Prop. 36 the Real Truth

Proposition 36

The Real Truth

As you might already be aware there is a ballot initiative on this upcoming November's election about drugs, and drug treatment. This measure is called Proposition 36. If this measure were to pass, state law would be changed, so that certain non-violent adult offenders who use or possess illegal drugs would receive drug treatment and supervision in the community, not prison. Right now California is ranked number one in the nation for its rate of imprisonment for drug offenders. If Proposition 36 passes, California could become number one for its treatment for drug offenders. The measure also provides state funds to counties to operate the drug treatment programs. Additionally, studies have shown that drug treatment is a far more effective than prison in reducing future criminal activity. Robert Roseman, a 51-year-old heroin addict from Sacramento says, "I was always able to get drugs in prisonÐ'...all you're going to learn in prison is to do crime better."

Stephen V. Manley, President of Drug Court Professionals says that,

"Proposition 36 doesn't provide "court-supervised" drug treatment. It ties the hands of judges, hurts legitimate treatment and effectively decriminalizes heroin, methamphetamine and other illegal drugs. Drug courts hold drug abusers accountable with regular drug testing and consequences for failing treatmentÐ'-- accountability not found in Proposition 36."

Drug testing is a part of court-supervised drug treatment everywhere in California today, and it will continue to be under Proposition 36. There are no legal barriers to drug testing. Judges can and will order appropriate levels of testing of offenders placed in treatment under the initiative's system; Proposition 36 simply does not tie judges' hands by prescribing a one-size-fits-all regimen for all offenders. A positive drug test can be treated as a violation of probation. Judges can also require individual offenders to pay for their own drug testing, as they do now in the "drug court" system, if they can afford it. (The cost of a test can be $4 to $7 per test.) The fact is tens of millions of dollars in state and federal funds already go to drug testing of criminal offenders through the court system and probation system. If more money is needed, this can easily be appropriated from the hundreds of millions of dollars saved each year by this initiative. Proposition 36 merely requires that its monetary appropriation for treatment programs must go to providing treatment services, where the need is so great. Those opposed to the November ballot, like former California Director of Finance Jesse Huff say otherwise,

"Proposition 36 spends $660 million in tax money, but prohibits any of this money from being used for drug testing. Testing is vital because it holds drug abusers accountable during treatment. Without testing, there is no way to prove treatment is working."

Obviously you can tell that former California Finance Director Jesse Huff does not have his facts straight. Although Huff warns that the " ultimate cost of this initiative is far higher than its promised savings." When in all actuality net savings to the state are reported to be around $100 million to $150 million annually. Which in the long run turns out to be more cost effective then the drug court systems we have now.

Robert Nalett, Vice President California Sexual Assault Investigators Association says,

"Proposition 36 is not limited to "nonviolent" drug users. Persons convicted of possessing "date rape" drugs can remain on the street under Proposition 36Ð'--even those with prior convictions for sex crimes like rape and child molesting. Proposition 36 also lets drug abusers with a history of criminal violence remain free, including those with prior convictions for murder, child abuse, assault and other violent crimes. Under Proposition 36, they cannot be sent to jail, no matter how violent their criminal history."

Not true, The act of drugging another person, or committing a sexual assault, constitutes a crime separate from drug possession for personal use. No one who commits another crime is eligible for diversion to a drug treatment program for their drug possession offense. If a person is merely caught in possession of a "date rape" drug, before committing a rape, that person is still not eligible. This initiative only applies to people who are convicted of "unlawful possession, use or transportation for personal use" of any controlled substance. Not one who possesses a drug for distribution, or to use to enable sexual assault, is eligible for diversion to treatment. On August 11, Proposition 36 opponents were forced to remove a statement from their ballot