PROP. 36 WOULD EASE DRUG PENALTIES AND ...

Re: "Prop. 36 is disguised drug legalization" (Editorial, Nov. 2):

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could solve substance-abuse addiction and
overcrowded prisons by passing Proposition 36? Wouldn't it be wonderful if
curing the complicated disease of addiction was that simple?

But it isn't.

No one with any grain of human kindness wants to lock up substance abusers
and throw away the key. A balance of treatment -- such as drug courts --
with the threat of doing time for relapse is absolutely critical. In drug
treatment, relapse happens. It's one step forward toward recovery, and two
steps back.

Without the consequence of jail, drug offenders face no incentive to stop
using drugs. Many will certainly fall deeper into their addictions.

MARY ANN DUNWELL Communities Against Substance Abuse El Cajon

Your editorial just as easily could have appeared in the 1930s. Just
substitute "legalization of alcoholic beverages" for "drug legalization."

In the '30s, criminal production and distribution of illegal booze was
rampant, jails were packed with "criminals" arrested for possession and use
of alcoholic beverages, and bad booze was causing death or blindness. The
parallels between the war against alcohol then and the war against drugs
now are endless, including the massive amounts of money spent on law
enforcement to no avail.

Controlled distribution of addictive substances, education of the public
and establishment of rehabilitation centers for addicts offer alternative
solutions to what has become one of our society's most perplexing and
costly problems. Instead, we send billions of dollars abroad to fight drug
lords, fill our jails with nonviolent "criminals" and watch our civil
rights being violated on the pretext of drug enforcement.

Was it Jimmy Cagney or Humphrey Bogart, at a speakeasy in Manhattan, who
said: "Da cops and politicians, dey're all in my pocket."?

CHARLES P. REILLY Solana Beach

Proposition 36 is a very dangerous and misleading concept. It promises
treatment for those convicted of drug possession, but has none of the
sanctions necessary to keep addicts clean and sober.

Without the threat of prison hanging over their heads, and plenty of drug
testing (which 36 does not fund), there is no real possibility of treatment
success. Just ask any recovered addict who has been through drug court or a
similar program, such as Probationers in Recovery.

But there are other aspects of this initiative that are scary. If convicted
drug felons go through the program and proclaim successful completion, the
felony conviction is wiped clean from their records. Unless they are
applying for a law enforcement position, they can legally tell prospective
employers that they have no felony convictions.

Finally, do voters realize that, under 36, men caught with one of the
dangerous "date-rape" drugs in their possession would get drug treatment
and not prison? This is outrageous.

Like most initiatives on the California ballot over the years, this
proposition has some good intentions, but is poorly written and would do
more harm than good. What we need to do is to build our successful, but
limited, system of drug courts. Their success rate is about 70-75 percent,
and they guarantee that troubled addicts truly will get the treatment they
need.

PATRICK STALNAKER San Diego

Your argument against 36 boils down to this: Drug treatment that works
requires accountability and consequences. This premise is flawed because it
equates accountability and consequences with incarceration.

Since 1939, millions of men and women have achieved lasting treatment
without incarceration through twelve-step programs. The wreckage of relapse
has shown to be an effective deterrent to recurring drug and alcohol abuse.

The premise is further flawed because 36 even allows for your brand of
accountability and consequences. Under the measure, individuals placed in a
treatment program are subject to rules of behavior. If they violate the
rules, treatment may be intensified, or probation may be revoked,
subjecting the violator to incarceration.

DAN HOLSENBACK San Diego

If Proposition 36 is the answer, why are most treatment providers opposed
to it?

Many who work in substance abuse, law enforcement and courts contend that
the "War on Drugs" has been a miserable failure. From its early roots in
racist and selective enforcement to its modern-day version -- Proposition
36 -- the enemy has won. Everyone agrees change is necessary, but, as
someone who has spent 33 years fighting this war, I can testify that 36 is
not the answer.

In many of the programs I supervised, the greatest motivator for success in
treatment was the fear of jail! But the truth is that we cannot build
enough jails or treatment beds to reach peace in this war. At some point,
we as a country have to stop trying to escape reality, whether it's our
fascination with toys or our fascination with drugs and alcohol.

MICHAEL NEWELL Substance Abuse Prevention Team Santee