PROP. 36 OFFERS EXPANDED DRUG TREATMENT WHILE RETAINING PENALTIES

Re: "Proposition 36 would sabotage the state's drug courts" (Opinion, Sept.
14):

Judge James Milliken posits that Proposition 36 "offers false hope to drug
abusers and their families desperately seeking to break the terrible cycle
of addiction." His premise: "Drug treatment that works requires
accountability and consequences."

But that premise is flawed because he equates accountability and
consequences with incarceration. Since 1939, millions of men and women have
achieved lasting treatment without incarceration through 12-step programs.
The wreckage of relapse has shown to be an effective deterrent to recurring
drug and alcohol abuse.

Milliken's premise is further flawed because Proposition 36 even allows for
his brand of accountability and consequences. Under the initiative,
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.

The judiciary should support this proposition rather than wage a turf war
to defend the status quo.

Dan Holsenback, San Diego

The purpose of San Diego's drug court, created by Milliken, was laudatory.
But, with the passage of time, its goal to help diminish crime and help
non-violent drug addicts rehabilitate has changed.

It has been observed that even the most intelligent and experienced persons
will draw from their experiences only the conclusions their prejudices
permit. The combined experiences of the San Diego authorities who operate
the drug courts have prejudiced them against expanding a valuable program
into an exemplary program. Approval of Proposition 36 is essential if we
are to be guided by intelligence instead of prejudice.

In creating a new and expanded effort for non-violent addicts,
power-sharing will be required. But enormous sums of money will be saved,
and funds spent will be much more effective in achieving the original goal
of helping the addict and protecting the public.

Presently, a plot to protect a good program while declaring war on a more
perfect program is being waged. What a pity!

Joe C. Garrett, San Diego

What is undermining the current drug court system is that it is too
restrictive, and that prosecutors have virtual veto power over who gets
into the program, denying participation to users generally on grounds that
they are charged with "transportation" along with simple possession.

Although the "transportation" charge originally was crafted to provide
harsher punishment to traffickers who were moving bulk amounts of drugs,
prosecutors now routinely use it against small-time users who buy drugs for
personal use and then move away from the place of purchase.

Though Milliken says the current drug court system of "carrot and stick"
works well, the reality is that it is too much stick and too little carrot.
His opposition to 36 is symptomatic of a judiciary that has slowly
abandoned its independent role to the executive.

Our present system has not worked. Proposition 36 is an initiative of the
people to try something else. It should be given the opportunity to help
drug addicts and save citizens of this state hundreds of millions of dollars.

Sal Tarantino, San Diego

While it is true that drug treatment that works requires both
accountability and consequences, it is absolutely untrue that Proposition
36 offers neither.

It provides for an expansion of existing drug treatment programs and for
significant consequences and sanctions, to be determined by the sentencing
judge, should a client fail to comply with treatment. Under its provisions,
judges also can order job training, literacy training and family counseling.

It's true that it does not allow for additional funds to be used for drug
testing, but why would it? Those funds are already in place.

Drug testing is highly overrated as an impediment to drug use, anyway;
there are about as many ways to manipulate urine drug screens as there are
enrollees in drug court in San Diego County.

Proposition 36 is a safe, smart alternative to the failed drug war. To
quote the "Big Book" of Alcoholics Anonymous, "Half measures avail us nothing."

Kimberlee Healey, Cardiff-by-the-Sea

Recently, judges have written articles and submitted letters to the your
paper opposing Proposition 36. Is it proper for them to take sides on
pending legislation or initiatives they later may be called upon to enforce?

Will it be possible for judges opposed to Proposition 36 to enforce it
fairly and impartially if it passes? Does not a judge's participation in
legislative debate violate the separation of powers doctrine?

John Suhr, La Mesa