https://youtu.be/0mvEzs3NNfY?si=wCemRtoUEYFiq56A&t=63

4,894,473 #

 of California Residents Have Decided To Recall California Governor Gavin Newsom. This happened in the year of the Lord 2021, and I believe that/in/for/with/always GOD

41.55% of (registered?) Californians Did Not VOTE in that recall election, though. Had they, things would be different now (besides, they didn't know who he truly was - that's bad. really, it is.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_California_gubernatorial_recall_election

Psychiatric drugs have dangerous sexual side effects. They are also proven to be habit-forming, addictive if you will. They will harm your ability to have children. For women, taking drugs while pregnant, may prove fatal, as. there is an established link between pregnancy-related fatalities and regular use of psychiatric medication. For men, sperm count will decrease. It is therefore a sterilization program.

Governor Newsom was almost recalled. We don't want him in California, but not enough people knew about the election. He has a pattern of alcohol abuse and narcisissm (H.G. Tudor). His program is to clean the streets, fix up his failures. He also enables narcissists, to abuse power. He is deranged, by virtue of the diagnosis. He is unintelligent, as proven by his academic performance in high school. He went to college for sports (baseball). He is violently emotional, as exposed in his chronicled affair with a secretary, while married  (not before). He isn't able to handle big issues. He promised he won't run for President, but still taunted everyone. 

Here is his undiscussed, sweeping program. Basically, police can do what the fuck they want. They're brutal by nature, who else decides to be puniitve, but they aren't doctors, and anyone can look crazy, act crazy, and become crazy; drugs can make anyone crazy (and alcohol, too, right, child?). Your behaviors while drunk, well, those weren't funny those were scary and murderous. You need to be in jail. And get pilled, until you get better. Dangerous. THIS IS FORCED.

CALIFORNIA INTRODUCED NEW CONSERVATORSHIP! IT IS SCARY And makes as much sense as Gavin Newsom does. The abuse of Jonah Hill (post abuse allegations, and she's been disregarded as crazy as a result - abuse strategy, model of action) was under a much lighter one. 

People don't fight because they can't. Once it happens, they're erased and can't speak up. That's part of the point, logically. It is a cycle, and it will continue through the United States, the world's leader in mental health, and the world. California is the largest state in the most important Country.

The stigma is increased. This new law killed. It murdered. It increased stigma and threats, it makes me very uncomfortable for freedom in general. It also a model of atheism (playing God, destroying future life) and destruction of the ability to choose. Don't let Gavin Newsom get away with this. He was almost recalled, remember, and was almost recalled by lots of members of his own party. He's doing it for a reason, and his model shouldn't set a framework for the world.

without publiciity, what else has happened? what emboldens? is this a threat, too, a way. who is bound to be more scared? who is bound to control their seed?  blame-shifting isn't the game, as everyone has a role. can't absolve, and forgiveness is dependent on action

Remember not everyone who is crazy is evil. But everyone who is a narcissist is evil, so, by that framework, ...this narcissist will harm. He is not a doctor. He has an interest in cleaning up his problem, by sweeping the streets.

He's fucking dangerous and likes cannabis a lot, it's fun, hehe, andi t makes him smile and get laughing and . Cannabis causes psychosis, you dumbfuck, because you said psychosis is deserving of torture by Pfizer, say. Gavin Newsom says he's recovering from alcohol abuse disorder and owns a winery, governing the nation while intoxicated (your job is 24 hours). He needs to be recalled. He makes no sense. You have a substance use disorder, child. This makes you make very bad things, like voting, choices, ok, child, i guess, stop this monster

his dumbass didn't even publicize his murderous law, the law he knows is evil, that he wants to be cheered on for, but deserves to be replaced for immediately

Not even addicts. This will happen to you if you have a bad trip. You'll be hooked on drugs for the rest of your life. You'll be misdiagnosed, with no chance that the people in power (who established the law) will help you. Get faded? Drunk off your ass after Eras (trying to forget her)? THEY WILL GET YOU. the people who will get you won't be trained MDs. they'll be policewomen. this isn't hypothetical. it's been determined, and needs to be changed, and i'm not a dreamer. Policewomen can do whatever the fuck they want, if you get jealous of your kids. Your kids will suffer this fate. Stop saving face, recall abuser. You'll be drugged up, and fucking misdiagnosed and paraded as crazy; no one will believe you, as the diagnosis stays and HAUNTS. fuck you, basically, it means. if you fuck up, you get tossed up, locked down in the corners, and you don't hear from them because they're homeless afterwards and in halfway houses. fuck you, scaredy cats 

In an interview with CBS 5-TV, Newsom said he is attending rehab at the Delancey Street Foundation nearly every night "for a number of hours" for his drinking, which he said had "got in the way."

"I don't need to drink wine, and I don't think it's helpful right now," he said during the interview. "I need more clarity. I need more focus."

Then, Newsom told the audience that his real answer was a 1947 bottle of Cheval Blanc, the legendary Bordeaux blend. Decanter called that wine “not only the finest Cheval Blanc of the 20th century but one of the finest clarets of that century.” It sells for over $20,000 per bottle (and was even name-checked in 2007’s Ratatouille by the animated film’s brutal food critic Anton Ego). Of course, Newsom—wary of being painted as an elite caricature by conservative media—immediately downplayed his Cheval Blanc, saying he’d bought this bottle almost two decades ago, for “a tenth of the price.”

this surprise convervataroship is SO MUCH WORSE THAN BRITNEY SPEARS! #freebritney

see how no one found out? well now you know! free britney, because it can happen to her again, and now it's worse for her health and ours.

California law has tried for almost 50 years to protect people with mental illness from forced treatment, and for just as long, critics have said that the state is leaving mentally ill people without treatment, abandoning them to die on the streets. Last week, the critics’ arguments won out, as the Legislature unanimously passed SB 43, which would allow the state to force more people into mental health care or substance use treatment.

Gov. Gavin Newsom appears likely to sign the bill. Legislators are right that California needs a new approach. But for the bill to help the many Californians who desperately need care, the state needs to enact the law carefully and consistently — drawing on available research and the expertise of people who work in, or have been through, the system.

Feb. 2, 2023

As a sociologist who has conducted hundreds of interviews and shadowed professionals throughout the state, I’ve seen firsthand how people who need the most help from multiple systems often fall through the cracks of all of them.

The new law seeks to address these gaps by expanding the legal standard for a conservatorship, a legal tool that allows a third party, usually a county public guardian, to place someone in a psychiatric facility and obligate them to take medication. The standard is “grave disability,” which now is limited to an inability to meet one’s need for food, clothing and shelter because of a mental illness. Under the new law, individuals who are unable to ensure their own medical care and personal safety could also be taken into state custody. It also would allow conservatorships on the basis of a severe substance use disorder.

Aug. 7, 2022

Advocates for reform envision that these changes will provide legal leverage to push providers to finally care for some of the most vulnerable people in the state — including those who present with expensive needs and no way to pay. It is also seen as a tool to address a small part of the homelessness crisis in California, if it can connect severely mentally ill unhoused people with care.

Yet the dangers in this bill are evident. Even aside from civil liberties concerns, studies on the effectiveness of involuntary treatment in improving symptoms are inconclusive. Hospitalization can even be counterproductive: Significant numbers of people leave psychiatric units traumatized, suicidal and uninterested in further treatment.

July 6, 2021

Clinicians, family members and some patients can point to situations in which conservatorship was a life-saving intervention, but hard data that it can address substance abuse or homelessness are virtually nonexistent. And yet the individuals targeted by SB 43 have often turned down, or been unsuccessful in, voluntary services or supportive housing.

In short: Expanding conservatorships isn’t an evidence-based policy. It’s a risky experiment taken in a desperate moment. Getting it right will require strategy, leadership and oversight from state government.

First, the state needs to provide clear guidance to carefully circumscribe the situations in which conservatorships are, and are not, appropriate. Proponents of reform have often emphasized seemingly clear-cut cases, but deciding whether someone with mental illness should be conserved for failing to manage their diabetes or turning down chemotherapy is more complicated.

Dec. 17, 2021

The state needs to convene a broad range of stakeholders to flesh out the new definition of “grave disability” and provide continuous training on best practices for the key actors in the conservatorship system, including clinicians, judges and law enforcement.

Second, California should couple expanding the number of people under conservatorship with more narrowly tailoring the restrictions people experience within this type of care. Grave disability, one clinician told me, isn’t a “light switch.” Even if someone loses the right to decide where they live or whether to take medication, they should be empowered to make decisions across as many other domains of life as possible.

Even involuntary treatment requires buy-in from patients to be effective over the long term. Yet in interviews, I constantly heard patient complaints about psychiatric facilities that denied even the smallest dignities, like choosing what movie to watch or eating a bag of chips. The state could help promote choice and reduce coercion by ensuring that all conservatees have a chance to fill out a psychiatric advance directive, making their preferences clear to all the professionals serving them.

Minimizing coercion also means moving people into less restrictive levels of care as fast as possible. Although many insist California doesn’t have enough locked beds for the seriously ill patients who need them, studies have consistently shown that many of the beds that do exist are occupied inappropriately by people who no longer need acute care but have nowhere else to go.

Most sub-acute facilities in California are private and for profit; clinicians have to engage in what one psychiatrist described as a “beauty contest” to persuade these facilities to admit their clients. Regulators could ensure that when it comes to being admitted to lower levels of care, patients are prioritized by need, not profitability.

June 4, 2023

Finally, the state must set clear metrics for evaluating SB 43 and be prepared to reconsider the approach if they are not met. One factor to address: the shocking racial inequities in who is subject to involuntary treatment. (In San Francisco, half of individuals with eight or more involuntary treatment episodes in the past year are Black. Only 6% of the city is Black.)

Ideally, conservatorship breaks people out of a cycle of ineffectual and traumatic coercion and gets them onto a path to more enduring recovery. If the law works as its advocates intend, it ultimately ought to reduce California’s high rates of short-term involuntary hospitalizations. If it goes awry, it could turn the clock back to the dark days of mass institutionalization. The outcome hinges entirely on how SB 43 is put into action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovad2_D7NGs