Prop 1 - Yea or Nay? (mortgage, credit, loans)

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by mattja

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

The bill was never intended to force involuntary confinement.

California Proposition 1, Behavioral Health Services Program and Bond Measure (March 2024):
https://ballotpedia.org/California_P...re_(March_2024)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

Yep. Most will go to salaries. In 20-30 years pension costs will start ballooning up the total cost as well and there will be cuts to services to pay for retirements.

Vote no. We could build cheap mini-homes in the desert for much cheaper and give them to people experiencing homelessness instead.

Instead anyone committing robbery or attacking people due to drugs should be forced into jail for minimum a month to “dry out.” It’s more effective than rehab.

I think after a year clean we can experiment with sealing non-violent offenses from people’s criminal record so they can get quality employment too.

You cannot move people against their will unless they are convicted of a crime and serving time or they are on probation. And the california desert is not some big empty area with cactus and coyotes, a million people live in California areas designated as deserts, so they might want to have a say on your dropping people where they live. If anyone committs robbery they will most likely be in prison for 5-9 years, the problem is that there are as many or more drugs in prisons and jails than on the street.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by 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.

You can't eliminate drugs, period. We have been fighting the 'war on drugs' for 53 years and after spending over one trillion dollars we have more drugs and a higher rate of drug addiction than we did before it started. California has not decriminalized drug use or theft and I have no idea what you are talking about when you claim that voters passed "catch and release" And regarding your claim that tougher drug laws and harsh penalties reduce drug use and homelessness I suggest you read this: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researc...-drug-problems

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

You can't eliminate drugs, period. We have been fighting the 'war on drugs' for 53 years and after spending over one trillion dollars we have more drugs and a higher rate of drug addiction than we did before it started. California has not decriminalized drug use or theft and I have no idea what you are talking about when you claim that voters passed "catch and release" And regarding your claim that tougher drug laws and harsh penalties reduce drug use and homelessness I suggest you read this: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researc...-drug-problems

Well, really, for thousands of years all around the world … but hey, just say “No” and it’ll stop, eh?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by 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.

Seems you have no idea how much cost there would be to the state and local authorities if funding for mental health services were cut / reduced … and how much cost to continue with the present limits as we have now … let alone disruptions to daily social well being for all residents.

As for how indebted the state is, you also seem to have no idea that debt is a necessary component of new money creation … and that liabilities are only meaningful in relation to revenue … in which category, California vastly exceeds all other states in both the present and in future potential as things are going.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by 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.

Agreed, look at how much money we've already thrown at the problem and it just gets worse. Somehow they keep convincing the masses more money will finally fix the problem.

Sounds like a very vague bill too.

[CALGUY]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Seems you have no idea how much cost there would be to the state and local authorities if funding for mental health services were cut / reduced … and how much cost to continue with the present limits as we have now … let alone disruptions to daily social well being for all residents.

As for how indebted the state is, you also seem to have no idea that debt is a necessary component of new money creation … and that liabilities are only meaningful in relation to revenue … in which category, California vastly exceeds all other states in both the present and in future potential as things are going.

In reality what you are promoting is, using your credit card to get a cash advance to pay another one of your bills.
A moron would know that kind of thinking will only drown you in debt.
You apparently want the state to use money they don't have, to pay for things it just can't afford.

In 2014 (I believe that was the year) the voters were asked to approve a measure costing billions to help the homeless and mentally ill.
Here we are 10 years later, and what has been accomplished with that money?
Very little.

[JGC97]

This won't be a popular opinion and I imagine I'll catch hell for saying it but here goes. Anyone who is stupid enough to take drugs in the first place should just let nature take its course. We shouldn't step in with any kind of help. Let 'em have at it. Eventually, they'll die. It would reduce the world's population somewhat and that's not a bad thing.

[mattja]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

The bill was never intended to force involuntary confinement.

California Proposition 1, Behavioral Health Services Program and Bond Measure (March 2024):
https://ballotpedia.org/California_P...re_(March_2024)

And that's the primary problem and probably why so many people seem to be against it.

[stablegenius]

Originally Posted by sav858

Agreed, look at how much money we've already thrown at the problem and it just gets worse. Somehow they keep convincing the masses more money will finally fix the problem.

Sounds like a very vague bill too.

Yep. Also voted no for the same reason.