Pubdate: Fri, 03 Nov 2000
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Copyright: 2000 San Jose Mercury News
Contact:  750 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, CA 95190
Fax: (408) 271-3792
Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/
Author: Sen. John Vasconcellos
Note: John Vasconcellos is a Democratic state senator from Santa Clara. He 
is also chairman of the Senate Public Safety Committee.
Bookmark: For Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act items: 
http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm

PROP. 36 COMPLEMENTS DRUG COURTS; VOTE YES

THERE IS an old maxim that says we should never let the perfect become the 
enemy of the good. This is particularly meaningful in the debate over 
Proposition 36, the drug treatment initiative, which seeks to shift the 
effort to end drug abuse from punishment to treatment.

Many opponents actually agree with the basic thrust and goals of 
Proposition 36. But they resist it, because it proposes a statewide system 
for providing drug treatment that is different from the drug courts 
operating now in many counties. How different? Not very. Both provide 
court-supervised drug treatment, with consequences for those who slip up or 
fail in treatment. But drug courts reach only 5 to 7 percent of drug 
offenders while Prop. 36 seeks to meet the needs of all drug offenders.

I have supported the development of drug courts, because they offered 
something far better than jail for drug-abusing defendants. I will also 
vote for Proposition 36 this November, because we can do much better. 
Proposition 36 would require probation and completion of drug treatment by 
all first- and second-time non-violent drug possession offenders. The 
impartial Legislative Analyst estimates that 36,000 people per year would 
be placed in treatment under this measure.

There need not be any conflict between the drug court system and 
Proposition 36 supporters. Some drug possession offenders who qualify for 
Proposition 36 would not qualify for drug court, and vice versa. For 
example, the Santa Clara County drug court doesn't take first-time 
offenders, but Proposition 36 would mandate treatment for both first- and 
second-time offenders.

If Proposition 36 passes, drug courts could adapt their operations to 
follow its provisions. Those that do not want to change could continue to 
accept defendants who do not qualify for Proposition 36 but clearly have an 
addiction and need court-supervised treatment. The systems can operate in 
parallel and should be complementary.

Proposition 36 contains at least one element that drug court supporters 
have never been able to deliver: a massive new state funding commitment to 
expanding drug treatment programs. The initiative provides $120 million per 
year in new, additional money for drug treatment programs.

Proposition 36 makes it a priority to invest in treatment programs, rather 
than drug courts, because the greatest need right now is for expanded 
access to drug treatment services. If, instead, we were to simply put more 
money into drug courts, that money would go first to pay for judges, court 
staff,

administration, monitoring costs, and even jail space. By the time that 
money is used up, far less would be left for actual treatment.

If Proposition 36 is defeated, everyone loses: addicts, judges, treatment 
providers, and taxpayers. We will keep sending thousands of offenders to 
jail, prison, or probation without treatment, drug courts would be viewed 
with a skeptical eye, and even supportive legislators could be unable to 
mount a major effort to expand drug treatment services.

Proposition 36 will commit California to treating drug users instead of 
jailing them. That's what the drug courts have been trying to do, 
heroically, but with limited reach. Even if the initiative isn't exactly 
what these drug court advocates would write, opposing it is senseless. 
Don't let ideals cloud the reality -- Proposition 36 is the boldest, best 
step forward we're likely to see, and it deserves support.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D