Close reading reveals major problems behind Prop. 36

By Jeff Toney

Proposition 36 is a disturbing lesson in political science. I
did my homework and discovered that this misleading initiative is
not what it appears to be, and I encourage you to do the same. The
lesson I learned is that the voters of California are being
manipulated by out-of-state millionaires who have placed a
“Trojan horse” on the ballot.

At first glance, Proposition 36 made sense, providing treatment
instead of incarceration for drug addicts. But upon closer
examination, I learned that the real issue isn’t treatment
versus incarceration; rather, it is effective treatment versus
ineffective treatment.

First, I looked at who was funding the initiative and found that
it wasn’t treatment providers, but instead three millionaires
known for their roles in the movement to legalize drugs. I also
learned that Proposition 36 was drafted by a defense attorney,
again, with no input from treatment providers.

I also looked at those against Proposition 36. Many respected
treatment providers and advocates, including the Betty Ford Center,
actor Martin Sheen, the California District Attorneys Association,
the California Association of Drug Court Professionals and nearly
200 judges throughout the state, oppose Proposition 36. In
addition, many prominent Democrats and Republicans have voiced
concern about Proposition 36, including U.S. Senator Diane
Feinstein, Attorney General Bill Lockyer and California Secretary
of State Bill Jones.

  Illustration by AMY HABER/Daily Bruin Moreover, both the
State Democratic Party and State Republican Party have refused to
support this dangerous ballot initiative. Why? Because Proposition
36 is not about treatment. California already has a drug court
system that allows drug offenders to receive treatment instead of
jail, and it’s working.

What Proposition 36 will do is effectively decriminalize the
hard drugs behind most crime: PCP, crack, cocaine, methamphetamine,
heroin and even “date rape” drugs. In the process, it
will cripple our successful drug courts.

Drug courts have an amazing success rate of 65 to 85 percent
because they offer precisely what Proposition 36 fails to deliver:
court-supervised treatment with regular drug testing and
consequences that hold participants accountable with short-term
jail time if they fail to take treatment seriously.

Proposition 36 will spend $120 million a year in tax money, but
prohibits any of the funds from being used for drug testing, a
critical element in effective treatment programs. Despite this,
proponents still insist on making the unrealistic claim that drug
defendants can pay for their own drug testing.

Proposition 36 also fails to include any licensing or
accountability guidelines, inviting unregulated and ineffective
treatment by unqualified operators. It also limits drug treatment
to only 12 months, when it often takes much longer to treat drug
addiction.

But that’s not all. Proposition 36 also prohibits the
consequence of short term jail for addicts who fail drug tests,
stripping drug court judges of the discretion they need to keep
addicts in treatment.

When drug court graduates were asked what kept them in
treatment, 91 percent said jail sanctions, 87 percent said frequent
drug testing and 89 percent said discussing their progress and
problems with the judge, according to a study conducted by American
University. Proposition 36 would eliminate this “carrot and
stick” approach that is working.

Actor Martin Sheen said, “Clearly, we need to do
everything possible to help drug abusers get treatment so they can
recover from their addictions and get on with their lives. But
Proposition 36 isn’t the answer. We’re not going to
help drug abusers by decriminalizing dangerous and addictive drugs
like heroin, crack cocaine, PCP and methamphetamine.”

Moreover, he argues that getting rid of accountability and
consequences, the two most basic incentives for effective
treatment, will do nothing to help drug abusers overcome their
addiction. Yet this is what Proposition 36 proposes to do.

The California Association of Sexual Assault Investigators
opposes this initiative because even date rape drugs are legalized.
Under Proposition 36, sexual predators would escape a jail term by
being diverted into drug treatment if they were found possessing
these dangerous drugs, even if they have a history of using GHB or
other date rape drugs on their victims. This is a frightening
thought when you consider the increase in date rape across college
campuses.

The president of the Betty Ford Center, John T. Schwarzlose,
said that Proposition 36 is dangerous and destructive and could
ruin many lives by failing to deliver on its promise of effective
treatment.

Furthermore, under Proposition 36, “some drug addicts
would be treated much like chronic alcoholics, the skid row winos
who are cycled back and forth endlessly from jails to homeless
shelters to the streets,” (Sacramento Bee, Oct. 14,
2000).

Yet drug abusers, unlike alcoholics, are addicted to deadly and
unlawful substances that rely on an illegitimate market to meet
their needs. Such a market is then brought back to the vulnerable
and impoverished communities where they commonly reside. Without a
doubt, this will most likely help breed more prostitution, domestic
violence, child abuse and gang warfare. In addition, “if the
addict decides to use methamphetamine, a chemical brewed in a
makeshift, dangerous lab, the addiction creates costly
environmental hazards as well,” (Sacramento Bee, Oct.
14).

Finally, it becomes evident that Proposition 36 “offers a
false promise of a kinder, gentler approach to drug abuse in a
state with the highest use of illegal drugs. What California needs
is more drug courts, specifically designed to deal with drug
offenders on an individual basis,” (San Francisco Chronicle,
October 4).

Such courts would gather both experienced law enforcement
officials and therapists to recommend and place certain drug
offenders in programs that provide effective treatment that
includes close monitoring and serious consequences for those who
fail (San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 4).

Proposition 36 fails to provide any reasonable incentive for
drug addicts to break the deadly cycle of being arrested and
treated over and over again. While addiction and drugs are serious
problems in society that require a humane approach, there is no
room for nonsense if we want to achieve success.

California needs more resources for drug treatment, but
Proposition 36 clearly isn’t the answer. Proposition 36 will
perpetuate drug abuse by undermining drug testing and effective
treatment programs, including our successful drug court system.

Don’t be misled by the wealthy out-of-state backers
pushing this initiative. Do your homework on Proposition 36 and see
why it’s not the right approach to the serious problem of
drug addiction.