County Differences Expected with Prop. 36 Rollout February 28, 2001
News Summary
It is expected that the implementation of California's Proposition 36, aimed at providing addiction treatment to nonviolent drug offenders, will differ from county to county, Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly reported Jan. 8.Some counties may use the drug-court system to implement the measure, while others may look for a system that is not as bureaucratic or sanction-heavy. "We wanted to give counties some leeway in implementing this, and in getting the money out there and providing treatment services," said Scott Ehlers, deputy director of communications for the California Campaign for New Drug Policies. The group sponsored Proposition 36.
Under the measure, which was approved by voters last November, drug treatment would be provided to first- and second-time nonviolent, drug-possession offenders as an alternative to prison.
"We've heard about prosecutors trying to come up with ways of getting around Prop. 36," said Ehlers. Among the tactics are adding on additional charges to make an offenders ineligible for treatment, or removing offenders from treatment programs because of minor technical violations of probation, according to Ehlers.
Judge Steven Manley of Santa Clara County, president of the California Association of Drug Court Professionals, is a proponent of using the drug-court model for implementing Proposition 36. "Drug-court judges are the best allies that proponents of this measure could ever find," Manley said. "A drug-court system would make treatment more available."
But Ehlers was less than supportive of that idea. "Do we need all these court employees to oversee these offenders? Monitoring can be done mostly by probation and treatment providers," said Ehlers
COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE: