|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
| 17 October 2000 - The San Diego Union-Tribune No on 36 Drug courts are working, why scrap system? If the authors of Proposition 36 really wanted to improve drug treatment in California, why didn't they stick to mandating that $120 million a year be spent on treatment? Why did they include a Byzantine new process for handling drug cases that bans drug court judges from imposing short-term sanctions on criminal addicts who relapse? Why didn't they mandate that the $120 million in their initiative go toward expanding drug courts? Drugs courts are effective but receive very little money. Why not fund a system that's working and needs money to help more people, rather than implement a new system that may not work at all? And if Proposition 36 supporters really want drug treatment to work, why do they ban any of the $120 million from being spent on drug testing? Isn't that like investing millions in improving education but refusing to spend money on testing to make sure the improvements are working? Ask treatment professionals or recovering addicts and they'll tell you the same thing: Addicts won't stop using drugs unless something forces them to do it For some addicts, the loss of a job, a spouse or a home may be enough coercion. But addicts who wind up before a judge already have fallen further than that and still won't quit. They need coercion such as jail time and they need to be held accountable through testing. Proposition 36 supporters claim their initiative won't stop judges from sending addicts to jail. However, it clearly states: "A court may not impose incarceration as an additional condition of probation." Under Proposition 36, if a criminal addict relapses, a judge has only two choices, send him to more treatment or revoke his probation and sentence him to prison. That runs counter to therapeutic treatment Right now, a drug court judge can send an addict who relapses to jail for a few days without revoking his probation, in order to keep him in treatment and out of prison. That works very well to keep addicts focused on sobriety. A recent study of Washington, D.C., drug courts found that treatment with immediate ,sanctions worked much better than treatment alone. National guidelines for drug courts call for immediate, short-term sanctions. While Proposition 36 authors say judges will still be able to threaten addicts with prison, they know that judges are unlikely to send first- or second-time drug offenders to prison. Contrary to popular belief, there are very few first- or second-time drug offenders in prison. So, under Proposition 36, a criminal drug addict could just bounce around treatment centers until his probation is over with no coercion to get clean. Why would Proposition 36 supporters want that? Because their real interest isn't treatment It's decriminalization of drugs. George Soros; the billionaire financier behind this proposition, is -a proponent of decriminalization and legalization. Proposition 36 was written by defense attorneys who favor decriminalization. Californians should vote No on Proposition 36. And then, we should have a ballot initiative that mandates funding for drug courts and treatment, without any veiled attempts at decriminalizing drugs. Article Snapshot (23K) |
||
|
