PRO-PRISON, ANTI-REHAB IF YOUR JOB DEPENDS ON IT,

Throwing Non-violent Drug Users In Jail Makes Sense

THROUGHOUT the past 20 years, the California Correctional Peace Officers
Association -- the state's prison guard union -- has achieved an
unparalleled ability to dictate policy in its self-interest: the continued
expansion of California's prison system.

This self-serving priority was recently spotlighted when the prison guards'
chief Sacramento lobbyist, Jeff Thompson, opposed the modest Substance
Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, which is designed to divert non-violent
drug users into structured treatment programs. The initiative, on the
November 2000 ballot, is intended to stop the cycle of drug abuse by
requiring drug abusers to attend treatment programs under the strict guise
of local probation departments.

The measure is applicable to only a small number of non-violent drug using
offenders and excludes offenders convicted of selling or manufacturing
drugs and those with violent offenses.

The non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that the measure
would save the state between $100 million to $150 million a year in
unneeded prison costs. In addition, counties would save $50 million a year
in jail costs, and there would be a one-time savings of $500 million in
prison construction costs. The initiative requires these generated savings
to fund increased drug treatment programs through the establishment of an
annual $120 million drug treatment superfund.

A similar initiative passed in Arizona in 1996, with bipartisan support
including former Sen. Barry Goldwater. When opponents later tried to
overturn the initiative, they were resoundingly defeated by popular vote.
More importantly, since passage of the Arizona initiative, drug re-arrest
rates plummeted.

Unfortunately, special interest politics in Sacramento rarely consider the
public good. Prison policy in California over the past 15 years has been
driven and financed by an aggressive campaign by the prison guards' union
to ensure a perpetual stream of inmates. These inmates, most of whom are
non-violent, justify increased prison construction, prison guards and union
dues. The union was a major political donor during the last election year,
spending more than associations representing doctors and teachers. In 1998,
they gave $4.5 million in political contribution including $2 million to
Gov. Gray Davis' campaign.

The prison guards' aggressive lobbying strategy has been highly successful.
For example, between 1854 (the year of San Quentin's construction) and
1984, California built 12 prisons. However, in 1984 the guards' union
initiated a massive lobbying effort and California has since built 21
prisons -- the largest prison-construction effort in the history of any
government. Along with new prisons, 26,000 new guard positions were added
with the highest salaries in the nation. Throughout this period the guards'
union was also a primary force in promoting legislation resulting in prison
sentences for low level drug offenders rather than treatment. Despite this
recent construction, the prison system is overcrowded and operating at
nearly 200 percent of capacity -- a point the union continually raises to
lobby for additional prisons. Apparently the diversion of low-level drug
users to treatment programs is not viewed as in the union's self-interest.

Regardless of the opposition of vested interest groups, the Substance Abuse
and Crime Prevention Act serves California's public safety needs. The
initiative takes a long overdue no nonsense approach to the treatment of
drug users and stops the revolving door of our prison system. In addition
to bipartisan support, the initiative gives voters a unique opportunity to
implement sensible public safety policy that has been successful in other
states, and is in the best interest of all Californians.