NO ON PROP. 36: IT'S MISLEADING

When the president of the Betty Ford Center, the president of the Chief
Probation Officers of California and the president of the California
District Attorney's Association take a stand against an initiative, it's
time to stop and listen.

Those three wrote the opposition argument in the official voters' pamphlet
against Proposition 36.

Under this measure, an offender convicted of a "non-violent drug possession
offense" would generally be sentenced to probation instead of time in
prison or county jail.

Proposition 36 says possessors or users of heroin, cocaine, PCP,
methamphetamine and other dangerous and illegal drugs should not be treated
as criminals, but rather as victims of drug addiction who need treatment
and care, not punishment by incarceration.

However, opponents contend such a law would allow an estimated 37,000
felony drug abusers to remain on our streets every year - many of them
addicted to drugs that often ignite violent criminal behavior. You have to
look no further than the police and sheriff's logs in this county to see
how much misery and criminal behavior is generated by those who abuse drugs
- - and drink, for that matter, but that's another issue.

In our view, the measure would decriminalize personal drug use and sabotage
the state's drug courts. It would remove nearly all of the legal
consequences of using illegal drugs. Proposition 36 would provide $120
million a year for the next five years for community-based drug treatment
programs.

But none of that money could be used for drug testing, which is the key to
any successful community-based drug treatment program.

Proponents of Proposition 36 hope to gain favor of the voters by noting
that turning users to probation will save a lot of money in prison costs.
It's true - the state legislative analyst says prison operating costs would
be reduced $200 million to $250 million annually within several years after
implementation of the measure.

But former California Director of Finance Jesse Huff puts all that in focus
with a warning that the "ultimate cost of the initiative is far higher than
its promised savings. It commits taxpayers to spending $660 million and
contains millions of dollars in hidden costs for law enforcement, probation
and court expenses."

We agree wholeheartedly with the opposition, which asserts: "Proposition 36
tells our children there are no longer any real consequences for using
illegal drugs like heroin or cocaine. It sends the same message to hardcore
drug users."

This measure was written not by drug treatment experts but by a criminal
defense lawyer and wealthy out-of-state backers whose ultimate goal is to
legalize drugs.

Instead of providing any benefits for society, it would cause irreparable harm.

It is clearly a misleading proposal that won't work. The Tribune recommends
a NO vote on Proposition 36.