Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Our latest headlines

About Us

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Books

Senate Republicans Propose Abandoning Voters’ Drug Treatment Program in California Budget Fight

By Margaret Dooley
Drug Policy Alliance

If Senate Republicans had their way, the legislature would turn its back on the voters. After six years of evidence showing Proposition 36 is a success, Senate Republicans today called on the state to abandon the voter-enacted, landmark law that provides drug treatment instead of incarceration to 36,000 non-violent, low-level drug possession offenders each year. The group has proposed zero funding for the program in 2007-08.

Let’s put this in perspective: approved by 61% of voters in 2000, Prop. 36 is the most significant piece of sentencing reform since the end of Prohibition in 1933. In just six years, the program has saved $1.8 billion and graduated over 70,000 people—who are not adding to dangerous overcrowding in our state’s jails and prisons. Based on these results, de-funding Prop. 36 would clearly be fiscally irresponsible.

But the more important point is that Prop. 36 is not the Senate Republicans’ to abandon.

At the ballot box in 2000, in polling in 2004 and in debates in the legislature in 2006 and 2007, the public has shown consistent and overwhelming support for Prop. 36 drug treatment. De-funding this treatment alternative now, in the darkness of back-room budget negotiations, would be a serious affront to the California voters and to the entire initiative process, and set a dangerous precedent.

When voters approved Prop. 36 in 2000, they were rejecting the “tough on crime” politics that had quadrupled the number of people incarcerated in California for simple drug possession between 1988 and 2000. The number exceeded 20,000 at its peak in 2000.

Californians’ vote for change in 2000 should not be made light of. Voters chose treatment instead of incarceration at the ballot, despite vocal opposition from almost every state and local law enforcement agency, from nearly every district attorney and most elected officials. Voters weren’t unaware of the establishment’s opposition to Prop. 36; they disagreed.

Voters passed Prop. 36 in 2000 because they understand addiction on a personal level. Many suffer from it themselves, and millions of others have family members and friends who struggle with drug problems.

Voters know from personal experience, too, that incarceration doesn’t help. Adding the trauma and stigma of incarceration has only increased the suffering of many addicted Californians and their families. By incarcerating people, instead of providing access to care, pre-Prop. 36 laws promoted a cycle of addiction and incarceration.

Thanks to the voters who passed Prop. 36, California law now promotes treatment and recovery. As a result, over 70,000 Californians have already graduated from Prop. 36 treatment. Each year, another 12,000 people join their ranks and have good prospects for entering long-term recovery. The evidence shows that completing Prop. 36 treatment reduces recidivism and increases employment rates, thus turning tax-spenders into taxpayers.

Senate Republicans are asking the legislature to ignore the will of the voters, the evidence and what is fiscally responsible. More rational legislators who have supported Prop. 36 funding this year, including Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-East Bay) and Senator Ducheny (D-San Diego), should reject this negligent proposal and reaffirm the legislature’s duty to protect the will of the voters.

Margaret Dooley is Prop. 36 Coordinator and acting director of the Southern California Office of the Drug Policy Alliance, the nation’s leading organization working to end the war on drugs, and to implement in its place an evidence-based, compassionate and just public health approach to drug policy.

Posted on July 25, 2007

Comments

A drug, broadly speaking, is any chemical substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function. There is no single, precise definition, as there are different meanings in medicine, government regulations, and colloquial usage.
-------------
robert

Addiction treatment and recovery resources for the addict and their families. http://www.addictiontreatment.net

Posted by: robert at May 30, 2008 01:56 AM

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker