Pubdate: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 Source: Sacramento Bee (CA) Copyright: 2000 The Sacramento Bee Contact: P.O.Box 15779, Sacramento CA 95852 Feedback: http://www.sacbee.com/about_us/sacbeemail.html Website: http://www.sacbee.com/ Forum: http://www.sacbee.com/voices/voices_forum.html Authors: Robert Thorley, Mark Pritchett, Jerry Rhodd Bookmark: For Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act items: http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm PROPOSITION 36 Re "Drug crackdown fails to cut crime, study says," Oct. 11: We may question the objectivity of the Justice Policy Institute. We may doubt its findings, that an emphasis on arresting individuals rather than traffickers for drug offenses correlates with a higher crime rate. We may explain away the fact that Sacramento County bears this out. But common sense tells us our war on drugs is disastrous and its escalation threatens our society more than drug use itself. Human nature proves that experimentation is the norm. Our own culture condones, even encourages, certain drugs. The severity of our criminalization of other substances is illogical. This criminalization creates the profit margin that moves drugs into our own community. We force every new experimenter into an illegal subculture. Disproportionate minority arrests and overcrowded prisons are the result. We are to blame for asset-seizure laws that trample the notion of presumption of innocence. By rebating a percentage of the proceeds to local forces, we are to blame for making asset-seizure an attractive funding option. It is we who convert our police into SWAT teams. We place them in danger of gunfire and of temptation to corruption by making laws that invite civil disobedience. It is we who bog down our courts by instituting penalties that do not deter. I am supporting Proposition 36 to send a message that it's time to rethink the problem rather than redouble our failing efforts. Robert Thorley Sacramento - ----------------------------------- Limited in scope, Proposition 36 covers only those charged with a "nonviolent drug possession" offense (NVDPO). Any other charges, including child neglect, domestic violence or those involving a firearm, are not protected. Proposition 36 states that a person will receive at most probation for a NVDPO, and requires able offenders to contribute monetarily toward their treatment costs. That offender then gets up to three NVDPO violations while on probation before he becomes ineligible for Proposition 36 protection. If probation requirements, such as a completed drug treatment program and a vocational course, are satisfied, the court may dismiss the charge and remove the offense from the offender's record. Proposition 36 will not lessen fines or other court-imposed sanctions on those offenders "unamenable" to treatment, but 30 days will be the maximum jail time allowed for an NVDPO. In effect, drug users, like alcoholics, will be kept out of prison until they have committed a crime. Vote Yes on Proposition 36. Mark Pritchett Sacramento - ----------------------------------- Propostion 36 would provide $120 million a year for five years to help divert people from prison to treatment. Notwithstanding the fact that $120 million is only a fraction of the billions spent to prosecute and warehouse people with addiction in prison, it also would save an initial $450 million to $500 million in not having to build more prisons. Addicts do not belong in prison. They belong in treatment. This proposition takes the lessons learned from the drug court experiments and applies them on a much larger scale. Anything that makes substance abuse treatment more readily available will save lives and taxpayers' money. This proposition needs your support. Jerry Rhodd West Sacramento - --- MAP posted-by: Terry Liittschwager