California Debates Future of Prop 36 July 12, 2005
News Summary
Advocates say the state of California must continue to send nonviolent drug offenders to addiction treatment rather than prison, but some lawmakers say the pro-treatment Proposition 36 is flawed and needs an overhaul.The San Jose Mercury News reported July 11 that the Drug Policy Alliance organized a teleconference of supporters of Prop 36 to argue against adding restrictions to the program.
"It's rare in public life to enact something that makes a great deal of common sense and moral sense. That's what this program does," said Rev. Peter Laarman of the Los Angeles-based Progressive Christians Uniting.
But Sen. Denise Ducheny (D-San Diego) has introduced legislation that would allow judges to impose short jail sentences on those who do not comply with treatment -- an option that is missing from the original Prop 36 law. "We're not saying in any way that folks should be incarcerated for the drug conviction," Ducheny said. "What we're saying is there needs to be a way to put you back in the program if you fall out."
Ducheny's bill has passed the state Senate and is now being considered in the Assembly.
Studies of Prop 36 have shown that while 34 percent of those who show up for treatment complete their programs, 31 percent of treatment graduates are later rearrested, compared to an 18-percent recidivism rate in other programs. Critics say lack of accountability is the main reason.
But Prop 36 supporters worry that Ducheny's measure shifts the focus of the program away from rehabilitation. "Chemical dependency is a medical and public-health problem that demands an appropriate solution," said Lisa Folberg of the California Medical Association. "Under this bill, judges would be making decisions about appropriate addiction treatment. We think they need to be made by people who understand treatment."
COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE: