TWO VIEWS ON PROP. 36

Prop. 36: DRUGS, PROBATION AND TREATMENT PROGRAM. Requires probation and
drug treatment, not incarceration, for conviction of possession, use,
transportation for personal use or being under the influence of controlled
substances and similar parole violations, not including sale or manufacture.
Permits additional probation conditions except incarceration. Authorizes
dismissal of charges when treatment completed, but requires disclosure of
arrest and conviction to law enforcement and for candidates, police
officers, licensure, lottery contractors, jury service; prohibits using
conviction to deny employment, benefits or license. Appropriates treatment
funds through 2005-2006; prohibits use of these funds to supplant existing
programs or for drug testing.

YES

By Dave Fratello Special to The Bee 1. Would the initiative weaken the
protections of the state's "three strikes" law?

No, because hard-core, repeat offenders would be excluded from Proposition
36. A person with any prior serious or violent felonies is presumptively
ineligible. Only those who have served their time in prison and have been
out for five years, without any felony convictions or violent misdemeanors
during that time, may have a drug offense punished with court-supervised
treatment instead of prison.

Unlike any similar state law, the California "three strikes" law does not
factor in the age of the offender or how distant any prior convictions may
be. This ignores the well-documented fact that many youthful offenders
mature out of violence and hard-core criminal activity, especially after
serving hard time. Recognizing this, Mark Klaas, a key supporter of three
strikes, also supports Proposition 36.

2. Without the money provided in this initiative, would drug court judges
have enough treatment slots available for all the drug addicts who are
eligible for treatment?

Drug court judges now have very few quality treatment options. That's one
reason the program reaches only 5 percent of drug offenders statewide.

There are huge waiting lists for most treatment programs. State funding for
treatment has not meaningfully increased, even in a time of unprecedented
budgetary surplus.

This means drug courts often can only order drug offenders to attend free
12-step meetings rather than enrolling them in quality, clinical treatment
programs.

Proposition 36 would change that by expanding drug treatment services with
$120 million per year in additional money. Counties would receive the funds
and choose which programs to pay for, with judges having ultimate discretion
over which program each drug offender must complete.

Because it would greatly expand the treatment infrastructure, Proposition 36
would provide options to all judges that are unavailable now.

3. Is this initiative a prelude to the legalization of drugs?

No, although supporters of the failed status quo are quick to make this
allegation. To many drug warriors, any step away from the current orthodoxy
looks like legalization.

Under Proposition 36, drug use would remain a felony, and offenders would
have to complete treatment or face serious jail time. This is not a
libertarian model - it's a therapeutic model that coerces treatment
enrollment and compliance.

Our political debate on drugs is so poorly informed that no real reform
receives serious consideration. Elected leaders fear that any move away from
a "tough on drugs" posture would be used against them in the next election.
Too often, reformers are tarred as "legalizers" as a means of shutting down
debate. The public is left feeling that there are only two alternatives -
the status quo or legalization. In fact, there are many solutions between
those extremes, with Proposition 36 somewhere in the middle.

4. Would this initiative save the state money by reducing the number of
nonviolent drug users in prisons and jails?

Naturally. High-quality treatment costs about $5,000 per year, while
incarceration averages $25,000 per year. Treatment is also much more
effective at reducing drug use and future criminal activity by addicts.
Untreated addicts have a recidivism rate of 67 percent.

Meanwhile, 50 percent to 70 percent of those enrolled in treatment programs
complete them successfully.

Of course, some people fail in treatment, at least the first time through.
Proposition 36 recognizes this and would require those who flout their
programs or return to drug use to be jailed under today's criminal laws. A
judge may sentence offenders to one to three years behind bars if they fail
to complete treatment. Therefore, some drug users would still end up jail.
But in the longer term, far more people would be restored to productive,
drug-free lives.

Our opponents paid an analyst to report that Proposition 36 would actually
cost taxpayers money. But the nonpartisan legislative analyst projects net
savings of about $200 million per year, plus an additional $500 million in
savings from delaying or making unnecessary a new prison.

We would have a less expensive, more effective drug policy if Proposition 36
passes.

Dave Fratello is campaign manager for the California Campaign for New Drug
Policies - Yes On Proposition 36. Web sites: www.prop36.org;
www.drugreform.org. E-mail: info@drugreform.org. Phone: (310) 394-2952.

NO

By John Schwarzlose Special to The Bee 1. Would the initiative weaken the
protections of the state's "three strikes" law?

Yes. Proposition 36 would weaken California's highly effective "three
strikes" law by effectively decriminalizing heroin, crack cocaine, PCP and
methamphetamine - the hard drugs behind most child abuse, domestic violence,
sexual attacks and other violent and theft-related crimes.

Proposition 36 would eliminate prison for people convicted of possessing
illegal drugs, including date rape drugs, while carrying loaded firearms. It
also would allow paroled felons found to be using hard drugs to remain on
our streets rather than returning to prison. It would even make it easier
for convicted drug felons to continue working as school-bus drivers and
teachers.

Proponents claim Proposition 36 would deal only with nonviolent drug users.
In reality, it would allow felony drug abusers to remain on our streets -
many of them addicted to drugs that often ignite violent behavior.

2. Without the money provided in this initiative, would drug court judges
have enough treatment slots available for all the drug addicts who are
eligible for treatment?

California needs more resources for drug treatment, but Proposition 36 would
not be the answer. It would perpetuate drug abuse by undermining drug
testing and effective treatment programs, including our successful drug
treatment courts.

The initiative would allow spending $120 million a year in tax money, but
would prohibit any of the funds from being used for testing, a critical
element in effective treatment programs. Proponents make the unrealistic
claim that drug defendants can pay for their own drug testing.

Proposition 36 would prohibit the consequence of short-term jail for addicts
who fail drug tests and continue to use drugs, stripping judges of the
discretion they need to keep addicts in treatment.

When drug court graduates were asked what kept them in treatment, 91 percent
said jail sanctions, 87 percent said frequent drug testing and 89 percent
said discussing their progress and problems with the judge, according to
American University.

We need to expand treatment in what is working in our drug courts rather
than fund an irresponsible idea that would not work.

3. Is this initiative a prelude to the legalization of drugs?

Proponents are attempting to mislead California voters into thinking this
would be about treatment, but the initiative wasn't drafted by treatment
providers, but by a criminal defense attorney.

Proposition 36 is a Trojan horse funded by three wealthy out-of-state
backers - George Soros, Peter Lewis and John Sperling - all known for
their roles in the drug legalization movement.

Soros' Lindesmith Center has written extensively on how to legalize drugs.
Its literature includes articles entitled "How to Legalize," and "Drawing
the Line on Drug Testing." Its agenda is clear - and they will spend
millions to mislead the public.

In Arizona it passed a misleading initiative that has created a nightmare.
Drug offenders now realize there are no consequences for failing or refusing
treatment, and many are thumbing their noses at the court and continuing to
abuse drugs. As a result, treatment is less effective and drug problems are
getting worse.

4. Would this initiative save the state money by reducing the number of
nonviolent drug users in prisons and jails?

The legislative analyst bought into the proponents' misleading claim that
our prisons are full of nonviolent drug users. This is not true: We don't
send nonviolent drug offenders to state prison. Those currently serving time
are typically drug users who have long histories of criminal activity, often
violent, or drug dealers who plea-bargained down to possession.

In fact, California already has a statute to divert first-time nonviolent
drug users into treatment.

According to Jesse Huff, former director of the California Department of
Finance, Proposition 36 "will not save taxpayers any money. [I]n fact, it
may cost state taxpayers roughly $5 million annually."

Proposition 36 would also cripple our drug courts, which save taxpayers an
estimated $10 for every dollar invested.

John Schwarzlose is president of the Betty Ford Center. Campaign Web site:
www.noonprop36.com. Phone: (916) 447-8186.