Johnny Allem urged California voters to endorse Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act or NORA (Prop 5 the Right Path for California, October 29, 2008).  He argued, correctly, that our nation's over-reliance on incarceration for nonviolent drug offenders has crippled individuals, families and communities and drained state coffers, yet contributed little to public health or safety.  It is, indeed, high time to find community-based alternatives to deal with our dire drug problem.  But Proposition 5 isn't the answer.  It will make matters considerably worse.

The likely impact of Proposition 5 is not a matter of speculation.  It would build upon a previous ballot initiative known as Proposition 36 which was drafted by the same political advocacy organization, the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), and has been in effect in California since 2000.  Proposition 36 also promised voters it would provide effective treatment for drug-addicted offenders, protect public safety, and save taxpayers huge sums of money. It failed to accomplish these goals and created a host of new problems.

According to the official evaluation by researchers at UCLA, Proposition 36 failed to keep offenders in treatment long enough to achieve benefits. Approximately 25% of the offenders never arrived for a single session.  Among those who did arrive for treatment, more than half dropped out in less than 90 days, which is the minimum time necessary to get any benefits from treatment. Only 24% of the offenders completed treatment. Put another way, more than 75% failed or dropped out of the program. Worse still, Proposition 36 increased crime.  Offenders in Proposition 36 were much more likely to be arrested for a new drug, property or theft crime than comparably matched offenders who did not participate in Proposition 36.

There are several community-based alternatives to incarceration that have been proven to reduce crime, reduce drug abuse, and save money for taxpayers.  These include Drug Courts, Drug Treatment as an Alternative to Prison (DTAP), and Project H.O.P.E. (Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement).  Why would DPA want California to adopt a discredited approach when there are effective alternatives?  The answer is that DPA is pursuing a decriminalization agenda.  They are focused on making drug abuse legal, or at least not subject to criminal penalties.  DPA is financed by the billionaire, George Soros, and the Open Society Institute (OSI), who are committed to drug legalization.  The only reason DPA is leading this policy discussion is because they have poured millions of dollars into their political campaign and have successfully hidden their true agenda within a dense, 36-paged statute in small font.  They are counting on the public not truly understanding what they are being asked to vote for, until it is too late.

The problems caused by Proposition 36 are apt to pale in comparison with what is to come if Proposition 5 passes.  Offenders would now need to fail twice in pre-trial diversion and four additional times in diversionary probation before judges, the police, and prosecutors could hold them meaningfully accountable for their crimes. Giving offenders six free bites at the apple can only be expected to increase drug abuse, crime and victimization of California citizens. 

But the problems would not stop there.  Proposition 5 includes many new provisions under its wide umbrella that were never part of Proposition 36.  It would require state lawmakers to pump hundreds of millions of dollars into the program each year, indefinitely and on into the future, regardless of whether revenues were available.  This could only further cripple an already crippled state economy and draw resources away from programs that actually do work. 

Proposition 5 would also interfere with parole supervision of offenders after they are released from prison.  It would limit parole supervision for drug and property offenders (including for many drug dealers) to a mere 6 months.  Worse yet, if offenders committed new drug crimes while they were on parole, they could only be held for a short period of time in the local county jail.  This would shift a huge financial burden from the state to the counties, with no offsetting revenues.  It would also unleash a huge number of poorly supervised or unsupervised offenders on local communities.

This is why opposition to Proposition 5 has reached such a fevered pitch in recent months. No less than 48 major California newspapers have staked official positions against this initiative.  For the first time in the history of state government, five present and former California Governors stand united in opposition to a ballot initiative.  It is opposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Judges Association, California Association of Counties, California District Attorneys Association, California Chamber of Commerce, California Narcotics Officers Association, California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association, California Police Chiefs Association, California Sheriffs Association, and too many others to mention. It is also opposed by dozens of grassroots consumer groups, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of American, California Crime Victims Association, California League of United Latin American Citizens, D.A.R.E. America, and the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. A full list of signed-on opponents can be found at www.noonproposition5.com/endorsements.html.

In fact, no ill-advised drug policy has ever garnered this degree of widespread and united opposition from across the political and social spectrum.  The Drug Policy Alliance was given its chance by California voters 8 years ago and failed to deliver. Don't get fooled again.

 
Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D., is Chief of Science, Policy & Law for the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, Senior Scientist at the Treatment Research Institute, and Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.