Pubdate: Fri, 06 Oct 2000
Source: Modesto Bee, The (CA)
Copyright: 2000 The Modesto Bee
Contact:  http://www.modbee.com/help/letters.html
Website: http://www.modbee.com/
Author: Donald Shaver and Les Weidman
Note: Shaver is a judge in the Stanislaus County Drug Court and
Weidman is Stanislaus County sheriff.
Prop. 36 website: http://www.drugreform.org/
Bookmark: Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act items:
http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm

PROP. 36 JUST BAD MEDICINE

Local community columnist John Michael Flint should get his facts
straight before telling us that California will get a "big boost" if
hard drugs are decriminalized by Proposition 36 this November ("Rehab
better than Prison," The Modesto Bee, Opinions, Sept. 20). His
misleading oversimplification of the initiative says little about what
this dangerous initiative would actually do.

We are very concerned about making sure that those addicted to drugs
aren't just thrown in jail and forgotten. A revolutionary treatment
program called drug court has already helped us put people back on the
right track using sensible, effective and proven methods.

However, Proposition 36 would replace our tough but effective local
treatment program with a watered-down, ineffective mandate where hard
drugs like heroin, PCP, cocaine and even methamphetamine are
essentially "decriminalized" for addicts. Proposition 36 says that all
spending for monitoring continued drug usage would be prohibited, jail
time would be prohibited as part of treatment, and not even one cent
could be used for in-custody treatment programs -- a backup for people
who fail the outpatient treatment program. Little wonder that Sen.
Dianne Feinstein told the San Diego Union-Tribune that Proposition 36
would "undermine" California's drug courts.

It's important to remember that California already has the largest and
most effective drug treatment programs ever developed. Stanislaus
County is no exception. Our local court program uses frequent drug
testing, close monitoring, monthly reviews in front of the drug court
judge and short two-to seven-day stays in custody when necessary to
encourage compliance. Proof is in the statistics, and we have been
able to reduce repeat addict offenders from the average of 50 percent
before drug court, to less than 8 percent for the past five years.

The recent Bee column also said "Dealers are not included in this
group (who could demand 'treatment' instead of incarceration)." Again,
this is incorrect. A drug dealer will be entitled to demand
watered-down "treatment" instead of incarceration. Under Proposition
36, judges will be required to send drug traffickers back to the
street regardless of their prior offenses.

The proponents of Proposition 36 claim that the state will reap huge
financial savings in prison costs by releasing (or not sending) 20,000
addicts from state prison back into our communities. This is
fairy-tale thinking. Prison offenders are there because they refused
to follow through with treatment, refused to comply with supervision,
or committed other violent or drug trafficking offenses. California
currently has a first-offender drug-treatment program and a
multiple-offender drug-treatment program (drug court) which drug
offenders are referred to before prison is even an option. Current
programs are making every effort to divert those suitable for
treatment into appropriate programs rather than using up much-needed
jail space.

You may have heard the false statement that we're "losing the war on
drugs." However, the actual statistics nationwide show a different
story. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, for the
decade of the 1990s, drug use in general was stable or declining, and
recently released figures show that drug use among teens is down. For
the years of 1998-99, hospital emergency room visits related to
methamphetamine were down by 36 percent in Los Angeles, 26 percent in
San Diego, and 39 percent in San Francisco.

This is why more than 200 judges, treatment professionals, and
business groups oppose Proposition 36. Law enforcement agencies are
worried about the serious consequences of this initiative and are
standing up to oppose the initiative. The Betty Ford Treatment Center,
the California Chamber of Commerce and the National Taxpayers Alliance
join in that concern.

Elected officials from a wide range of party affiliations are opposing
the initiative as well. The Republican Party has voted to formally
oppose it and the Democratic Party has refused to endorse it. Local
representatives, assemblymen Dennis Cardoza and George House, have
taken a position against the initiative. The Stanislaus County Board
of Supervisors passed a unanimous resolution in opposition to
Proposition 36. Don't be surprised to see Attorney General Bill
Lockyer and Gov. Davis announce formal opposition to the measure soon.

This dangerous and misleading initiative is not about real treatment.
It's a sham to hide the real hidden agenda of its author -- the
decriminalization of dangerous illegal drugs. Check it out for
yourself. Drug addiction is a disease and Proposition 36 is just plain
bad medicine.

Shaver is a judge in the Stanislaus County Drug Court and Weidman is
Stanislaus County sheriff.

The text of the proposition and a list of the hundreds who oppose it
are available at www.noonprop36.com
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake