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