PROP. 5 BAD FOR VENTURA COUNTY

I want to commend the Ventura County Board of Supervisors for its
courageous vote opposing Proposition 5, the so-called Nonviolent
Offender Rehabilitation Act. It goes far beyond its stated purpose of
providing rehabilitation for drug users. It would reduce parole terms
for methamphetamine dealers and other drug felons from three years to
just six months, allow paroled felons to keep abusing drugs without
being sent back to prison, and award felons more time off their
sentences. This ill-conceived initiative would cost the state an
automatic $460 million a year and could go up to more than $1 billion
a year.

Supervisors felt that the profound negative impact Prop. 5 would have
on the county and the entire state obliged them to take a stand. In
doing so, the board joined an overwhelming group of opponents of Prop.
5, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the California Judges
Association, Crime Victims United, the California District Attorneys
Association and the elected district attorneys of all 58 counties, the
California State Sheriff's Association, the Chief Probation Officers
of California, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals,
the League of United Latin American Citizens, the California Chapter
of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the California Chamber of
Commerce, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney
General Jerry Brown, former governors George Deukmejian, Gray Davis
and Pete Wilson, Martin Sheen, Dolores Huerta, and many other elected
officials, organizations, community leaders, drug treatment and
prevention organizations.

The initiative would shift enormous costs to local government. The
Ventura County budget for drug and alcohol programs would double to
$20 million a year. The increased number of felons on the street, with
reduced parole supervision, will result in the immeasurable cost of
more crimes committed.

Prop. 5 would benefit others besides those charged with individual
drug possession or use. Some of the crimes that defendants can commit
and qualify for "treatment" rather than jail would include identity
theft, arson of a structure, sexual exploitation of teenagers or the
mentally disabled, drug manufacturing or sales, driving under the
influence and burglary.

The problem of drug abuse has not been easy to solve. But Prop. 5
mandates an expensive, virtually irrevocable, experiment. If some of
the provisions prove to be ineffective, the Legislature would be
unable to change them without a four-fifths vote. Through good budget
years and bad, the Legislature will be required to spend the mandated
funds for this experiment, with automatic increases for cost of living
and population. The spending will continue forever unless changed by a
costly voter initiative.

The Board of Supervisors has recognized the disastrous effect Prop. 5
would have on our county and state. I am grateful for the board's
action and urge voters to follow its lead by voting no on Prop. 5.