PROP. 36 WOULD DEVASTATE THE DRUG COURT SYSTEM

Justice: Without testing, there is no way to hold the addict accountable for
the consequences of his behavior.

My heart breaks for people addicted to drugs and for their families.
Clearly, we need to do everything possible to help drug abusers recover from
their addictions and get on with their lives. But Proposition 36 isn't the
answer. Decriminalizing dangerous and addictive drugs like heroin, crack
cocaine, PCP and methamphetamine won't help drug abusers. Nor will we help
drug abusers by removing the two essential incentives for successful drug
treatment: consequences and accountability. Yet this is what Proposition 36,
which is on the November ballot, proposes.

Without accountability and consequences, drug abusers have little incentive
to change their behavior or take treatment seriously. To succeed, they must
assume the responsibility for their own success. No matter how much love and
support they receive from family and friends, they have to understand that
ultimately they're the only ones who can make it happen.

Proposition 36 ignores this need for accountability by prohibiting any of
the $120 million a year it appropriates from being used for drug
testing--the key to effective treatment. Regular testing for drug use is
what holds drug abusers accountable. Without it, there is no way to tell if
the abusers have actually stopped using drugs.

Likewise, without consequences for failing a drug test, there's no incentive
to pass. According to judges, prosecutors and probation officers who have
reviewed Proposition 36, the initiative makes it nearly impossible for
judges to impose any meaningful sanctions in cases where the abusers fail or
refuse to take treatment seriously.

Proponents of Proposition 36 claim a similar initiative is working in
Arizona. Yet Arizona's Maricopa County Dist. Atty. Richard Romley says the
initiative has created a "nightmare" by preventing judges from sending drug
offenders to jail if they fall to complete drug treatment. "Because drug
offenders now realize there are no consequences for failing or refusing
treatment, many are thumbing their noses at the court and continuing to
abuse drugs," Romley says.

While claiming to be a treatment initiative, Proposition 36 fails to specify
the standards of what constitutes a legitimate treatment program. This opens
the door to ineffective programs run by unqualified operators.

The real damage done by Proposition 36 is the devastating impact it will
have on California's increasingly popular drug courts, which are helping
thousands of drug abusers break their addictions.

Drug courts provide precisely what Proposition 36 fails to deliver:
court-supervised treatment with regular drug testing and consequences that
hold participants accountable if they fail to take treatment seriously. Drug
courts have a remarkable 65% to 85% success rate, whereas the success rate
for the treatment programs proposed by Proposition 36, in which testing and
consequences are lacking, are typically less than half that.

Drug courts work because they bring a team approach to the problem of drug
addiction. Judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, substance abuse treatment
specialists, probation officers, vocational experts and others work together
to help offenders deal successfully with substance abuse problems.

California's drug courts place drug offenders in appropriate treatment
programs tailored to their individual needs without compromising public
safety.

If offenders are a public safety risk, judges have the authority to
incarcerate them. If they fail treatment, judges have the option of sending
them to jail.

For every dollar invested in the system, drug courts save taxpayers an
estimated $10 because of reduced jail and prison time, less criminal
activity and lower criminal justice costs.

We should be expanding drug courts, not putting them out of business.
Approving a measure that would increase the number of drug courts operating
in California would produce a far greater return for taxpayers, drug abusers
and their families.

This isn't a debate over whether drug abusers should be given jail or
treatment. It's a choice between treatment that works and treatment that
doesn't.