SUBSTANCE ABUSE STANCE

The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Proposition 36,)
which your columnist Michael Fitzgerald supports, will neither stop
substance abuse, nor prevent crime. It will however: strip judges power to
impose any term of incarceration for non-compliance with drug treatment
conditions, cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, end the most
successful drug treatment program in California (Drug courts), and could
quite possibly increase crime.

This Proposition will require California to spend over 120 million dollars
a year on drug treatment for so-called "non-violent drug offenders." None
of the 120 million dollars is earmarked for drug testing. This will
essentially end testing for all drug treatment programs. How can a drug
treatment program be successful without accountability (drug testing), and
consequences for non-compliance of treatment rules (jail)? The people of
California deserve to have their money spent in a more cost effective
manner, and the addicts deserve to be placed in treatment programs that
work, and give them a fair chance of beating their hideous addiction.

This Proposition will also stop law enforcement from violating someone's
probation or parole for possession of any controlled substance, even if
that person is on parole for murder, child molestation, or some violent
crime involving drugs. This Proposition will unleash thousands of drug
addicts on California communities who should be in jail, or are in
treatment programs that have no accountability and allow addicts to
continue their drug using lifestyle.

This is why most every law enforcement agency and community leaders such as
Alex Spanos are fighting to stop this Proposition from passing. I hope you
and your readers will join them, and stop the clock from turning back on
justice reform in California.

Eric Dutemple Jr., Riverbank