News (Media Awareness Project) - US CA: 3 PUB LTEs: Prop 36 Formalizes Current Practices |
Title: | US CA: 3 PUB LTEs: Prop 36 Formalizes Current Practices |
Published On: | 2001-06-20 |
Source: | Los Angeles Times (CA) |
Fetched On: | 2008-09-01 04:42:05 |
PROP. 36 FORMALIZES CURRENT PRACTICES
The alarmist tone of the persons quoted in "Flood of Drug Diversion Cases
Feared" (June 18) struck me as a bit melodramatic. Proposition 36 makes
into law what has already been common practice in the courts for quite some
time. I should know. I'm in a drug diversion program right now. My
"offense" (if smoking half a joint can be considered such a thing) was
committed over a year ago, and I was sentenced early this year. Why has
this been common practice for so long? No one, certainly not any judge,
wants to put an otherwise normal, productive citizen behind bars.
Regardless of our laws, millions of Americans use illegal drugs every day.
Most of them do so responsibly and safely. Occasionally, circumstance
results in an arrest. That person most certainly does not deserve jail, and
it does not benefit society one bit to put him or her there. Judges know
that and have been acting on it for quite some time. Proposition 36 just
causes current practice to be put into law.
Adam Wiggins
Pasadena
Your article raises concerns about the costs associated with implementing
Proposition 36, which allows nonviolent drug offenders in California access
to treatment instead of jail, as of July 1. Proposition 36 will actually
save the state money in the long run.
California and its counties will save approximately $1 billion over five
years due to the lower cost of treating people for their addiction, rather
than placing them in the expensive criminal justice and penal systems.
This initiative is the first step in a more cost-effective public health
approach to the disease of addiction. The 61% of voters who passed
Proposition 36 are counting on us to implement it fairly, without sounding
unnecessary alarms even before it goes into effect.
Whitney A. Taylor
Prop. 36 Implementation Dir.
Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation
Sacramento
It is interesting how all those public officials are crying that there
isn't enough money to implement Proposition 36. Those same officials never
cried about the far greater costs of incarcerating nonviolent drug
offenders and always seemed to come up with enough money to jail people in
world-record quantities.
Clifford A. Schaffer
Canyon Country
The alarmist tone of the persons quoted in "Flood of Drug Diversion Cases
Feared" (June 18) struck me as a bit melodramatic. Proposition 36 makes
into law what has already been common practice in the courts for quite some
time. I should know. I'm in a drug diversion program right now. My
"offense" (if smoking half a joint can be considered such a thing) was
committed over a year ago, and I was sentenced early this year. Why has
this been common practice for so long? No one, certainly not any judge,
wants to put an otherwise normal, productive citizen behind bars.
Regardless of our laws, millions of Americans use illegal drugs every day.
Most of them do so responsibly and safely. Occasionally, circumstance
results in an arrest. That person most certainly does not deserve jail, and
it does not benefit society one bit to put him or her there. Judges know
that and have been acting on it for quite some time. Proposition 36 just
causes current practice to be put into law.
Adam Wiggins
Pasadena
Your article raises concerns about the costs associated with implementing
Proposition 36, which allows nonviolent drug offenders in California access
to treatment instead of jail, as of July 1. Proposition 36 will actually
save the state money in the long run.
California and its counties will save approximately $1 billion over five
years due to the lower cost of treating people for their addiction, rather
than placing them in the expensive criminal justice and penal systems.
This initiative is the first step in a more cost-effective public health
approach to the disease of addiction. The 61% of voters who passed
Proposition 36 are counting on us to implement it fairly, without sounding
unnecessary alarms even before it goes into effect.
Whitney A. Taylor
Prop. 36 Implementation Dir.
Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation
Sacramento
It is interesting how all those public officials are crying that there
isn't enough money to implement Proposition 36. Those same officials never
cried about the far greater costs of incarcerating nonviolent drug
offenders and always seemed to come up with enough money to jail people in
world-record quantities.
Clifford A. Schaffer
Canyon Country
Member Comments |
No member comments available...