Pubdate: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 Source: San Luis Obispo County Tribune (CA) Copyright: 2000 The Tribune Contact: P.O. Box 112, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-0112 Fax: 805.781.7905 Website: http://www.thetribunenews.com/ Bookmark: For Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act items: http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm NO ON PROP. 36: IT'S MISLEADING When the president of the Betty Ford Center, the president of the Chief Probation Officers of California and the president of the California District Attorney's Association take a stand against an initiative, it's time to stop and listen. Those three wrote the opposition argument in the official voters' pamphlet against Proposition 36. Under this measure, an offender convicted of a "non-violent drug possession offense" would generally be sentenced to probation instead of time in prison or county jail. Proposition 36 says possessors or users of heroin, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamine and other dangerous and illegal drugs should not be treated as criminals, but rather as victims of drug addiction who need treatment and care, not punishment by incarceration. However, opponents contend such a law would allow an estimated 37,000 felony drug abusers to remain on our streets every year - many of them addicted to drugs that often ignite violent criminal behavior. You have to look no further than the police and sheriff's logs in this county to see how much misery and criminal behavior is generated by those who abuse drugs - - and drink, for that matter, but that's another issue. In our view, the measure would decriminalize personal drug use and sabotage the state's drug courts. It would remove nearly all of the legal consequences of using illegal drugs. Proposition 36 would provide $120 million a year for the next five years for community-based drug treatment programs. But none of that money could be used for drug testing, which is the key to any successful community-based drug treatment program. Proponents of Proposition 36 hope to gain favor of the voters by noting that turning users to probation will save a lot of money in prison costs. It's true - the state legislative analyst says prison operating costs would be reduced $200 million to $250 million annually within several years after implementation of the measure. But former California Director of Finance Jesse Huff puts all that in focus with a warning that the "ultimate cost of the initiative is far higher than its promised savings. It commits taxpayers to spending $660 million and contains millions of dollars in hidden costs for law enforcement, probation and court expenses." We agree wholeheartedly with the opposition, which asserts: "Proposition 36 tells our children there are no longer any real consequences for using illegal drugs like heroin or cocaine. It sends the same message to hardcore drug users." This measure was written not by drug treatment experts but by a criminal defense lawyer and wealthy out-of-state backers whose ultimate goal is to legalize drugs. Instead of providing any benefits for society, it would cause irreparable harm. It is clearly a misleading proposal that won't work. The Tribune recommends a NO vote on Proposition 36. - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D