About this site

About the J-School

Voters Want Treatment, not Jail, for Drug Offenders

By Annelise Wunderlich

Proposition 36, the state proposition that would put nonviolent drug offenders into treatment instead of jail won a decisive victory last night. Over 60 percent of California voters supported the measure, which would profoundly change the way the criminal justice system handles drug use in the state.

"It hasn't had a lot of national attention," said Mark DiCamillo, the director of the Field Poll on state propositions, told the San Francisco Chronicle last week. But he described the measure's implications for drug enforcement policy as "historic and sweeping."

As predicted in pre-election polls, voters passed the initiative by a wide margin. After the final tallies came in, 5,565,672 people voted yes on Proposition 36, and 3,590,095, or under 40 percent, opposed it. In Alameda County, nearly 70 percent of voters favored the measure, and in San Francisco 77 percent supported it.

"This shows that voters are ahead of legislators when it comes to looking at drug treatment," said Whitney Taylor, spokesperson for the Yes on 36 Campaign. "This will mean a lot of changes across the country as legislators look to treatment for drug addiction instead of incarceration."

Opponents of the measure say that voters haven't heard the whole story on Proposition 36.

"Sadly, voters have been mislead by three wealthy out-of-state millionaires," said Jean Munoz, from the opposition group Californians United Against Drug Abuse. "This will cripple the most effective form of drug treatment in California: the drug courts."

Supporters of Proposition 36 say it will divert as many as 37,000 drug users a year from prisons to rehabilitation programs. Now, first- and second-time offenders convicted of simple possession will be placed on probation and sentenced to mandatory treatment.

Currently, some 20,116 state prison inmates, or 12.4 percent, are incarcerated on drug possession convictions. Although the initiative proposes pumping $120 million in state funds into treatment programs, the nonpartisan legislative analyst estimates that California could save anywhere from $100 to $150 million in taxpayer money spent on incarceration. The measure would not apply to charges of drug sale or manufacture.

Proposition 36 has been bankrolled by New York financier George Soros, Peter Lewis, the CEO of the Progressive Corp., and John Sperling, the CEO of the Apollo Group. Together, they contributed more than $1 million to the Yes on Proposition 36 campaign.

John Sperling's investment has "paid off handsomely," he told the San Diego Tribune earlier this week. "Before there was silence. Now there is public debate."

Many believe the initiative is only the first step in a larger scheme to legalize drugs across the country. Bill Zimmerman, another major funder, started the "Campaign for New Drug Policies" in 1996 and so far has succeeded in passing initiatives in seven states legalizing the medical use of marijuana.

Although Zimmerman does not believe Proposition 36 decriminalizes drug use, many supporters of the measure view it as a step toward reversing current drug enforcement tactics.

"We're trying to change our drug policy 180 degrees and focus on health-based solutions rather than criminal justice and punishment," said Dave Fratello of the Yes on 36 Campaign.

Opponents for the measure's opposition came up with only about $100,000 to finance their campaign.

Their most visible spokesperson was Martin Sheen, whose son Charlie fought a well-publicized battle with drug addiction.

"My heart breaks for drug addicts and their families," said the actor in a TV commercial against the measure. "But Proposition 36 won't help them."

The measure is also opposed by a loose coalition of prosecutors, prison guards, narcotics officers and judges who believe that the threat of jail is a necessary tool in getting addicts to kick the habit. They say the state's current drug court system is a more viable solution to drug-related crime.

"If people want to take away the judges from closely monitoring the cases, and they want to take
out the threat of jail, and they want to encourage drug offenders to go to trial instead of treatment, then we're setting up a system that sets us back 15 years," said retired Alameda County Judge Jeffrey Tauber, who founded California's first drug court.

Currently there are about 100 drug courts throughout the state. Although experts agree that the drug court model has been highly effective in breaking the cycle of addiction, Proposition 36 supporters say drug courts only reach a fraction of eligible drug users who are caught in the criminal justice system.

Local politicians have also jumped into the debate. The measure has been a point of particular contention in the senate race between Democratic incumbent Dianne Feinstein and Republican candidate Tom Campbell.

"I think 36 is basically a continuation of the thrust to legalize use of hard narcotics," Feinstein said in an interview with the San Diego Tribune. "There's a reason these things are illegal-because they're bad for an individual."

Tom Campbell, who has been surprisingly vocal in his support of Proposition 36, said the time has come for a radical departure from the current trend of jailing non-violent drug offenders, especially in low-income, minority communities.

"You have to start with the realization that the present system is not working effectively," Campbell said on the program "The O'Reilly Factor" in September. "I'm supporting 36 because it's a dang sight better than the status quo."

Munoz, of the No on 36 campaign, disagreed.

"We need more money for treatment, but the proposition is absolutely unworkable as it is written," she said from her campaign office as the elections results rolled in. "Our best hope now is that the legislature can do something to guarantee accountability for the drug treatment programs that get this new funding."