THE CASE FOR DRUG TREATMENT

Governor's Budget Cuts Are Shortsighted And Might Even Be Illegal

California voters made their position clear last November: Non-violent drug
offenders belong in treatment, not in prison.

Gov. Davis and the Legislature need to hear that message. The governor's
May revision of the state budget includes less money for treatment than had
been proposed in January: $5.7 million less for treatment services for
youth; $7.7 million less for adult treatment services; and $8.5 million
less for drug courts. The latter is especially troubling, since drug courts
have shown the most promise in keeping offenders on the straight and
narrow, and because the decrease is almost half the current $18 million
drug court budget.

Supporters of Proposition 36, the initiative that passed last year, say the
governor's budget trimming not only contradicts what voters want, but also
may be illegal. Proposition 36 forbids robbing Peter to pay Paul by taking
money from one part of the budget, only to see it resurface as supposedly
"new" money for treatment mandated by the initiative. Davis' office, of
course, insists there's no such budgetary shell game going on.

The Legislative Analyst's Office opposes scaling back the drug courts'
funding. The legislative analyst thinks litigation under Proposition 36 is
a real possibility; but more importantly, it notes that increased prison
costs would probably offset the $8.5 million savings Davis proposed.

If the state is going to spend the money anyway, it makes a lot more sense
to spend it on freeing drug users of their addictions rather than just
throwing them into prison.

The Legislature should restore all the drug funding. Proposition 36 takes
effect July 1, placing a great burden on California's judges to steer drug
users to treatment instead of to prison. This is no time to take money away
from the resources those drug users will rely on to help them get clean and
free.