Proposition 36. Drugs. Probation and Treatment Program.

This one has a long analysis by the Legislative Analyst, so my summary will be even more of a broader brush than usual. Basically, this petition-initiated Proposition says that non-serious drug offenders can't be incarcerated, but must instead submit to a drug rehabilitation program. Also, drug-convicted parole violators will also go to drug rehab instead of back to prison, at least for the first parole violation. The measures in Prop 36 only apply to personal drug use and non-Three Strikes violators and people who haven't recently been convicted of a felony. The intent is to let the "safe" drug abusers back into society, so that there is more space in the prison system for real criminals. There is also some savings since the state can postpone building more prisons. Counties must also keep track of these cases, including cost savings, presumably so that the Prop 36 backers can use it as proof that their methods work.

The Pro argument is that the drug war has failed, a similar measure passed in 1996 has worked in Arizona, the prison system doesn't work as well as drug rehabilitation. It only applies to first or second time offenders convicted of possession (not manufacturing or selling) and if they continue to abuse drugs we can then incarcerate them. It'll save a lot of money. The Con rebuttal are three statements: some county Distric Attorney in Arizona claims that their program hasn't reduced drug abus, but instead has allowed it to get worse because there is very little punishment for first time drug abusers; some Vice President of the California Sexual Assault Investigators Association (don't you love long boring names?) says that date-rape drug offenders also get off, as well as drug abusers with a history of violent crimes (not as many as they claim, but there would be some); finally the President of the California Association of Drug Court Professionals points out that Prop 36 doesn't have any provisions for "court-supervised" drug treatment and there is no accountability for rehab clinics, Prop 36 also ties judges hands and cripples California's currently successful drug courts.

The Con argument has several points. We're decriminalizing hard drugs, drugs that are the cause of many violent crimes in California and in effect telling our kids it's ok to use drugs. Prop 36 is backed by three wealthy out-of-state backers who want to legalize drugs, it also would free many violent criminals in addition to non-violent ones. There is no oversight for drug rehab clinics so there is a big potential for abuse. Money targetted to support implementation of Prop 36 can't be used for drug testing, so how do we tell if drug rehab is working or not? (Note that the state can allocate more funds specifically for that, Prop 36 funds are meant to fund drug rehab programs). Prop 36 commits taxpayers to pay $660 million to fund it, plus the hidden costs in the justice system once all the violent drug abusers get out.

The Pro rebuttal uses a lot of short sentences, which is nice. Drug possession is still a felony crime, it just doesn't have a jail term for the first two convictions. (Note that there is a provision where drug offenders can have their arrest and conviction expunged from the records if they successfully complete drug rehab). The California drug courts only help 5% of drug offenders, so Prop 36 doesn't hurt them. (I fail to see this argument). Violent criminals can still be incarcerated for their violent crimes, they just won't have drug possession charges added to their jail time. Judges can always order drug testing (which would add to the hidden costs), drug rehab clinics would still be licensed under standard licensing laws, date rape drugs are not "for personal use" so they wouldn't qualify.

The struggle to control drug abuse is quite heated and one of the dividing lines between liberals and conservatives (not necessarily Democrats and Republicans, though there is a lot of overlap). It's the question of whether counseling and teaching is better than the threat of incarceration at reducing crime. Personally I think you need both. Jail them, drug rehab in prison. Punish them for breaking the law, but also show them a way out rather than one or the other. Of course, that would be very expensive.

In the end, for me it comes down to: unless there's a clear decision, it's better to maintain the status quo. So I'm afraid I can't support Prop 36. Note that the arguments were more rational and less emotionally targetted than the previous two Proposition reviewed. It's nice that such a serious subject isn't treated with the same mudslingling tactics as say, contracting out CalTrans work.