KQED: Should SF be Able to Compel Mentally Ill Homeless People into Treatment? (San Francisco: taxes, living)

[18Montclair]

I say yes. We need to treat them with dignity and respect, but we need to do this to help those who arent mentally well enough to help themselves.

https://www.kqed.org/news/11742865/s...into-treatment

[CorporateCowboy]

Per the SF Chronicle (and other sources), it is estimated at least one third of SF’s homeless are mentally ill and battling severe conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar, etc. Homelessness and the mentally ill are so intertwined it’s impossible to discuss one without the other; it’s also impossible to discuss without the issue of ‘forced treatment’ (assuming adequate services would be available) and civil rights. Personally, I don’t know how it’s possible to be ‘humane’ and continue to ignore the problem or treat homelessness as a ‘one size fits all problem’; it isn’t. There is no doubt the ‘emptying’ of mental hospitals and institutions have caused a significant increase in chronic homelessness, not just in SF but nationally. This is not solely SF’s problem.

Anyone recall the case in which SF sued (and won a settlement against) the state of Nevada for giving mentally ill patients a one-way bus ticket to SF?

[nobodysbusiness]

Absolutely!

It was Reagan who turned them loose on the streets in the seventies.

Some people need to be institutionalized and this is one of the worst things people have ever done in the name of "liberty."

If you are deemed seriously mentally ill - if you cannot perform "activities of daily living," then you should lose your rights - there is a reason for Adult Protective Services - and it should be the same as Child Protective Services - to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

If you cannot perform activities of daily living, you are at great risk out on the streets!

And cities should also enforce all of the health and safety laws on the books (in other words, it is against the law to "relieve" oneself in public - also against the law to litter, to be aggressive towards others, etc., etc.) None of these laws are being enforced.

In addition, people who run jails and prisons are just plain stupid. There are "competent" criminals, and then there are people with substance abuse issues, and mentally ill people - the jail/prison bosses should separate the people and actually rehabilitate them - but no, where there are for-profit jails/prisons, there is ineptitude and all kinds of other failings.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by nobodysbusiness

If you are deemed seriously mentally ill - if you cannot perform "activities of daily living," then you should lose your rights

It’s not about ‘losing one’s rights’ (even prisoners are protected under the 8th amendment).

It’s about identifying/acknowledging the problem (the biggest obstacle) - and providing humane (and adequate) mental health services/housing. Too many of the country’s mentally ill are living on the streets (or being processed in and out of jails through a revolving door). SF is not alone (as evidenced by Nevada giving mentally ill patients a one-way bus ticket to SF in the past and what could be construed as violating their rights as well).

[davdaven]

Yes, and it should extend across the state and not just in three select cities. Oakland and Berkeley have serious problems with this too, not just San Francisco.

[likealady]

“We believe that there are 50 to 100 people on our streets who are so severely mentally ill and drug addicted — can't make decisions for themselves and who are dying — and who could benefit from a conservatorship,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener

Really, he only thinks 50-100 of what, 6000, are drug addicted or mentally ill?

I'm in support of this though

[Finper]

Originally Posted by nobodysbusiness

Absolutely!

It was Reagan who turned them loose on the streets in the seventies.

Some people need to be institutionalized and this is one of the worst things people have ever done in the name of "liberty."

If you are deemed seriously mentally ill - if you cannot perform "activities of daily living," then you should lose your rights - there is a reason for Adult Protective Services - and it should be the same as Child Protective Services - to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

If you cannot perform activities of daily living, you are at great risk out on the streets!

And cities should also enforce all of the health and safety laws on the books (in other words, it is against the law to "relieve" oneself in public - also against the law to litter, to be aggressive towards others, etc., etc.) None of these laws are being enforced.

In addition, people who run jails and prisons are just plain stupid. There are "competent" criminals, and then there are people with substance abuse issues, and mentally ill people - the jail/prison bosses should separate the people and actually rehabilitate them - but no, where there are for-profit jails/prisons, there is ineptitude and all kinds of other failings.

I'm really tired of this it's all Reagans fault mentality. Yes he did a bad thing but those patients are all probably dead now. We're talking more then thirty five years ago that this happened. Why hasn't anybody fixed it since then??? Is the mentality that since we didn't enact it its not my fault??? All the mentally ill zombies were probably not even born when Reagan was President. Give me a break.... I agree with everything else you wrote

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by likealady

Really, he only thinks 50-100 of what, 6000, are drug addicted or mentally ill?

No, not total numbers. Per what you quoted in your post, it is referring to those who are dying and need immediate intervention. Obviously (no matter the various sources), the numbers of mentally ill and/or the drug addicted who are homeless are staggering.

[nobodysbusiness]

The reason the Reagan thing was sooooooooooooo bad is that it literally dumped people on the streets and closed mental hospitals . . . setting a precedent for future mentally ill people not to have any resources.

I think at the time there was an idea that churches and charities would pick up where the government let off - but that did not happen on a large scale, and people fell through the cracks.

Also, the general public decided they pay enough taxes and didn't want to be taxed to support anymore programs. This is still true today. Most people do not want to pay for others to have social services.

So the Reagan thing was really "trickle down" (in a really sick, ironic way).

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by davdaven

Yes, and it should extend across the state and not just in three select cities. Oakland and Berkeley have serious problems with this too, not just San Francisco.

So true.

Monday morning I make bag lunches and ziploc bag hygiene kits and pass them out to homeless people in Oakland and Berkeley. If I had more time Id do more but I figure it's something ya know.

Anyhow, seeing that never gets old.