pigs for a new treatment, lobotomy which entailed removing part of your brain. So after that she was pretty harmless but they kept her at the facility. After the surgery she would tell everyone that she was in 3rd grade and needed to feed the chickens until she died in the 60's.

[stablegenius]

Originally Posted by tstieber

I have a sister-in-law who's suffered from severe schizophrenia for 25 years and has a terrible life bc she doesn't even recognize she needs help and refuses offers of help. But when she's been properly medicated and in support groups, she's done very well. Sadly, she no longer accepts treatment and lives her life unable to work bc of 24/7 paranoia and anger. She's been banned from driving and now from ride share companies so barely gets around except by cab once in a while. She's been banned from certain stores who had to call police on her for threatening them. Yet she thinks everyone's out to get her. The fact that loved ones are powerless to help her is heartbreaking. We absolutely need to force the mentally ill and/or addicted to get help so that they can have the productive and happy lives they deserve. Otherwise, we are complicit in their suffering.

I have a neighbor who is either mentally ill, or on meth, or both. You can tell when she's not well, it's very obvious. Lately she's either on meds or off the meth because she's like a whole different person. Can actually carry on a real conversation. It's like night and day.

[mysticpearl]

If any actually cared about the homeless here they would be voting out the politicians.

Close the border and instead of flying stupid Ukraine flags for a war a world away, go to war with the cartel and cut off the drug supply coming from Mexico. Who wants to confront the issue that China supplies the cartel with the ingredients for fentanyl production? Which of our politicians is talking about that while people overdose on it every day on our streets? One of the first steps is eliminating drugs. Countries which have very few drugs and harsh penalties have far fewer drug addicts and homeless.

How people don't understand this is beyond comprehension.

This is also tied into decriminalization of drug use and theft, catch and release. All things CA voters vote for.

Then, if you do believe money and resources should be thrown at the problem, any person with above average IQ would want to free up more funds to allocate towards the problem. Instead the budget is getting bludgeoned by things like stupid social programs and free healthcare to illegals.

So there is less money/resources to help struggling American citizens and allocate towards important issues as money is thrown away on pointless programs and non-citizens.

It all ties together.

[CA4Now]

To the editor: You ask how much Proposition 1 will cost for mental health. What about the costs of doing nothing?

What about the costs for a person with mental illness who has been engaged with the police and fire departments or has undergone mandatory hospitalizations? What about individuals wasting away in our jails waiting to be adjudicated? There is the prosecutor’s time, the court’s time and the public defender’s time.

Finally, an individual deemed unfit for trial must be assessed and possibly sent to a state hospital. Where is that cost analysis?

I can assure you that these costs are high. My son has been hospitalized more than 10 times and treated in state facilities so he can become competent to stand trial.

My son has had numerous interactions with police and fire departments. He is currently sitting in our local jail.

Our lawmakers have finally put a measure on the ballot to address this crisis. I am tired of waiting for Godot.

-Jamie Harvey, Ventura

******************

To the editor: We are told that Proposition 1 could cost the state up to $14 billion. But I see no estimate of the savings for the state if the funds are put to good use.

We could get the following:

Fewer expensive emergency room and other urgent healthcare visits. Fewer costly and damaging fires ignited in homeless encampments. More people who become employable, tax-paying citizens. A decrease in crime and its attendant monetary and personal costs.

So let’s remember there are two sides to the Proposition 1 ledger.

-Alan B. Posner, Santa Barbara

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/lett...tal-healthcare

[mattja]

Almost everyone I spoke with is voting NO. Mostly because it takes MHSA funding from the counties and gives them to the state.

[CALGUY]

I voted a big NO on this prop.
California is already debt poor, and does not need to be accountable for billions more.
It is time voters in this state wake up and see just what their liberal voting is doing to the state.
It all sounds good on paper, but the realities are it puts the state in further debt.

[mattja]

It's a 69-page bill. Nowhere is involuntary confinement of the mentally ill mentioned, as far as I can tell.

The biggest donors are construction unions, health insurance providers, and the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, for whatever reason.

My wife and I both voted NO.