The new law, which reforms the state’s conservatorship system, expands the definition of “gravely disabled” to include people who are unable to provide themselves basic needs such as food and shelter due to an untreated mental illness or unhealthy drugs and alcohol use. Local governments say current state laws leave their hands tied if a person refuses to receive help.
The law is designed to make it easier for authorities to provide care to people with untreated mental illness or addictions to alcohol and drugs, many of whom are homeless.
I work in mental health in another state, and I’ve been wishing for a law like this since I started my career. I don’t believe people who have any sort of mental illness should be forced into treatment, but laws enacted at the behest of rights groups for the mentally ill have gone too far (although it’s certainly better that we have those laws than don’t). Some people are so sick they’re their own insurmountable obstacle to care, and that would be fine if their condition only affected them, but it often doesn’t. For their sakes and that of those around them, I agree some people should be forced to get their issues treated.
I have a nosy neighbor that also happens to be a social worker. She made my life hell last year by getting cops involved in a situation that didn’t necessitate them, and additionally forced me to go through all sorts of hoops and psychological examinations to prove my state of mind. This law, despite it’s good intentions, makes me super nervous after having gone through that BS
But the witches actually exist in this scenario. If you’ve spent any time living on the west coast over the past decade, you’ve surely seen these people with uncontrolled mental illness roaming the streets and causing havoc.
What sort of solution would you propose for people so deep into mental illness that they can’t or won’t get themselves out if it? Demanding that they continue living on the streets isn’t a very humane solution either.
What is havoc to you? I live in San Francisco and the homeless and addicts don’t really bother people outside of them existing , which does seem to bother a lot of people. They do shoplift and car break ins are pretty common but it’s not like they’re running around brandishing knives. Most of them are opiate addicts, and you aren’t aggressive or chaotic on heroine.
I agree we need more mental health and addiction treatment but you can’t force people into it. If someone is in pain and don’t see a reason to live outside of drugs, locking them up won’t fix that. Either you keep them there forever or they’ll relapse as soon as they get out. We need to address the societal issues causing this instead of the band aid solution of detainment.
It’s a city of 10 million people , crazy fucked up shit is bound to happen, homeless people or not. Here in SF a tech CEO stabbed another CEO multiple times and left them in the streets, you don’t see us trying to detain CEOs.
I don’t see the point in arguing about this. You said they mostly keep to themselves, maybe a little pretty crime here and there (as if even that is okay)… That has NOT been my experience and I brought one especially-egregious receipt to make my point. The other poster who mentioned clapped-out RVs and catalytic converter theft must also be from LA.
We could argue anecdotes and experiences back and forth and get nowhere, or we could look at the data. According to the LAPD 8% of crimes involved homeless people. This includes cases where either the victim or the suspect is homeless. The article also states that they are more likely the victim then the perpetrator so we can cut that down to ~3% are the suspects of crime. Also considering that homeless are often falsely accused or scapegoated that is still probably a high guess for actual perpetrators.
That’s ~3% of crime, considering your also in general not likely to be a victim of crime the odds you are a victim of a crime committed by a homeless person is very low. Not 0 so you’ll get lurid stories like the one you posted on the local news, but still low.
The tactic of citing the most horrific news story about an individual in a group of people has long been used to demonize people of color. Some news agencies realize they can’t do this anymore so they’re shifting to a new marginalized group that just so happens to be composed of mostly people of color.
My mother-in-law was disabled for years before she died and required the use of a scooter to travel more than about 50 feet. We have sidewalks here that are completely impassable due to the tents and accumulated junk from our unhoused population. But disabled people can suck it, amirite?
LAPD doesn’t do anything about it, and everyone here knows they do everything in their power to avoid so much as filing a report, much less making arrests. Maybe their statistics are technically correct but they are not at all representative of the lawless landscape that is the streets of LA.
You imply I’m a bigot because I’d rather get these people the mental health care they need but are incapable of choosing for themselves. You evidently would rather let these economic free thinkers trash our communities and steal anything not nailed down, in case they want to “opt out of capitalism.” Okay, Karl Marx.
I find those numbers misleading since they only account for those people who’ve been caught and prosecuted. Police almost universally ignore property crimes like theft and vandalism because there is so much of it and because it doesn’t bring any benefit to the city/department when your perpetrators can’t pay their fines or court costs. With mentally ill people, they’re more likely to just shoot them dead rather than bring charges against them or take them to a mental health facility. Somehow this all gets excluded from the studies.
You know, I never see anyone talking about doing anything like this when people with homes do drugs or have mental illness. How is every single crime automatically chalked up to “the homeless.” There’s a million housed and perfectly mentally stable people in California stealing catalytic converters, among other things. But the minute that or retail theft or violent crime comes up, it never fails that it’s attributed only to people who can’t pay rent.
I might agree with you on the catalytic converters but who do you think is stealing mail out of mailboxes, who’s leaving dirty needles in our parks, who’s taking over our sidewalls and other public spaces with tents and other junk ? All of us deserve better than this, including them.
You know the church is going to step in and fuck up the chances of these people ever getting real help, right?
The people with the least won’t have the resources to get proper treatment and religious groups will get license to, “have God fix them.” Next, religious groups will start seeking ways to expand what is considered mental illness applying their own christian morality. Before you know it the gays will be forced into conversion therapy or some archaic equivalent.
I am reeeeeeally sick of the way every time an article comes out about a California law, someone from Indiana or Mississippi or whatever hellhole comes out of the woodwork to explain how it will be abused because they think all of America is like their own little hellhole.
It’s always “I believe that (subordinate group) should get basic rights, but… (and then something about being inconvenienced).”
It says at the end of the article that there’s already a law that does that for certain diagnoses and at a judge’s discretion. I don’t see why it would ever need to go farther than that. I’ve worked in and been in mental health and addiction facilities and they already use mental health diagnoses and medication to subjugate people living through homelessness and the disease of addiction. Conservatorship is not the answer to someone not being able to pay rent. It will be used to diagnose people who are not mentally ill just to keep them from being an “eyesore.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that. You also can’t force someone into addiction treatment and expect it to magically work. It’s their life, they have to want to quit. We’re going to waste so many resources forcing people into addiction treatment and it won’t do anything except to make them resentful of the system. Even worse, if you lock someone away who doesn’t want to quit and their tolerance for drugs goes down, then they get out and use, they will definitely OD. So many people die or nearly die that way after getting out of jails and prisons for victimless crimes like addiction and homelessness.
The answer is making treatment more available to people. Then giving them a place to live and resources to live on while they find jobs and reintegrate into society. Only having (forced) treatment will accomplish nothing and likely make the problem worse while allowing authoritarianism into California. This law is fucking disgusting, dehumanizing, and scary. We should be ashamed of ourselves as a society that this is how we treat our most vulnerable as a society.
ETA: This is how available addiction and mental health treatment is to Californians with Medi-Cal: it’s not. Miles of red tape and bureaucracy that people with no resources or transportation are somehow supposed to navigate, just to have an indefinite wait list at the end of it. Ask me how I know. If treatment were made available to meet people where they are, it would be far more effective, if paired with reentry programs that actually treat them like people.
Holy privilege. Tell me you’ve never lived in an area with schizophrenic zombies roaming the streets.
The answer is making treatment more available to people.
These people do it have the mental capacity to accept treatment. They literally cannot make a decision about anything.
We’re not talking about someone with depression here, we’re talking about people whose higher brain functions are not working at all.
You’re looking at this through the limited range of your own mental health experience, not realizing how radically different it is for the level of mental psychosis big-city homeless have.
the part where smarmy lemmy posters recoil but people with actual drug addiction experience think “hey, yea thats a good idea”. did you guys know there’s a reason you aren’t in charge?
Forcing people to get help doesn’t help if that help isn’t actually available. I’ve had several issues over the years seeing a therapist because there is so much demand and very few therapists. Most of my appointments are rescheduled 6 months away, multiple times because I show up and the doctor is called away.
Not to mention therapists working in the public sector do not get paid well, have the largest case loads, and get the most severe cases. It’s very easy to burn out within a few years and many quickly move into private practice.
Literally how US healthcare works. If you pass out on a street and some kind soul calls you an ambulance, where the hospital has to perform life saving surgery, you’re on the hook for every penny despite all of this happening without your consent. Of course there’s recourse to have most of that debt forgiven because you didn’t choose this, whereas fuck that poor shmuck who elected to have their cancer treated.
In other countries they’re just happy you’re alive and able to walk out in one piece.
I mean, I don’t disagree with the principle (haven’t read it to see if it’s actually feasible though).
Either a homeless person suffering from addiction and mental health issues seeks help, and gets better, or they can’t get better and go to prison where they are sheltered and fed and kept off the streets where they probably would die in a few years anyways, or commit a crime that may harm someone and go to prison anyways?
It depends if the state is willing to pay for that help, because if not it’s just a law to shuttle everyone into prison.
Federal courts have already ruled that you can’t throw people in jail for being homeless, so I don’t see that happening. The headline mentions treatment which doesn’t have to be in-patient necessarily.
I’m definitely on the fence here as I’m no fan of authoritarianism, but on the other hand I’m no fan of homeless meth addicts living in a clapped out RV on the side of the road, stealing catalytic converters by night and standing in the road shouting at cars by day. Something has to give here as people like this have been taking advantage of this messy situation.
Forcing people is always the best way to get good results. 🙄
*** EDIT - Too many here seem to have forgotten that asylums were shut down in the 70’s and mental health patients shunted onto the streets to live without support networks in place.
Well we the people don’t but I’d be rich if I bet that the police and the governments involved do. Maybe even the healthcare institutions that would be receiving them.
Keep the program in the light
This is it. The modern day ability to record and hold accountable could be used to prevent a return to Institutionalization ala pre-70s America.
I have lived on the streets, lived in rooming houses and been a social worker. I have seen the worst, and most often that’s happened when people are forced into compliance … ie: jump through these 20 hoops to be “free”.
Given your experience what do you believe would be a good starting point towards caring for these individuals? What issues and solutions do you see that aren’t addressed? I understand I’m an outsider looking in on this issue, avoiding the mentality ill homeless like many others. But if my vote can go towards a better solutions I’d like to learn about them.
Given your experience what do you believe would be a good starting point towards caring for these individuals?
Housing first, then a guaranteed income. Right along side of those you have mental health workers and health workers visiting daily to assess the individual’s wants and needs. People have to be involved in their own lives, not just told what to do to “cure” themselves.
What issues and solutions do you see that aren’t addressed?
As a society we must stop condemning those who who are different, who don’t operate under the same rules as the gen pop. We have to start understanding that not everyone starts off with the same abilities and benefits, ie: an intact family structure, enough wealth to eat 3 times a day or go on a holiday.
We have to see everyone as valuable simply because they are a human being, and entitled to our respect and care for the same reason.
And we MUST immediately stop believing that money is in any way, shape or form more important than any person’s basic fundamental needs. Money is a tool to be used. People are not.
Sometimes we need a proverbial kick in the ass to get moving though this is a very complicated issue. My crazy hoarding obese pain pill addicted neighbor has zero family to help her. She definitely needs someone to intervene but there is no legal way to do so.
There is a not unreasonable argument that allowing the mentally ill to "choose" to become addicted junkies living on the street in an extremely hostile and dangerous environment is not exactly the epitome of merciful empathy.
Which monstrosity? The one where people with mental health issues but choose not to treat them are left homeless because the state can’t do anything to compel treatment?
What’s the other option? Brand them as “undesirables” and let them suffer until they either get help on their own or go on a killing spree? People who are steadfast against law enforcement have been calling for better care for the severely mentally ill so incidents don’t have to end with a shootout. Getting them into care is an important step.
if it was up to me I’d force everyone to submit to a mandatory psychiatric evaluation every 5 years. fail the evaluation and you’re locked into getting treatment - also mandatory.
it’s no different than getting a new drivers license when it expires. same buildings/process could easily be adapted.
Cool. So if you’re a woman living in a red state that. And your conservative Christian psychiatrist decides you wanting to leave your husband is insane, you’d be cool with being locked up?
Attitudes like this were common in psychiatry not even 100 years ago. 50 years ago being LGB was considered insane. Today, many states would use your law to lock up trans people until they get better. Even now women struggle with medical care because of Drs with outdated views. And people of color don’t trust Drs generally, but you want to give them more power to imprison people? Do you think that would reduce or improve the stigma of mental illness? Do you think it would encourage people to get help? To trust therapists?
And you can say no to treatment by just playing games with a therapist and pretending to do the work.
Forcing people into mental health care isn’t very effective and we know this. This isn’t about helping the homeless. It’s about CA’s image. Newsom’s image im particular.
Yeah, if the issue is a growing homeless population, get them housed and use the housing as an incentive for treatment.
Housing first works best with homelessness.
And incentives work better than force for treatment.
But what do I know from my lived experience being homeless because of poor mental health? Or the human services classes I took after getting on my feet?
Apparently much less than people’s gut reactions.
Honestly this bill is more about cleaning up CA homeless problem (and accompanying image) than it is about helping people with mental illness. It ignores best practices, the advice of homeless advocate groups, as well as disability groups.
There are no incentives you can use to entice someone under a psychotic break. You really have no idea what the situation is like. These are not people who have adhd or depression or whatever. They literally do not comprehend reality.
The trouble with incentives is that addiction is stronger.
Consider an emergency room, where a homeless person has arrived following a cardiac arrest in public. Thr person is revived and recuperating, but they require further help either for mental illness or subtance addiction.
Currently, the best the hospital can do is refer them to treatment, but they cannot compel a patient to seek treatment. If the person leaves the hospital and heads to their dealer, then they will continue to be a burden on society.
Treatment and getting better is the incentive. You’re not going to convince someone to give up drugs or alcohol by offering them tax breaks. Free meals work, but then people will show up just to get the meal, and won’t actually participate in treatment, because nobody can “force” them to be treated.
I honestly don’t know if this law will help with that. I understand the logic of it, but mental health and addiction is an extremely complicated problem. But to say “incentives work better than force” is to ignore the fact that we have incentives, and it’s not working.
Stress is the number one contributing factor to addiction. You know alcoholism is going up in much of the world due to climate change, and going up faster in parts of the world most affected?
Getting someone into housing is an incentive we haven’t tried. Okay, free housing if you get into treatment and take your meds? It reduces stress too, which makes treatment more likely to work. And demonstrates compassion, making therapeutic relationships easier to form and thus, makes treatment more likely to work.
Force doesn’t work. You destroy all trust in the therapupitic process before you even begin.
I agree with you, except free housing should be available without conditions. Isn’t the threat of homelessness just another form of coercion? Americans have more than enough existing housing and food production to provide for everyone. We force artificial scarcity into both markets to preserve profits, because it’s harder to raise rents when a free option exists.
Mental health and addiction are both medical problems. Trust is always an important part of medical treatment, but trust runs both ways. Can we trust people with those issues to seek treatment on their own? Doesn’t society have a compelling interest in treating their conditions?
I’m not advocating for the police to start rounding up homeless people and dumping them in overburdened psych hospitals. I’m not even advocating for this law. We need far better treatment options, healthcare in general, and economic reform before we should ever expect to address homelessness and mental health. I just don’t think we should take anything off the table when it comes to ensuring people get treatment. Force might work for some people. It might make things worse for others. The goal, however, is worthy of discussion and the methods cannot be dismissed out of hand.
In my experience force doesn’t work very well for actually treating people. It works well to protect society. And short holds can create a situation for someone needing help to seek it in the future (because they didn’t kill themselves or someone else.)
But as a means of getting people help that’s going to improve their mental capacity, it generally doesn’t help most people. It can help society and if it’s used as an alternative to prisons and jails, that’s an improvement.
My fear is that it will actually further stigmatize mental illness, and force people into the shadows. When using incentives could be a far superior option.
Plus, low income housing with a few staffed social workers is far cheaper for tax payers than prisons and jails.
You are underestimating the type of people this law is targeting. Nobody who is just stressed out is going to be forced into an institution (although I agree the law should be carefully written to guarantee that). This is meant to get people who are full-on batshit insane off the streets and in an environment where they at least have a CHANCE of getting sorted out.
For example, I have a friend who is psychotic. No, I'm not misusing the word or exaggerating, this is a person who is sincerely and obviously psychotic, diagnosed as such by a psychiatrist, sees and hears things that are not there, believes that the government is all rape-demons from hell that are out to harvest our sanity.
When unmedicated, that is.
Once medicated, she is like "holy shit clarity thank god, keep giving me the medicine." But if there's ever a lapse, we go right back to the rape-demons from hell trying to force pills down her throat and the only way to save her is to, essentially, violate her by being the rape-demon from hell that forces pills down her throat. Which is of course very illegal but people care enough about her to do it anyway.
It would be very nice for it to NOT be illegal to save people from the rape-demons from hell, to have a support system in place aside from what is basically a secret cabal of friends and family as a safety net should this person end up somewhere alone and unable to access their meds.
I think you’re underestimating who this law will target.
Addicts it says. Yes, people with other chronic mental health conditions too. But it sounds to me like California’s plan to deal with the opioid crisis is to start locking addicts in rehab facilities until they figure out how to be treatment wise if they’re not already (this is a term meaning, play the treatment game with therapists without doing the work).
Treatment really requires people to be willing. And unless they’re an immediate danger to themself or others, I don’t agree with forcing people into treatment. On both moral grounds and practical ones.
If this is an alternative to prison or jail, for crimes aside from drug charges, then great! But from what I could gather from the article, this isn’t really what’s going on.
It looks like they are also trying to implement funding for medical treatment as well, which is why the plan can be delayed up to two years.
But there are grey areas to being an immediate danger to themselves or others. If someone is walking into traffic because they are too high to be aware of their surroundings or a schizophrenic homeless man is randomly yelling at people in a park he lives in, there is a danger.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
It could be good if it gets mentally ill people help more often. The issue that could happen is if it is used to claim people are mentally ill who are not.
This is a very popular perception. I don’t want to feel unsafe in my own back yard. During COVID the number of tents and encampments with high amounts of problems in Toronto public parks made certain ones more or less inaccessible by the public. There was some outcry when they were forcibly removed but overwhelmingly that move was applauded by Torontonians. We got to use our spaces again.
I really wish we’d bring back institutional supports for the mentally unwell
The issue is that being rendered homeless could cause people to develop mental illness. There is a strong correlation between rates of mental illness, and income inequality. As income inequality increases, the percentage of the population with mental health issues increases.
People who don’t want to fix income inequality and economic hardships are motivated to view mental health issues as the cause of people having economic troubles. They think that if they treat people’s mental illnesses, they’ll be to get a job, stable housing, and economic stability.
However, the idea of increased mental health issues causing economic hardship begs the question, why are people in certain areas more mentally ill than others? Every individual is unique, and people certainly experience economic ruin from mental illness, but why are the rates higher in certain areas? Researchers could study numerous different variables, seeing if different things explain the correlation between inequality and illness, but it’s still impossible to definitively prove causation.
The only way to determine causation is through experiments. Simulating economic hardship to see if it causes increased rates of mental disorders would be extremely unethical, and probably expensive. Quasi-experimental studies could test how well mentally ill people do on tests that try to measure ability to work a job, but the measure would need to be perfected over numerous studies, and could have major problems with validity. It’d be a huge undertaking.
Truthfully, nobody knows for certain if treating mental illness instead of fixing our unequal system will be successful, or more akin to treating the symptoms rather than the disease. I personally think we could fix homelessness by improving the broken housing market, making housing a human right, reducing inequality, and providing mental healthcare treatment all at once. We also need to improve other variables that might be the cause of both inequality and illness. That way we will have the best chances of addressing the cause.
expands the definition of “gravely disabled” to include people who are unable to provide themselves basic needs such as food and shelter
So if you can’t afford rent in CA, you are gravely disabled.
Sounds like a ‘great’ idea. All cops have to do is say you misuse drugs or alcohol or get a someone to diagnose you with a mental illness and BAM your no longer free. I see no possible way for this to be abused. /s
Interesting how you dropped the second half of that sentence to try to hammer it into your point about “oh em gee teh gubmint is gunna git me”.
The new law, which reforms the state’s conservatorship system, expands the definition of “gravely disabled” to include people who are unable to provide themselves basic needs such as food and shelter due to an untreated mental illness or unhealthy drugs and alcohol use.
Seriously… No hyperbole, I’d imagine the majority of people that would enthusiastically vote for trump in this next electron after he led a violent insurrection to try to end American democracy (and had actual discussed plans for the military to shoot American civilians if the overthrow were successful and there was an opposition movement) actively suffer from a listed disorder and are in need of treatment.
People who can not abide by the social contract (whether by mental illness, addiction, or otherwise) can not be given the same freedom as people who can. They will likely abuse it for their own destructive aims. They need to be forced into rehabilitation, or, if they can’t be rehabilitated, a separate housing place.
But…
Those services they need are either overwhelmed or don’t really exist in many places, because none of us taxpayers want to spend the money to actually build them, or allow them next to our house. Which is fucked up. And it’s clear that nobody is going to willingly increase their taxes to do something about it. So, what then?
I think it needs to be declared like wartime. Set aside a certain area, get as many help people as possible, and move these people over to basically a modified refugee camp, with what basically amounts to martial law to keep the peace as much as they can. Yes, it’ll be tents and sleeping bags, which is not good, but they need something. Don’t be like the NYC hospital law that sends them in for three days and lets them go back out to the street, because that helps nobody.
While this might be an important tool to help many who need it, I can't help but wonder if this essentially criminalizes opting out of capitalism. Anyone that is homeless and uses drugs or has a mental illness can now be involuntarily committed, denying them the right to decide on that sort of life.
I have no idea. I'm not suggesting people often become homeless because of ideological reasons, however many do opt out of the rat race and choose not to work and participate economically, which is functionally equivalent.
there is a difference between opting out of the rat race and screaming obscenities at people, defecating on the street, while strewing garbage everywhere.
Maybe not capitalism in name but some vague idea of “the system”. The system that raised rents and lowered their wages and forced them into homelessness, and continually punishes them for being so. Addiction and other anti-social behaviors could be an act of rebellion against the pressures of this system. Not all of those pressures are capitalistic, some are just basic requirements for any society, but a large chunk of them are.
Opting out of capitalism does not give you the right to set up shanty towns in public spaces, or leave needles and feces all over the place. This law is necessary to give our public spaces back to everyone.
We've criminalized merely existing in public spaces for too long, and I'm not aware of viable and accessible alternatives if one cannot afford shelter.
One need not leave needles and feces about to be committed under this law.
I'm troubled by the stereotypes regarding homeless people being promoted in this thread.
Add comment