In some ways, Proposition 36 is "the best thing that ever happened in California," said Kathy Jett, director of the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, speaking at the recent annual meeting of the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors meeting in New Orleans.Critics charge that the ultimate aim of Proposition 36 proponents is to decriminalize drug use, but the referendum approved by California voters last year has provided an unprecedented boon to those who believe addiction should be addressed as a public-health problem, with treatment at the strategy's core. "I could never have convinced our legislators to give me $120 million for treatment and take [sentencing] discretion away from prosecutors and judges," Jett said, referring to the main tenets embodied in Proposition 36.
Jett -- who started her new job the day after Prop 36 passed -- said that in hindsight it was no surprise that Californians approved the referendum by such wide margins. "Voters heard for years that we were pouring millions into jails, more than for education," she said. "Plus, many people in California have relatives who have been in jail."
Now that Prop 36 is a reality, the well-financed supporters of the initiative have become deeply involved in implementation, said Jett. But while state officials believe drug courts are a critical component of their Prop 36 strategy, reformers remain wary of the role that drug courts should play.
"Drug courts make a nice model for Prop 36, but there's a tremendous amount of resistance out there," Jett said. Explained Laura Choate, manager of the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Program's drug court office: "We got ourselves into trouble in drug courts because we overused incarceration as a sanction. That irritated drug-policy reform advocates, and led to Prop 36."
Still, California state officials believe that drug courts and Prop 36 can coexist in the state's 300 courts. "Most drug courts in California are post-plea, not post-conviction as envisioned by Prop 36," said Choate. Further, Prop 36 applies only to arrests for drug use and possession, not sale or manufacture.
"Drug courts are very broad, while Proposition 36 is very narrow," she said. "So we can have parallel systems, or we can incorporate Proposition 36 into the drug courts by running multiple dockets for juveniles, multiple offenders [typically drug-court clients], and Prop 36 clients."
Jett pointed out that the supporters of California's Proposition 36 have cast their eyes on other states they consider ripe for reform, notably Ohio and Florida. "They are in those states because they know it will pass," said Jett, telling her colleagues, "It's coming to your state, and you can't sit back and be in denial."
Michael Stringer, chief of the Division of Justice Services in the Ohio Department of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services, said that Proposition 36 is "very threatening" to the courts in his state. "My concern about Prop 36 in Ohio is that many in the criminal-justice system think treatment works if you have leverage, and one of the casualties of Prop 36 is the interim sanctions that judges can impose," he said.
Jett said that state addiction agencies need to enlist court officials as their allies in drug-policy reform and carve out a role for themselves in any reform initiative. "You can drive a truck through the holes in Prop 36," she said. "Thank God it said that the funding had to go through the state agency."
California Seeks Role for Drug Courts Under Prop 36. Feature article by Bob Curley for Join Together Online (www.jointogether.org), May 25, 2001.
COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE: