EVERETT - In what is to us the far-off land of Florida, the Florida Mental Health Act of 1971 (More commonly known as the Baker Act) allows the police to (according to their judgement) involuntarily commit or detain anyone whom they believe to have the possibility of harming themselves or others for 72 hours on the basis of mental health. As one could imagine, this has proven extremely controversial, as it flies in the face of the fifth amendment. This law has been challenged time and time again by advocates who do not want the state to be in charge of who and who is not considered insane. It should come as no surprise to our readers that there has been a similar controversy surrounding a county ordinance that is currently in the political machinery in our own county.
Councilman Nate Nehring’s ordinance 26-018, which he introduced back in April, would take 20% of existing funds set aside previously for affordable housing (during an already spiraling housing crisis in our county), and divert it into a secondary fund (not approved by voters). This un-democratic action alone would set a dangerous precedent that the county government can change what they do with our tax dollars without our consent.
More than just changing the purpose of funds, in interviews, Nehring has said repeatedly that he wants an involuntary commitment center to be built in Everett, a step which not only desecrates the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that our country was founded on, but also acts with flagrant disregard to what is commonly known as Ricky’s Law in Washington State. This law, while allowing involuntary treatment in very rare circumstances, seeks to detain citizens suffering from addiction only if they agree to it, and favors the patient asking first.
Involuntary treatment has been proven in scientific studies to only make addiction worse, especially when it is done via government involvement. Finally, it should be noted that Nate Nehring has publicly supported a change from the “Housing First” policy that many areas in Washington have, a policy which has reduced homelessness and dependence on the government in several countries across the globe. The framework already exists to protect our citizens. There are more important things to work on in our county. Why should we change course now?