A COSTLY, DANGEROUS DRUG TREATMENT INITIATIVE

I was disappointed to read Peter Schrag's comments regarding
Proposition 5 in his Sept. 2 column, although I can understand how
well-meaning and thoughtful people can be misled by this deceptive initiative.

I agree with Schrag's concern for those who are drug dependent, but I
oppose Proposition 5 because I believe it will do so much harm to so
many people.

Fighting drug addiction is an issue that is very close to my heart. I
believe in rehabilitation and not incarceration. But successful
rehabilitation needs accountability and so often demands direct
intervention in the life of someone who is addicted to drugs, rather
than waiting for them to seek treatment "when they are ready."

Too many addicts are never ready or don't live long enough to become
ready. That's why drug courts and judicial involvement in pushing
offenders into treatment and keeping them there is vital to making
rehabilitation work for so many drug-dependent individuals.

Proposition 5 promises rehabilitation - but actually prevents it.
Instead of helping break the addict's cycle of self-destruction, it
actually feeds the cycle by allowing addicts to continue using drugs
while in treatment, without any consequence.

Proposition 5 would cripple successful rehabilitation programs and
dramatically limit the power of drug-court judges to help those who
need it most. It will take limited resources away from proven
programs and waste them on mandated programs that have already been
shown to be failures.

Proposition 5 will cost billions; if it could deliver on its promises
that would be a price worth paying, but it won't deliver because it
can't. It is fatally flawed at its foundations because it rewards
those who continue to take drugs while in treatment, instead of
requiring accountability.

While virtually all of California's sheriffs, district attorneys,
police chiefs and probation officers oppose Proposition 5, it would
be a mistake to suggest that their opposition is no more than a
knee-jerk response. Enlightened law enforcement leaders are among the
strongest supporters of drug-treatment programs and consider such
programs a vital part of the solution.

Sadly, Proposition 5 shifts funding away from programs that demand
accountability and into "harm reduction" programs whose goals are to
make drug users better-informed consumers. Highly effective programs
like Delancey Street or Narcotics Anonymous require those enrolled in
treatment to quit using drugs, which means they wouldn't qualify
under Proposition 5's "harm reduction" theory. Under Proposition 5,
those in "treatment" could continue using drugs and even commit
additional felonies, without fear of consequences. That alone should
cause serious-minded people to question Proposition 5.

Yes, Proposition 5 does shorten parole from three years to just six
months for drug dealers caught with up to $50,000 of methamphetamine,
and, yes, Proposition 5 could allow those arrested for auto theft,
identity theft and a host of other crimes involving victims to escape
real consequences if they continued to violate the law.

We all need to look beyond the simplistic and the cliche and
recognize that truly effective drug treatment programs with real
accountability are in our best interests. The real problem with
Proposition 5 is that it is not about stopping drug use. If it were,
it would mandate funding for ongoing drug testing instead of
prohibiting that funding, and it would not give drug sellers a reward
for the harm they do to so many.

This poorly designed and dangerous initiative will deliver more drug
addiction and more pain for thousands of addicts, their families and
our state's communities. It is opposed by Mothers Against Drunk
Driving, the League of Latin American Citizens and prominent
treatment professionals. It is opposed by former Gov. Gray Davis and
by Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully and Sheriff John
McGinnis. I strongly urge that this dangerous and misguided measure
be given the scrutiny it deserves.