Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

take action
For every $1 states spend dollar sign on substance misuse and addiction, 94 cents go to shovel up the consequences instead of for treatment and prevention. TELL YOUR LEGISLATORS

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

Calif. Prop 5 Defeated, Marijuana Initiatives in Mass. and Mich. Pass
November 5, 2008

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Feature
by Eric Helmuth

California voters yesterday soundly defeated closely-watched Proposition 5 and another drug-related initiative, while Massachusetts and Michigan passed marijuana-related measures by wide margins. Voters in Maine, Oregon, and North Dakota also weighed in on statewide ballot issues related to alcohol, tobacco and other drugs.

Here is a roundup of yesterday's voting:

California's Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act (NORA), was defeated by a margin of roughly 60 percent to 40 percent, the Los Angeles Times reported today. The measure, which was closely watched nationwide by drug policy advocates on both sides of the issue, was dubbed "the biggest sentencing and prison reform in United States history" by Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance and supported by many in the mainstream treatment community, but condemned by national drug-court advocates and California law-enforcement groups. NORA called for more funding for addiction treatment and less imprisonment of drug offenders; advocates stressed that it would increase funding for drug courts, but critics complained that NORA would have limited the ability of drug-court judges to jail drug offenders. (Read JoinTogether.org commentaries supporting and opposing Proposition 5.)

California's Proposition 6, dubbed the Safe Neighborhoods Act, failed by a margin of 70 percent to 30 percent, also according to the Los Angeles Times. The measure would have increased penalties on drug- and gang-related crime, including prosecuting gang-related offenders as young as 14 as adults. It would have also established criminal-background checks of public-housing residents and increased penalties for methamphetamine use or possession with intent to sell. Ironically, the lead financial backer of Proposition 6, Henry Nicholas, was arrested on drug charges earlier this year; other supporters include California law enforcement and some politicians. Opponents included the state Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters, and the California Teachers Association.

Measure 2 in Massachusetts, which will decriminalize adult possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, passed by a margin of 65 percent to 35 percent, the Boston Globe reports today. The Massachusetts Sensible Marijuana Policy Initiative, largely funded by drug-policy reformer and financier George Soros, establishes fines of no more than $100 for simple possession of marijuana rather than the current criminal penalties of up to six months in jail and fines of $500. Opponents included the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and the Massachusetts Association of Superintendents, as well as the state governor and mayor of Boston.

Michigan's medical-marijuana Proposal 1 passed and was leading by a margin of 63 percent to 37 percent with 87 percent of precincts reporting, the Detroit Free Press reported this morning. The new law will allow terminally and seriously ill patients to use marijuana for medical purposes with a physicians' approval, allow such patients to legally grow and possess certain amounts of the drug for their personal medical use, and create an ID-card system for medical use. Michigan becomes the 13th state to approve medical marijuana.

Oregon voters passed Measure 57, which mandates increased prison terms for those convicted of certain drug and property crimes and bars judges from imposing shorter sentences, but also directs the state to provide addiction treatment to first-time nonviolent offenders, the Oregonian reports today. A competing ballot measure, Oregon Ballot Measure 61, was also passing by a narrow margin but will not go into effect because Measure 57 received more votes. Measure 57 was written by the legislature and had broad support from the state's law-enforcement community and health, faith, and community groups that are part of the Better Way to Fight Crime Committee.

Oregon voters, on the other hand, rejected Measure 62, which would have alloted 15 percent of state lottery proceeds to crime prevention, investigation, and prosecution.

North Dakota voters approved Measure 3 by an unofficial margin of 54 percent in favor, the Grand Forks Herald reports today. The law will establish a tobacco prevention and control advisory committee, create a statewide tobacco-control plan, and set up a tobacco prevention trust fund for state tobacco-settlement money under the North Dakota Tobacco Use Prevention and Control Program Petition. The two-year, $18.6 million program will be financed by the state's share of the 1998 nationwide tobacco settlement.

In Maine, voters repealed a new tax that would have funded the state's healthcare-reform plan by raising taxes on beer, wine, and soft drinks in order to provide more Maine residents with health insurance. The so-called Dirigo tax repeal was winning by a margin of 64 percent to 36 percent, the Bangor Daily News reported this morning.

Portions of this report were adapted from previous original reporting by Bob Curley.

This report has been updated to reflect the following correction:

Correction, Nov. 5, 10:20 a.m.  As originally published this report stated that California's proposition 6 passed. The measure was defeated.

SHARE   

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Margaret on 05 Nov 08 10:03 AM EST
Yikes! You guys got this wrong! Proposition 6 actually FAILED in California! (http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/59.htm) Props 5 & 6 failed, but Prop 9 passed. That means California has a lot more prison overcrowding to look forward to - and makes a federal takeover of our prisons inevitable. We still have a lot of work to do to fix the mess that is California!

Posted by Bernie Ellis on 05 Nov 08 10:15 AM EST
Congratulations to Michigan for bringing compassion and common-sense to the middle part of the country. Now that we have an midwestern state which has broken the medical cannabis glass ceiling, we might be able to accomplish more reforms in the heartland for the "Homeland". (That's one word -- among many -- that I hope we retire real soon.)

Posted by Eric Helmuth, Join Together on 05 Nov 08 10:19 AM EST
Thanks Margaret - we've corrected the error.

Posted by Jim Joyner on 05 Nov 08 11:20 AM EST
Well done on Prop 5 California, well done!

Posted by John from Oceanside on 05 Nov 08 11:44 AM EST
Drug Policy Alliance stoped the solution in 2007 when the blocked the funding for Prop 36. It would have fully funded Prop 36 and fixed the loopholes and made it more effective by insuring accountability but thats not what they want. Margaret you are very good at what you do, but the voters of California understand the deception now.

Posted by Sensible Citizen on 05 Nov 08 11:47 AM EST
California is moving towards more prisons and more crime. Stop drug prohibtion and stop the drug war.

Posted by Donald LaFace on 05 Nov 08 11:50 AM EST
We can elliminate the overcrowding of jails in Calif. by releasing the hard-core criminals,...murders rapists,pedifiles,armed robbers thus allowing space foor those arrested for smoking pot for their chemo,or enjoyment...y'know those who harm no-one and make people like Jim Joyner happy!!!

Posted by John from Oceanside on 05 Nov 08 12:07 PM EST
There is not one person in prison in California for smoking marijuana. In California if you poses less than an ounce of weed you get a ticket for $100 and it has been that way for the last 30 years. There are people in prison who along with there other crime like robery,assault,domestic violence who had some weed on them. That's how DPA scue numbers saying individuals are in prison for smoking weed when they are in prison for a serious crime.

Posted by Been there on 05 Nov 08 12:36 PM EST
The Drug Policy Council should stop using California's prison problem as a vehicle to promote their legalization and "harm reduction" platforms. In doing so, they have convinced many major players in the state's addiction field with the lure of money along with playing on the heartstrings of parents and families of those in the prison system with promises of early release and less sentencing. What they are really doing is systematically disabling an effective, albeit highly underfunded, array of recovery and treatment services throughout the state. Propositions are put on the ballot by a certain number of citizens and groups to see if the majority of citizens agree with the proposed idea, law or change- the people have spoken on prop 5.

Posted by Been there on 05 Nov 08 12:38 PM EST
Correction: Drug Policy Alliance, not Drug Policy Council- my apologies

Posted by Substance abuse counselor on 05 Nov 08 01:20 PM EST
Those of us in recovery that got here on a court card are truly grateful for the alternate consequences. Like yesterday I'm still sticking to by belief that the time spent in county and state facilities( Soledad for 8 1/2 yrs for me )was essential for the process to keep me here. We get here with the baggage and the down time behind bars is included with the baggage. I think that is part of what keeps me here.

Posted by substance abuse counselor on 05 Nov 08 01:29 PM EST
I think that prop 5 is a reason for addicts to minimize their behavior."If I get caught they will just give me a program". If we throw a pillow under the addict when they fall, they might think that it wasn't that bad and try to do it again, and die. We don't do that. We let the addict know that it's going to hurt when they land but we will be there for them when they get up, if they get up!

Posted by ex-addict/program director on 05 Nov 08 03:34 PM EST
Substance abuse counselor-So it would be better for non-violent drug offenders to go to prison (where they will get little if any treatment), then come out with the same addiction they went in with? How does that stop the cycle of addiction-crime-incarceration-addiction-crime, etc.

Posted by Luis Lozano on 05 Nov 08 04:49 PM EST
There is no proof that going to prison is somehow going to make people want treatment. If that were the case we would not keep sending addicts to prison over and over again. The reasons people go to treatment other than those who are court sent are many and varied. These myths about how some people finally found recovery after being sent by the court are just that, myths. They may have finally gotten tired of being tired as we say in the program. Punishing addicts just does not work. This kind of punitive thinking is what got us in this undending War on Drugs, Three Strikes, and the building of more and more prisons. When are we going to learn. People see recovery when they are ready and not any time sooner.

Posted by John from Oceanside on 05 Nov 08 05:15 PM EST
In San Diego County we had be doing alternitive sentancing for many years and were very successful at it. The differents was we partnered with Probation Deptment. When DPA stuck their nose in the process with Prop 36 everything got messed up. With no accountability referrals started to drop off and the trust treatment built up with probation was damaged because the restrictions Prop 36 created. DPA doesn't want people going to treatment, their purpose is to legalize drug use. No treatment professionals had input in the writing of Prop 5 drug legalizers wrote it.

Posted by Been there on 05 Nov 08 06:50 PM EST
The same old question- what came first, the addict or the criminal? There are people who choose to commit crimes and happen to use drugs and there are addicts who commit crimes because they're caught up in their addiction. I'd wager there is no significant difference in the number of people with criminal records actually adhering to a clean way of life(not just going through a program)after prop 36 than before. And I really need to support those who see the importance of accountability with regard to recovery. The laws are the laws. Just because a certain segment of the population happens to be breaking them doesn't support changing the law. That's like a few people walking over a cliff where there are signs that tell the majority of people to take the path around and those who fall blame society for not having a bridge.

Posted by rachelrachel on 05 Nov 08 11:05 PM EST
John, if I look at the Yes on Prop 5 website, I see a list of 56 (yes, fifty-six) "Medical/Treatment Organizations" that supported Prop 5. http://www.prop5yes.com/list-of-endorsers Evidently, the proposition got a lot of support from, as you put it, "treatment professionals." Look at the list of Prop 5 opponents on their site: http://www.NoOnProposition5.com/endorsements.html I don't see A SINGLE public health organization that has come out in opposition to the measure.

Posted by Donald B Parsons on 06 Nov 08 08:48 AM EST
I see the DPA as wanting people to get treatment when they or maybe a LOVED one deems it neccesary NOT OUTSIDERS trying to invade the soveriegnty of an individuals body and mind. When my drug habit affects YOU personally then you may intervene/interfere but until then mind your own backyard. YOU don't tell me what to ingest/inhale while in the privacy of MY home, and I won't tell you what to ingest/inhale in the privacy of YOUR home. P.S. on an insignificant note misspelling half your words makes you look less intelligent.

Posted by Jeff Smith on 07 Nov 08 11:52 AM EST
We on the east coast often shake our heads at the way in which Californians use ballot props as tools of adversarial and polarized public dialogue. Offering misdemeanants treatment over jail, especially a program with a lot of requirements like drug court, is silly because a rational actor will usually choose the time over the hassle. In the criminal justice system, sadly, defendants usually don't choose treatment if it takes longer than a couple of weeks to complete. Managing any alternative to incarceration typically requires a considerable amount of costly resources. It would be better to bolster probation and parole offices to develop alternatives that make sense and do not require a host of other professionals to operate. For those of you who are advocates, clear writing and good spelling are essential to credibility.

Posted by vwalker on 10 Nov 08 12:25 PM EST
Maybe Prop 5 was too ambitious and too complicated and maybe it wasn’t perfect. But keep your eye on the California Dept. of Corrections in the next few months. We taxpayers are going to be pouring billions into that failed and corrupt system (on top of the $10.5 billion they already have). While some crow over the defeat of Prop 5, I have heard no one say the present system is working. One would think that if we only had enough prison beds, the problem would be solved.

Posted by Gill on 10 Nov 08 02:05 PM EST
In California, the criminal offenses of rape,robbery, assault, burglary, theft, MVT, and arson have a common characteristic: less than ten percent of these offenses are resolved by a conviction (Rand MR-509-RC). Only the offense of murder has better than ten percent. Please think about this fact before using prison time as a social remedy of any sort. If drug related offenses had a 90% conviction rate and short sentences then incarceration might be a useful and affordable remedy. But that's not the way it is.

Posted by George Richardson on 13 Nov 08 10:26 AM EST
As those interested in the handling of drug related offenses, I think we would all benefit from some time spent browsing a few peer reviewed journals focused on the issue. Some of these issues are surely still up for debate, but others have been pretty well laid to rest in the literature. Practitioners should especially feel compelled to ground their their opinions in the research. After all, their code of ethics requires this. Remember, our personal experiences don't generalize to the population of drug related offenders. We fund science for a reason. Further, I am very disappointed in the tone of some of the posts. How can one expect to persuade or inform others without being respectful. And if one's purpose isn't to persuade or inform, then what is the point of one's posts? To stroke the ego perhaps...

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

Note: Comments are now held for moderator approval. More info

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
Please keep comments on-topic, courteous, clean, non-commercial, and within the word limit.
Read the complete guidelines