Assemblyman David Chiu has introduced a bill intended to spur the training of some 1,000 new counselors to treat addiction to opioids and other substances.
Assembly Bill 666 would target the state’s dearth of substance addiction counselors by funding tuition assistance, waivers for testing and certification fees and grants to diversify the state’s substance addiction counselor workforce, according to Chiu.
Roughly 2.7 million California residents met the criteria for a substance addiction last year, according to Chiu’s office. However, the state had fewer than 20,000 accredited counselors to serve those residents.
“If we do not have the workforce to treat substance use disorders, we will never see an end to this crisis,” Chiu said. “This effort will build a pipeline of substance use disorder counselors and clinicians so all Californians can get the treatment they need.”
The bill would also require the state’s Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development to analyze the substance addiction counselor workforce’s needs that could be addressed with new workers.
The bill has the support of the California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies, California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals, and California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, according to Chiu.
AB 666 is expected to be heard by a legislative committee this spring.
What funding bucket will be used? How much will this cost?
And just where are you going to get the money?If it is tax money then take a long walk off of a short pier.Or pay for it out of your own pocket you leach.
I don’t like paying taxes as much as the next person but this is a societal good. Imagine getting mad about people recieving medical care. I feel bad for bitter people like you.
Jim- If people are the cause of why they need care- then, yeah. I am pretty mad about it if I have to fund it for them. Like a diabetic on Medi-cal because she claims disability and the state pays for her care. Then, she decides to eat whatever she wants (and, of course she is on food stamps). We pay more for her insulin and hospitalizations because of the poor choices she makes with the money we give her for food. So, we pay her to do nothing and then pay for her to keep making bad choices and drain the system. Again and again and again. In what world does this make any sense at all??? This is called enabling and plain bad money management by the state.
I am all about making good personal choices, and I strongly push personal responsibility, but to place unremorseful blame on a drug addicted individual lacks an understanding of how drug addiction occurs in the first place.
The vast majority of the time drug addiction begins as an artificial coping mechanism to blunt major depressive/anxiety disorders associated with trauma or extreme stress; Death of a loved one, perpetual unemployment, homelessness, mental illness, child abuse, rape, etc. Alcoholism and divorce, for example, is relatively high among police officers due to the stressful nature of the job.
Some people just can’t allow themselves to be present in the chaotic situation they’ve found themselves in and turn to fast-acting methods of alleviating the pain – drug use. Or on the extreme end – suicide. Drug addiction is a result of psychological issues that need to be delt with on a societal level because it involves a basic level of potentially life-saving care.
Some people make poor decisions, but others are just given a bad hand and end up in very dark mental states from which they can’t escape. To deny drug counseling to some people is the last nail in the coffin and they will die unless there is outside intervention.
Treating addiction as a mental health problem is the fiscally conservative thing to do. It’s also the right thing to do.
Anyone with any economic sense would want to fully fund this. The ROI for treating addiction is staggering at a return of $4 to $7 for every $1 spent. Couple this with mental health and you’re looking closer to the 7:1 ratio. It’s morally and economically the right thing to do.
666 The mark of the beast!
😳
An addict will never recover unless they have a new life to crawl into. they must work. They must change their lifestyle. They cannot be free to roam, 5- ten years. For some they will never be able to live without supervision. Very few can make the adjustments necessary.
Legalize drugs then complain we need more counselors?
Yes. Looking at the research from when Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001 and diverted money from the criminal justice system to drug treatment facilities – this is exactly what should be done.
There was a paper titled “What Can We Learn From The Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs?” by Caitlin Elizabeth Hughes, Alex Stevens and published in The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 50, Issue 6, November 2010, Pages 999–1022.
You can read it on sci-hub, but the conclusion can be summed up as the following:
* small increases in reported illicit drug use amongst adults;
* reduced illicit drug use among problematic drug users and adolescents, at least since 2003;
* reduced burden of drug offenders on the criminal justice system;
* increased uptake of drug treatment;
* reduction in opiate-related deaths and infectious diseases;
In other words, while there were some new adult drug users, adolescent drug use fell, the number of drug addicts dropped due to the increased availability of drug treatment, overdose deaths and HIV infections were reduced, and the criminal justice system was processing fewer people. Thus, no drug-possession-related criminal records that normally hinder employment options – unemployment is known to be a stressor which can lead to drug addiction.
This was a key component missing to Prop 47. These counselors should have been put into place before Prop 47 went into effect, or concurrently. Better late than never, though.
This proposition will create new jobs, and will help get people off of drugs.
Yes Natalie. This will create more government jobs. It will not help people get off drugs. The best and cheapest way to keep a person from returning to drugs is incarceration, of a sort. Drugs deprive the addicted of willpower. Work and a complete change of lifestyle is necessary. Incarceration will enforce the “will” to not indulge.
Oh, and not making drugs legal is a no brainer. As mentioned above.
Yes Natalie, California needs more government union jobs. Lol.
Drugs have been around longer than drug counselors, so just think about that for a minute. Drugs are not going anywhere no matter how hard you try.
@T-rex. I had some drugs and they DEFINITELY went somewhere. Still can’t find ’em. Fortunately I got automatic refills.
So the justification for this bill is that there are 2+ million drug users in CA and only 20,000 counselors? Aren’t we skipping one or two steps in this logic? Like what percent of drug users actually want counseling and treatment?
My recollection is that it’s only 10% or thereabouts. And it didn’t change much after ACA’s expansion of Medicaid.
So instead of 1 counselor per 100 people with “substance use disorder” we actually have 1 counselor per 10 of them who really want treatment. Does this sound like a horrible shortage?
Now, if Assemblyman Chiu was really looking to help people with addiction problems, he would have asked: how can we encourage the remaining 90% to seek help? Unfortunately, the answer to this question is going to be extremely unpopular in our “woke” times. The major factor pushing people into treatment is… the law. Most people seeking treatment aren’t doing this voluntarily, but because they were ordered so by the court. And we can’t have that now, can we? Since that would punish the already marginalized… victimized… you know.
Can’t force addicts to get better. The best thing for them t to hit that rock bottom. If we keep bailing them out, they never have that change to reset and get a life. The way we are managing these addictions is just plain wrong. People need to experience the consequences of their bad choices, but blue states never let them.
No one ever kicked the habit unless and until they were ready. Mandated counseling does not work.
The program with the highest success is AA / NA. And it’s FREE!
The best kept secret; AA / NA in the biggest “club” on the planet because it works.
Assemblyman David Chiu has done nothing except demonstrate his gross ignorance.
AA is the biggest “club” because it’s best funded and most advertised. There are other non-religious mutual help groups based on SMART Recovery that have better results. According to scientific evidence – not self advertising.
NA is worse than other types of group therapy. And for many drug users it doesn’t work at all.
tashaj – Funding? Please tell us where AA gets it’s funding and where it is advertised. And religion? What religion is AA?
As I wrote; “No one ever kicked the habit unless and until they were ready.” Even so, very few seem to quit without support. AA has proven to be the most successful. And it’s FREE!
Please post your “scientific evidence.”
This is the problem with the way today’s elected officials think. They spend money on band aids and never the root of the problem. Take that money and invest in “Substance Addiction PREVENTION Counselors”.
There are already thousands of them, just not licensed, they are members of a 12 step program. They Sponsor and work with newcomers. Since 1935.
But of course government always knows best.