 News |
 News |
|||
| General Cannabis News | |||
|
Source: Chico Enterprise-Record (CA) Copyright: 2000 The Media News Group Contact: letters@chicoer.com Address: P.O. Box 9, Chico, CA 95927 Fax: (530) 342-3617 Website: http://www.chicoer.com/ Author: Terry Vau Dell, Staff Writer | |||
| VOTER-APPROVED DRUG TREATMENT MEASURE HAS OFFICIALS GUESSING | |||
OROVILLE - For the second time in less than five years, Californians have chosen medication over incarceration for personal drug use. By nearly the same wide margin as the medical marijuana law in 1996, Proposition 36 was approved at the polls last month. It requires treatment for first- and second-time convictions of a variety of drug use, ranging from cocaine and methamphetamine to heroin and crack. Butte County Drug Court Judge Darrell Stevens called the two initiatives nothing short of "revolutionary." "One of the frightening things of governing by initiative is there are no hearings or opportunity for a total study," he noted. "If this type of thing continues and the people continue to pass initiatives, I think it could point to decriminalization of all drugs,'' the local judge predicted. Not so, responds Jim Gonzalez, a spokesman for the Prop. 36 campaign in Sacramento. "Proposition 215 gave an affirmative defense to bonafide patients to use marijuana with a doctor's recommendation. This (Prop. 36) gives more convicted felons an opportunity for drug treatment. "Drug possession is still a crime in this state. Opponents are saying because these initiatives don't punish, you've made it a non-crime; that's a stretch,'' added the drug treatment advocate. Both sides do agree that, if nothing else, the two state initiatives indicate a change in the public's attitude toward drug use and are certain to have far-reaching effects on the criminal justice system. Stevens, whose widely-acclaimed and nationally-copied Butte County Drug Court will be directly impacted by Prop. 36, said he has been named by the California Judicial Council to head up a panel of court, legislative and health care officials to help guide its implementation. Although he contends there are still 3a lot of unknowns ... it (Prop 36) is the law in this state and we're committed to making it work; the problem is just too big not to.'' State Senate Pro Tem John Burton, a vocal supporter of the drug-treatment initiative, has called for a legislative 3summit2 to discuss where to go from here. In a recent press release, Burton identified three areas of potential concern: ? Is the $120 million provided yearly to treat drug users under Prop. 36 sufficient? ? Is more money needed to hire additional probation officers to monitor Prop. 36 cases? ? And should there be additional money for drug testing to ensure compliance of court-ordered drug treatment under the new law. Proponents say Prop. 36 monies will be adequate to treat the estimated 36,000 individuals the state legislative analyst predicted will be treated the first year of the five-year program. Gonzalez points out the measure's "first priority" is to expand drug treatment opportunities. He objects to using any of the money for additional probation officers or drug-testing. "The state has a $10 billion surplus. If the Legislature determines more money is needed for probation and drug testing it can allocate more resources," he says. Stevens, who publicly opposed Prop. 36 with drug court judges statewide, believes both the predicted cost and number of persons that will be treated under the initiative have been underestimated. Some "preliminary estimates,'' he says, indicate the measure could effect more than 50,000 persons a year and cost as much as $400 to $500 million annually. "There are concerns that the state is going to look to the counties to help implement Prop. 36. That's going to be of concern to counties like Butte County. I don't know the resources are going to be there for a full implementation of Prop. 36; that's a legislative question," the judge says. In her proposed budget for next fiscal year, Butte County chief probation officer Helen Harberts is requesting seven more probation officers plus support staff and equipment at a cost of $924,000 "in anticipation of Prop. 36 implementation.'' She noted a similar law in Arizona has a built-in formula for hiring additional probation officers as the number of drug treatment cases increases in that state, something not provided for in the California initiative. Harberts, who campaigned against the drug-treatment initiative, predicts Butte County probation could have as many as 200 new Prop. 36 3clients2 to supervise in the first year and double that number by 2004. The probation chief has calculated the county may absorb another $100,000 hit if the state does not provide money for drug testing, which she and Stevens both believe is necessary. Responded Gonzalez, 3Judges are trying to inflate the numbers to justify going to the Legislature and asking for more money. Don't say it's due to Prop. 36; it's because drug treatment has been underfunded for years in this state that there are waiting lists now for people to get help.2 "We haven't tried to create a new regulatory system, just expand the one we now have in place," the spokesman for the drug treatment initiative added. After the Prop. 36 judicial implementation committee which Stevens chairs met for the first time earlier this month, the Butte County judge said it was clear that funding is not the only questions raised by the drug treatment initiative. "Prop. 36 has a lot of holes; It clearly was not written with the court system in mind," the local judge asserted. For example, he said, the initiative doesn't define what constitutes treatment. "We have a lot of people in this county calling themselves treatment providers who leave a lot to be desired. We want to ensure they adhere to standards that will produce a clean and sober person," said the Butte County judge. And, too, he said, the law provides no guidance as to how Prop. 36 monies are to be allocated to individual counties. Although Prop. 36 is technically now in effect, the state has been given until July. 1 to implement it. The initiative provides an initial $60 million in start-up funds for the state Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs in Sacramento among other things to assess the current capacity of treatment facilities to handle the influx of Prop. 36 patients and set the ground-rules under which they will operate. Under Prop. 36, after next July, all first and second-time convictions for non-violent drug possession, use or transportation, will qualify for treatment as a condition of probation. Persons convicted of sales or manufacturing of drugs are ineligible as are persons arrested for other concurrent non-drug charges or who have a violent offense on their record within the past five years. A major selling point for the 3Yes on 36'' campaign, was the state legislative analyst's prediction the initiative would save an estimated $450 to $550 million for new prison and jail construction by diverting drug addicted defendants into treatment instead of a prison cell. Critics of Prop. 36 charged it lacked accountability and the 3hammer2 of an immediate jail sentence for failure to comply with the judge's orders, as is the case in county drug courts. Stevens likens the situation to drunk-driving laws. "Why do fewer people drink and drive? It's because the consequences are tremendous; that's how we've reduced the rate of alcohol deaths and crashes," notes the local judge. "Drugs are harmful; there's no way around it. We've always had treatment, but if there isn't some consequence of using drugs then it's going to be far more difficult to confront recovery.'' But Prop. 36 campaign worker Robert Harris points out anyone unwilling to undergo court-ordered drug treatment or otherwise "not amenable" to it under the new law, can have his or her probation violated and be sent to jail or prison from one to three years, which in his opinion, is 3a very real hammer hanging over their heads." And he notes 3local judges can only refer someone to a licensed or certified treatment center.'' The state, he says, 3has to assess treatment centers and evaluate whether they meet a quality standard of care and if they don't, they don't get a license." The new law also requires annual progress reports on drug treatment under Prop. 36 to the Legislature, which ultimately will determine whether to extend the law beyond the initial five-year period, Harris noted. "With any significant shift in public policy, there is going to be some confusion over how it works,'' the Prop. 36 proponent acknowledged. "How the treatment programs will work and interrelate with the courts and the probation departments are the subject of ongoing discussions,'' he added. Stevens doesn't believe county drug courts like his will go out of existence because of Prop. 36, but 3we will be focusing on a different target group now.'' He said he will be looking to expand drug court to juveniles, 3hard-core'' drug defendants and those charged with additional non-violent crimes such as burglary. Since a large majority of all criminal activity is 3drug-related,'' perhaps the largest question, says the local judge, is whether crime will be reduced under Prop. 36. "That is the real unknown; only time will tell.'' Gonzalez, the Proposition 36 spokesman, contends the new law will help many more people struggling with substance abuse in their lives that were not being reached by local drug courts. "Sixty-one percent of the voters in this state said substance abuse is an illness," noted Gonzalez. "They say we need to treat it as such and only incarcerate people as a last resort.'' | |||
|
|---|
