PROP. 36 NOT THE ANSWER TO CURBING STATE'S DRUG PROBLEMS

The Los Angeles County Police Chiefs' Assn., composed of 45 municipal
police chiefs, adopted a position at their Sept. 28 meeting urging a "No"
vote on Proposition 36, the "Substance Abuse Act of 2000."

While most can agree that the treatment of drug dependency is a worthwhile
endeavor, this poorly written, deceptive and misguided initiative fails to
qualify as a sensible reform. It requires that every arrested and convicted
drug user receive probation. It prohibits imposition of incarceration as a
condition of probation. Other reasons, among many, for rejecting this
measure include:

* Accountability in treatment is missing. The initiative calls for $660
million of additional taxpayer money to be spent on drug treatment, yet it
strictly prohibits using funds to support drug treatment programs in jails
or prisons. Also prohibited is the spending of any of this $660 million on
drug testing, which is the primary way to monitor progress and adherence to
probation.

* It eliminates drug courts and diversion. If everyone is given probation
(it permits three failures before probation can be eliminated), it
virtually eliminates our current drug courts and "court diversion," which
requires that the person admit their drug dependency and enter into a
program to clean up and remain clean under threat of incarceration.
Diversion can last up to two years so that the judge can assess whether or
not the convicted drug user has managed to effect change in his life and be
free of drugs. Under the initiative, all a person has to do is keep from
getting caught or rearrested for 12 months and the probation is considered
complete. If we want to spend $660 million over the next five and a half
years, let's spend it on enhancing meaningful and responsible treatment,
not this sham.

* It does not help convicted drug offenders to change their lifestyles.
According to a poll of drug court graduates (those who have remained clean
and tried to change their lives), when asked what kept them drug and
substance free, they responded: 91% cited the fear of incarceration; 87%
cited frequent drug testing, and 89% stated they had an opportunity to talk
over their progress and problems with a judge. None of those incentives
would be permitted if this deceptive initiative becomes the law of the land.

There are many more flaws with this initiative that would take pages to
articulate.

We urge voters to join us, the San Francisco Chronicle, victims rights
advocates, Martin Sheen, honorary chairman of the NO on Proposition 36
Committee, and the overwhelming majority of those who work in the criminal
justice community in helping to defeat this irresponsible and wasteful
initiative.