Today's email update

Today's email update announced my plans for traveling and promoting the initiative in July, September and October. We also drew attention to developments in the opposition's campaign, including their website. And we highlighted the newest addition to our growing list of law enforcement endorsements - San Francisco City and County Sheriff Michael Hennessey.

If you're not signed up for our weekly email updates, please sign up today.

Click here to sign up >>

Click here to view the opposition campaign's website >>

Comments

[Jim Christiansen]

Hi Darrell,
I've been doing some additional speaking events, but also do get postings from other client/consumers/others who have expressed concerns, some perhaps opposition, similar to the Riverside group (I grew up there) but more in line that the Initiative may be a "Sweep the Streets" measure, regarding homeless, despite the words voluntary - one that can be used for involuntary treatment or IOC, and this includes those opposed to NAMI and NMHA positionsm and ACT, and to AB1421 which is the point of lawsuit in LA. Someone in the North intimated that funds from the Inititiative could be used to fund this. My understanding was it does not. Some who saw a preview of proposed ad campaign believe it may be too much on that aspect, or that the campaign literature and measure language is stigmatising as noted in the PAI position paper that supports the measure, with those qualifications, and that we should treat more holistically with health, and not the separate mental health system. PAI is still on record as supporting the measure. Others have addressed concerns related to the Children's treatment aspects as related to overmedication in line with pharmaceutical interests. Some wonder how we do the "innovative" voluntary programs, often self help models, using evidence based practices. I think it does help in posting the opposition viewpoints, as I even have a group on my team who take on these arguments to debate and evaluate where we are as a team. If my support seems to have wavered in writing this, no, not at this time, but I thought I would pass on the sort of flak I have run into, and request an advisory as to how the authors of the Mental Health Services Act, and the many supporting groups my be of some benefit vis a vis these counter arguments that are not tax related. At present, I note the California Network of Mental Health Clients supports it, and read your comments posted recently on the value of Consumer/Client/Survivor inclusion in this measure. Thank you for including this blog posting comment function in the campaign site, as I think the comments I have read, helpful. We have a new Newsletter out for the Stanislaus Chapter of Mental Health Consumers, (SCMHC) titled Independence, available for viewing on our website, www.geocities.com/scmhc2004 We will be doing a debate article on the Initiative in our next issue. We have a diverse body of opinion just among the editorial staff, but this is the source of many of the comments we have been getting lately. Thanks.

[Darrell Steinberg]

Jim, great to receive your input. Thanks for your comments.

What the initiative funds are the very successful systems of care programs, and particularly the AB34/2034 programs, which fund voluntary services and are supported as the best approach for outreach and integrated services for people with severe mental illnesses.

Jim, I understand completely that there are people whose own past experiences or beliefs makes them skeptical of mental health programs in general--and with good reason. I want you to know that we will always be available to answer questions, provide clarification, and follow through on anything that needs to be fixed or changed.

Please rest assured that this initiative is about ending civil rights violations to people with mental illness, and it is absolutely not about creating any civil rights violations, such as forced treatment. It's not about sweeping the streets, either. I recognize that if people want to live on the streets, or people don't want treatment, that is their right, and I respect the right to make that choice, and I respect the choice.

What I don't respect, and what I want to change, is the present system in which the lack of availability of services and treatment to people with mental illness has resulted in a situation in which the jails and juvenile halls have become the de facto mental institutions. That is unacceptable, and that is a violation of human rights.

We also are trying to be as respectful as possible in developing campaign literature and we absolutely welcome suggestions on how to eliminate stigmatizing mental illness in our materials.

If you would like a member of our campaign staff to attend one of your meetings, someone can certainly do that. If I'm available, I'll go myself. And feel free to come to Sacramento anytime, and I can meet with your group here.

Darrell

[Jim Christiansen]

Thank you for your comments. I have passed it on to others, and will post it with our campaign information here in Modesto. We may in fact invite you to Stanislaus County as the Campaign progresses.
jim

[Pam Werb]

I am an Master of Social Work Student at Stanislaus State University. As a group assignment we have decided to make Senate Bill 851 our project. We very much support this bill. Part of our assignment is to find out who would oppose this bill. I have found Modesto (town that our group specifically is looking at) to be supportive of mental health services. Could you tell me who you have run into that has been oppositional to this bill? It is also our goal to come up with an action plan to get those that oppose SB 851 to become supporters.
Please let me know what we could do to help. Not only am I a student but a mom of an inmate. This is a wonderful bill. Thanks for writing it!

[Simmons]

You do not work in the penal system and subsequently have no idea what you are talking about. Just one more feel good, look good gargab Bill for the public throat from the typical left Dem's.