[LyndsySimon]

> The infrastructure for supporting addicts and those with clinical and severe mental health issues is at odds with the State's position that virtually prevents anyone being from admitted to an institution without their direct consent.

IMO, this is a good thing.

First, the idea of involuntary commitment is antithetical to the concept of individual rights. Even if you accept that there are times when it is necessary, granting that power to the state is to me unacceptable. This is a political stance, of course, and arguing politics isn’t what I want to do here so I’ll just leave it at that.

Second, I have found that no amount of help will solve a mental health problem if the person themselves doesn’t want the problem to be solved. Speaking from personal experience on both sides of this issue - someone must want to change before whether or not they can do so without assistance is relevant. Providing assistance to people who do not want to change is at best a waste of resources and at worst enabling them to continue a self-destructive cycle that they would have otherwise been forced to change by circumstance.

Because of the above, I strongly oppose legal mechanisms for involuntary commitment as a civil action.

[11thEarlOfMar]

Do you believe that the current state of homelessness in California is a problem that needs to be solved? I am not advocating involuntary commitment. I am strongly advocating for a solution that works. So far, the problem does not appear to be solvable by the groups responsible to solve it.

[LyndsySimon]

I'm not convinced that it is a problem than can be solved.

Please don't mistake that for advocacy that we do nothing, because that is not at all my intention.