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