The people always appear to be ahead of the politicians. In 2000, Proposition 36, which mandates treatment instead of incarceration for nonviolent drug offenders, was passed by 61 percent of the California voters, proving that they believed in a therapeutic health care approach to handling society's problems with drug addiction.

Five years ago Prop. 36 went into effect, and in the last five years it has provided treatment for more than 140,000 individuals and graduated 60,000 people from drug treatment. It has reduced the rate of imprisonment for drug offenses by more than 34 percent, and saved taxpayers about $1.3 billion.

In 2000 I was honored to serve as state chairperson for this landmark change of drug policy. At the time my son was in prison for nonviolent drug offenses, and although I knew it wouldn't help him to access treatment, I knew that this saner and more humane drug policy would greatly benefit others for generations to come.

In a recent poll 70 percent of voters said they would vote for Prop. 36 if it were on the ballot today, and although much has improved in the public perception of the disease of addiction, there remains a critical need to advocate for treatment instead of incarceration. Despite its obvious success, the debate about tweaking the program by adding punitive measures has begun again, spearheaded by the criminal justice system and others who vie for the powerful support of the prison guards union.

A Prop. 36 rewrite was first put forth as Senate Bill 803 by Sen. Denise Ducheny, D-San Diego, which would add "flash incarceration" sanctions for drug relapse. She pulled her bill in the eleventh hour and moved its language into a budget trailer bill (SB 1137), which was passed on June 27 and subsequently signed by the governor, despite the advice of his own lawyers and the Legislative Analyst's Office, which declared that certain provisions of the bill are unconstitutional because they violate the true intent and purpose of Prop. 36.

At issue is a misguided belief by supporters of this legislation that jail time would motivate people to stay in treatment and hence improve outcomes.

However, there remains no scientific evidence that jail improves treatment outcomes, and there is a full scope of sanctions that can be employed by treatment professionals who have the skills to turn "slips" and relapses into more effective treatment programs. The unenlightened criminal justice system seems to believe in just one punitive sanction: jail.

The dangers of drug overdose and communicable diseases associated with flash incarceration are considerable. Jail sanctions can interrupt treatment, work and the rebuilding of family relationships. A crowded jail cell brings back the sense of hopelessness and helplessness, rather than motivating long-term recovery.

Why is there a push to undermine the success of Prop. 36? Proponents are concerned about accountability and view "flash incarceration" as a wake-up call for individuals who don't show up for treatment programs or relapse. However, given the efforts of judges and prosecutors to redirect money that could be used for therapeutic treatment into incarceration, and the political power of the peace officers union, is there any doubt as to the primary motivation?

On July 10, the Drug Policy Alliance and the California Society of Addiction Medicine sued in Alameda County Superior Court to overturn the new law, claiming it is unconstitutional to significantly amend Prop. 36 without another popular vote. According to Dave Fratello, the co-author of Prop. 36, "the bill improperly tampers with the terms, intents and purposes of the ballot measure."

But the battle isn't over yet. On July 13, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Winifred Smith entered a temporary restraining order stopping SB 1137 from taking effect, declaring that "plaintiffs have demonstrated that serious irreparable harm will occur unless a status quo injunction is granted." The next hearing is scheduled for July 28.

The threat of jail time, loss of work, sometimes even the fear of death do not alter the course of an individual spiraling downward in his addiction. I have seen this firsthand.

Punishment is futile, but treatment can be life-altering, and I have witnessed the positive results of treatment that leads to sustained recovery.

Supporters of Prop. 36 advocate to use the dollars that are saved by the proposition to invest in more and better treatment services, rather than to abandon, or at least drastically alter, a therapeutic measure that is demonstrably working.

Rancho Santa Fe resident Gretchen Burns Bergman is the co-founder and executive director of A New PATH (Parents for Addiction Treatment & Healing).