Pubdate: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA) Copyright: 2008 San Jose Mercury News Contact: http://www.mercurynews.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/390 Cited: Proposition 5 http://www.prop5yes.com/ Cited: Proposition 36 http://www.prop36.org/ Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?159 (Drug Courts) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/rehab.htm (Treatment) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Marijuana - California) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?161 (Marijuana - Regulation) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/prison.htm (Incarceration) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm (Proposition 36) PROPOSITION 5, A GET-SOFT DRUG INITIATIVE, WON'T WORK Promises, promises. Proposition 5 promises to rehabilitate substance-abusing criminals and save money by keeping non-violent offenders out of jail or prison. But this very complex initiative would let drug dealers, drunken drivers, child abusers, burglars, thieves, con artists, embezzlers and others stay on the streets - even if they drop out of treatment, keep using, get arrested again or violate parole or probation. Dubbed the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act (NORA), Proposition 5 sets up a three-track system for non-violent offenders who claim they broke the law because of substance abuse. It shortens parole terms and turns marijuana misdemeanors into infractions. If things don't work out as promised, tough luck. NORA can't be amended without a four-fifths vote of the Legislature. Proposition 5 expands on Proposition 36, passed in 2000, which diverts users to drug treatment. Results of 36 have been "disappointing," the Little Hoover Commission found. Only 24 percent of offenders completed treatment; 42.7 percent were re-arrested on a drug charge within 30 months. Overall, treatment-eligible offenders were more likely to be re-arrested for new drug, property and violent crimes than similar offenders in the pre-36 era, UCLA researchers found. Why? They were on the streets. Not counting victimization costs, Proposition 36 saved $2.50 for every $1 spent, UCLA estimated, by cutting incarceration costs. Proposition 5 would cost $1 billion a year, estimates the Legislative Analyst, but could save the state that much by keeping offenders out of jail and prison. One-time savings could exceed $2.5 billion by preventing prison construction. However, county and city officials think the savings are illusory and fear local costs could rise. For one thing, NORA sends parole violators to county-funded jails instead of prison. The California State Association of Counties and the League of Cities oppose Proposition 5. Santa Clara County supervisors voted no unanimously. "Will this save money? Absolutely not," says Stephen Manley, a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge and drug-court pioneer. Judges already try to keep non-violent offenders out of overcrowded jails and prisons, he says. But judges can't make offenders go to treatment and stay clean if NORA ties their hands by giving second, third, fourth and fifth chances before offenders face meaningful sanctions. "Addicts need sanctions from Day One," Manley says. "This gives them more excuses." Offenders can skip treatment if they don't get a free ride or free child care. Effective interventions are coercive, says Douglas Marlowe of University of Pennsylvania's Treatment Research Institute. Go to treatment and test clean or spend the weekend in jail. But NORA bars jail time and bans the use of drug tests until offenders reach Track 3, which is open to offenders with five felonies in 30 months. "Proposition 5 keeps what works from being used," Marlowe says. That's why the pro-treatment National Association of Drug Court Professionals opposes Proposition 5. California needs drug treatment that's likely to work - and can be modified if it doesn't. Locking in Proposition 5's get-soft approach is a mistake. Vote no on Proposition 5. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake