PROP. 36: TREATMENT IS BETTER THAN JAIL

Editor -- We are dismayed that The Chronicle has recommended a no vote on
Proposition 36, the ballot initiative mandating treatment rather than
prison for simple possession of illicit drugs. The Chronicle describes the
drug epidemic as having defied law enforcement, the courts and medical
intervention. This statement is two-thirds wrong. Actually, drug courts
have been demonstrably effective; however, in California they manage only 3
to 5 percent of eligible arrestees. There is now a strong research base
showing that treatment works.

Imprisonment is a blunt instrument. The rate of incarceration in California
is now more than twice the national average. In California, we have
incarcerated 45,455 individuals for drug offenses. Until the early 1990s,
the majority of drug arrests were for sale or manufacture. In 1999, 52.9
percent of new drug imprisonments were for possession.

Incarceration costs $25,900 per inmate per year. By contrast, a drug abuse
treatment is a bargain: long-term residential -- $6,800; methadone
maintenance -- $3,900; intensive outpatient -- $2,500; and regular
outpatient -- $1,800. The CalData study found public services cost savings
of $7 for every $1 spent on treatment.

Arizona passed a similar initiative in 1997, and the state of New York
chief justice has issued an executive order that will increasingly send
arrestees to treatment instead of prison. An essential ingredient in our
state is that the University of California is mandated to evaluate the
outcomes of this initiative, thus providing feedback. This proposition will
help us to develop evidence-based, rather than ideology-based, treatment
for addicted Californians on probation for simple drug possession.

PETER BANYS, M.D. President, California Society of Addiction Medicine

BARRY F. CHAITIN, M.D. President, California Psychiatric Association

ROLAND J. BARAKETT, M.D. President, San Francisco Medical Society