Pubdate: Thu, 26 Oct 2000
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Copyright: 2000 San Francisco Chronicle
Contact:  http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Forum: http://www.sfgate.com/conferences/
Author: Robert DuPont
Note: Robert DuPont is a clinical professor of psychiatry at Georgetown 
Medical School.

VIEWS ON PROPOSITIONS 34 & 36 NO

A Front For Legal Drug Use

The proponents of Proposition 36 are attempting to mislead the voters into 
thinking that they have a quick fix for the tragedy of drug addiction. 
Simply pump $120 million a year into unregulated drug-treatment programs, 
let drug addicts police themselves and prevent judges from punishing 
addicts for failing to stop their drug use.

Like a Trojan horse -- voters will discover upon closer scrutiny that Prop. 
36 is a fraud. No incentives for drug addicts to stick with treatment. No 
standards for drug treatment. No funding for drug testing. No 
accountability for continued drug abuse. No hope for drug abusers and their 
families, who want real solutions, not tolerance of more illegal drug use.

Why does Prop. 36 fail to take into account the advice of the leading 
drug-treatment experts, who say that accountability for illegal drug use is 
vital to recovery? Because Prop. 36 is not a serious drug-treatment 
measure. It is an attempt to manipulate voters into approving the 
decriminalization of dangerous drugs, such as heroin, crack cocaine, PCP 
and methamphetamine.

How did this irresponsible and misleading initiative get on the ballot? The 
answer is simple: a well-financed and deceptive campaign bankrolled by the 
pro-legalization movement.

New York billionaire George Soros and two other out-of-state backers are 
falsely portraying this initiative as a humane answer to drug addiction -- 
a feel-good measure that will appear to help addicts kick their habits 
while saving taxpayers millions of dollars.

Because advocates of drug legalization cannot win on its merits, they have 
learned to cloak their efforts under the guise of socially attractive 
programs. In this case, they have chosen drug treatment for addicts to hide 
their goal of tolerating illegal drug use.

What they don't say is that the drug-treatment programs on which this 
initiative proposes to spend $120 million a year will not stop illegal drug 
use. Under Prop. 36, anything goes. Everything from videotaped 
``treatment'' programs to Internet chat rooms for addicts can qualify for a 
share of your tax dollars. The predictable result would be a proliferation 
of pseudo treatments for the drug addicts who desperately need real help.

Prop. 36 specifically prohibits any of the proposed funding for drug 
testing, choosing instead to trust drug addicts to hold themselves accountable.

Prop. 36 prohibits payment for any treatment over 12 months, even though 
extended treatment often is the most effective approach for many long-term 
addicts.

Prop. 36 also doesn't provide funding for treatment programs to help 
addicts in California prisons.

Finally, Prop. 36 would undermine California's highly effective, 
individualized addiction treatment. Drug courts, unlike Prop. 36, hold 
illegal drug users accountable for their behavior.

The drug courts also save taxpayer dollars. Every $1 invested in the drug 
court system saves an estimated $10 by reducing jail time, decreasing crime 
and lowering criminal justice costs.

Californians can take a stand against deceptive efforts to legalize 
dangerous drugs and support the state's real drug-treatment programs -- 
including drug courts -- by voting ``no'' on Prop. 36.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry Liittschwager