A RESOUNDING 'YES' TO DRUG TREATMENT Proposition 36, the "Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000," would provide that people convicted of simple non-violent possession of illicit drugs would receive probation and mandatory drug treatment rather than jail. It would be an important step toward a more humane approach to addiction and substance abuse. It has received support from most of the medical community. The PBS program "Frontline" (www.pbs.org) recently did a two-part series on drug policy and discovered something striking: "Perhaps the most surprising thread running through 'Drug Wars,'" reads the program synopsis, "is the agreement by virtually every drug enforcement official interviewed that the decades-long strategy of fighting drugs through interdiction and tough sentencing should be replaced with a policy emphasizing drug treatment, education, and prevention." That's what Proposition 36 will do in California, creating a treatment program similar to a program that has saved considerable money and misery in Arizona, and a program just instituted in New York state. Under the program, judges will have discretion to impose additional conditions of probation, including drug testing, vocational counseling and community service. Those who commit other crimes in conjunction with drug possession would not be eligible. If the person in the program doesn't complete the prescribed treatment program or fails it, an alternative program could be used, but a person who doesn't show up or cooperate can be sent right to jail. For those who take treatment lightly there will be consequences beyond mere failure to get help. The California Psychiatric Association, along with the California Society of Addiction Medicine, the California Nurses Association, Mental Health Association, San Francisco Medical Society and Southern California Public Health Association support this initiative. Opposition comes from law enforcement groups (with substantial financing from the prison guards union) and the National Drug Court Institute. The objections are twofold. While Prop. 36 allocates money for drug treatment programs (and still saves taxpayers $100 million to $150 million a year according to the state Legislative Analyst's Office) it doesn't allocate any of it for drug testing. And it doesn't allow what's called "flash incarceration" - the ability by a drug court judge to order a subject into jail overnight immediately, to get his attention. Those opposed to the initiative also argue that without the threat of jail drug treatment will not be effective. These objections are not substantial. Other funds are available for drug testing, and a judge can order testing under Prop. 36. And the notion that there is only one way to do drug treatment, the method drug courts now use, with more sticks than carrots, is too narrow, in our view. No single method of drug treatment is 100 percent effective and no one approach stands head-and-shoulders above the rest. It may well be that the attitude of the addict - whether he or she is ready to confront the problem and work to change - is more important than the specific kind of treatment. If a person is ready to confront addiction, any number of programs might help, but if the person is still in denial none might work. Given that each person with a drug problem is different, it makes sense to have a variety of approaches available. Not all counties in California have drug courts and policies vary from county to county. Most simple possession drug offenders do not currently have the opportunity to be diverted to a drug court. If Proposition 36 passes more of them will be reached with a good-faith treatment approach. Not all will be helped but some will. Almost everybody agrees that the old approach to drug addiction isn't working. Proposition 36 might not be perfect, but it's worth a try. Yes on 36.
No member comments available...
|