PROP. 302, NOT 203, IS BEST DRUG-LAW FIX

Proposition 200, passed in 1996, mandated that those convicted of
possession for personal use of any controlled substance (cocaine, heroin,
methamphetamine, Ecstasy, marijuana, etc.) be placed on probation and
required to participate in drug treatment rather than be sent to prison.

At the same time, it restricted the court's ability to achieve the
treatment goal by taking away the court's authority to enforce court-
ordered drug treatment for those who chose not to participate voluntarily.

Prop. 200 had a significant impact on the way the courts treated those
charged with possession of drugs.

Before Prop. 200, when a judge placed a defendant on probation and ordered
participation in drug treatment, and the defendant refused or simply did
not go, the judge could impose a consequence - usually some time in jail.

Awareness of this consequence motivated many defendants to address their
substance abuse problem through drug treatment.

Jail time often provided a therapeutic, drug-free environment in which a
defendant could realistically consider his or her situation with a mind
clear of the effects of continued drug use.

Under Prop. 200, a defendant who refuses to participate in court ordered
drug treatment and continues to use drugs is not subject to any meaningful
consequence.

The law specifically prohibits a judge from placing a defendant in jail,
for even an hour, as a consequence of refusing to participate in the
court-ordered drug treatment.

As defendants began to realize there was no real consequence for ignoring
court ordered treatment, they routinely declined to engage in drug
treatment or to comply with other typical conditions of probation such as
employment, obtaining a GED and submitting to drug testing.

Prop. 200 places the court in the untenable position of being required to
issue orders it has no authority to enforce.

The result has been that, while defendants who abuse drugs are not being
sent to prison, many are also not participating in drug treatment because
there is no meaningful consequence if they don't.

This has not only undermined the proposition's own drug treatment goals,
but it has also undermined the criminal justice system in this state:.

The authority and credibility of the court, as well as respect for the
system, are damaged when defendants are allowed to ignore court orders with
impunity under the protection of Prop. 200.

Criminal defendants not under the shield of Prop. 200 observe Prop. 200
defendants avoid any consequence for violating probation conditions and
question the fairness of a system that sends them to jail or prison for the
same conduct.

How do Propositions 203 and 302 affect this situation? Prop. 203 would
further undermine the courts in these cases in at least two important ways:

* It would extend the "no jail" prohibition of Proposition 200 to those
convicted of a second controlled-substance-possession offense rather than
to just the first.

* Unlike any other criminal defendant, a Prop. 200 defendant could not be
arrested if he or she refuses to respond when summoned on a petition to
revoke probation.

This would leave the court with no means of forcing a defendant to even
appear to answer charges that he or she has refused to participate in
court-ordered drug treatment.

Prop. 302 would restore the ability of the court to enforce its orders by
allowing judges to impose jail time when a Prop. 200 defendant refuses to
participate in court-ordered drug treatment.

It also provides that a Prop. 200 defendant may have his or her probation
revoked on refusal to participate in drug treatment.

If passed, Prop. 302 would ensure that substance abusers not only stay out
of prison but that they also undergo drug treatment, voluntarily or through
enforceable court orders.