Pubdate: Fri, 20 Oct 2000
Source: Long Beach Press-Telegram (CA)
Copyright: 2000 Press-Telegram.
Contact:  http://www.ptconnect.com/
Bookmark: For Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act items:
http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm

TREATMENT VS. PRISON

Proposition 36: For nonviolent drug offenders, a way to rebuild lives and
save money.

In California, there are 19,300 persons behind bars who did harm to no one
but themselves, by using illegal drugs. Proposition 36 would provide an
alternative for others like them.

This measure is the most constructive approach to penal reform since our
nation got into its most futile of campaigns, the war on drugs. It even
would save money while reconstructing lives.

Some of the arguments against Proposition 36 are shamelessly misleading. It
has no effect on any other types of crime, violent or otherwise, including
the possession of illegal substances for other than personal use (such as
"date rape" drugs).

It also does not do away with drug courts, though even if it did it would be
worthwhile. Drug courts achieve heart-warming successes for a relatively
tiny number of offenders, but do nothing for the other 95 percent.

The existing drug courts achieve high levels of success by restricting
access, and by implementing strict sanctions, urine tests, counseling, job
training and probation.

Under Proposition 36, all drug offenders who are guilty of no other crimes
would be eligible for a less elaborate but similar regimen. Instead of jail
or prison, they would get judge-mandated testing, counseling, job training
and probation. Those who could afford it could be forced to pay for their
own treatment. Those who violated the mandates could be subject to
imprisonment, and repeated drug offenses would mean mandatory prison or
jail.

This measure does not decriminalize the possession of illegal drugs, it
simply changes the penalties. Arizona voters approved a similar measure in
1996, and New York State recently implemented one.

The cost of treatment programs under Proposition 36 would be about $120
million, but the savings would be twice that much, plus a one-time savings
of about $450 million that otherwise would be spent on more prisons.

Nobody wants to save money by putting the wrong people back on the street.
But in California, we've sometimes done it backward: when jails got
overcrowded, we released violent criminals to make way for nonviolent drug
users.

There are more sensible solutions. Such as Proposition 36.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Andrew